BWorld 223, Ease of setting up and closing down business

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last June 18, 2018.

Last June 6, I attended the “Seminar on Protecting your Trademarks and Inventions Overseas” jointly organized by the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), held at the PCCI building in McKinley Hill, Taguig City.

The main audience of that seminar were entrepreneurs and companies big and small to help them be aware of existing intellectual property rights (IPR) rules and their protection, commercialization, licensing and dispute resolution. I do not represent any SME or big company but I was invited there by Jess Varela, Chairman of PCCI Committee on IPR.

The three important speakers that day were Dennis Broze and Peter Willimott of WIPO Office in Singapore and Atty. Allan Gepte, Commissioner of the Tariff Commission and former Director-General of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO).

Then last June 13, I attended the 6th Ease of Doing Business (EODB) Summit 2018 at the PICC, organized by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). It is an annual event sponsored by the DTI with one important goal — to raise or improve the Philippines’ global ranking in the World Bank’s (WB) Doing Business (DB) annual reports. The DB 2018 report was recently released and the Philippines’ global rank has worsened, compared to its ranking in the last two or three years.

This year, the EODB 2018 event is more optimistic because of the passage of the “Ease of Doing Business Act of 2018” or RA 11032 which was signed into law only last month. The DTI and various agencies including SEC, LRA, BIR, BOC, BFP, LGUs have adopted various measures to hasten the law’s implementation.

Among the important speakers in the EODB 2018 were DTI Secretary Ramon Lopez, who is also the Chairman, Ease of Doing Business and Anti-Red Tape Advisory Council; Senators Juan Miguel Zubiri and Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, and Mr. Guillermo Luz, former Co-Chairman of the National Competitiveness Council (NCC). Sen. Zubiri is the main author of the law in the Senate and also the Majority Leader while Sen. Pimentel is former Senate President and now Chairman of the Committee on Trade.

In both the PCCI-WIPO and DTI events, the over-riding subject is competitiveness of the Philippine economy and its businesses.

Below are results of three annual reports, the WB’s DB, World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Competitiveness Index (GCI), and WIPO, INSEAD and Johnson Cornell University’s Global Innovation Index (GII) annual reports.

Numbers in parentheses represent the number of countries and economies covered in that particular annual report.

While the results in global ranking vary among the three reports, one trend can be identified — the most competitive Asian economies are Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, and Thailand.

The Philippines is among the least competitive in the region, which is not good for us.

I have three wish lists on this matter.

One, the prioritization and signing into law of RA 11032 is among the very few measures of the Duterte administration that I support. I wish that he will do more ease of doing business policies, not the ease of closing businesses such as when he moved to close Boracay for six months or the ease by which the government over-taxed people via TRAIN.

Two, I wish there was a provision on the ease of closing a business in RA 11032. Among the best incentives to attract investment is a contestable market or free/easy entry, free/easy exit. If businesses see that government will bureaucratize and harass them if they decide to close shop someday, they will think twice about coming in.

Three, I wish there was another law mandating that work in government (local and national, elected and appointed, continuous or on-off) will only be a maximum 15 years, prompting officials and staff to go back to the private sector.

Since many officials intend to become regulators and bureaucrats until they retire, they tend to be more prohibitionist and extortionist since their over-regulations and taxation of business will not apply to them.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is President of Minimal Government Thinkers, a member-institute of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.

---------------

See also:

BWorld 211, Intellectual property, innovation, and prosperity, May 20, 2018 

BWorld 220, Trade imbalances, protectionism and rhetoric, June 15, 2018 

BWorld 221, Mindanao power development, reality vs illusion, June 16, 2018 

BWorld 222, Austrian thinkers and the G7 zero tariff challenge, July 8, 2018

BWorld 211, Intellectual property, innovation, and prosperity

* This is my column in BusinessWorld last May 10, 2018.

The BusinessWorld Economic Forum 2018 is fast approaching this coming May 18 and it has a timely theme, “Disruptor or Disrupted? The Philippines at the Crossroads.” Focus is on the challenges, risks and potentials of artificial intelligence (AI) and other technological advances.

Endless trial and error, research and development, intangible and intellectual creations, are at the heart of innovation and economic disruptions. The role of property rights protection in general and intellectual property rights (IPR) in particular cannot be overlooked.

Here are some numbers showing the degree of competition among countries and economies in encouraging and protecting innovation and IPR as shown by three data sources. These are the

(1) World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), INSEAD, and Cornel SC Johnson College of Business, “The Global Innovation Index 2017” (GII); (2) Property Rights Alliance (PRA) — International Property Rights Index 2017 (IPRI); and the (3) US Chamber of Commerce (USCC) — Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC), International IP Index (IIPI) 2018.

WIPO’s methodology is interesting.

The overall GII score is computed by getting the simple average of the Input and Output Sub-Index scores. The Innovation Input Sub-Index is comprised of five pillars: (1) Institutions, (2) Human capital and research, (3) Infrastructure, (4) Market sophistication, and (5) Business sophistication. The Innovation Output Sub-Index is composed of two pillars: (6) Knowledge and technology outputs and (7) Creative outputs.

Each pillar is divided into three sub-pillars and each sub-pillar is composed of individual indicators, for a total of 81 indicators. Cool.

Data on GDP per capita income at purchasing power parity (PPP) $ values are from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic Outlook database, April 2018. The numbers in parenthesis of each report (WIPO-GII, IPRI, IIPI) represent the total number of countries included in their respective reports (see table).

  

These numbers show the following:

One, countries with high global rank and scores in innovation and IPR index are also those with high per capita income. Conversely, countries with low global rank in innovation also have low per capita income.

Two, the Philippines in particular exhibits this low ranking. Placing only 73rd out of 127 countries in WIPO-GII 2017 report, 64th out of 127 countries in PRA-IPRI 2017 report, and 38th out of 50 countries in the GIPC-IIPI 2018 report. Our GDP per capita income of only $8,300 at PPP values is low, and even lower if nominal GDP prices are used, less than $3,000.

Three, many East Asian economies are rising in ranking, landing in the top 25% in global ranks.

To further reiterate the importance of intellectual property (IP) and innovation, 70 independent and free market-oriented think tanks and institutes worldwide sent an open letter to WIPO Director General Dr. Francis Gurry, during the 2018 World IP Day last week, April 26.

The letter was spearheaded by the PRA in the US and Minimal Government Thinkers is among the 70 co-signatories. The letter was also sent to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, and Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

The letter highlighted some important facts, among them:

* In 2016, a record 3.1 million new patents were filed worldwide. These patents protected groundbreaking technological processes, helped cure devastating diseases, and modernized everyday conveniences.

* Copying is not the same as inventing and enforcement of IP rights helps prevent counterfeits that undermine innovation and help finance criminal organizations. This shadow economy of counterfeits is responsible for nearly 2.5% of global imports, amounting to nearly $461 billion.

* 10% of global pharmaceutical trade is thought to be counterfeit. These “medicines” have serious health consequences, including death. New medicines require research, trials, $2.8 billion, and up to 12 years. IP Rights incentivize commitment and collaboration.

* Removing trademarks through plain packaging has costly economic, health, and security consequences. $300 billion is the implied loss to the beverage industry if such packaging is applied to alcohol and sugary drinks.

Another global group, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) is also promoting innovation in biotechnology of innovative health care, agricultural, industrial, and environmental products.

Governments, national and multilaterals like the UN and WHO, should help encourage and respect IPR and innovation. Some cases however show that they do otherwise.

For instance, the 2016 UN High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines, their report has portrayed patents and IP as harmful to global development and human rights. Backward thinking.

The enemy of public health and human rights are counterfeits and substandards — medicine, food, and drinks — and the criminal organizations that manufacture and sell these products.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is President of Minimal Government Thinkers, a member-institute of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.

---------------

See also:

BWorld 206, Intellectual property rights in East Asia, May 09, 2018

BWorld 208, Consumer choice in electricity supply and prices, May 11, 2018 

BWorld 209, Is the PCC a facilitator or a hindrance to business competition? May 15, 2018 

BWorld 210, Electricity competition, EPIRA, and WESM, May 16, 2018

BWorld 206, Intellectual property rights in East Asia

* This is my column in BusinessWorld last April 19, 2018.

The degree of wealth and economic size of East Asian economies generally correlate with their degree of private property rights protection, both physical and non-physical or intellectual property. While protection of physical properties like houses, cars, and land are easier to see and measure, the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) like patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets are not so tangible.

IPRs are important because they represent the “heart and soul” of private enterprises and the goods and services that they produce.

For instance, people differentiate and choose shoes made by companies as represented by their logos such as a big check, three striped leaves, or letter F. These same people also choose products from food companies with logos of a double arch, a happy insect, or a smiling young female.

Here are some numbers showing the degree of IPR protection of selected East Asian economies. (Data and report sources are (1) Property Rights Alliance (PRA)- International Property Rights Index (IPRI) 2017 Report, (2) US Chamber of Commerce (USCC)- Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC), International IP Index (IIPI) 2018, and (3) World Economic Forum (WEF), Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) 2017-2018. The numbers in parenthesis beside each report represent the number of countries or economies covered. The WEF’s GCR is composed of 12 pillars and pillar #1 is about Institutions; among the sub-pillars there is IPR protection).

These numbers show that East Asian tiger economies also rank high in IPR protection. Conversely, emerging economies aspiring to join the club of tiger and developed countries tend to have medium to low ranking in IPR protection. The exception is Brunei, a developed economy in terms of per capita income (thanks to its high gas exports and small population) but it is low in IPR protection.

The issue of IPR protection in the region was tackled by a symposium early this week entitled “Intellectual Property Rights in the ASEAN Economic Community: Challenges and Potentials” at Intercontinental Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The event was organized by the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), Malaysia’s first and most dynamic free market think tank.

There are moves to abolish the trademark, corporate logos and branding of products deemed “unhealthy” in many countries.

For instance, plain packaging of tobacco products has been legislated in Australia and France, and is currently considered to be legislated in Singapore too. Such trademark busting policies are also considered as extended to other “unhealthy” products like alcohol, sugary food like chocolates, confectionery and candies.

IDEAS commissioned a study that was presented in the symposium entitled “Challenges in Improving Intellectual Property Rights in ASEAN: Case study of Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines” by Adidarmawan, S.H. and Marolita Setiati.

In the paper, the two authors noted that:

“Trademark promotes freedom of choice and enable consumers to make quick, confident and safe purchasing decisions. Standardizing… packaging for tobacco products that would restrict the use of brands, trademarks and trade… concern is if brand marks are eroded, then consumers are not able to differentiate between inferior products and those with a reputation for reliability that may create an environment in which companies may end up competing on price instead of quality. In addition, plain packaging is easier for counterfeiters to copy and could result in an increase in inferior — and more dangerous — imitations. The counterfeiters will have an easier time duping the consumer into buying products that are sub-standard. Brand restriction sets an unfortunate precedent, opening the door for IP rights to be weakened in other industries.”

A BusinessWorld report early this week entitled “Excise tax increase triggers widespread cigarette smuggling” also underscores these concerns.

High taxes, rising regulations and plain packaging have similar effects — they make the consumption of legal and branded products like tobacco and alcohol more restricted and more costly, which open up more space and markets for illicit, illegal, smuggled, and cheaper products. This results in more smoking, more drinking, more consumption of the restricted products.

Governments should focus on protecting private property rights, both physical and intellectual. Weakening such property rights will also lead to a weakened state and strengthen the powers of smugglers and criminal syndicates who do not pay taxes and do not respect brands and intellectual property.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is President of Minimal Government Thinkers, a member-institute of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.

--------------

See also:
BWorld 203, TRAIN, inflation and PPP, April 10, 2018
BWorld 204, Mining attractiveness index and the Philippines, April 30, 2018 

BWorld 205, Energy mix and wishful thinking, April 30, 2018

IPR and Innovation 35, Letter to WIPO on World IP Day

On April 28, 2017, the World Intellectual Property Day was celebrated. The Property Rights Alliance (PRA), publisher of the annual International Property Rights Index (IPRI), sent a letter last April 25 to the head of WIPO, below. MGT is one of four ASEAN-based free market think tanks that signed the letter.

---------------

Celebrating the 2017 #WorldIPDay

Open Letter To

WIPO DirectorGeneral Dr. Francis Gurry

We the undersigned are proud to celebrate World IP day with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Intellectual property (IP) rights play a crucial role in growing economies, driving innovation, and saving lives. Robust IP systems provide the greatest incentives for innovators to create the next generation of goods and services, artists to produce original works, and entrepreneurs to enter the marketplace. They also allow for the sharing of knowledge and technological advancement. Invention comes out of the shadows with good intellectual property protections.

IP Rights Grow the Economy

IP-intensive industries are the cornerstone of modern economies. Between the U.S. and E.U., IP-intensive industries employed between 30%-38% of their workforces—more than 127 million jobs. As a matter of fact, these industries are responsible for generating nearly 40% of the combined US & EU gross domestic products.

IP-intensive industries in these economies paid workers 46% higher wages than those employed in comparable jobs in non-IP-intensive industries. Similarly, per capita income in countries with robust property right is 21 times more than per-capita income in countries with weak protections.

IP Rights Drive Innovation

Human ingenuity is boundless, and IP rights create an environment where human creativity can be unleashed. In 2015, a record 2.9 million new patents were filed worldwide—ranging from groundbreaking technological processes to cures of catastrophic disease to modernizations of everyday conveniences.

To thrive, innovation must be protected. Enforcement of IP rights prevent production of counterfeits that undermine economic growth and finance criminal organizations. This underground economy is responsible for nearly 2.5% of global imports, threatening iconic retail brands and next-generation medicines alike. Copying is not the same as inventing.

IP Enhances Lives

Each patent offers an innovative approach to solving a human problem. Around the world 1.2 million people die in traffic accidents, and commuters waste years of their lives on the road. Now, over 33 companies around the world are investing billions of dollars, hiring thousands of researchers and

engineers, and inventing new driverless car technologies aimed to reduce traffic deaths and save time, a truly non-renewable resource.

However, the intellectual property that delivers these benefits and many others has never been more at risk. Even within the United Nations system, initiatives such as the High-Level Panel on access to medicines threaten to undermine the very protections that are so necessary to solve today's global challenges. WIPO must play a more active role in informing international debates.

Therefore, the undersigned call on WIPO to 1) review the ways that IP enhances economic development and access to new products; 2) proactively work with countries to stabilize, grow, and enhance their IP regimes and protections; 3) support IP as a property right and a right to enhancing human growth and development, and oppose adoption of policy to the contrary such as the UN High-Level Panel report. 

World IP Day is an opportunity to celebrate that which is uniquely human: constant innovation, reinvention, and curiosity. Intellectual Property fuels the economy, drives innovation, and saves lives. We look forward to working with WIPO to advance this understanding of intellectual property rights,

and to produce complimentary efforts aimed at accelerating the adoption of robust IP protections across the world that make intangible futures tangible.

---------------

See also:

IPR and Innovation 32, On TPP, medicines patent and tobacco trademark, February 29, 2016 

IPR and Innovation 33, More on the panel on property rights, ALF 2016, March 09, 2016 

IPR and Innovation 34, When 95% of WHO's EML are off-patent, May 08, 2016

BWorld 26, IPRI 2015 in APEC economies, November 19, 2015 

BWorld 45, Asia Liberty Forum and property rights, February 29, 2016BWorld 81, Property rights are human rights, September 30, 2016.

IPR and Innovation 26, Countries with most patent applications, most innovative universities

I was surprised to see this data from the WEF this week, that China has so many patent applications compared to the US, Japan, S. Korea and Germany. Original data is from WIPO. Anyway, Asia's four biggest economies are in the top 10.

source: WEF, Which countries file the most patent applications? September 14, 2015.

Meanwhile, Reuters conducted its own study on the world's most innovative universities and the result for 2015 was released also this week. The study used 10 different metrics, criteria "focused on academic papers, which indicate basic research performed at a university, and patent filings, which point to an institution's interest in protecting and commercializing its discoveries." 

source: Reuters, The world's most innovative universities, September 15, 2015.

Nineteen (19) Asian universities landed in the top 100 mostly dominated by US universities. The Koreans are rising fast in the technology and innovation ladder, some brands are already top global players like Samsung.

I'm curious if many of these top Asian universities are state-owned and operated, like the NUS. The top US universities though are private.

Now there seems to be a "disconnect" between the two data above. China's universities are not so known in innovation (only one landed in the top 100, at least based on the Reuters study and ranking) yet China is #1 in the world in patent applications. More data and interpretation may provide the explanations.
------------

See also:

IPR and Innovation 22, The USTR 301 Report 2015 and the Philippines, July 10, 2015  

IPR and Innovation 23, Letter to WIPO by 85 think tank leaders from 51 countries,July 21, 2015 

IPR and Innovation 24, The US-China IP cooperation dialogue, August 18, 2015 

IPR and Innovation 25, Malaysia's IP Monetization strategy, September 13, 2015

IPR and Innovation 23, Letter to WIPO by 85 think tank leaders from 51 countries

Last night, today in the US, a coalition of 85 independent think tanks and institutes from 51  countries, led by the Property Rights Alliance (PRA) sent a letter to World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Dir. Gen. Francis Gurry, about International Guidelines on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protection.

The eight guidelines are as follows:

1. Rule of Law, Property, and a Transparent Political Environment are the Foundation of Fair and Prosperous Societies.

2. Intellectual Property Rights are Affirmed in International Treaties as a Human Right.

3. Intellectual Property Rights Promote Free Speech and Expression.

4. Intellectual Property Rights are Integral to Consumer Protection and Global Security.

5. Strong Intellectual Property Rights and Contractual Freedom Promote Free and Competitive Markets.

6. Intellectual Property Rights are Vital to Economic Competitiveness.

7. Intellectual Property Rights Must Be Protected Through Effective IP Provisions in Trade Agreements.

8. Intellectual Property Rights Must Be Respected and Protected on the Internet.

Minimal Government Thinkers is among the 85 co-signatory organizations and think tanks. Among fellow Asian free market leaders who also signed and supported the statement are Wan Saiful Wan Jan (IDEAS, Malaysia), Fareeza Ibrahim (SEANET, Malaysia), Kriengsak Chareonwongsak (Inst. of Future Studies and Development, Thailand), Andrew Shuen (Lion Rock Institute, HK), Feng Xingyuan (CIPA, China), Kim Sun-taek (KTA, Korea), Barun Mitra (Liberty Institute, India), Robin Sitoula (Samriddhi, Nepal), Ali Salman (PRIME, Pakistan), and Raza Ullah (Alternate Solutions Inst., Pakistan). 

The statement made this concluding note,

We encourage you to consider these guidelines as you review and discuss new and existing treaties, laws and regulations governing IP. Advanced societies have long understood that by protecting the proprietary rights of artists, authors, entrepreneurs, innovators, and inventors, they were promoting the greater public welfare. The continued protection of these fundamental rights is essential to globalinnovation, creativity and competitiveness.

Thanks to Lorenzo Montanari, Exec. Dir. of PRA, for initiating this important letter, available here. I also reposted it in my slideshare account.
------------

See also:

IPR and Innovation 19: The Policy Workshop Seminar in Hong Kong, October 21, 2014 

IPR and Innovation 20: The GIPC Intellectual Property Index, 2015 Report, February 06, 2015

IPR and Innovation 21: Recent News + IPN Assistance to Asian Think Tanks, February 15, 2015 

IPR and Innovation 22, The USTR 301 Report 2015 and the Philippines, July 10, 2015 

IPR and Medicines 34, Another Forum on TPP and IP, Manila, May 27, 2015

IPR and Medicines 35, New paper from Geneva Network, July 17, 2015

IPR and Innovation 19: The Policy Workshop Seminar in Hong Kong

Two weeks from now, I will participate in a small group meeting-seminar on intellectual property rights (IPR) of independent Asian think tanks to be held in Hong Kong. The event is sponsored by The Policy Workshop, a public affairs firm that helps clients meet public policy challenges and communications, headed by a friend, Cathy Windels. 

The event will be held one day before the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia 2014 conference, Among the cool reading materials are these. 

The Global IP Center (GIPC) of the US Chamber of Commerce published a few months ago The International Intellectual Property Index, 2014 Report. Only 25 countries were covered though, the Philippines not one of them. Perhaps in the coming years. 

Here is the overall result, global ranking of the countries included.

The GIPC Index consists of 30 indicators divided into six major categories. Each indicator is scored between 0 and 1. The maximum available score for the entire index is 30.

Category 1: Patents, Related Rights, and Limitations

1. Patent term of protection

2. Patentability requirements

3. Patentability of computer-implemented inventions

4. Pharmaceutical-related patent enforcement and resolution mechanism

5. Legislative criteria and use of compulsory licensing of patented products and technologies

6. Patent term restoration for pharmaceutical products

7. Regulatory data protection term

Category 2: Copyrights, Related Rights, and Limitations

8. Copyrights (and related rights) term of protection

9. Legal measures that provide necessary exclusive rights that prevent infringement of copyrights and related rights (including Web hosting, streaming, and linking)

10. Availability of frameworks that promote cooperative action against online piracy

11. Scope of limitations and exceptions to copyrights and related rights

12. Digital rights management legislation

13. Clear implementation of policies and guidelines requiring proprietary software used on government

information and communication technology (ICT) systems to be licensed software

Category 3: Trademarks, Related Rights, and Limitations

14. Trademarks term of protection (renewal periods)

15. Non-discrimination/non-restrictions on the use of brands in packaging of different products

16. Ability of trademark owners to protect their trademarks: requisites for protection

17. Legal measures available that provide necessary exclusive rights to redress unauthorized uses of trademarks

18. Availability of frameworks that promote action against online sale of counterfeit goods

Category 4: Trade Secrets and Market Access

19. Protection of trade secrets

20. Barriers to market access

Category 5: Enforcement

21. Physical counterfeiting rates

22. Software piracy rates

23. Civil and procedural remedies

24. Pre-established damages and/or mechanisms for determining the amount of damages generated by infringement

25. Criminal standards including minimum

26. Effective border measures

Category 6: Membership and Ratification of International Treaties

27. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Internet Treaties

28. Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks

29. Patent Law Treaty

30. At least one free trade agreement with substantive and/or specific IP provisions such as chapters on IP and separate provisions on IP rights provided it was signed after World Trade Organization/ TRIPS membership.

The criteria seemed to be "tailored" so that the US would be in #1 rank, a comment from a friend.  Maybe but it was not the US government that made that report, it was the US Chamber of Commerce.

In Asia, only China, Indonesia, India, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam were included, and four of them are in the bottom -- Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and India.

Here is another data from the World IP Organization (WIPO), shared by WEF in their fb page. In terms of patent applications, a number of big Asian countries are on the top, they realize the value of IPR protection and its contribution to a more innovative, higher productivity economy. This data seems to contradict the GIPC Report although the latter covers all  aspects  of  IPR while the WIPO data covers only patents.

This from WEF blog is interesting, How to benefit from China’s innovation boom

China’s move from imitation to innovation has been a matter of national policy in recent years. In 2011, for example, the government established a set of ambitious targets for the production of patents. Almost immediately, China became the world’s top patent filer.

China soon surpassed the US in other important measures. Each year, Chinese universities award more PhDs in science and engineering than US institutions do – and more than twice as many undergraduate degrees in these fields.

Moreover, China is set to outpace the US in investment in research and development. Since 2001, China’s R&D expenditure has been growing by 18% annually and has more than doubled as a share of GDP. In the US, that ratio has remained relatively constant.

...statistics from the US National Science Foundation reveal a genuine drive to innovate across much of Asia, with East, South and Southeast Asian countries together spending more on R&D than the US. And technology-intensive activity in the region is fast approaching that of North America and Western Europe.

Indeed, despite territorial disputes and other divisive issues, the commissioners of the patent offices of Japan, South Korea, China and, to a lesser extent, Singapore and Taiwan meet often to define and coordinate their intellectual-property (IP) policies. China’s leaders know that they can learn from countries like Japan and South Korea, which implemented policies to encourage innovation and protect IP rights long before China did.

This is good news. The territorial dispute and packing up of armaments seem to be exaggerated by some sectors and the mainstream media.Underneath are many avenues for peace and commerce -- more global and regional trade, in both goods and services, like IPR and innovative products and processes.

More innovation will spur more global commerce and trade. And that should mean less likelihood of any regional war.

------------

See also:
On IPR abolition 16: Debate with Teddy Boy Locsin, August 24, 2012 
On IPR Abolition 17: Copyright by a Government Corporation, September 07, 2013
On IPR Abolition 18: Patent, Copyright and Jeffrey Tucker, May 15, 2013

IPR and Medicines 27: More on Glivec and India's SC Decision, April 02, 2013
IPR and Medicines 28: Politicizing Innovation, Rewarding Rent-Seeking, April 06, 2013

IPR and Medicines 29: Parallel Importation and Patent Linkage, August 19, 2014