How Intellectual Property Rights Can Obstruct Progress

In this article the author describes the recent trend toward "increasingly restrictive intellectual property rights,"
and argues that these restrictions will hamper future research and development, placing a particular
burden on developing countries.



The author notes that new digital technologies have "increased the power of copyright owners to control copying, the sale of copies,
and the public transmission of works such as articles and reports." These restrictions, he argues,
are not only limiting access to copyrighted material, but the new 'anti-circumvention
measures'
often also restrict access to knowledge that "is sought for what traditional copyright law viewed as 'fair uses',
such as education and research."



The article provides examples of recent regulatory moves that restrict the flow of
knowledge:

• The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty (1996)
  which established "new international norms for regulating the use of technologies designed to
  circumvent the technological protection of digital works (such as scientific
  articles or music recordings)."
• A new proposed treaty on broadcasting, cablecasting and webcasting which would "would create a 50-year exclusive right to content transmitted by one of these
  media"
• Patent protections that have been extended to living organisms and extracted biological materials, such as genes

The author cites a recent drop in productivity in pharmaceuticals research as a
possible sign of the dangers to future knowledge development posed by tightening
intellectual property restrictions. "The output of today's research is, after all, an input into future research. The
greater the rights (and hence the financial incentives to invest in knowledge
production) exercised by one generation of knowledge producers, the greater the
cost to the next-generation producers -  and the lower their incentives to
further develop that knowledge."



Developing countries, the author argues, may face particular problems as a result of tighter restrictions. He notes:

1. These laws are formed by groups with narrow interests who "pay little or no attention to the likely implications of such rules for health,
   education and development in general."
2. Historically countries enforced copyright and patent laws on foreign knowledge only
   after a level of advancement had been achieved, not at the early stages of development. This places
   today's developing countries at a disadvantage.
3. New intellectual property rules require "a massive transfer of resources to developed countries, as they will have to
   purchase licenses for the technologies they need." Meanwhile, the author claims,
   there is no apparent benefit to the developing countries.
4. Some developed countries are trying to prevent even the currently allowed protections
   for developing countries (such as compulsory licenses, parallel imports and exceptions to exclusive rights).

The author concludes by observing that some international legal actions have, in fact, been taken
to protect
the public interests in health and development in the face of increasing property rights
restrictions. He argues, however, that "It is time to remember that the goal of intellectual property protection is not
to enrich those best positioned to make use of the system at the global level,
but to boost social and economic development by promoting both the creation and
the dissemination and effective use of knowledge."