1989: Elmat trashes Intelectual Property
Please bear with me, I haven't proof read the material that has languished for over twelve years on my C Drive. Whenever you read President Bush, it measn the father of the present Bush in the White House.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Under pressure from the U.S. pharmaceutical industry and other MNC (multinationals Corporations) lobbies, Mrs. Carla Hills is insisting that an international agreement on trade related intellectual property rights-or Trips- will be the key to the success of the current round of world trade talks in Geneva...Companies worldwide lose up to $60 billion annually according to U.S. estimates, as a result of counterfeit goods or the unauthorised production of items embodying ideas or technology owned by others.
The so-called punishment to LDCs (Low Developed Countries) that don’t grant patents is plain talking. “Payment of royalties for pharmaceuticals patents wouldn’t amount to more than $6 million. During the period the U.S.. retaliated against Brazilian paper, menthe, eletro-electronics Brazil lost $400 million in exports.” O Estado de São Paulo, Jul. 4, 1990. Retaliation is a non-tariff barries. Moreover Americans are fighting for Japan, “As Japan overhauls the U.S. technology lead, it stands to gain most from the strains that the intellectual property issue will cause to Washington’s relations with the developing countries. This will be a gift to the U.S.’s most serious competitor.
Development economists cites the fact that LDCs have had the advantage of being late comers. Stating that the transfers of technology from developed countries permitted LDCs to use this technology without going through the costly and difficult process of generating it. Stewart, F.,Technology and Underdevelopment, London, Macmillan, 1977.
Several of today’s developed countries only adopted patent systems when they reached an advanced level of economic development. Due the lack of patent protection technological development didn’t stopped in the late 19th century.
"An American firm, it is said, will devise a new machine, and an export of the machine itself, or of its products, will set in. Then some German will buy a specimen and reproduce the machine in his own country...not only will the exports cease but the machine itself will be operated in Germany by low-paid labor; and the articles made by its aid will be sent back to the U.S. Shoe machinery and knitting machinery have been cited.Taussig 1915, Cited in Cooper, Richard, . "Technology and U.S. Trade: A Historical Review." In Technology and International Trade, Washington D.C. National Academy of Engineering, 1971.
"... the British government tried by prohibiting the export of machines, but to no avail. Locomotives in particular were reproduced at such a rate that a whole industry was quickly formed. During these transfers foreign experts were hired, or local technicians were sent out to study the inventions. In 1872 Carnegie visited Bessemer steelworks in England to study the production methods used there. Upon his return to the U.S. he evidently applied them with success: the rise of American steel industry dates from this period. American steel production increased so rapidly that in 1900 the output of American furnaces was almost double that of Britain and France. The British and German technicians travelled to the U.S. to discover how labor productivity had been trebled there. Gruber, W. H., Factors in the Transfer of Technology, Cambridge, 1969
Mutual contact between countries setting up specific industries and copying techniques originated elsewhere has been a crucial factor in the development of Western economies." The latest late comer is Sweden, which until the end of the last war was still largely dependent on forestry and mining. It has since generated great wealth with the erection of an industrial apparatus based in foreign technology, and presently occupies one of top positions in the income-per-head table."
Peter Drucker writes: “The creative innovator exploits the success of others. Creative imitation is not ; ‘innovation’ is in the sense in which the term is most commonly understood. The creative imitator doesn't invent a product or service; he perfects and positions it.” Drucker, P., Innovation and Entrepreneurship, London, Heinemann, 1985.
“The West German firm Siemens AG, typifies this valuable knack for capitalize on technological advances made by others. Its 1977 sales totalled $10 billion with about $1 billion a year earmarked for R&D - which is approximately one eight of the R&D expenditure for all West German industry. Instead of allocating the R&D funds for research activities; Siemens applies the bulk of it for product development. Its applications know how and high technical competence are wide acknowledged, and it employs this strength to good advantage in acquiring and improving on ideas and developments from others. Siemens patented and improved version of Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone inventions has developed the second largest business in the company and the third largest supplier of telephone systems. With American technology acquired in the 1930s plus its own expertize in telegraphy, the company become a major supplier of telex machines, and in 1977 introduced new electronic teleprinter that has been selling at a rate of 50.000 units a year. In computers, Siemens employed licenseed technology from RCA in the 1960s and has since captured a 21% share of the mainframe market in Germany while IBM’s share has slipped from over 72% to 54%. “Siemens starts second but finishes first” Fortune, May 1978. Cited from Sherman Gee, “Technology Transfer, Innovation and International Competitiveness, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1981.
Moreover it is argued that unless inventors, designers and writers are allowed to gain financially from their endeavours, there will be no incentive to originate, and R&D in industry will be greatly reduced. Far fewer new products and technologies will be available. But the fact that today’s MDCs copied each other in an early stage of development did not prevented technological progress.
It was the possibility of exploiting technological and social innovations in a world wide scale that allowed industrialized countries to develop. What counted was knowledge. It looks that every present industrialized country knows how they came to the stage they are in. Now, that they are inside, they try to block the door which really leads to development |
