Why it´s more effective (compliance with the system)

The effectiveness analysis (an element within the three-tier analysis that inspired the TRIPS PLUS ULTRA proposal; the other two elements are justice and validity).

NOTE: We use the word effective and not efficient, to clearly distinguish it from the term used to express the conclusion of the TRIPS PLUS ULTRA macroeconomic model, which addresses efficiency.

This proposal could improve compliance in two different ways: 1. By making the populations of developing countries comfortable enough with the system for them to embrace it, as further explained. 2. Through international agreements to that effect (the TRIPS PLUS ULTRA proposal requires an agreement on sharing the burden of innovation in accordance with wealth, to start with).

1-. A sociological impact.

To make IP fairer globally could have a sociological effect on developing countries. It could help in changing their populations´ predisposition to intellectual property in general, not through coercion but by a change of attitude towards the global regulation, if the international system -through the implementation of the TRIPS PLUS ULTRA proposal- were fairer. Proper compliance with the law could improve in the developing world. So, although the period of the patent would decrease in these countries (see chart), more revenue for the innovator could be produced during the years patents are enforceable in those countries. We believe this is especially true for behavior that is difficult, close to impossible, to modify by coercion (e.g. the use of some forms of copyright protected creations). This sociological conclusion is derived from Bobbio’s understanding of the effectiveness of the law (see more at A Global Solution for the Protection of Inventions, at. 115-119), which is one of the three elements Bobbio uses to dissect a law. The TRIPS PLUS ULTRA proposal is inspired by Bobbio’s analysis (click here for a methodological note about it). A profound sociological study is still needed in this regard, and collaboration is being sought to undertake it; this sociological claim is, for now, at a hypothesis stage.

2. New regulation agreed around the TRIPS PLUS ULTRA proposal.

In addition to increased voluntary compliance (which of course is difficult to rely upon by the innovators, since some countries have for some time not provided real and effective application of the relevant laws surrounding innovation within their territories, as required by the TRIPS standard) more effectiveness could be achieved by additional measures to make the current rules stricter e.g. an attorney general for the TRIPS Council, if you will, to enforce country compliance with the regulation, and achieve the dream of a global patent (as proposed here).

This hypothetical system could be more effective since compliance with the scheme by each country could improve. This would be fairer to the developed world, per se, by eliminating the free rider problem (only some pay for the innovation, nonetheless all of us eventually use it). If the world were to coordinate its efforts, we could have a better or even the optimal global system of innovation. The lack of coordination is hurting all of us, poor and rich, but probably the poorest most. We welcome more work on how this proposal, made for patents, could or could not be applied to copyright and other forms of IP.

Finally, more harmonization could be achieved (click here, here and here for more on this) in a cooperative manner that is good for all. Harmonization and coordination could help the developing world properly address technology transfer and orphan diseases issues.