Primer Taller Internacional de P.I y Políticas Públicas 25/02/2014 #1ForoPI

1. Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 13 Aug. 1813

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible
than all others of exclusive property, it is an
idea… Its peculiar character …is that no one
possesses the less, because every other possesses
the whole of it.… [I]deas should freely spread
from one to another over the globe, for the
moral and mutual instruction of man, and
improvement of his condition, like fire… and
like the air incapable of confinement or
exclusive appropriation…

2. Thomas Jefferson to Isaac
McPherson, 13 Aug. 1813

…Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a
subject of property. Society may give an
exclusive right to the profits arising from them,
as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas
which may produce utility, but this may or may
not be done, according to the will and
convenience of the society, without claim or
complaint from anybody.

3. Propiedad intelectual

…the primary purpose of that law is not to
create private fortunes, but is to promote the
progress of science and the useful arts
MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM
CO., 243 U. S. 502 , 1917

4. La propiedad intelectual…

es un instrumento, no un fin en sí mismo

su reconocimiento y ejercicio debe subordinarse
al interés público

5. Propiedad intelectual: un escenario
flexible pre-ADPIC
 Denegatoria de derechos autorales a
extranjeros
 No concesión de patentes
 50 países sin patentes de productos
farmacéuticos en 1986
 Patentes de corto plazo

6. Política de EEUU sobre ‘copyright’siglo XIX




Expandir el acceso a libros excelentes pero
baratos;
No hay propiedad inherente en la literatura;
Conceder copyright a los extranjeros les daría un
monopolio a expensas del público lector
estadounidense;
Las editoraiales estadounidenses y sus
empleados necesitan la ventaja de facto
resultante de la falta de protección

7. Consejero Federal suizo Brenner –debates de
la ley de patentes

‘En nuestras deliberaciones sobre esta ley,
haríamos bien en tener en mente que ella debería
ser diseñada de manera que se adapte a las
necesidades de nuestras propias industrias y las
condiciones de nuestro propio país. Estas
consideraciones, antes que las demandas y
reclamos de industrias extranjeras, deben ser
nuestra preocupación primaria al darle forma a la
ley (1906).
The Economic History of Switzerland, Intellectual Property Rights Series #4, Third
World Network, Penang, p. 10.

8. Ed Pratt in 1995
‘The current GATT victory, which established
provisions for intellectual property, resulted in part
from the hard-fought efforts of the US
government and US businesses, including Pfizer,
over the past three decades. We’ve been in it
from the beginning, taking a leadership role’.
Ed Pratt Jr, CEO Pfizer (1972-91):

9. PI e innovación

Indeed, the historical evidence provides
little or no support for the view that
intellectual monopoly is an effective
method of increasing innovation.

M. Boldrin and D. Levine: Against Intellectual
Monopoly, chapter 8, found at
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.8.m1
004.pdf, at 2. 2007.

10. Lecciones de la historia



…nations with patent systems were not
more innovative that nations without
patents systems. Similarly, nations with
longer patent terms were no more
innovative than nations with shorter patent
terms.
James Bessen and Michael Meurer (2008), Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats,
and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk, Princeton University Express, Princeton and
Oxford.
, p. 80.

11. Evidencia empírica

Survey of patent laws in over sixty countries:

strengthening of patent rights resulted in an
increase in filings from foreign applicants, with
no effect on filings by local inventors.

Lerner J ‘Patent Protection and Innovation Over 150 Years’ (2002)
http://www.epip.eu/papers/20030424/epip/papers/cd/papers_speakers/Lerner_P

12. Evidencia empírica



Survey of seventy two countries:
‘to date, there is no robust empirical evidence
that stronger patent rights indeed stimulate
growth’ .
Hu AGZ & Png IPL ‘Patent Rights and Economic Growth:
Evidence from Cross-Country Panels of Manufacturing
Industries’ (2010)

13. Patents & industrial innovation

‘…as economic studies have shown repeatedly,
patents do not play a particularly important role
in most fields of industrial innovation’

Scherer, F.M. (2009), Journal on Telecomm. & High Tech. L. Vol. 7

14. Machlup: study for the US Senate


“If we did not have a patent system, it would be
irresponsible, on the basis of our present
knowledge of its economic consequences, to
recommend instituting one.
Fritz Machlup, An Economic Review of the Patent System (Washington,
D.C.: Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, 1958), p.80.

15. Joseph Stiglitz
…are the incentives provided by the patent
system appropriate…? Sadly, the answer is
a resounding “no.”
‘Prizes, not patents’ (3.3.07), http://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/prizes--not-patents

16. Derechos de autor
A vast majority of artists are not motivated
by copyright protections, and frequently not
benefiting from them. Instead, the slim
prospect of widescale popularity, fame, and
recognition may be far stronger lures.
Peter DiCola, Northwestern University School
of Law (2013)
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/20130116
copyright