the patent right refers to the exclusive right or exclusive right enjoyed by the inventor or his assignee in accordance with the law for a certain period of time. Patent right is an exclusive right, once it exceeds the protection period stipulated by law, it will no longer be protected by law. ?
according to the Patent Law, if the patent application is not found to be rejected after substantive examination, the patent administrative department of the State Council shall make a decision to grant the patent right and issue a patent certificate. The patent protection period for inventions applied for before December 31, 1992 is fifteen years from the date of application, and the patent protection period for utility models and designs is five years from the date of application. Before the expiration, the patentee may apply for an extension of three years. The protection period of the patent right for invention applied for after January 1, 1993 is 2 years from the date of application, and the protection period of the patent right for utility model and
design is 1 years from the date of application.
Developing countries seem to regard the protection of intellectual property rights as a noble thing, even a sign to distinguish civilized people from barbarians. I guess, in people's subconscious, it seems that protecting intellectual property rights is equal to respecting knowledge and intellectuals.
can knowledge really be kept private? Jefferson disagreed. He claimed that thought itself could not be restricted or appropriated, so invention itself could not be a property entity. The new economic growth theory points out that the reason why people can maintain sustainable economic growth and the reason why people's income level is constantly improving is mainly because knowledge cannot be completely privatized, and knowledge is a kind of "quasi-public * * * product". Knowledge, like the light in the night, not only illuminates the people in the room, but also enables passers-by to see the road clearly. Those Grandet people who want to occupy the monopoly of ideas forever are like locking the doors and windows of the room tightly, hoping in vain with greed, so that pedestrians outside will not "enjoy" their lights. Unless new products and services have been locked in the safe, as long as these new products and services enter the market, people may learn and imitate some new knowledge embodied in these products and services. Because people can always learn new knowledge "for free", the later generation can always develop newer and more products and services at lower cost, which can improve the living standard of human beings. What's more, many inventions and innovations that are applied to business are originally derived from research activities supported by public funds. According to the information provided by the American Pharmaceutical Association, only 43% of pharmaceutical R&D institutions are funded by the industry itself. And 29% of R&D institutions are funded by the National Institutes of Health of the US government.
we admit that the protection of intellectual property rights can provide an incentive mechanism to stimulate more innovation. Lincoln once said, "The patent system adds the fuel of interest to the creative flame of genius". However, one step forward for truth is fallacy. Intellectual property is not the only additive, and reputation and curiosity may be better fuels than naked interests. Intellectual property is not even the only tool for innovators to gain benefits. For example, we can reward innovators with a reward system, and the market itself has invented a rather subtle incentive mechanism. Even without patents, innovators can still make use of many "natural" protection mechanisms and get a lot of benefits. These "natural" protection mechanisms include "imitation lag" (caused by the cost of absorbing new knowledge) and "reputation benefit" (as the initiator). An American economist named Levin surveyed 65 senior R&D managers and found that patents are not as important as "natural benefits" such as "imitation time lag" and "downward learning curve". In another interesting survey, Mansfield asked 1 executive directors of R&D in American companies: How many inventions and innovations would not appear without patent protection? The 1 delegates came from 12 industrial groups, among which only representatives of three industries thought that the proportion would be higher (pharmaceutical industry 6%, other chemical industries 38% and petroleum industry 25%). The representative answers of six industries are basically zero (office equipment, automobile industry, rubber products and textiles are %, and primary metal and instrument manufacturing industries are 1%). Other industries that think that the ratio is very low include: machinery industry 17%, steel manufacturing 12%, electrical appliances 11%), and the average ratio is about 14%. Mansfield later conducted similar surveys in Britain and Germany, and the results were similar.
even though intellectual property rights protect the interests of innovators, are the interests of innovators consistent with those of the whole society? In other words, can the protection of intellectual property rights definitely promote economic growth? Many scholars worry that the "winner takes all" nature of the patent system will hinder the competition among innovators or lead to the duplication of innovation efforts and investment. Other scholars point out that this system will lead inventors to improve existing patents instead of creating real new knowledge, so resources are wasted. Considering the accumulation and interaction of scientific and technological processes, strong protection of key innovations may delay competitors from creating innovations that are more useful to the world. Many people also ask why all inventions are protected for the same period despite their different social values and why the protection period is as long as 17 or 2 years.
in developing countries, it is even more doubtful whether the existing intellectual property protection system can promote technological progress and economic growth. There is no evidence that strong intellectual property protection in developing countries will encourage more R&D activities. In fact, recent research on scientific and technological issues in developing countries shows that the most important new knowledge for developing countries is not the kind that can be patented. What developing countries need most is not knowledge that is truly novel from a world perspective, but knowledge that is more suitable for local conditions. In order to further absorb more advanced scientific and technological knowledge, developing countries must first imitate and copy. In this process of imitation and copy, technological innovation and progress have actually appeared: it takes efforts to learn and master new production processes; Tracking the development of new technologies also requires efforts; Evaluation and selection of suitable technology industries also need efforts; Applying new technology to domestic production conditions requires adjustments in production process, production technology and organizational arrangements; These efforts are manifested in investment in technological capabilities and lead to the improvement of the country's ability to effectively use technological knowledge. Unfortunately, these knowledge advances accumulated in the process of imitation and learning cannot be protected by the patent system. This is why most countries have to use infant industry protection and other industrial policy measures to encourage this kind of scientific and technological development (as was the case in the United States and other followers in the 19th century). Unfortunately, these measures are prohibited under the current WTO agreement, although they are not as harmful as they are thought. Studies by Harvard University professor Helpman and Princeton University professor Grossman show that imitation in developing countries can promote innovation in developed countries.
TRIPs under the framework of p>WTO has had a negative impact on the development of developing countries due to its defects: (1)TRIPs has strengthened the monopoly power of manufacturers in developed countries, enabling them to grab more profits, but at the same time, it has made product prices high and hindered the interests of consumers in developing countries (including consumers in developed countries). Not to mention the high prices of computer software and audio-visual products, what is more serious is that some products are directly related to the lives and health of thousands of people, but people in developing countries cannot get them. Take drugs for treating AIDS as an example. There are 36 million AIDS patients worldwide, 95% of whom live in developing countries. In some African countries, because more than a quarter of the population is infected with AIDS, its life expectancy is expected to drop by 2 years in the next decade. If drugs can be obtained in time, the mortality rate of AIDS can be greatly reduced. However, the dosage of AIDS drugs produced by American companies is worth $1,-$15, a year, while similar generic drugs produced in India are worth only $3. (2) Developed countries use TRIPs to prevent advanced technology from flowing into developing countries, and producers in developing countries have to pay a higher price in order to upgrade their technical level. In some cases, developed countries simply shut the door completely, making it impossible for developing countries to obtain advanced technology. In order to fulfill the Montreal Convention, Indian enterprises plan to switch to HFC134a, which is more effective for environmental protection, instead of producing CFCs. However, American companies with patent rights ask for a high price of $25 million, and the actual price is only about 2 million to 8 million. Why do American companies charge exorbitant prices in order to pay back the money on the spot? It wants to buy and control the shares of Indian companies. (3)TRIPS allows natural substances and procedures that were previously considered non-patented to apply for patents (micro-organisms, biological processes, etc.), which will fundamentally change the meaning of intellectual property rights. The original intellectual property rights only protect innovators, but after adding the protection of micro-organisms and biological processes, intellectual property rights may only protect thieves. Some scholars have pointed out that developed countries are waiting for opportunities to carry out "biological piracy" activities: some manufacturers in developed countries can apply for patents for things that are already widely known in developing countries, because they can repackage these products composed of traditional knowledge systems, which can be patented according to the agreement, but developing countries do not have this ability. This will do great harm to developing countries: an American company tries to apply for a patent for treating wounds with a herbal medicine, and the Indian government pointedly points out that Indians have known the efficacy of this herbal medicine since ancient times. However, another American company successfully patented the technology of extracting AIDS drugs from bitter gourd in Thailand, although this was first discovered by Thai scientists.
People are consciously or unconsciously ignoring the lessons of history. Western scholars who claim that protecting intellectual property rights is the only choice for economic growth in developing countries have tampered with the truth of history. The truth of history is. All backward countries introduce technology through "stealing teachers". In the early stage of industrialization in developed countries, intellectual property rights have never been well respected, especially in other countries. Compared with the past practices of developed countries, contemporary developing countries have done much better in many aspects. During the industrial revolution, Britain was the most advanced country in technology. In order to prevent technology from leaking, Britain even prevented skilled workers from going abroad by law. In response to these measures taken by advanced countries to stop the outflow of technology, backward countries have adopted various illegal means to acquire advanced technology. Entrepreneurs and skilled workers in these countries often engage in industrial espionage with the explicit consent of the state or even active encouragement (including rewards for acquiring special technology). France, Russia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium carried out extensive industrial espionage activities against Britain. It was not until 197 that Switzerland formulated the patent law half-heartedly, and it was not until 1954 that the Swiss patent law reached the level of other advanced countries. However, at the end of the 19th century, although there was no patent law in Switzerland, the Swiss were one of the most innovative people in the world. During this period, the Swiss made world-famous inventions in textile machinery, steam engine and food processing (milk chocolate, baby food, etc.). He also pointed out that there is no evidence that the lack of patent system will become an obstacle to foreign direct investment. In some industries, especially food processing industry, the lack of patent system has led to the increase of foreign direct investment.
with the accumulation of experience, developing countries will increasingly understand that TRIPs does not serve their interests, and consumers in developed countries may one day understand that this system does not serve their interests either. When 97% of the world's patents are in the hands of developed countries, the cost of using these patents is far greater than the income from the support of these patents. The historical review of intellectual property protection shows that what developed countries want to do now is to remove the ladder that developing countries can climb up after climbing upstairs by themselves.
Students should at least respect other people's knowledge, and don't copy or cheat.