* My column in BusinessWorld on October 18, 2019.
See also:
“Man… had still in
himself the great foundation of property… when invention and arts had improved
the conveniences of life, was perfectly his own, and did not belong in common
to others.”
— John Locke, Second Treatise on Government (1690)
About two centuries before the concept of intellectual
property rights (IPR) was formally articulated and legislated in many
countries, the great British classical liberal thinker John Locke has already
argued that such inventions and arts are private property and not societal,
collective, or communal property.
I used that quote when I presented my paper during the
global launching of the “International Property Rights Index (IPRI) 2019
Report” at the Fairmont Hotel in Makati on Oct. 16.
IPRI is an annual study and published by the Property
Rights Alliance (PRA, Washington DC) in partnership with close to a hundred
independent and market-oriented think tanks worldwide.
During the formal launch, PRA Executive Director Lorenzo
Montanari discussed the philosophy behind IPRI and its annual reports. He said
that private property rights are human rights.
IPRI 2019 author Dr. Sary Levy-Carciente, an academic
economist from the Universidad Central de Venezuela and a Fulbright Visiting
Scholar at Boston University, Center of Polymer Studies, discussed the
components, sub-components and data sources of IPRI. The results of IPRI 2019
covering 129 countries, vs IPRI 2018 covering 125 countries can be seen in the
table.
The Philippines’ performance in 2019 over 2018 can be
summarized as: (1.) an improvement in overall IPRI rank, 67th/129 vs 70th/125,
also in overall score, 5.31 vs 5.22; (2.) an improvement in PPR rank, 60th/129
vs 63rd/125, score is the same; (3.) an improvement in IPR rank, 58th vs 62nd;
and, (4.) a deterioration in LPE, 102nd/129 vs 95th/125, although score has
barely changed. Meaning other countries simply improved significantly in LPE
compared with the Philippines.
The keynote speaker before the launch was Department of
Trade and Industry Secretary Ramon M. Lopez. Mr. Lopez recognized the
improvement in the Philippines’ overall ranking and noted improvements in their
mandates like the rising number of IPR registrations like utility models,
patents, and trademarks. He also noted that the Ease of Doing Business and
Anti-Red Tape laws were created only last year and this year, hence the gains
are not yet fully captured in IPRI 2019 results. So we can expect an
improvement in the Philippines’ ranking in IPRI 2020 and 2021. Good point, Mr.
Lopez.
IPRI 2019 has several cases studies, including my paper,
“Banning Brand — Economic and Consumer Impact of Plain Packaging.”
It is surprising that while the original target of
banning branding on packaging and using plain packaging instead — using largely
graphic warnings, bland and non-colorful marks with no brands but with the
names in very small type — was tobacco, recent moves and proposals are to
extend banning branding among basic consumer items — candies, crisps, sweets,
high sugar drinks, soda, and even chocolates. The new goal is to fight obesity
and non-communicable diseases by demonizing major brands and companies that
produce these goods, and these proposals are more pronounced in UK.
I showed a critique to these moves in UK by Ron Cregan,
founder of Endangered Species. He wrote:
“Simplifying the design, construction and manufacturing
of consumer packaging effectively lowers, and even removes, the barriers to
entry for counterfeiters. Without this complexity, plain packaging allows
criminal gangs to copy and reproduce authentic and legitimate products with
relative ease.”
Banning brands is ineffective at achieving policy goals,
It damages the IPR environment, and cedes market share to criminal syndicates that
prefer to remain anonymous rather than earn a reputation.
IPRs like trademarks and brands should be protected — for
consumer choices, for investment protection, even for government taxation and
battling criminality and terrorism — and not prohibited.
There were three reactors to my presentation. Director
General of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines Josephine
Santiago, FEF Fellow and trade lawyer Kristine Alcantara, and vice-chair of the
Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s IPR committee, Dmitri Roleda.
After the launch, Lorenzo and Dr. Carciente also visited
some government offices like the office of Senator Koko Pimentel, the Chairman
of the Philippine Competition Commission Arsenio Balisacan, and the Chairman of
the Optical Media Board Anselmo Adriano.
It is important that the sanctity of private property,
physical and intellectual property, should be upheld always. Inventors,
composers, writers, artists who produce original and innovative products and
services should be rewarded with such recognition.
--------------
See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment