智慧財產權的全球化：開發中國家如何妥善運用專利制度

Abstract

自1994年世界貿易組織所轄──與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定（TRIPS）制定以來，建立了智慧財產權的寰宇最低標準。開發中國家在國際智慧財產權的立法上面對許多困境，例如某些國家在藥商的高獲利之下，面臨著嚴峻的公共健康問題。雖然WTO發表杜哈宣言，但開發中國家在立法上的主權卻不斷受到侵蝕。此外，許多開發中國家的科技水準與專利數量亦未成長，而專利的權利卻掌握在外國人之手。而肇致這些困境的背後因素則是全球化現象與知識經濟的革新。 由於資訊與科技的變遷，已開發國家必須藉由改變國際情勢以鞏固自身於全球知識經濟體系中的地位，其中一條途徑即是掌控國際智慧財產權的立法以藉規範對開發中國家發生影響力。例如由美國貿易代表署主導的美國政府與歐盟藉由簽訂區域自由貿易協定（FTA）以控制開發中國家的國內法規。如此造成的結果為國際智慧財產權標準無止境的攀升，建立許多「超TRIPS協定條款」（TRIPS-plus provisions），限制了運用TRIPS彈性機制的能力。此種似無止境的攀升，是否能達致知識經濟中的弱勢國家內各項生活水準的發展，而確實能達成散佈知識與科技移轉之目標，容有疑問。 本論文先由抽繹分析國際智慧財產權的立法現象開始，討論由開發中國家可能變化局勢的各種途徑，再詳細探討於規範上是否各該建議確能改變開發中國家所面臨的劣勢，而文末以呈現近年開發中國家與已開發國家在國際智慧財產權的立法上的折衝，並探討各種途徑的可能發展作結。

Since 1994, attention has been focused on WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) as the most influential international intellectual property rights (IPR) agreement. It establishes minimum universal standards in all areas of intellectual property, and secures universal patent protection. But the implementation of TRIPS has put developing countries in various predicaments. The profit-driven pharmaceutical companies became less willing to tolerate compulsory licenses. Their extensive influence thus forced some states to struggle against public health crisis. Although WTO adopted the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and public health, the sovereign capacity of developing countries are still being gradually eroded. In developing countries, the proportion of patent grants to foreigners tends to be much higher than patents granted to their own nationals, and royalties paid to foreign countries do not necessarily lead to an increase of technology transfer. The enormous transformation in the IPR law-making context was the consequences of globalization and technology revolution in the information age. Developed countries make uses of changing international norms in order to consolidate their status in global economy, which results in higher and higher intellectual property standards. However, the effect of this one-way ratchet in elevating the degree of development in poorer countries is dubious. The global ratchet for IP consists of waves of bilateral trade negotiations. A number developing country finally had to agree to free trade agreements contained TRIPS-plus provisions and forego or limit their right to use TRIPS flexibilities. US Trade Representative (USTR) has principal responsibility for administering U.S. trade agreements because they serve to ensure profit of US’s intellectual property-related industry. The EU also seeks to secure TRIPS-plus provisions through similar mechanism. This paper analyzes the international IPR law-making activities, outline several possible approaches for developing countries, and discuss the practical aspects of these solutions. In the final part, this research will demonstrate the conflicts in international IPR law-making activities between the North and the South, and concludes by reevaluating the approaches presented.