The status quo bias
“This [proposal] advocates for a change in the international scheme, not to reinvent it. […] [It] does not seek to change the nature of the current system (for example, it is in compliance with the principles of National-Treatment and MFN). In that sense it has a marked status quo bias, which provides it with political pragmatism.”
“Addressing the discussion of the patent international system with a status quo bias implies that intellectual property rights are here to stay. Thus, this [proposal] does not tackle the ‘eternal’ and unanswered causality question: does protection produces innovation, or, put it in a more general way, does the patent system confer a net benefit or a net loss on society? There is no concluding empirical evidence or economical theoretical argument from which we can properly answer these questions. The feasibility of the proposal precludes engaging this unsolved debate.” “Mechanism (…) , JIPEL, 108-109, citations omitted.
The TRIPS PLUS ULTRA proposal would improve the status quo by distributing the burden of rewarding innovations among contributors (different countries or trade regions) according to their wealth. The reward, theoretically at least (LINK: chart), would remain the same. Thus, those who believe in the system should be satisfied, and too the developed world.
On the other side, even hardliners on the position that there is no relationship between patents and innovation, which is also a respectable position, would be happy with TRIPS PLUS ULTRA; the burden of the system would be equitably distributed, reducing the current detrimental economic effect on the poorest countries in the world. (Of course, they would prefer for the burden -the exclusivity that is given to innovators through a patent and thus the monopolistic price that comes with it- not to exist at all!)
That is why, taking into account the status quo, the TRIPS PLUS ULTRA is a proposal that would sit well with those who believe in the system, those who don’t, and everyone in between. (Here is a short summary of the two positions on the matter). Both sides would see TRIPS PLUS ULTRA as an improvement upon the status quo.
Remember, this proposal is also:
- OK with those academics that believe in IP.
- OK with those academics that don´t believe in IP
- Going to realign international positions.
- Good for consumers, overall.
- Convenient for producers.
- Convenient for the developed world.
- Convenient for developing countries.
- And remember, all of this would be possible just by changing Article 33 of the TRIPS agreement.