

































INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DEVELOPING COUNTRY


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2010; 1(3):43-46

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Arif Hossain1 Shamima Parvin Lasker2

1. Vice President, Bangladesh Bioethics Society, Bangladesh.
 Email: ykhsmh@yahoo.com
2.  Professor  &  Head,  Department  of  Anatomy,  City  Dental  College,  Dhaka,  Bangladesh.  Email: 
splasker04@yahoo.com

Abstract:  Knowledge is  the  multidimensional  outcome of  human  intellect.  Intellectual 
Property  Rights  system  (IPRs)  is  considered  from  economic  and  legal  aspect  as  the 
ownership rights for the excessive use of innovation and creative work. IPRs are measured 
to encourage innovation, promote investment in S&T and make the technologies for public 
benefit. But history shows that from the time of industrial revolution in Europe and during 
twentieth  century in the North America  and Japan,  IPRs contribute  to the S&T driven 
economic growth. Therefore, there is a fair and consistent relationship between strength of 
IPRs and per  capital  income.  A recent  study of World Bank suggested that  the major 
beneficiaries of IPRs in terms of enhanced value of patents are the developed countries 
with USA along made an annual gain of US $ 20 billion while developing country face an 
annual  loss of 7.5 billion  on royalties  and license fees.  Moreover,  for the developing 
county, while indigenous technological capability is a significant determinant to economic 
growth and poverty reduction, no exact relationship has been established between the IPRs 
and economic growth. Developed countries and business corporations who are benefited 
directly from IPRs regime insist on implementation of strong IPRs for all countries. Need 
for strong IPRs for developing and least developed countries are discussed. Strong IPRs 
for all countries whether it leads to transfer of wealth from poor countries to rich countries 
to further widen the economic divide is a major ethical concern.

Introduction: Knowledge is the multidimensional outcome of human intellect. Intellectual 
Property Rights (IPRs) is the legal protection over scientific and technological knowledge 
through the  patents,  copy writes  and other  novel  legal  means.  IPRs  are  considered  to 
encourage innovation, promote investment in science and technology (S&T) and make the 
technologies work for public benefit. 

In economic growth and development the power of the knowledge has come into sharp 
focus since the days of industrial revolution and more recently with the advance in science 
&  technology.   IPRs  usually  have  seen  from  economic  and  legal  perspective  as  the 
ownership  rights  for  the  excessive  use  of  innovation  and  creative  work.  Science  and 
technology activity is the engine to economic development  in the contemporary world. 
According to the classical theory on S&T and IPRs, S&T is the machine and IPRS is the 
fuel.  History  shows  that  from the  time  of  industrial  revolution  in  Europe  and  during 
twentieth  century  in  the  North  America  and  Japan  shows  that  IPRs  contribute  to  the 
science and research (S&R) driven economic growth. 

43

mailto:splasker04@yahoo.com
mailto:ykhsmh@yahoo.com


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2010; 1(3):43-46

However, in case of developing counties indigenous technological capability is a critical 
determinant to economic growth and poverty reduction,  but no precise relationship has 
been established between the IPRs and economic growth. 

Conflicts about IPRS:  The present conflict of IPRs is sharpened by the increase presence 
of private sector in S&T and its rush for establishing exclusive rigid, legal ownership on 
the knowledge intensive modern technological service in order to leverage such ownership 
for exclusive trade and other strategic advantages.

Developed  countries  and business  corporations  who may  benefited  directly  from IPRs 
regime insist  on strong IPRs for all  counties in the globalization process under TRIPs 
(Trade  Related  Aspect  of  Intellectual  Property  Rights),  established  in  1994 that  WTO 
members countries have to abide by within specific deadlines.

As many of the IP protected technologies are owned by the private sector in the developed 
countries, they are the major beneficiaries of TRIPs mediated strong patent regime. When 
most  of  the innovation  (97%) in  the hand of  developed countries.  Only 3% of  global 
patents are owned by developing countries Of the 93% patents on biotechnology in USA, 
European Union and Japan and rest 7% from other countries. 
Hence the criteria for measuring the social benefit of IPRS are deferent. 

A recent world bank analysis  suggests  that the major beneficiary of TRIPs on term of 
enhanced value of patents are the developed countries with USA alone expected to make 
an annual gain of US$ 19 billion while developing countries face loss of US$ 7.5 billion on 
royalties and license fees. 

Strong  IPRs  and  developing  Countries: Strong  and  uniform IPRS  regime  prescribe 
under the “one size fits all “principal may essentially hinder development in developing 
countries.  This  particulate  form  of  IPRs  would  exploit  the  developing  countries  by 
exorbitant  price  being  levied  for  licensing  and  consequent  social  losses  in  economic 
welfare. Therefore the major ethical issues are that strong IPRs led to transfer of wealth 
from the poor to the rich which widen the economic divide. 

Developing  countries  participate  in  global  intellectual  property  systems  as
'second comers' in a world that has been shaped by the 'first comers'. They are now being 
urged to adopt a complex set of rules more suited to advanced economy is a major ethical 
concern.  Developing  countries  are  the  late  comer  in  the  world  economy  are  also 
disadvantaged bearing disappropriate share of cost with respect to the benefit is an another 
concern.

Strong  IPRs  may  facilitate  technology  transfer  under  licensing  it  may  not  promote 
investment  and  growth  of  indigenous  S&T.  It  rather  chokes  the  domestic  R&D  in 
developing counties.  The deficiency of the human and technical capacity to innovate also 
irrelevant to strong IPRs  in stimulating R&D  in many developing country. 

44



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2010; 1(3):43-46

Protection  is  not  necessarily  better.  Developing  countries  should  not  be
encouraged or coerced into adopting stronger IP rights without regards to the impact this 
has on their development and poor people. They should be allowed to adopt appropriate 
rights regimes, not necessarily the most protective ones."

IPRs,  as  a  whole  is  less  advantageous  for  developing  than  for  developed  countries  in
many  areas  of  importance  to  development,  such  as  health,  agriculture,
education  and  information  technologies.  The  system  increases  the  costs  of
access to many products and technologies that developing countries need.

Weak IP and developing countries: Before implementation of TRIPS, in 1995 it was the 
strength of IPRs which determines the growth of the indigenous S&T and economy in the 
developing countries. Without strong IP regime many countries has developed economy. 
For example without  strong IP protections  as well  as no protection  for pharmaceutical 
products,  south  Korea  achieved  economic  growth  which  led  to  their  economic 
transformation from developing to developed country. Similarly Switzerland , Holland and 
Japan benefited from their ability to technology catch up without patent law for many years 
after founding the Paris convention. Japan introduced the product patent only in 1976. In 
India  a  weak  IP  protection   contributed  to  rapid  and  significant   growth  of  India’s 
pharmaceutical  industries  particularly  a  low  cost  generic  medicine  and  intermediates. 
Weak IPRs existed in some East Asian and Latin American countries also encourage FDI 
(Fireign Direct investment).

Indications are that the economic development in developing counties are not essentially 
require strong IP protection and most of these countries tend to apply a less stringent IPRs 
regime until their per capital income is by and large above the UDS$ 8000.

Conclusion: The right to human and economic development, the right of access to food, 
medical care, health and well being and right to social security shall stand denied or limited 
in a global IPRs regime under TRIPs and it violates the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights (UDTH) as well. There is also need for more intense debate and discussion on the 
ethical aspect of the TRIPs. 

References: 

1. Ethics of information Communication technology in  Ethics in Asia pacific , UNESCO 
Bankok, 2004. 

2. WHO 2002. Genomics and WorldHealth organization. 
www3.who.int/whois/genomics/genomics_report.cfm

45



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2010; 1(3):43-46

.

3. Kumar n 2002 Intellectual property Rights, Technology and Economic development; 
Experience in Asian countries. Commission on Intellectual Property Rights background 
paper. London. 

4. Maskis K 2000. Intellectual property Rights and global economy. Institute for 
international economic, Washington DC.

5. World Bank 2002. Global Economic prospects and the developing countries 2002. 
www.worldbank.org/prospactys/gep2002

6.  World Bank 2002. World development indicators 2001 
www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2001/

7. Roderick RL 1995. The libertarian case against intellectual Property Rights. Liberal 
National foundation. http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

8. Alan RP 2007. information technology intellectual property ethics; issues and analysis. 
Issue in Information system, 8(2).

9. WIPO . Intellectual property and bioethics-An overview.

10. Intellectual property rights –II. IPRs and Economic development. 

11. Strong domestic IPRs may spur domestic innovative activity, and thus affect ... 
patented (from an ethical point of view—these ethical issues are ...
www.ww.uni-magdeburg.de/bwl2/Lehre/WTO/WTO-L6 _2004

 12.Whyte wolf   2010.  Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
http://www.iacis.org/iis/2007_iis/PDFs/Peslak.pdf

46

http://www.iacis.org/iis/2007_iis/PDFs/Peslak.pdf
http://www.ww.uni-magdeburg.de/bwl2/Lehre/WTO/WTO-L6%20_2004
http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

