Subscribe Now

Trending News

Welcome to AppleSaaz, By using our website, you agree to the use of our cookies.
10Apr2021

Blog Post

Integrative Case found in Part I by Peng, “An Institution-Based View of IPR Protection”
Study

Integrative Case found in Part I by Peng, “An Institution-Based View of IPR Protection” 

Introduction:

This research topic and case study are based on the institution-based view of IPR protection. First of all, we need to discuss what IPR protection is? IPR stands for intellectual property protections. IPR is the copyright protection of innovations, writers, and developers. There are two types of countries concerning IPR; one is IPR violator, and the other is IPR protector or champion. If we take the USA’s example, we see that in the 1800s US was the biggest violator of the IPR as it was developing. When the US becomes a developed country, it became the biggest protector of the IPR. (Integrative Case found in Part I by Peng, “An Institution-Based View of IPR Protection”)

Similar is the case with China; China is now an IPR violator as it is growing and is very much on the course to become the next superpower. We will see that when China becomes a developed country, it will shift from IPR violator to IPR protector. IPR protection law gives safety to the innovators and authors of any country so that their innovations and books are not copied. I have discussed three different questions related to the USA, UK, and USA and China issues related to IPR protection law. I have tried my best to answer these questions according to my research. These question and their answers are as under:

Question no 1:

There happened to be tough and thought-provoking dialogues between the United States of America (emerging country at that time) and Great Britain (superpower of that time) in the late 1800s. USA was a full-time IPR violator at that time, and the UK was the biggest protector of the IPR. Pirating of the British publications was a significant problem between these two countries. Some of the renowned authors from the UK were very frustrated and disappointed by this pirating. Charles Dinkins was one of those authors. Later on, as time passed and the United States of America became and well-developed country, it started to shift its momentum from IPR violator to IPR protector. USA knew that now we are a developed nation, and it is the time to be the IPR protector to safeguard the American innovations from being pirated.

Cont..

United States changed its IPR status from IPR violator to IPR champion on its own. There was no external pressure, and no one forced them to improve their situation. While in a developing phase, the USA needed many resources to progress. So abuse of the IPR was a practical assessment from an economic point of view. Nevertheless, when the USA became a technologically advanced country, the condition had changed a lot.

(Integrative Case found in Part I by Peng, “An Institution-Based View of IPR Protection”).

The United States manufactured and established many goods. They continue to increase the capacity, improvements, publications, song, and many other things, which were sailed just not only in the native marketplace but these were also circulated to other countries. So, the United States manufactured goods became very famous in overseas nations, consecutively, United States’ authors, creators, and organizations faced immense IPR violation from other countries. More emerging nations like Canada reasonably desecrated IPR as the United States did to increase the economy quicker.

Cont..

Contrary, advanced nations like the United Kingdom would not compromise the United States author’s exclusive rights security lest the United States did the identical. During that time, the United States administration came under huge problems and burdens from authors, discoverers, and organizations within the nations to defend their goods and creations. As an outcome, the United States administration started presenting IPR fortification to overseas authors and inventors so that United States writers and inventors could keep their IPR secured abroad. If we look at the institution-based view, “managers and firms rationally pursue their interests and make choices within institutional constraints” (Peng, 2016), when the US was developing. It had very few resources, there was no choice except violating IPR, but when it became a developed country whose exports were spread all around the world, it benefits more from the protection of IPR.

If we look at the reason why the US became champion from being an IPR violator? The answer is the development of the country and competition in the overseas market. US knew that it is now a very well developed country, and it exports tons of goods all over the world; in order to compete in the international market US decided to be an IPR champion.

(Integrative Case found in Part I by Peng, “An Institution-Based View of IPR Protection”).

Question no 2:

If we look at the United States and China’s IPR dispute nowadays, the United States of America is playing the same character of the United Kingdom, and China is in the character of the United States of America. China is a developing market that needs a lot of inventions and goods from established nations to develop. Furthermore, with a small income, maximum Chinese individuals can only have enough money for forged goods. As the number 1 economy of the world, the United States of America has undergone a lot of loss from IPR violations in China.

China just brands balanced monetary decisions when it disrupts IPR as what the US did. To defend its concern, the US is doing precisely what the UK did earlier to go to counter IPR violation. We conclude that we can compare the US and China IPR debates to the scenario that happened between the US and the UK 200 years ago.

Cont..

Furthermore, now the geo and the political situation amid the US and China is the same as that of USA and UK, an established country with complete assets and supremacy versus an evolving, powering up the nation with firming up the economy association. Today people recall the USA and UK IPR dispute to foresee and cheer China to develop as a future IPR champion. When the economy of China becomes stable and greater and starts developing unique products, it will willingly convert from IPR violator to IPR champion. Though, some debaters have queried that the USA case cannot be compared to China because Chinese values and policies are appropriate for greater IPR violations. UK experts used to be certain that the US would constrain to greater IPR violation level due to its values and policies, but it had certainly not happened.

Cont..

(Integrative Case found in Part I by Peng, “An Institution-Based View of IPR Protection”).

Moreover, the Beijing Olympics (2008), without any incident of IPR violation of Olympic emblems and amulets, has proved that the problem is not completely about Chinese values and policies. So, it is China’s decision whether they want to be an IPR violator or IPR champion. One day, after attaining sufficient essential conditions, China might have preferred the same choice as the US did before to go against IPR violation.

Question no 3:

If we see there are two facts from institution-based vision, which reveal China’s choice. First of all, “managers and firms sensibly track their benefits and make selections within institutional restraints.” Secondly, “while proper and informal organizations combine to run individual and strong conduct, in conditions where proper restraints are uncertain or fail, informal restraints play a larger role in dropping doubt and providing reliability to executives and firms” (Peng, 2016). That shows China would pick to become grave in shielding IPR if it found that it will have more profit than violating it. So the query would be that when China will have more advantages with shielding IPR. The answer to this lies with the USA case. When China develops as an established country with more assets, there would be many Chinese authors trying to pen books, more and more development, and more exclusive goods.

Cont..

At that time, individuals from other countries would attempt to violate IPR from Chinese manufacturers, inventors, and writers that will make the Chinese economy hurt a lot. Similarly, to guard its manufacturers, inventors, and writers, China would have to increase IPR protection from other established countries and encourage emerging countries to ponder IPR more attentively by proposing more grave IPR security for outsiders. By doing this, China would face pure proper restraints and decreases the role of informal restraints. So the ethos, consumer’s tradition, or even policies could not have disturbed the course of being an IPR champ of China.

(Integrative Case found in Part I by Peng, “An Institution-Based View of IPR Protection”).

We all know that China will only be serious about the protection of IPR only when it will become a developed country. China’s case is similar to that of the United States of America. The United States had a standoff with Great Britain (the superpower of that time) when it was developing, and now similar is the scenario between the USA and China.

Conclusion:

My findings after thoroughly reading the case study and answering the questions, all the emerging countries become IPR violators at one time. The reason and justification behind this violation are that the developing countries need innovations and publication from the developed countries to rely on as they don’t have their publication and innovations. Therefore, they use these things as a ladder to climb up to the status of developed countries. Developed countries have a serious problem with this issue. There happened to be tough and thought-provoking dialogues between the United States of America (emerging country at that time) and Great Britain (superpower of that time) in the late 1800s. USA was a full-time IPR violator at that time, and the UK was the biggest protector of the IPR. In short, it takes time for the emerging country to become an IPR protector from being an IPR violator.

References:

(Integrative Case found in Part I by Peng, “An Institution-Based View of IPR Protection”).

  • Steven Shavell and Tanguy van Ypersele, “Rewards versus Intellectual Property Rights,” The Journal of Law and Economics 44, no. 2 (October 2001): 525-547.
  • Grossman, Gene.M and Elhanan, The economic effect of intellectual property 1991.
  • Hettinger, E. (1989). Justifying Intellectual Property. Philosophy & Public Affairs,18(1), 31-52. Retrieved May 31, 2020,
  • Barro, Robert J. “Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 1991, 106, pp. 407–443
  • Gould D.M., Gruben W.C. (1997) The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Economic Growth. In: Gupta S.D., Choudhry N.K. (eds) Dynamics of Globalization and Development. Recent Economic Thought Series, vol 59. Springer, Boston, MA
  • Sherwood, Robert M. Intellectual Property and Economic Development, Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1990.

Related posts

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *