Competition over competition policy for international trade and intellectual property

Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 367-381

  Arup, Christoper ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Competition policy; Globalisation; Intellectual property; Trade law; Transnational business practices; World Trade Organisation

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION POLICY; GLOBALIZATION; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; INTERNATIONAL TRADE; TRADE POLICY;

EID: 85169768838     PISSN: 08109028     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08109029808629289     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. The two main standards arc most-favoured nation treatment and national treatment. Loosely, MFN means that governments should not discriminate between foreigners from different countries and NT that they should not discriminate between foreigners and locals.
2. The trend in Australia since the definition of the 'market' was expanded; see H. Spier & T. Grimwade, 'International engagement in competition law enforcement: the future for Australia', Trade Practices Law Journal, 5, 1997, pp. 232-241.
3. B. Hawk, 'Antitrust policy and market access', OECD Observer, 201, 1997, pp. 10-12.
4. See e.g. C. Arup, Innovation, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
5. Article XXVIII. The texts of the WTO agreements can be found in WTO, The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations: The Legal Texts, WTO, Geneva, 1994.
6. This message can be found in A. Kawamoto, 'Regulatory reform on the international trade agenda', Journal of World Trade, 17, 3, 1997, pp. 81-116. Kawamoto is from the OECD's Trade Directorate.
7. The decisions of the panels in the dispute resolution procedures of the GATT and WTO are indicative. See GATT, Analytical Index. Guide to GATT Law and Practice, GATT/WTO, Geneva, 1994; WTO panel reports are available from the WTO's web site.
8. P. Blumberg, The Multinational Challenge to Corporation Law: The Search for a New Corporate Personality, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993.
9. See e.g. O. Mattoo, 'National treatment in the GATS - corner-stone or Pandora's Box?', Journal of World Trade, 31, 1, 1997, pp. 107-136.
10. B. Hockman, 'Services and intellectual property rights', in S. Collins & B. Bosworth (eds), The New GATT: Implications for the United States, The Brookings Institute, Washington, 1994.
11. A. Stoyer, 'Market access and the North American Free Trade Association,' Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems, 4, 1994, pp. 133-155.
12. A survey of developing countries is to be found in B. Hoekman, 'Competition policy and the global trading system', The World Economy, 20, 1997, pp. 383-406.
13. S. Sell, 'Intellectual Property Protection and Antitrust in a Developing World: Crisis, Coercion, and Choice', International Organization, 49, 1995, pp. 315-349.
14. F. Upham, 'Retail convergence: the structural impediments initiative and the regulation of the Japanese retail industry', in S. Berger & R. Dore (eds), National Diversity and Global Capitalism, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 263-297.
15. See WTO, Agreement on Telecommunications Services, Fourth Protocol to General Agreement on Trade in Services, Reference Paper, in International Legal Materials, XXXVI, 1997, pp. 367-369.
16. Kawamoto, op. cit., Ref. 6.
17. F. Scherer, Competition Policies for an Integrated World Economy, The Brookings Institute, Washington, 1994.
18. P. Nicolaides, 'For a world competition authority', Journal of World Trade, 30, 4, 1996, pp. 131-145, at p. 135.
19. See e.g. C. Falconer & P. Sauve, 'Globalisation, trade and competition', OECD Observer, 201, 1997, pp. 6-9.
20. C. Raghavan, Recolonization: GATT, the Uruguay Round and the Third World, Zed Books, London, 1990, p. 157.
21. For an Australian discussion, see D. Meltz, 'The Extra-Territorial Operation of the Trade Practices Act - a time for reappraisal?', Trade Practices Law Journal, 4, 1996, pp. 185-205.
22. Generally see OECD, Trade and Competition Policies: Comparing Objectives and Methods, OECD, Paris, 1994.
23. R. Ruggiero, 'Economic globalization increases impact of national competition policies on international trade', WTO Press Release, Press/30, 30 November 1995, WTO, Geneva.
24. GATT, Analytical Index, op. cit., Ref. 7.
25. For analysis of the agreement, see M. Blakeney, Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Properly Rights: A Concise Guide to the TRIPs Agreement, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1996.
26. J. Reichman, 'Beyond the historical lines of demarcation: competition law, intellectual property rights, and international trade after the GATT's Uruguay Round', Brooklyn Journal of International Law, XX, 1993, pp. 75-119.
27. T. Vinje, 'The final word on Magill', European Intellectual Property Review, 17, 1995, pp. 297-303.
28. Much of this discussion is to be found in the many articles published in the journals The World Economy, World Competition and Journal of World Trade.
29. See e.g. the contrasts made in A. Mattoo & A. Subranian, 'Multilateral rules on competition policy - a possible way forward', Journal of World Trade, 31, 5, 1997, pp. 95-115.
30. Ruggicro, op. cit., Ref. 23.
31. See P. Lloyd & G. Sampson, 'Competition and trade policy: identifying the issues after the Uruguay Round', The World Economy, 18, 1995, pp. 681-705.
32. Scherer, op. cit., Ref. 17.
33. Nicolaides, op. cit., Ref. 18.
34. M. Trebilcock, 'Competition policy and trade policy - mediating the interface', Journal of World Trade, 30, 4, 1996, pp. 71-106.
35. F. Nixson, 'Controlling the multinationals? Political economy and the United Nations Code of Conduct', International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 11, 1983, pp. 83-103.
36. J. Reichman, 'The "TRIPs" Agreement and the developing countries', UNCTAD Bulletin, 23, 1993, pp. 8-12.
37. P. Preston, 'Competition in the telecommunications infrastructure: implications for the peripheral regions and small countries of Europe', Telecommunications Policy, 10, 1995, pp. 253-271.
38. It is significant that, unlike other parts of the Agreement, observance of the guidelines is slated to be voluntary. The draft agreement records a majority view that it should not contain disciplines on non-government imposed discriminatory corporate practices. But it states that the parties should follow developments in the area and could take up the matter again if the need arises. See the MAI Negotiating Text (as of 14 February 1998), footnote 111, available at the OECD web site.
39. M. Khor, 'Competing views on 'competition policy', Third World Network, web site, 1997.
40. See report in WTO Focus, 20, June/July 1997, WTO, Geneva.
41. It also has significant implications for the treatment of intellectual property because it includes intellectual property rights within its definition of investment.