History and the Debate Over Intellectual Property

Abstract

This article responds to recent calls for organizational research to address larger, more globally relevant questions and to pay attention to history, by analyzing the crucial debate over intellectual property rights (IPR) between the United States and China. Despite the recent US position, the United States has not always been a leading IPR advocate. Rather, it was a leading IPR violator during the nineteenth century. An institution-based view of IPR history suggests that both the US refusal to protect foreign IPR in the nineteenth century and the current Chinese lack of enthusiasm to meet US IPR demands represent rational choices. However, as cost-benefit considerations change institutional transitions are possible. We predict that to the same extent the United States voluntarily agreed to strengthen IPR protection when its economy became sufficiently innovation-driven, China will similarly improve its IPR protection.

Recent Development of the Intellectual Property Rights System in China and Challenges Ahead

“…I provide factual and statistical evidence to support Peng et al's (2017) prediction that China can be expected to voluntarily enhance its IPR protection. I also offer a nuanced account of the cause of the recent patenting surge in China and document the most recent development of judicial and legislative efforts regarding IPR protection in China, shedding light on the path on which China is moving forward.…”

“…As Peng et al (2017) also mentioned, China has witnessed a patenting surge over the past 15 years. As demonstrated in Figure 1, the number of invention patent applications received by the State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO) increased from 63,000 in 2001 to 1.1 million in 2015, representing a staggering 17-fold increase.…”

“…Similarly, the fourth amendment, starting in 2011, was a self-initiated legislative effort to better the patent system and further strengthen IPR protection. The amendments of the Patent Law in China support Peng's et al (2017) prediction that China would voluntarily enhance its IPR protection as its economy became sufficiently innovation-driven, just as the US did in the past. As important as the legislative progress is, indigenous industry also plays an active role in improving IPR protection in China.…”

China’s intellectual property rights provocation: A political economy view

“…In newly independent America, facing British technology embargo, the government of the desperate infant nation encouraged and rewarded Americans to acquire foreign IPR, especially from Britain, legally or illegally (Ben-Atar, 1995). Peng et al (2017) cited historical research on US lack of IPR protection (Raustiala & Sprigman, 2012, 2013, especially in publications and entertainment (Lohr, 2002). Surowieski (2014) suggested that the US should not blame China for doing what it did with IP as it has itself become a scientific superpower through industrial spying, via direct observation, immigration of skilled workers with insider knowledge, smuggled machines, and pirated materials and technology.…”

“…There are two prevailing and competing views on China's IPR issue. The first one, which we may call the ''natural evolutionary'' view, argues that China's path to IPR protection is similar to that of the United States historically and will evolve into a strong IPR protection regime as China develops more IPR itself (Peng, Ahlstrom, Carraher, & Shi, 2017). Such an approach implies that The online version of this article is available Open Access the US, European Union, and other large economies should simply nudge China to comply with international law and implement regulation consistent with international standards.…”