Abstract
Five pillars sustain the vision of Pedro Roffe. The approach to innovation and development promotion by Pedro Roffe builds upon a number of basic and important understandings. First, the key role that intellectual property plays as tool to promote innovation. Second, the centrality of transfer of technology to address technological access and innovation challenges in developing countries. Third, the need of balance between intellectual property protection and the public interest, and the need to factor in the interests of consumers, right holders, and competitors. Fourth, the positive nexus between competition and intellectual property policies. Fifth, the existence of an international architecture of intellectual property, consisting of multilateral, plurilateral and bilateral intellectual property and trade agreements, and the relevance of national implementation and flexibility. In this chapter, we focus on the transfer of technology and the interplay between intellectual property and trade.
Xavier Seuba, Associate Professor of Law, Scientific Responsible and Academic Coordinator, Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI), University of Strasbourg. Mariano Genovesi, Professor, Secretary-General, Universidad de Buenos Aires.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
United Nations (1975).
- 2.
Roffe (1974).
- 3.
Gehl Sampath and Roffe (2012), p. 34.
- 4.
Roffe (1978), p. 4.
- 5.
Gehl Sampath and Roffe (2012), p. 14.
- 6.
Ibid.
- 7.
Roffe (1985), p. 691.
- 8.
Ibid.
- 9.
Gehl Sampath and Roffe (2012), p. 15.
- 10.
Ibid., p. 14.
- 11.
While developing countries stated “that an international legally binding instrument is the only form capable of effectively regulating the transfer of technology”, developed countries position was that the code of conduct should consist of voluntary guidelines. See Roffe (1985), p. 696.
- 12.
For developed economies, the anticompetitive effect was the central aspect to be considered, whereas developing countries stated that all practices which are unfair, and prejudicial to the economic and social development of the technology recipient countries, should be eliminated, whether anti-competitive or not. On the other hand, there was a deep disagreement to the extent to which restrictive provisions would apply to intra-enterprise transactions. While developed economies had open stance towards “restrictions for the purpose of rationalization or reasonable allocation of functions between parent and subsidiary or among enterprises belonging to the same concern”, in the Group of 77s view restrictions between commonly owned enterprises should be examined in the light of the rules, exceptions and factors applicable to all transfer of technology transactions. See Roffe (1985), pp. 698–702.
- 13.
There was an irreconcilable disagreement regarding applicable law and settlement of disputes. Developed economies proposed that parties should have the freedom to choose the applicable national law and forum before which disputes will be brought, if there was a substantial relationship between applicable law and the forum and the parties and transaction, or another reasonable basis for the choices made. Developing countries position was that the law of the acquiring country is the law applicable to matters relating to public policy and sovereignty. The courts and other tribunals of the technology-acquiring country shall have jurisdiction. See Roffe (1985), pp. 702–704.
- 14.
Ibid., p. 706.
- 15.
Roffe and Tesfachew (2002), pp. 7 and 12.
- 16.
Ibid., p. 7.
- 17.
Ibid.
- 18.
Ibid.
- 19.
Ibid., p. 12.
- 20.
Ibid.
- 21.
Gehl Sampath and Roffe (2012), p. 14.
- 22.
Ibid., p. 34.
- 23.
Ibid., p. 33.
- 24.
Ibid.
- 25.
Ibid.
- 26.
Ibid.
- 27.
In particular, how this relationship was approached in the nineteenth century. See Roffe (1987), p. 1040.
- 28.
Roffe (1979), p. 561.
- 29.
Roffe (1987), p. 1045.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
Roffe and Genovesi (2013).
- 33.
Genovesi and Roffe (2013).
- 34.
Roffe et al. (2007).
- 35.
Roffe and Spennemann (2008).
- 36.
Roffe (1974).
- 37.
Such as those affecting IP and access to health, access to knowledge and genetic resources. See Roffe and Santa Cruz (2006).
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
Roffe (2005), p. 8.
- 41.
Roffe (2007), p. 1.
- 42.
Roffe (2005).
- 43.
Ibid.
- 44.
Ibid.
- 45.
Roffe (2004), pp. 15–16.
- 46.
For instance, regarding to patents and one specific chapter, “The limited, but significant, treatment of patents in the FTA is explained by the fact that on matters not dealt with, the principles and standards of the TRIPS Agreement govern the relationship of the Parties on these other matters.” See Roffe (2004), p. 19.
- 47.
Roffe (1989), p. 29.
- 48.
For instance, “multilateral negotiation helped countries such as the United States to move forward negotiations at the bilateral level as to obtain from developing nations changes in their intellectual property legislations.” See Roffe (1989), p. 28.
- 49.
Roffe et al. (2007), p. 2.
- 50.
See Roffe and Spennemann (2006), p. 80.
- 51.
- 52.
Roffe et al. (2007), p. 2.
- 53.
Ibid.
- 54.
Roffe and Spennemann (2008).
- 55.
Roffe (2004), p. 49.
- 56.
Ibid.
- 57.
Roffe et al. (2007), p. 2.
- 58.
Roffe (2006), p. 13.
- 59.
- 60.
- 61.
- 62.
- 63.
Roffe (1989), p. 27.
- 64.
Roffe (2007), p. 7.
- 65.
Roffe et al. (2007), p. 13.
- 66.
Roffe (2007), p. 7.
- 67.
Ibid., p. 10.
- 68.
Roffe (2007), p. 17.
- 69.
Ibid., p. 11.
- 70.
Ibid., p. 14.
- 71.
The Libreville Agreement, adopted in 1962 by francophone African countries and setting the institutional forerunner of the African Intellectual Property Organization, included countries such as the Republic of Dahomey, the Republic of Upper Volta or the Malagasy Republic.
- 72.
“Patents should be viewed in terms of public interest not only in the theoretical sense but also in the practical judgement of what are likely to be the consequences of specific legal provisions for the national economy and its future development.” See Roffe (1974), p. 26.
- 73.
Roffe (1974), p. 15.
References
Gehl Sampath, P., & Roffe, P. (2012). Unpacking the international technology transfer debate: Fifty years and beyond. Issue Paper No. 36. Geneva: ICTSD.
Genovesi, L. M., & Roffe, P. (2013). Vinculación o linkage entre patentes y autorización sanitaria de medicamentos. In Seuba, X. (Ed.), Propiedad intelectual, competencia y aspectos regulatorios del medicamento (pp. 73–110). Bogotá: Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Grupo Editorial Ibáñez and Geneva: ICTSD.
Roffe, P. (1974). Abuses of patent monopoly: A legal appraisal. World Development, 2, 15–26.
Roffe, P. (1978). América Latina y el código de conducta para la transferencia de tecnología. Integración Latinoamericana 26/31.
Roffe, P. (1979). Reflections on current attempts to revise international legal structures: The North-South dialogue—Clash of values and concepts, contradictions and compromises. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 9, 559–572.
Roffe, P. (1985). Transfer of technology: UNCTAD’s draft international code of conduct. International Lawyer, 19, 689–707.
Roffe, P. (1987). Evolución e importancia del sistema de la propiedad intelectual. Comercio Exterior, 37, 1039–1045.
Roffe, P. (1989). La propiedad intelectual y el comercio internacional: Las negociaciones multilaterales en el GATT. Integración Latinoamericana, 151, 24–31.
Roffe, P. (2004). Bilateral agreements and a TRIPS-plus world: The Chile–USA free trade agreement. TRIPS Issues Paper No. 4. Ottawa: Quaker International Affairs Programme.
Roffe, P. (2005). La propiedad intelectual y la agenda económica internacional: El papel de América Latina, informe preparado para Corporación Andina de Fomento (CAF).
Roffe, P. (2006). Intellectual property provisions in bilateral and regional trade agreements: The challenges of implementation. The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).
Roffe, P. (2007). Intellectual property, bilateral agreements and sustainable development: The challenges of implementation. The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).
Roffe, P. (2013). Free Trade Agreements and the Americas. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 44, 932–942.
Roffe, P., Escudero, S., & Seuba, X. (2016). From TRIPS to preferential trade agreements. In H. Vardhana Singh (Ed.), TPP and India: Implications of mega-regionals for developing economies (pp. 281–374). New Delhi: Wisdom Tree.
Roffe, P., & Genovesi, L. M. (2013). La recepción de la excepción regulatoria, o excepción Bolar, en la normativa interna. In Seuba, X. (Ed.), Propiedad intelectual, competencia y aspectos regulatorios del medicamento (pp. 277–294). Bogotá: Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Grupo Editorial Ibáñez and Geneva: ICTSD.
Roffe, P., & Santa Cruz, M. (2006). Los derechos de propiedad intelectual en los acuerdos de libre comercio celebrados por países de América Latina con países desarrollados. Santiago de Chile: División de Comercio Internacional e Integración.
Roffe, P., & Spennemann, C. (2006). The impact of FTAs on public health policies and TRIPS flexibilities. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management, 1, 75–93.
Roffe, P., & Spennemann, C. (2008). Control of anti-competitive practices in contractual licences under the TRIPs Agreement. In C. M. Correa & A. Yusuf (Eds.), Intellectual property and international trade: The TRIPS agreement (2nd ed., pp. 293–329). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Roffe, P., & Tesfachew, T. (2002). Revisiting the technology transfer debate: Lessons for the new WTO Working Group. Bridges 6.
Roffe, P., Vivas, D., & Vea, G. (2007). Maintaining policy space for development: A case study on IP technical assistance in FTAs. Issue Paper No. 19. Geneva: ICTSD.
United Nations. (1975). The role of the patent system in the transfer of technology to developing countries. New York: United Nations Publication. Sales No. E.75.II. D.6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Seuba, X., Genovesi, M. (2019). Four Decades of Technology Transfer, Trade and Intellectual Property. In: Correa, C., Seuba, X. (eds) Intellectual Property and Development: Understanding the Interfaces. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2856-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2856-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-2855-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-2856-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)