March 7, 20001
Programme:
1.30 PM: Lunch
2.30: Seminar
4.30: Tea

Chair: Bibek Debroy, Director of Research,
Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies

Following is the summary of Julian Morris' paper, which he coauthored with Rosalind Mowatt, and Duncan Reekie. Julian is currently Director of the Environment and Technology Programme at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London, Co-Director of the International Policy Network. He is also a visiting fellow at Liberty Institute, New Delhi.

IDEAL MATTER: Globalisation and the Intellectual Property Debate

1. Property and the rule of law are the foundations of all economic activity.

2. Intellectual property (IP) has underpinned much of the world's economic development that has taken place in the past century and a half.

3. IP creates incentives to develop new technologies and creative works.

4. Alternatives to IP exist but are problematic and would be inadequate for protecting many technologies and kinds of creative works.

5. Without IP protection, there would be less incentive to develop new technologies, especially in the fields of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and software. We do not know what technologies will be important in the future, but is it worth taking the risk of not having them just because some current technologies can be protected without IP?

6. Many countries still have weak or nonexistent IP protection. Strengthening IP protection would be enormously beneficial to those countries. It would stimulate local invention and encourage overseas IP-holders to engage in joint projects.

7. Trade liberalisation has also been a fundamental driver of economic development, enabling consumers and producers alike to be benefit from being able to trade with one another more freely across borders. However, without concomitant agreements on international protection of IP, trade liberalisation tends to weaken IP protection by enabling parallel imports.

8. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) in principle solves this problem. But implementation of TRIPs has been slow, partly because developed countries have been slow to open up their borders to agricultural produce from developing countries (which was a quid pro quo for TRIPs).

9. Developed countries should open up their markets to agricultural imports from developing countries. It is in their interest to do so in any case because consumers and producers in those countries will then benefit from lower price goods, stimulating economic growth.

10. Developing countries should create IP systems that conform with TRIPs. It is in their interest to do so in any case because inventors everywhere will have stronger incentives to develop novel products for those markets.