Thursday, 4 February 2021

An Economic Analysis of IP Law

SDG 9 aims to foster innovation besides building resilient infrastructure and promote sustainable industrialization. An effective Intellectual Property (hereinafter referred to as "IP") legal framework is the cornerstone of the innovation policy of any country in order to encourage companies to invest in the Research and Development (R&D) of knowledge creation and innovations. This paper aims to discuss such a legal framework fostering innovation from a Law and Economics perspective.

Considering research, development and innovation are expensive processes, businesses must be stimulated to innovate. Companies are generally engaged in the Research and Development of new business innovations for getting ahead of their competitors. Therefore, it is noteworthy to mention that the results of such innovations will give a considerable advantage to the company only if its rivals have no free access to the said knowledge or inventions. Hence, it is essential to guarantee that the Intellectual Property of these endeavors will not be accessible to their competitors. This inaccessibility is ensured by the IP policy that introduces exclusive rights to the intellectual property created by the company which restricts access to such business innovations by others, thus offers the possibility of a return on investment. In the absence of adequate protection, the competitors would freely use the result of R&D and subsequently, businesses would have no incentive to invest in research, development and innovation. This would have detrimental effects on the technological progress and economy of any country.

However, an overprotected IP system may also have a negative impact on the economy. By providing exclusive rights to the author of innovation, the IP system establishes a monopoly on such knowledge and innovation. The owner of business innovation prevents other companies from producing the same product and entering the market during the granted period of exclusive rights. Eventually, IP rights as patents, copyrights, licenses, trademarks, etc., provide a monopoly for companies and create obstacles to entry in the industry, restricting competition and favoring monopoly situations. As a result, companies holding exclusive IP rights may increase and reduce production, sales, and also generate higher monopoly prices for consumers. Thus, the superior position of the exclusive IP rights holder may cause the disruption of the market economy and lead to the monopoly.

The resolution of this conflict can be the introduction of an alternative IP policy to reward the authors of IP in the form of direct or indirect government subsidies and granting limited proprietary rights over their intellectual results. Such a system enables both incentives for the creators to be motivated to continue to invest in R&D and the access to those innovations for the benefit of the society in the meantime: the author of IP is remunerated for the cost of creation and as there is no exclusive right to exclude others, the competition will bring the price down to marginal cost. To exemplify this policy, according to WIPO, Serbian the Ministry of Economy and Regional Development provides special grants to support innovative projects implemented by SMEs.

In conclusion, Law and Economics perspective shows that the IP policy fostering innovation can have either positive or negative effect on economic development: a weak protection system will reduce innovation due to the lack of an adequate return on investment; the severe system will reduce the dissemination of innovative results and lead to the monopoly on their use. In contrast, an alternative reward-based system not only offers the remuneration for innovations to be continued, but also society benefits from such inventions at an affordable price.


No comments:

Post a Comment

“Should pharmaceutical companies be allowed to enforce patent rights on their COVID-19 vaccines?” from Law and Economics Perspective

  Amongst the fight against the life-threatening COVID-19 pandemic, the question arises whether or not pharmaceutical companies must be gran...