Introduction

Late in April, the Bush administration opened a WTO case protesting Chinese policy on intellectual property rights (IPR). The filing, startlingly, is the first IPR case filed by the administration in its entire seven years in office--a period in which direct losses to copyright piracy alone have doubled. By contrast, the Clinton administration filed 14 IPR cases in the six years after creation of the WTO in 1995. The administration has accordingly received criticism as being passive in defending American rights. But while the criticism is often justified, the rising levels of IPR piracy and the difficulty in enforcing laws reflect more than failures of U.S. policy. Appearing in the wake of prolonged and bitter arguments over IPR standards for medicine, they are evidence of growing disillusion with the concept of IPR itself in the developing world.

This erosion of support for IPR is not something that tougher policies alone will reverse. Successful IPR policy in the years to come will need more than vigorous use of American trade laws and WTO litigation rights; it also requires a credible response to the growing sense within many developing-country governments and academic circles that IPR may do their countries little good, or even harm. The response need not require wholesale revision of the WTO's IPR agreement or U.S. policy, but does imply some shifts in course, aimed at a reshaped policy that both defends the rights of artists and inventors in the global economy more effectively and gains broader political support than current policy now enjoys. The appropriate changes should include:

• Tougher enforcement, with the WTO case against Chinese copyright piracy only the first step;
• Stronger public diplomacy to broaden understanding of the public-health and consumer safety benefits of IPR in developing countries;
• Democratization of IPR policy through more aggressive defense of the rights of smaller and poorer IPR holders -- for example, with an aggressive push to assure respect for Native American rights to tribal names and sales of tribal crafts; and
• Creation of new market incentives for research on poor-country diseases, through funds to purchase newly invented medicines to combat malaria, tuberculosis, and other illnesses more common in developing nations than in rich countries.