Public and Private Institutions in the Governance of Intellectual Property Rights

Brousseau, Éric; Bessy, Christian

doi:10.4337/9781847201522.00017

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In a comparative institutional analysis, the institutional frameworks involved in governing IPRs, essential complementarities between public and private institutions have long been recognized. 43 Thus, it was shown that reliance on interindividual governance structures (IGS) can lead to efficient cost-shifting towards private agents for regime governance. 44 However, recent years have seen an entirely new dimension of private regulation in global IP law which not only refers to regime governance but to the law-making entities themselves.…”

Section: Novel Regulatory Modesmentioning

confidence: 99%

WIPO and the Public–Private Web of Global Intellectual Property Governance

Wechsler

2012

European Yearbook of International Economic Law (EYIEL), Vol. 4 (2013)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has always been recognized as an important international economic institution for the global governance of intellectual property (IP) law. Moreover, its role in promoting, facilitating and supporting national, regional and local governance of IP law worldwide has long been uncontested. However, ever since the late 1980s, fundamental transformations in the IP landscape have challenged the established position of WIPO in global IP governance.First, increasing perceptions of the interconnectedness of IP issues with larger global development issues have required substantial adaptations in WIPO's policy formulations. Second, fragmentation and horizontal forum-shifting of IP issues from WIPO to both complementary and competing international institutions, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), have challenged the uncontested role of WIPO in global IP governance. Likewise, vertical forum-shifting from multilateral to bilateral law-making has necessitated strategic adaptations on the part of WIPO. And third, the rise of private regulation in IP law as well as new soft law regulatory approaches have pressurized WIPO into redefining its own position towards public actors, private actors and civil society.In the light of these transformations, the following paper introduces, discusses and evaluates the mission, role and activities of WIPO as an international economic institution for the global governance of intellectual property. It discusses, first, the larger public-private web of global IP governance in which WIPO operates. It then introduces in detail WIPO as an international economic institution for IP governance. This introduction is followed by a discussion of WIPO's mission and strategic goals as well as an overview of its core activities. The final conclusions evaluate WIPO's current positioning and provide recommendations for WIPO's further establishment in the publicprivate web of global IP governance.

show abstract

Section: Novel Regulatory Modesmentioning

confidence: 99%

WIPO and the Public–Private Web of Global Intellectual Property Governance

Wechsler

2012

European Yearbook of International Economic Law (EYIEL), Vol. 4 (2013)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cela conduit à analyser l'arbitrage entre la passation d'arrangements contractuels ad hoc et le recours à des contrats moins complexes supportés par des organisations collectives. Dans Brousseau et Bessy (2006), nous avons montré comment ce type de choix dépendait à la fois des attributs des DPI et des politiques de licence des détenteurs des titres. La comparaison avec les structures de gestion collective existantes en matière de droit d'auteur, permet de mettre en évidence certains coûts de défense des DPI qui peuvent être mutualisés en matière de licence de brevet : autorisation d'usage, contrôle des usages de la licence, perception des redevances, ou encore, règlement des litiges.…”

Section: Les Coûts De Mesure Et De Défense Des Dpiunclassified

“…Par exemple, dans le secteur des logiciels, il existe des associations qui luttent contre les copies privées illicites réalisées par les utilisateurs et les éditeurs pirates. Dans Brousseau et Bessy (2006) Comme le montrent les sociétés de gestion collective des droits d'auteur, les opérations de perception des redevances peuvent être aussi à la source d'économies d'échelle et d'envergure lorsque l'organisation collective contrôle également l'assiette des redevances perçues, ainsi que l'usage des licences accordées. Dans le cas des licences de brevet, on peut donner l'exemple de l'organisation professionnelle qui regroupe sur une base nationale, mais aussi internationale, les obtenteurs de variétés végétales 10 .…”

Section: Contrats De Licence Et « Force » Des Dpiunclassified

“…Mais les obtenteurs conservent le droit d'autoriser l'octroi de licence, ce qui constitue une différence essentielle avec les sociétés de gestion collective des droits d'auteur. On peut faire l'hypothèse que, en matière de licence de brevet, la volonté du détenteur de contrôler cette autorisation, suivant les caractéristiques des licenciés potentiels, rend problématique la gestion collective de ce type d'opérations (Brousseau et Bessy 2006).…”

Section: Contrats De Licence Et « Force » Des Dpiunclassified

“…L'objectif de ce texte est principalement d'examiner ce dernier facteur explicatif dans une perspective générale d'analyse des supports institutionnels propices au développement des marchés de technologie(Arora et alii, 2001). En effet, la prise en charge collective de la gestion des DPI n'est pas seulement le fait des institutions publiques qui sont impliquées dans la définition et le respect de ces droits de propriété(Brousseau et Bessy, 2006). Elle s'inscrit aussi dans les règles qui coordonnent les différents membres d'une industrie, dans des organisations qui gèrent la coordination propre aux transferts technologiques (associations professionnelles, intermédiaires de marché, producteurs d'information spécialisés, etc.).…”

unclassified

See 2 more Smart Citations

Organisations intermédiaires et accords de licence de technologie

Bessy¹

2006

rei

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Multi-level governance of the digital space: does a “second rank” institutional framework exist?

Brousseau¹

2007

Internet and Digital Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital Technologies make it possible to decentrally settle institutional frameworks based on self-implementation of exclusive rights of use over information and on the self-regulation of on-line communities. Such a decentralized systems of IPRs and collective rules settlement would enable agents to benefit from coordination frames well adapted to their specific needs and preference. However, such a process can also result in inefficiencies. While becoming subject to exclusion, information and coordination spaces remain non-divisible goods. Moreover, individual and group of interests could succeed in taking a non-contestable control over "privatized" information spaces. To overcome these weaknesses and threats, an institution of last resort -overhanging the agents and the self-regulated communitiesshould design and make enforceable constitutional principles aimed at guaranteeing some fundamental rights of contents producers and users. Based on the principle of subsidiarity, it should supervise the behaviors of individuals and communities to prevent capture of public wealth by individual interests, to solve conflicts among claims and local regulations, to guarantee enforcement when exclusive rights of use are legitimate. The way to implement it is however questionable since neither central authority of last resort nor global community exist to implement it. A combination of open while centralized negotiations among public and private norm settlers and of conflict settlement mechanism aimed at harmonizing the proliferating orders could nevertheless lead to the progressive definition of such constitutional basic rights and principles.

show abstract

Public and Private Institutions in the Governance of Intellectual Property Rights

Cited by 9 publications

References 32 publications

WIPO and the Public–Private Web of Global Intellectual Property Governance

WIPO and the Public–Private Web of Global Intellectual Property Governance

Organisations intermédiaires et accords de licence de technologie

Multi-level governance of the digital space: does a “second rank” institutional framework exist?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About