Skip to main content

TRIPS Agreement

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Law and Economics
  • 181 Accesses

Abstract

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) was negotiated between 1986 and 1994 during the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which led to the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The TRIPS Agreement sets minimum levels of several types of intellectual property (IP) protection, including copyright, trademarks, patents, industrial design, and trade secrets protection. Membership in the WTO includes an obligation to comply with the TRIPS Agreement. According to the WTO, the Agreement attempts to strike a balance between long-term social benefits to society of increased innovations and short-term costs to society from the lack of access to inventions (World Trade Organization (n.d.) Intellectual property: protection and enforcement. Retrieved from understanding the WTO: the agreements: http://wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.htm).

This entry considers this balance by looking at the two poles of intellectual property policy: providing incentives to increase innovation and optimizing access to inventions both for consumptive use and for potentially innovation-increasing experimentation. This entry also surveys the notion of calibration, the idea that every country or region should adapt its regulatory framework to reflect its own strengths and weaknesses in optimizing what one might refer to as its innovation policy. A calibration approach suggests that providing innovation incentives and optimizing access are not mutually exclusive objectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 819.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 1,099.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Burk D, Lemley M (2010) The patent crisis and how the courts can solve it. Syracuse Sci Tech Law Rep 23:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler A, Sunder M (2007) Is Nozick kicking Rawls ass?: intellectual property and social justice. UC Davis Law Rev 40:563

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng T (2012) A developmental approach to the patent-antitrust interface. Northwest J Int Law Bus 33:1–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Falvey R, Foster N, Greenaway D (2004) Intellectual property rights and economic growth. Internationalisation of economic policy research paper no 2004/12, 2. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=715982

  • Gallini N (1992) Patent policy and costly imitation. Rand J Econ 23(1):52–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gervais D (2005) Intellectual property and development: the state of play. Fordham Law Rev 74(74):505–535

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons L (2011) Do as I say (not as I did): putative intellectual property lessons for emerging economies from the not so long past of the developed nations. SMU Law Rev 64(3):923–973

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollis A (2004) An efficient reward system for pharmaceutical innovation. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/news/Submission-Hollis6-Oct.pdf

  • Josselin J-M, Marciano A (2001) L’analyse economique du droit et le renouvellement de l’econonmie politique des choix publics. Economie Publique/Pub Econ 7:6

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackaay E (1994) Legal hybrids: beyond property and monopoly? Columbia Law Rev 94:2630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield E (1986) Patents and innovation: an empirical study. Manag Sci 32(2):173–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maskus K (2000) Lessons from studying the international economics of intellectual property rights. Vanderbilt Law Rev 53(6):2219–2239

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullin J (2013) In historic vote, New Zealand bans software patents: patent claims can’t cover computer programs ‘as such’. Retrieved from Ars Technica: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/in-historic-vote-new-zealand-bans-software-patents

  • Okedjii R (2009) History lessons for the WIPO development agenda. In: Netanel W (ed) Intellectual property and developing countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 137–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2011) Competing in the global economy, technology: quality in OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard. Retrieved from oecd.org

  • Perroux F (1988) The pole of development’s new place in a general theory of economic activity. In: Higgins B, Savoie D (eds) Regional economic development: essays in honour of Francois Perroux. Unwin Hyman, Boston, pp 48–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichman J (1992) Legal hybrids between the patent and copyright paradigms. In: Altes WK (ed) Information law towards the 21st century. Kluwer Law, Deventer, pp 325–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichman J (2000) The trips agreement comes of age: conflicts or cooperation with the developing countries. Case West Reserve J Int Law 32:441

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha S (2010) Trolls or market-maker? An empirical analysis of nonpracticing entities. Columbia Law Rev 110:114–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprigman C (2004) Reform(aliz)ing copyright. Stanf Law Rev 57:552

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley C (2003) A dangerous step toward the over protection of intellectual property: rethinking Edler v. Ashcroft. Hamline Law Rev 679:694–695

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron J (1988) The right to private property. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • World Trade Organization (2014) Members accepting amendment of the TRIPS Agreement. Retrieved from intellectual property: trips and public health: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/amendment_e.htm

  • World Trade Organization (n.d.) Intellectual property: protection and enforcement. Retrieved from understanding the WTO: the agreements: http://wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.htm

Further Reading

  • La Forgia F, Osenigo L, Montobbio F (2009) IPRs and technological development in pharmaceuticals: who is patenting what in Brazil after TRIPS. In: Netanel W (ed) The development agenda: global intellectual property and developing countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 293–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Nachbar T (2004) Intellectual property and constitutional norms. Columbia Law Rev 104:338–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prud’homme D (2012) Dulling the cutting-edge: how patent-related policies and practices hamper innovation in China. Beijing, European Union Chamber of Commerce in China

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragavan S (2012) Patent and trade disparities in developing countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Gervais .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Gervais, D. (2019). TRIPS Agreement. In: Marciano, A., Ramello, G.B. (eds) Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_563

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics