Slouching Towards Development in International Intellectual Property
| Autor | Denis Borges Barbosa - Margaret Chon - Andrés Moncayo von Hase |
| Páginas | 149-211 |
− 149 −
SLOUCHING TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT IN INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
MARCO JURÍDICO GENERAL
Slouching Towards Development in
International Intellectual Property*
DENIS BORGES BARBOSA
MARGARET CHON
ANDRÉS MONCAYO VON HASE
Summary: Introduction. I. The global framework for development in intellectual property. A. A
development divide and two trade puzzles. B. A development as freedom approach to the inter-
national intellectual property regime complex. C. Locating the international intellectual property
balance: Towards development in international intellectual property. II. Trips and principles of treaty
interpretation. A. The principle of in claris non fit interpretatio versus the principle of integration. B.
Constructing legal principles our of Articles 7 and 8 of TRIPS. III. A substantive equality principle
within the IIPRC. A. Defining substantive equality. B. Applying substantive equality to intellectual
property norm-setting: the WIPO development agenda. IV. A dynamic interpretative framework
for intellectual property bilateral treaties. A. Intellectual property and human rights: the emergence
of rules of customary international law. B. The relationship of States’ obligations to States’ rights:
the non-derogation principle. C. The relationship of the non-derogation principle to the freedom of
implementation principle. Conclusion.
I
NTRODUCTION
“Development” is increasingly one of the pressing purposes of the international
legal regimes within which intellectual property operates. From skirmishes during
the G8 Summit over whether promoting public health along with innovation should
be among the goals of intellectual property1
to consensus on recommendations for a
WIPO Development Agenda (WIPO Development Agenda),2
development is now an
unmistakable and ubiquitous feature of international intellectual property. Yet, like
* Originalmente publicado en Michigan State Law Review, Vol. 2007. Se reproduce con expresa autorización
del autor.
1
Group of Eight (G8), Joint Statement by the German G8 Presidency and the Heads of State and/
or Government of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa on the Occasion of the G8
Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany 1-2 (June 8, 2007), http://www.g 8.de/nsc_true/Content/
EN/Artikel/__g8-summit/anlagen/o5-erklaerung-en,templateId=raw,p-roperty=publicationFile.
pdf/o5-erklaerung-en;
see also
Ravi Kanth Devarakonda,
G8: Health Over Intellectual Property
Rights, Says G5
, IPS, June 8, 2007, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38098.
2
World Intellectual Property Organization [WIPO], Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO
Development Agenda [PCDA], Fourth Session Draft Report, at 29-3 0, A nnex I, PCDA/ 4/3/ Prov .2
(June 11-15, 2007) [hereinafter
PCDA Final Recommendations
],
available at
http://www.wipo.int/
edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/pcda_4/pc-da_4_3_prov_2.pdf.
Anuario Andino de Derechos Intelectuales.
Año VIII - N.º 8. Lima, 2012
− 150 −
ANUARIO ANDINO DE DERECHOS INTELECTUALES
DERECHO DE AUTOR
other areas of international trade law, the design of international intellectual property
law lags behind the development rhetoric of international institutions.3
Accordingly,
we propose several non-mutually exclusive, non-exhaustive methods for pursuing the
goal of development within international intellectual property regimes:
(1) Exploring principles of treaty interpretation to maximize the potential of TRIPS
articles 7 and 84
as balancing mechanisms within World Trade Organization
(WTO) jurisprudence;5
(2) Positing “development” as a key legal term of art through a substantive equality prin-
ciple within the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), to link intellectual
property and innovation to human development; and6
(3) Recognizing emerging rules of customary international law and maximizing interna-
tional law principles of non-derogation and freedom of implementation, to maintain
national policy space and flexibility for social welfare objectives in the context of
post-TRIPS bilateral and regional treaties.7
These illustrative proposals reflect the growing complexity of international intellectual
property norm-setting and norm-interpretation activities, which take place in multiple fora
3
Tomer Broude,
The Rule(s) of Trade and the Rhetos of Development: Reflections on the F unctional a nd
Aspirational Legitimacy of the WTO
, 45 C
OLUM
. J. T
RANSNAT
’
L
L. 221, 250 (2007) (“Form fol-
lows function, and function follows purpose, but in the WTO the ostensi ble shi ft in t elos f rom tra de to
development is incomplete and risks superficiality, [and] is not supported by a corresponding change
in its actual workings.”).
See generally
Sungjoon Cho,
Doha’s Development
, 25 B
ERKELEY
J. I
NT
’
L
L.
165 (2007); Lan Cao,
Culture Change
, 47 V
A
. J. I
NT
’
L
L. 357 (2007).
4
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, Legal Instruments—Re sults of the Urug uay Round,
arts. 7-8, 33 I.L.M. 1125, 1200-01 (1994) [hereinafter TRIPS],
available at
http://www.wto.org/english/
docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf.
5
See infra
Part I;
see also
Graeme B. Dinwoodie & Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss,
Patenting Science: Protecting
the Domain of Accessible Knowledge
,
in
T
HE
F
UTURE OF THE
P
UBLIC
D
OMAIN
: I
DENTIFYING
THE
C
OMMONS IN
I
NFORMATION
L
AW
191, 220-21 (Lucie Guibault & P. Bernt Hugenholtz
eds., 2006) (noting the need for more elaboration of articles 7 and 8 to prese rve balance and a robus t
international public domain); Peter K. Yu,
TRIPS and Its Discontents
, 10 M
ARQ
. I
NTELL
. P
ROP
. L.
R
EV
. 369, 389-92 (2006) (advocating the exploration of public interest safeguards in TRIPS such
as articles 7 and 8); M
ICHAEL
J. T
REBILCOCK
& R
OBERT
H
OWSE
, T
HE
R
EGULATION OF
I
NTERNATIONAL
T
RADE
411 (3d ed. 2005) (noting that “Part I [of TRIPS] . . . acknowledges that
a balanc e of legit imate (potentially competing interests) must be struck in determining the appropriate
level and kind of intellectual property protection guaranteed by the GATT.”); Gregory Shaffer,
Recognizing
Public Goods in WTO Dispute Settlement: Who Participates? Who Decides? The Case of TRIPS and
Pharmaceutical Patent Protection
,
in
I
NTERNATIONAL
P
UBLIC
G
OODS AND
T
RANSFER OF
T
ECHNOLOGY
U
NDER A
G
LOBALIZED
I
NTELLECTUAL
P
ROPERTY
R
EGIME
884, 893-94
(Keith E. Maskus & Jerome H. Reichman eds., 2005).
6
See infra
Part II;
see also
Margaret Chon,
Intellectual Property and the Development Divide
, 27
C
ARDOZO
L. R
EV
. 2821, 2828 (2006); Broude,
supra
note 3, at 253 (development “is nevertheless a yet-
undefined but operative term in some of its legal texts, such as the Special and Differen tial Treatment
provisions of Articles XII:3(d) and XVIII of the GATT, Article 21.2 of the DSU, Articles 3(c), 5 and
6 of the Enablin g Clause, and Article 27.4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
(SCM).”).
7
See infra
Part IV.
− 151 −
SLOUCHING TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT IN INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
MARCO JURÍDICO GENERAL
and jurisdictions, globally and domestically. Nuanced approaches differentiating among
countries, technologies, and social policies for purposes of furthering development goals
require serious attention in intellectual property.
Before elaborating upon our proposed methods, we first unpack the concepts of develo-
pment and trade, respectively. They signify quite different goals and values for industrialized
versus developing countries and are often relatively a “black box” to intellectual property
lawyers unaccustomed to thinking about balance in the global intellectual property context.
After exploring the different dimensions of development and trade relevant to intellectual
property, we then situate them within a larger conceptual framework. We discuss the
evolving nature and purpose of the WTO; the desirability of linking intellectual property to
trade, and therefore inevitably to public health, and other aspects of development; and the
consequences of understanding international intellectual property law and policy-making
as a regime complex that includes development as a goal (or “function”) of innovation.
We join the growing discussion about the appropriate mix of development and
trade,
8
given the foundational balance in intellectual property between rights to exclude
and access to a robust public domain.9
Within U.S. intellectual property scholarship,
however, questions of “development” tend to be segregated within scholarship about
developing countries, and “balance” tends to be situated within the context of indus-
8
Other extant proposals to address asymmetries in the international intellectual property system include Mar-
garet Chon,
A Substantive Equality Principle in International Intellectual Property Norm-Setting
,
in
T
RADE
,
D
EVELOPMENT AND
I
NTELLECTUAL
P
ROPERTY
:S
TRATEGIES TO
O
PTIMIZE
E
CONOMIC
D
EVELOPMENT IN A
TRIPS P
LUS
E
RA
(Daniel G ervais ed., forthcoming 2007); Dinwoodie &
Dreyfuss,
supra
note 5, at 220-21 (advocating the use of “substantive maxima” to preserve an inter-
national public domain of knowledge); Yu,
supra
note 5, at 3 87-89 (engaging in the “constructive
ambiguit[y] ” of TRIPS so as to maximize the possibility of a “pro-development” presumption in norm-
interpretation, and suggesting several other directions); Daniel J. Gervais,
Intellectual Property, Trade
&Development: The State of Play
, 74 F
ORDHAM
L. R
EV
. 505, 528-34 [hereinafter Gervais,
Intellectual
Property
] (suggesting that developing countries utilize the “normative elasticity” of TRIPS to formulate
policy responsive to their needs); Keith E. Maskus & Jerome H. Reichman ,
The Globalization of Private
Knowledge Goods and the Privatization of Global Public Goods
,
in
I
NTERNATIONAL
P
UBLIC
G
OODS
AND
T
RANSFER OF
T
ECHNOLOGY
U
NDER A
G
LOBALIZED
I
NTELLECTUAL
P
ROPERTY
R
EGIME
3, 33-41 (Keith E. Maskus & Jerome H. Reichman eds., 2005) (suggesting a moratorium on
stronger intelle ctual p roperty standar ds and an institutional infrastructure for reconciling existing standards
with national systems of innovation); Ruth L. Okediji,
Sustainable Access to Copyrighted Digital In-
formation Works in Developing Countries
,
in
I
NTERNATIONAL
P
UBLIC
G
OODS AND
T
RANSFER
OF
T
ECHNOLOGY
U
NDER A
G
LOBALIZED
I
NTELLECTUAL
P
ROPERTY
R
EGIME
18 1-86
(Keith E. Maskus & Jerome H. Reichman eds., 2005) (suggesting a number of proposals, including
an international fair use doctrine); Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss,
TRIPS-Round II: Should Users Strike
Back?
, 71 U. C
HI
. L. R
EV
. 21, 2 1-22 (2004) [hereinafter Dreyfuss,
TRIPS-Round II
] (calling for the
articulation of a user right in the context of TRIPS); Paul J. Heald,
Mowing the Playing Field: Ad-
dressing Information Distortion and Asymmetry in the TRIPS Game
, 88 M
INN
. L.R
EV
. 249, 249-54,
289-92 (2003) (urging developed countries to expand the exhaustion/first sale doctrines and refuse to
enforce one-sided license agreements)
9
See
Dinwoodie & Dreyfuss,
supra
note 5, at 220-2 1 (“But even if the constraints of inter national l aw are
lifted or loosened, it can be argued that international intellectual property law should be framed to do
more, that it should be viewed not only as an obstacle to be ov ercom e, bu t als o as an
affirmative
protection
of th e publ ic dom ain ag ainst encroachments by member states.”) (emphasis added).
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba