5/3

I find Stiglitz’s basic premise, that intellectual property should not be included in the WTO (128), problematic at best. In an earlier reading, Wolf described the five main problems that must be solved by a sophisticated market economy. Questions surrounding the place of intellectual property rights in international trade concretely touch on three of these five: the free-flow of information, protection of property rights and (less so) the idea that competition must be fostered. In his four central features of a modern market economy, this debate encompasses all four: corporations, innovation, intellectual property rights and financial markets. Yes, intellectual property rights itself is one of the four.

While, as I have recognized previously, our current attempt at managing economic globalization could stand for a good deal of improvement, many of Stiglitz’s sentiments on the protection of intellectual property rights at all toe the lines of “fostering competition” and “protecting property rights.” In my view, intellectual property is personal property. Innovators, especially those who began with their adult lives with thick stacks of hefty bills from various educational institutions and chose to accept the opportunity costs related to the time that they spent developing their product should be guaranteed to see some return on it. Call me selfish, but I would at least want to cover my bills after I spent all of that time on the project. (although hopefully, especially in the case of drug researchers, they also have concern for the well-being of others in their hearts) Though Stiglitz does not totally condemn IP rights, he often highlights very extreme examples of over-protecting IP rights.

As globalization progresses and the cost of communication becomes less and less, the definition and borders of intellectual property becomes increasingly more confusing. While patents grant (often excessive) monopoly power, if the patent-holding innovator had seen the high opportunity cost of inventing without the benefit of a possible pay-off, we would not have the product available to us to start with. As an ever-globalizing economy, it seems obvious that some sort of enforceable protection of an innovator’s rights to their product must be more widespread than just nationally. To not internationally protect intellectual property sufficiently could have serious detrimental effects on the world economy.

I do not seek to discard the needs (especially medical) of developing nations, nor to promote means of selfish overprotection of profits. Overall, I see that there is a simple need of large corporations that is difficult to write in to any law: they need a conscience. I think that Stiglitz’s idea of an innovation fund to encourage researching diseases that plague the third world is excellent and well-aimed. As further debates over globalization arise, I am optimistic about our ability to recognize and address problems such as this with our management of the world economy. However, I do think that intellectual property, just like goods and services, is an increasingly important part of trade that should be addressed by the WTO if we are to economically converge in a harmonious way.