Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia ...

16
Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia‐Pacific Jean‐Frédéric Morin Madison Cartwright, Université Laval, Canada University of Sydney, Australia

Transcript of Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia ...

Page 1: Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia ...

Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia‐Pacific

Jean‐Frédéric Morin Madison Cartwright, Université Laval, Canada University of Sydney, Australia

Page 2: Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia ...

1.Global IP politics2. Coercion 3. Contractualization4. Socialization5. Preliminary conclusion6. Next steps? 

1.Global IP politics2. Coercion3. Contractualization4. Socialization5. Preliminary conclusions6. Next steps?

IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps?

Outline of the presentation

Page 3: Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia ...

Global IP Politics

IP in knowledge‐based economies and global value chains; Zero‐sum game between knowledge‐producers and users; Widening gap between US/EU laws and multilateral treaties; US and EU as the main exporters of IP regulations; Asia/Pacific is one of the targets of both US and EU; 3 mechanisms: coercion, contractualization, and socialization.

IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps? 

Page 4: Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia ...

Targets of US coercion

IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps? 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

AustraliaCambodia

China (P.R.C.)Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Hong Kong SARIndonesia

JapanKorea, Republic of

LaosMalaysiaMongoliaMyanmar

NepalNew Zealand

Papua New GuineaPhilippinesSingaporeThailandVietnam

Priority Watch List (since 2000) GSP review Source: authors

Page 5: Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia ...

Targets of EU coercion

IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps? 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

AustraliaCambodia

China (P.R.C.)Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Hong Kong SARIndonesia

JapanKorea, Republic of

LaosMalaysiaMongoliaMyanmar

NepalNew Zealand

Papua New GuineaPhilippinesSingaporeThailandVietnam

p1 p2 p3Source: authors

Page 6: Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia ...

US/EU coercion on specific IP rights

IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps? 

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Adequacy of copyright law

Copyright infringement

Adequacy of patent law

Adequacy of patent application procedures

Data exclusivity and protection

Quality of patents granted

Compulsory licensing

Royalty payments for patents

Patent infringement

Adequacy of trademark law

Trade mark infringement and bad faith registration

Quality of law enforcement

Effectiveness of judicial system

Border control and customs procedures

Adequacy of sanctions

Market for counterfeit goods

Public awareness of IP

Plurilateral and multilateral efforts

Protection of trade secrets

Adequacy of IP law generally

Adequacy of geographical indications law

EU (%)

US (%)

Source: authors

Page 7: Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia ...

US and EU PTAs

IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps? 

Source: authors

Page 8: Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia ...

The sequence of US/EU PTAs

IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps? 

0 10 20 30 40 50

New Zealand 2000

EFTA 2002

Japan 2002

ASEAN‐ Australia 2003

US 2003

ASEAN China 2004

Jordan 2004

India 2005

Korea 2005

TPSEP 2005

ASEAN Korea 2006

Panama 2006

ASEAN Japan 2008

China 2008

GCC 2008

Peru 2008

ASEAN india 2009

ASEAN NZ 2010

Costa Rica 2010

Taipei 2013

EU 2016

TPP 2016

Singaporian PTAs (2000‐2018)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 4

US Vietnam 2000

Japan Vietnam 2008

Association of Southeast Asian Nations…

Korea Vietnam 2015

Armenia Belarus KazaKHstan Kyrgistan…

EU Vietnam 2016

Transpacific Partnership (TPP) 2016

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement…

Vietnamese PTAs (2000‐2018)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Chile 2003EFTA 2005

Asia Pacific Trade Agreement 2005Singapore 2005

Association of Southeast Asian Nations…US 2007

India 2009EU 2010

Peru 2011Turkey 2012

Colombia 2013Australia 2014Canada 2014Vietnam 2015

New Zealand 2015China 2015

Korean PTAs (2000‐2018)

Source: Morin and Surbeck 2019

Page 9: Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia ...

IP rights in US/EU PTAs

IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps? 

Source: Morin and Surbeck 2019

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

Korea US TPP EU Korea EU Vitnam 2016

Page 10: Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia ...

Socialization via capacity building

IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps? 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Papua New Guinea

Mongolia

Laos

Cambodia

Vietnam

Indonesia

Philippines

Malaysia

Thailand

China

Number of US‐Sponsors IP capacity‐building events 2005‐2010

Page 11: Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia ...

Preliminary conclusionsNo evidence that US/EU activities are based on a division of labour

• Both rely on a mix of coercion, contractualization and socialization. • Both use mainly coercion and socialization with China, and three PTAs with same countries.  

No evidence that US/EU activities are driven by regulatory competition or rivalry. • Both mainly insist on stronger patent protection and copyright enforcement

Yet, some non‐trivial differences, including: • Only the EU used coercion against Vietnam • The US uses coercion more aggressively (China) and EU socialization is more institutionalized• US insists more strongly on trademarks (in PTAs and coercion). • EU insists more strongly on GI (in PTAs, coercion and socialization)• EU includes more civil‐society groups and development‐oriented issues

IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps? 

Page 12: Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia ...

Focusing on different IP rights? 

IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps? 

Little EUpressure

Strong EUpressure

Little USpressure

Traditional knowledge Geographical indications

Strong USpressure

Trademark Patent /Copyright

Page 13: Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia ...

Focusing on different exporters? 

IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps? 

Little EU pressure

Strong EUpressure

Little USpressure

Cambodia Papua New Guinea

Strong US pressure

Laos Vietnam

Page 14: Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia ...

Focusing on domestic context ?

IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps? 

Institutionally centralized

Institutionallyfragmented

Low economic interest for IP

Laos Philippines

Stronger economic interest for IP 

Singapore China

Page 15: Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia ...

Focusing on mechanism interactions? 

IP Politics Coercion Contracts Socialization Conclusions Next steps? 

EU PTA No EU PTA

High EU

socializationLow EU 

socializationHigh EU 

socializationLow EU 

socialization

EU Coercion Vietnam Thailand

No  EU Coercion

Papua New Guinea

East Timor 

Page 16: Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia ...

Jean‐Frédéric Morin Madison CartwrightUniversité Laval, Canada University of Sydney, Australia

Comparing US and EU’s exports of IP regulations in Asia‐Pacific