Biotechnology Piracy: Rethinking the International Protection of Intellectual Property
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to international markets will be an important factor in investment decisions for firms engaging in the research and development of agricultural biotechnology. International market access can be restricted in two ways: the imposition of trade barriers and intellectual property piracy. This paper develops a model of the enforcement game between a developing country=s government and a foreign biotechnology firm to examine the efficacy of the World Trade Organization=s Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement for the protection of intellectual property in agricultural biotechnology. The conclusion is that the TRIPS is unlikely to provide sufficient protection and, thus, will lead to suboptimal levels of investment. L'accès aux marchés étrangers jouera un rôle capital dans les décisions des entreprises qui souhaitent investir dans la recherche et le développement en biotechnologie agricole. Deux éléments peuvent entraver l'accès au marché international: les barrières commerciales et le piratage de la propriété intellectuelle. Dans cet article, les auteurs modélisent les interactions entre le gouvernement d'un pays en développement et une entreprise de biotechnologie étrangère en vue d'établir dans quelle mesure l'Accord sur les ADPIC de l'OMC protège la propriété intellectuelle dans le secteur de la biotechnologie agricole. De cet exercice, ils concluent que la protection assurée par l'Accord sur les ADPIC est insuffisante, donc qu'on assistera à des investissements inférieurs aux investissements optimaux.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".