"I don't like TRIP"

Stiglitz offers an insightful and (at times frustrating look) at the way in which intellectual property is handled in terms of international trade. Chapter four of Stiglitz book goes into detail about TRIPs (an agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights). Judging from my title, Stiglitz has convinced me that Trip or (TRIPs) is not my friend. My dislike for TRIPs is based on several reasons and key examples. Stiglitz explains how "poorly designed intellectual property regimes...," in which "TRIPs presents an example par excellence,...not only reduce access to medicine but also lead to a less efficient economy, and may even slow the pace of innovation" (105-106). Intellectual property rights, which are strictly enforced and expanded upon by patents/ laws upheld by TRIPs, actually create monopolies that cause serious inefficiencies in the economy and all aspects of society. This is especially true in terms of medicine in developing countries. Stiglitz calls for a more balanced intellectual property regime in which knowledge is more freely available for the common good. He argues that the current regime stifles innovation because "monopolies insulated from competition are not subject to intensive pressures that drive innovation" and also because companies protected by TRIPs use their power to "squash rivals, reducing the incentives of others to do research" (109). Therefore "Trip" is not my friend because it is creating a "lose-lose situation" where innovation is reduced in the long run, the economy loses and public welfare is worsened due to monopoly prices.


My dear enemy Trip is driven by corporations that care much more about protecting their intellectual property and high profits than saving millions of lives in developing countries. Interestingly, Trip is within the WTO, an organization in which I have already expressed dislike and concern. In negotiating the TRIPs agreement, American and European negotiators fought for the interests of the corporate drug and entertainment industries that undoubtedly support strong intellectual property rights. Sadly, US interests got their wish and a little time plus the possibility for compulsory licensing (note the word possibility, because the US drug companies will do whatever they can to avoid this) was the only thing that developing countries got out of the battle.


According to Stiglitz, "intellectual property does not really belong in a trade agreement" and I totally agree. As Stiglitz points out, TRIPs "was concerned with restricting the movement of knowledge across borders" which is the exact opposite of what normal trade agreements are set up to do. TRIPs is simply a way of enforcing the intellectual property rights that help large corporations such as American drug companies to remain monopolies. In the third world there is a huge "knowledge gap" that is keeping countries from developing the medicines/ vaccines they need to save their citizens from life threatening diseases such as AIDS. Currently, TRIPs makes it more difficult for third world countries to manufacture and access generic (and therefore affordable) medicines. Since most third world citizens cannot afford to pay the monopolized prices set by private drug companies, people are dying unnecessarily. This makes me disgusted with both the American companies and especially the WTO which is allowing this kind of self interest to dominate international welfare. For example, in the 1990's, Brazil and South Africa proposed the idea of "issuing compulsory licenses for AIDS medicines," but American drug companies responded furiously, "claiming that TRIPs didn't allow this even for AIDS drugs, and a filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization" (121). This proves that no matter how many people are dying, the focus of the US drug industry, and thus the American negotiators, is completely profits which means doing anything "to keep as many generic drugs as possible off the market for as long as possible" (122).


Stiglitz offers examples of programs and ideas that can help to better balance the current intellectual property regime such as allowing for compulsory licenses, "waiving" the taxes on intellectual property in developing countries, stopping biopiracy in developing countries (developed nations are coming in and stealing intellectual property, then under TRIPs, charging the third world country for it...ridiculous I know), and creating innovation funds that "directly encourages innovations of benefit to developing countries" (124). I agree with Stiglitz's proposals and join him in the fight against the current TRIPs. Developing nations are calling for a new TRIPs or a "TRIPs minus," and if Trip is ever going to be my friend, I would say that this is totally necessary.