Bold and newly Independent, or Isolated and Cast Adrift? The Implications of Brexit for Intellectual Property Law and Policy

Farrand, Benjamin

doi:10.1111/jcms.12550

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With institutional overlap , the regulated pressures target the same areas and increase the potential for disagreement by responding differently. The four main forms of IPRs can be categorized as copyright (i.e., protects creative expression), patent (i.e., protects inventions or innovations), trademark (i.e., protects the brands, logos, and by extension, trading reputations of the undertakings), and trade secrets (Farrand, 2017; Parr, 2018). They form the offering of tailored solutions that have a singular focus but spread on different set‐ups to meet the diverse needs and demands across markets.…”

Section: Institutional Constraintmentioning

confidence: 99%

De‐internationalization: An organizational institutionalism perspective

Mandrinos

Lim

2023

Glob Bus Org Exc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Few studies have focused on de‐internationalization. In this study, partial and full de‐internationalization are considered as export responses in the context of firms in a highly opaque field that were pursuant to a policy that would not serve their intended goals. With intellectual property rights (IPRs) serving as a coercive policy defining the domain of inquiry and compliance as the driver for firm responses, the institutional logic of national interest, firm orientation (interests, decisions), firm maneuvering (intentional‐reactive, involuntary‐proactive), and firm response (partial and full de‐internationalization) was unpacked alongside associated institutional complexities through the lens of organizational institutionalism. Noteworthily, the organizational institutionalism theory of de‐internationalization suggests that (1) partial de‐internationalization characterized by intentional‐reactive maneuvering across three variants of means‐ends decoupling involving balancing, pacifying, and bargaining, and (2) full de‐internationalization involving involuntary‐proactive maneuvering in exiting or withdrawing from the international market may occur in response to (3) institutional constraints such as IPRs in favor of national interest. Thus, this study sheds light on the asymmetry between institutional logic and institutional complexity and the firm responses to such institutional arrangements, thereby delineating the manner in which the aforementioned concepts could relate to each other to enrich our understanding of de‐internationalization in international business.

show abstract

Section: Institutional Constraintmentioning

confidence: 99%

De‐internationalization: An organizational institutionalism perspective

Mandrinos

Lim

2023

Glob Bus Org Exc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Government was therefore urged to ensure that any UK-EU trade agreements 'do not cause us to diverge from current intellectual property rules'. 23 Academic analyses confirm that the benefits of withdrawal are far outweighed by the political and financial costs of the UK acting on its own in a highly globalised policy area where the EU has successfully exported its norms and where access to its market is conditioned by adherence to its intellectual property rules (Farrand 2017(Farrand , pp. 1315(Farrand and 1317Dinwoodie and Dreyfuss 2018, p. 983).…”

Section: (C) Pharmaceuticalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulatory strings that bind and the UK Parliament after Brexit

Jančić

2022

Comp Eur Polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses Brexit’s promise of restoring UK sovereignty and retrieving regulatory autonomy from the EU from the perspective of the UK Parliament. It argues that while the prospects of post-Brexit regulatory alignment remain high, they are to some extent counterbalanced by those of targeted divergence. A twofold argument is put forward to demonstrate this. The first argument builds on the literature on the Brussels effect and argues that the strength of economic interdependence between the UK and the EU and the size and influence of the latter’s market generate significant pressures for UK regulatory alignment with EU standards. This is demonstrated through a qualitative empirical examination of the contents of UK parliamentary scrutiny of the projected impact of Brexit on the key UK export industry sectors: automotive, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and financial services. It is shown that select committees in both Houses of Parliament, including the Eurosceptic ones, have consistently advocated close alignment with EU regulatory standards across the export-intensive economic sectors. As such, these findings relativise the prospects of taking back control to the extent that the substance of Westminster’s post-Brexit legislative activity may continue to be significantly influenced by EU regulation and policy. This is reinforced by the sanctioning mechanism foreseen in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement and the economic benefits of adhering to the EU’s adequacy and equivalence regimes. These factors therefore facilitate the future Europeanisation of UK law after Brexit. The second argument nuances the first argument by showing that UK legislative and regulatory divergence is not an abstract possibility, but rather a political reality grounded in strong government majority following the 2019 election, the scrutiny approaches that favour assessment of regulatory impacts, and the UK’s willingness to take unilateral action.

show abstract

“…The four main forms of IPRs can be categorized as copyright (which protects creative expression), patent (which protects inventions or innovations), trademark (which protects the brands, logos, and by extension trading reputations of the undertakings) and finally trade secrets (Farrand, 2017;Parr, 2018). IB theorists argue that focal firms and IPRs interact in such a way that both their internal and external dimensions are joined together through a particular configuration of policy elements to achieve completeness (Peng, 2013;Peng et al, 2017;Rugman & Verbeke, 2000;Verbeke, 2017), akin to how pieces of a puzzle must be put together to obtain a complete image.…”

Section: Intellectual Property Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While institutionally strong, the UK may find that its position with regard to IPRs is not so independent. Instead, it runs the risk of becoming politically isolated and legally cut adrift (Farrand, 2017), as exiting a supranational market where substantial opportunities exist and sizeable investments can be made by firms may prove to be an involuntary market loss (Sapouna et al, 2018), which ultimately needs to be settled with an institutional "voluntary" no trade deal that is believed to reflect the country's national interests rather than international interests.…”

Section: Market Trade Disputesmentioning

confidence: 99%

De‐internationalization through the lens of intellectual property rights

Mandrinos

Lim

Lin

2021

Thunderbird Intl Bus Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many studies have focused on internationalization, with few shedding light on de-internationalization. In this article, we contended that de-internationalization is common in a world of matured globalization, yet it remains underexplored. We sought to build on the seminal articles on de-internationalization by extending our understanding of the concept from a voluntary to an involuntary perspective. In particular, we used intellectual property rights as an institutional coercive dimension and set theory as a discerning mechanism to enrich our understanding of de-internationalization. Our article, which demonstrates the multi-faceted conditions of de-internationalization, should benefit formal institutions and policy makers in developing a greater understanding of the relationship between public policies and focal firms' decisions to de-internationalize. We also hope that our article will contribute to greater visibility of de-internationalization and make the concept more approachable to our international business audience.

show abstract

Bold and newly Independent, or Isolated and Cast Adrift? The Implications of Brexit for Intellectual Property Law and Policy

Cited by 6 publications

References 33 publications

De‐internationalization: An organizational institutionalism perspective

De‐internationalization: An organizational institutionalism perspective

Regulatory strings that bind and the UK Parliament after Brexit

De‐internationalization through the lens of intellectual property rights

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About