* This is my column in BusinessWorld on April 17, 2019.
Unlike physical property which is tangible, intellectual
property rights (IPR) are intangible, like copyrights of songs, patents of
newly invented medicine molecules, trademarks of known brands, and trade
secrets. Thus, public appreciation of IPR protection is not as high as physical
property protection.
A report in BusinessWorld, “Bill to be pushed
strengthening intellectual property rights” (April 13, 2019) showed some data
from the government Intellectual Property Office (IPOPHL) that piracy and
counterfeiting of known brands were high in 2018:
“… pirated and counterfeit goods seized in 2018… worth
P23.6 billion… Of the fake items seized in 2018, 85% were cigarettes.”
Compared to neighbors in the region, the Philippines
ranks low in IPR protection in certain international reports. Numbers below are
from three sources: (1) Property Rights Alliance’s (PRA, US) International
Property Rights Index (IPRI) 2018 Report, (2) World Economic Forum’s (WEF)
Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) 2018 report, and (3) IMF’s World Economic
Outlook (WEO) 2019.
Notice the top seven countries and economies — they have
higher global ranking in property rights protection (out of 125 countries),
also in Patent and Trademark per million population ranking (out of 140
countries), and higher per capita income of at least $9,600 in 2018.
Middle of next month, the Geneva Network (UK) will hold a
one-day seminar and meeting of some Asian free market think tanks and academics
about IPR protection and trade to be held in Kuala Lumpur. And a week after,
PRA (US) will hold a side event on IPR and investment promotion in Sydney
during the bigger event, the 17th meeting of the World Taxpayers Association
(WTA) conference.
IPR issues often crop up in public health policy debates.
Like the continuing push in some Asian countries for compulsory licensing (CL)
of newly invented drug molecules that are successful in controlling certain
diseases. These are very expensive drugs to develop (many stages of clinical
trials involving thousands of patients) and yet governments with the implicit
aid of the WHO will quickly confiscate the patent and allow mass production by
local generic manufacturers. This pours cold water on further medicines
innovation that can help control existing and emerging diseases.
Then there are trademark-busting policies like plain
packaging of certain products deemed “unhealthy” like tobacco, soda and sugary
foods. Abolition of the many elaborate branding by competing companies and
forcing only one generic packaging will make counterfeiting of these products
so much easier. When cheap counterfeits come in, they will encourage, not
discourage, more consumption of “unhealthy” products.
The “law of unintended consequences” often kicks in when
the sanctity of private property is disregarded. The market-oriented reforms
for efficiency (MORE) to promote public health, entice more investments and
generate higher per capita income are also aimed at further protecting private
property, physical or intellectual, not dishonor them.
----------------
See also:
BWorld 313, MORE international tourism, April 21, 2019
BWorld 314, MORE de-bureaucratizing laws, please, April 22, 2019
BWorld 315, MORE power supply needed: Attention ERC, April 23, 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment