臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

自1994年世界貿易組織所轄──與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定（TRIPS）制定以來，建立了智慧財產權的寰宇最低標準。開發中國家在國際智慧財產權的立法上面對許多困境，例如某些國家在藥商的高獲利之下，面臨著嚴峻的公共健康問題。雖然WTO發表杜哈宣言，但開發中國家在立法上的主權卻不斷受到侵蝕。此外，許多開發中國家的科技水準與專利數量亦未成長，而專利的權利卻掌握在外國人之手。而肇致這些困境的背後因素則是全球化現象與知識經濟的革新。
由於資訊與科技的變遷，已開發國家必須藉由改變國際情勢以鞏固自身於全球知識經濟體系中的地位，其中一條途徑即是掌控國際智慧財產權的立法以藉規範對開發中國家發生影響力。例如由美國貿易代表署主導的美國政府與歐盟藉由簽訂區域自由貿易協定（FTA）以控制開發中國家的國內法規。如此造成的結果為國際智慧財產權標準無止境的攀升，建立許多「超TRIPS協定條款」（TRIPS-plus provisions），限制了運用TRIPS彈性機制的能力。此種似無止境的攀升，是否能達致知識經濟中的弱勢國家內各項生活水準的發展，而確實能達成散佈知識與科技移轉之目標，容有疑問。
本論文先由抽繹分析國際智慧財產權的立法現象開始，討論由開發中國家可能變化局勢的各種途徑，再詳細探討於規範上是否各該建議確能改變開發中國家所面臨的劣勢，而文末以呈現近年開發中國家與已開發國家在國際智慧財產權的立法上的折衝，並探討各種途徑的可能發展作結。

Since 1994, attention has been focused on WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) as the most influential international intellectual property rights (IPR) agreement. It establishes minimum universal standards in all areas of intellectual property, and secures universal patent protection. But the implementation of TRIPS has put developing countries in various predicaments. The profit-driven pharmaceutical companies became less willing to tolerate compulsory licenses. Their extensive influence thus forced some states to struggle against public health crisis. Although WTO adopted the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and public health, the sovereign capacity of developing countries are still being gradually eroded. In developing countries, the proportion of patent grants to foreigners tends to be much higher than patents granted to their own nationals, and royalties paid to foreign countries do not necessarily lead to an increase of technology transfer. The enormous transformation in the IPR law-making context was the consequences of globalization and technology revolution in the information age.
Developed countries make uses of changing international norms in order to consolidate their status in global economy, which results in higher and higher intellectual property standards. However, the effect of this one-way ratchet in elevating the degree of development in poorer countries is dubious. The global ratchet for IP consists of waves of bilateral trade negotiations. A number developing country finally had to agree to free trade agreements contained TRIPS-plus provisions and forego or limit their right to use TRIPS flexibilities. US Trade Representative (USTR) has principal responsibility for administering U.S. trade agreements because they serve to ensure profit of US’s intellectual property-related industry. The EU also seeks to secure TRIPS-plus provisions through similar mechanism.
This paper analyzes the international IPR law-making activities, outline several possible approaches for developing countries, and discuss the practical aspects of these solutions. In the final part, this research will demonstrate the conflicts in international IPR law-making activities between the North and the South, and concludes by reevaluating the approaches presented.

中文提要………………………………………………………………………i
英文提要………………………………………………………………………ii
誌謝………………………………………………………………………iv
目錄………………………………………………………………………v
表目錄………………………………………………………………………xii
圖目錄………………………………………………………………………xiii
第壹章
緒論…………………………………………………………………
1
1.1全球化：並未創新的古老概念……………………………………1
1.1.1地理大發現時代至資訊時代：全球化的各種面向………………1
1.1.2關貿總協、世界貿易組織及TRIPS協定之建立…………………5
1.1.2.1布列敦森林體系（Bretton Woods System）與固定匯率制度……5
1.1.2.2關貿總協及TRIPS之建立…………………………………………6
1.2世界貿易、資訊商品與國際法之互動……………………………11
1.2.1全球化、開發中國家與法律………………………………………11
1.2.2智慧財產權的全球化………………………………………………14
1.2.3智慧財產權與全球治理（Global Governance）……………………15
1.2.3.1何謂全球治理？……………………………………………………15
1.2.3.2WTO與全球治理…………………………………………………16
1.2.3.3智慧財產權的全球治理……………………………………………17
1.2.4開發中國家與發展議題……………………………………………19
1.2.4.1WTO與發展議題…………………………………………………19
1.2.4.2WIPO與發展議題…………………………………………………21
1.2.5開發中國家就智慧財產權所面臨之困境…………………………24
1.2.5.1藥物近用問題纏結難解……………………………………………24
1.2.5.2專利數量並未隨之增加……………………………………………26
1.2.5.3管制主權之實行受到限制…………………………………………27
1.3開發中國家與TRIPS：文獻綜覽…………………………………28
1.3.1經典批判法學論述 （Classical Legal Criticism Works）…………29
1.3.2經濟學研究文獻……………………………………………………31
1.3.3全球法律多元主義（Global Legal Pluralism）……………………32
1.3.4懷疑論述（Skepticism）……………………………………………33
1.3.5其他社會科學論述…………………………………………………35
1.4開發中國家的對策…………………………………………………36
1.4.1WTO框架下的條文解釋對策……………………………………36
1.4.2競爭法管制體制的利用……………………………………………36
1.4.3利用專利法以促進創新……………………………………………37
1.4.4實驗免責與知識散佈……………………………………………37
1.5本論文之研究方法與架構…………………………………………38
1.5.1研究動機……………………………………………………………38
1.5.2分析架構……………………………………………………………39
1.5.2.1全球化現象：本論文之研究脈絡…………………………………39
1.5.2.2本論文之研究架構…………………………………………………41
1.5.2.3本論文之研究方法…………………………………………………44
1.5.3研究目標……………………………………………………………44
第貳章
全球智慧財產權體系的國際政治經濟分析………………………46
2.1國際智慧財產權體系之建立………………………………………46
2.1.1國際智慧財產權體系（International IPR Regime）之建立過程…46
2.1.1.1地域性保護時期……………………………………………………46
2.1.1.2國際性保護時期……………………………………………………47
2.1.1.3全球性保護時期……………………………………………………48
2.1.2智慧財產權與貿易：兩情相悅的結合？…………………………50
2.1.2.1歷史發展層面：大型跨國企業的遊說進程………………………51
2.1.2.2學術研究層面：智慧財產權與外國直接投資……………………52
2.1.3全球現實層面：智慧財產權－－在貿易之外……………………56
2.2智慧財產權的全球體系：一個關於權力的觀點…………………57
2.2.1開發中國家在國際智慧財產權體系中遭遇的權利分佈不對稱…57
2.2.2開發中國家在WTO體制中遭遇的權力不對稱…………………58
2.2.2.1TRIPS制定歷程中的權力不對稱…………………………………58
2.2.2.2WTO爭端解決機制的權力不對稱………………………………60
2.2.3雙邊主義下的世界現實……………………………………………61
2.2.3.1單邊壓迫手段：美國301條款與特別301條款…………………61
2.2.3.2區域協定與新雙邊主義……………………………………………62
2.2.4小結…………………………………………………………………63
2.3智慧財產權的全球體系：從各種理論以觀………………………65
2.3.1現實主義（Realism）及其衍生學派………………………………65
2.3.2自由主義（Liberalism）及其衍生學派……………………………66
2.3.3制度主義（Institutionalism）………………………………………67
2.3.4建構主義（Constructionism）………………………………………68
2.4開發中國家可能提出的對應主張…………………………………69
2.4.1傾競爭途徑（the Pro-competitive Approach）……………………69
2.4.2人權途徑（the Human Rights Approach）…………………………70
2.4.3公共領域途徑（the Public Domain Approach）…………………71
2.4.4新重商主義途徑（the Neomercantilism Approach）………………74
2.5國際智慧財產權立法的現象分析…………………………………74
2.5.1共同的戰略可能：建制移轉（Regime Shifting）……………………75
2.5.2智慧財產權的社會動員（Social Mobilization）…………………77
2.5.3小結：國際智慧財產權立法的各種圖像…………………………79
2.6本章結論……………………………………………………………81
第參章
智慧財產權體系的本質與目的分析………………………………83
3.1智慧財產權的特性…………………………………………………83
3.1.1無體財產權（intangible property）…………………………………83
3.1.2非敵對性（Nonrivalrousness）……………………………………83
3.1.3非排他性（Nonexcludibility）………………………………………84
3.1.4智慧財產權的體系定位與智慧財產權的問題……………………85
3.2來自西方的各種主流智慧財產權與專利權觀……………………86
3.2.1洛克的（Lockean）財產權觀………………………………………87
3.2.2黑格爾的（Hegelian）財產權觀……………………………………88
3.2.3都鐸王朝的英國的專利權實踐概觀………………………………90
3.2.4傑佛遜的（Jeffersonian）專利權觀…………………………………91
3.2.5專利權的報償理論（reward theory）……………………………93
3.2.6專利權的契約理論（contract theory）……………………………95
3.3本章結論：如何看待專利權在國際智慧財產權體系之角色……96
3.3.1自然權利理論的不足………………………………………………96
3.3.2報償理論於後工業化時代的可能受到之批判……………………98
3.3小結：實定法下的智慧財產權定位與專利權之角色……………99
第肆章
以責任法則作為促進創新之手段…………………………………102
4.1財產法則與責任法則………………………………………………102
4.1.1財產法則（property rules）…………………………………………102
4.1.2責任法則（liability rules）…………………………………………104
4.1.3禁制法則（inalienability rules）……………………………………105
4.1.4小結…………………………………………………………………105
4.2個案研究：美國eBay案……………………………………………107
4.2.1案件經過……………………………………………………………107
4.2.2美國最高法院之決定………………………………………………108
4.2.3協同意見書之見解…………………………………………………109
4.3責任法則在智慧財產權上之適用性………………………………110
4.3.1專利強索（patent hold-up）之啟示………………………………110
4.3.2智慧財產權的特性…………………………………………………110
4.3.2.1強索策略（hold-up strategy）與智慧財產權之特性………………110
4.3.2.2財產權的範圍問題…………………………………………………111
4.3.3.3專利作為智慧財產權的之特殊性…………………………………112
4.4責任法則面臨之批判………………………………………………113
4.4.1補償不足以致侵蝕獲利動機………………………………………113
4.4.2評價價格不是不可能實現，就是無端增加法院負擔……………113
4.4.3另有其他機制可解決高交易成本之問題…………………………114
4.4.4對於批判之回應……………………………………………………115
4.5以責任法則作為促進開發中國家創新之手段……………………116
4.5.1禁制令（Preliminary Injunction）之層面……………………………117
4.5.1.1責任法則之啟示……………………………………………………117
4.5.1.2專利體制之修改──專利非顯著性之利用………………………117
4.5.2責任法則適宜促進創新之其他原因………………………………119
4.5.3責任法則是否合乎TRIPS協定之規定？…………………………120
第伍章
知識散佈、全球知識財與專利制度………………………………122
5.1全球知識財…………………………………………………………122
5.1.1全球知識的特性……………………………………………………122
5.1.2公共領域（Public Domain）之意義………………………………122
5.2美國法上的試驗免責例外…………………………………………125
5.2.1試驗免責之意義……………………………………………………125
5.2.1.1普通法上的試驗免責例外…………………………………………125
5.2.1.2成文法上的試驗免責例外…………………………………………126
5.2.2試驗免責案例舉隅…………………………………………………126
5.2.2.1Madey v. Duke University案………………………………………128
5.2.2.2Integra Lifesciense v. Merck KGaA案……………………………128
5.2.3上述案例法對試驗免責例外解釋之影響…………………………129
5.3拜杜法案（Bayh-Dole Act）與科學社群制度的變化………………130
5.3.1拜杜法案之立法背景簡介…………………………………………130
5.3.2拜杜法案受到之討論與批評………………………………………132
5.3.3拜杜法案之反思：對科學社群產生之衝擊………………………133
5.3.3.1科學社群的體制變化：從公有主義到知識獨占…………………133
5.3.3.2上游研究對未來研究的潛在威脅：封鎖、阻擋與延宕……………135
5.2.3上述案例法對試驗免責例外解釋之影響…………………………129
5.4小結：開發中國家與知識散佈……………………………………136
5.4.1開發中國家是否需要試驗免責條款？……………………………137
5.4.2開發中國家是否需要拜杜法案？…………………………………137
5.4.3試驗免責例外與拜杜法案對開發中國家的啟示…………………139
5.4.4小結：朝向更蓬勃的公共領域途徑發展…………………………141
第陸章
開發中國家與競爭法、專利制度的交錯…………………………144
6.1開發中國家與競爭法法制…………………………………………144
6.1.1競爭法與智慧財產權的交錯………………………………………144
6.1.2美國與歐盟：兩種體制的選擇……………………………………145
6.1.3國際競爭法的和諧化（Harmonization）……………………………147
6.2競爭法與專利權之交錯……………………………………………149
6.2.1競爭法上獨占與專利權獨占意義之不同…………………………149
6.2.2競爭法上禁止獨占與專利法上專利濫用之交錯…………………151
6.2.2.1專利濫用與反競爭行為……………………………………………152
6.2.2.2對於專利濫用之批評………………………………………………153
6.2.2.3專利濫用之救濟……………………………………………………154
6.2.3歐盟競爭法上之拒絕授權…………………………………………154
6.2.3.1歐盟競爭法與智慧財產權…………………………………………154
6.2.3.2關鍵設施原則之適用………………………………………………155
6.2.3.3歐盟競爭法對於使用智慧財產權構成濫用優勢地位之救濟……157
6.3個案研究……………………………………………………………157
6.3.1台灣歐盟飛利浦案…………………………………………………157
6.3.1.1案例事實簡述………………………………………………………157
6.3.1.2本案與競爭法相關問題之檢討……………………………………158
6.3.2藥商「霸凌」案………………………………………………………161
6.3.2.1南韓Gleevec案……………………………………………………161
6.3.2.2菲律賓Norvasc案…………………………………………………161
6.3.2.3討論：藥商行為構成反競爭行為之疑慮？………………………162
6.4小結：目前國際競爭法發展之問題………………………………163
6.4.1開發中國家與競爭法………………………………………………163
6.4.2檢討與展望：競爭法在開發中國家執行時可能發生之限制……165
第柒章
和諧與歧路：全球智慧財產權體系的展望及未來………………169
7.1闇雲籠罩的國際情勢………………………………………………169
7.1.1新雙邊談判的壓迫：自由貿易協定………………………………169
7.1.2新的國際智慧財產權立法模式：ACTA…………………………172
7.1.3國際智慧財產權立法的改變………………………………………174
7.1.3.1全新的論壇移轉方式………………………………………………174
7.1.3.2新的社會動員與語言詮釋…………………………………………175
7.2和諧與歧路：TRIPS協定永遠不足夠……………………………176
7.2.1搏扶搖羊角直上者九萬里：標準不斷攀升的龍捲風……………176
7.2.1.1自由貿易協定中各種有利於製藥產業的規定……………………178
7.2.1.2專利保護範圍之擴張………………………………………………181
7.2.2歧路亡羊：TRIPS協定例外與衡平規定之不足…………………184
7.2.2.1TRIPS協定第七、第八條…………………………………………184
7.2.2.2TRIPS協定例外與衡平規定之不足………………………………185
7.2.3大敵當前：公共選擇理論與機關虜獲……………………………186
第捌章
結論：開發中國家可行之對策檢討………………………………190
8.1傾競爭途徑（the Pro-competitive Approach）……………………190
8.2全人權途徑（the Human Rights Approach）………………………191
8.3公共領域途徑（the Public Domain Approach）……………………191
8.4新重商主義途徑（the Neomercantilism Approach）………………192
8.5結語…………………………………………………………………193

中文專書（依出版時序排列）
陳家駿、羅怡德，公平交易法與智慧財產權，五南出版社，民國八十八年。
何孝元，工業所有權之研究，重印三版，三民書局，民國九十一年。
路易‧杜蒙，個人主義論集，黃柏棋譯，聯經出版社，民國九十二年。
范建得、莊春發，公平交易法第二冊：不公平競爭，漢興出版社，民國九十八年。
Robert S. Pindyck & Daniel L, Rubinfeld 著，劉純之等譯，個體經濟學，華泰文化，第六
版，民國九十四年。
包宗和主編，國際關係理論，初版，台北，五南圖書公司，民國一百年。
中文期刊報章論文（依出版時序排列）
陳家駿、羅怡德，「美國反托拉斯法適用智慧財產權基本原則探討」，公平交易季刊，第
二卷第四期，民國八十三年。
謝銘洋，「從相關案例探討智慧財產權與民法之關係」，科技發展之智慧財產權議題，翰
蘆圖書出版有限公司，初版，民國八十四年。
謝銘洋，「生物技術之智慧財產權保護」，科技發展之智慧財產權議題，翰蘆圖書出版有
限公司，初版，民國八十四年。
周旭華，「世貿組織與其他國際組織之合作：政經背景、法律基礎與效能影響」，全球政
治評論，第三十二期，民國八十九年。
張亞中，「全球治理：主體與權力的解析」，問題與研究，第40 卷第四期，民國八十九
年。
陳文吟，「探討因應醫藥品專利之合理措施」，國立中正大學法學集刊，第八期，民國九
十一年。
倪貴榮，「WTO 智慧財產權保護與公共健康議題之發展趨勢」，經社法制論叢，第31 期，
民國九十二年。
李素華，「歐洲製藥大廠阻礙學名藥上市行為被控優勢地位濫用」，科技法律透析，民國
九十二年。
袁鶴齡，「全球治理與國際合作：論其策略與困境」，全球政治評論，第四期，民國九十
二年。
王立達，「從TRIPS 協定與公眾健康爭議論專利強制授權之功能與侷限」，科技法學評
論，第一卷，民國九十三年。
李俊增，「多元分歧與正當性：對Habermas 程序主義法理論之驗證」，政治與社會哲學
評論，第11 卷，民國九十三年。
林彩瑜，「WTO TRIPS 協定下醫藥專利與公共健康之問題及其解決方向」，政大法學評
論，第78 期，民國九十三年。
王美花，「智慧財產權最新國際發展之評析」，智慧財產權，第74 期，民國九十四年。
張靜貞、陳逸潔，「淺談香港部長會議對我國農業之影響」，中華經濟研究院台灣WTO
中心電子報，民國九十四年。
王立達，「TRIPS 協定之例外條款──以概括型例外條款為中心」，政大法學評論，第107
期，民國九十七年。
江念慈、程法彰，「論我國智慧財產權之立法政策——一個集體行動的分析架構」，科技
法律評析第一期，頁4，民國九十七年。
張毓欣、鄭琇霙，「WTO 於今年11 月底舉行第七屆部長會議」，經貿法訊，第95 期，
政大商學院國際經貿組織暨法律研究中心，民國九十八年。
江國慶，「藉國碩案階層化討論強制授權」，科技法律透析，民國九十九年。
倪貴榮，「WTO 會員設定強制授權事由的權限：以維也納條約法公約之解釋原則分析飛
利浦CD-R 專利特許實施事由與TRIPS 的相容性」，臺大法學論叢，第39 卷第三期，民
國九十九年。
周旭華，「多邊貿易談判的政治脈絡：國際關係理論作為WTO 政策研究工具之初探」，
東吳政治學報，第28 卷第二期，民國一百年。
鄭博文，韓致勝公式：模仿創新超越，聯合報 A17 民意論壇，民國一百零一年。
中文學位論文
廖文忠，以貿易手段保護智慧財產權之法律問題──以美國貿易法為例，政治大學法律
研究所碩士論文，民國八十二年。
林雅慧，智慧財產權之保障：開發中國家與已開發國家之衝突與妥協，國立中正大學財
法所碩士論文，民國九十七年八月。
陳建妤，從獨占事業濫用優勢地位論過高價格之管制──以歐盟為例，中原大學財經法
律學系碩士論文，民國九十二年六月。
英文專書（依出版時序排列）
Inge Kaul, Isabelle Grunberg and Marc Stern, Introduction: Global Public Goods:
International Cooperation in the 21st Century, Inge Kaul, Isabelle Grunberg and Marc Stern
ed., Oxford USA, 1999.
Keith E. Maskus, Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy, Institute for
International Economics, Washington, DC, 2000.
Anthony Giddens, The Third Way and its Critics, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, 2000.
Susan K. Sell, Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.
Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge
Economy?, New York: The New Press, 2007.
Carolyn Deere, The Implementation Game – The TRIPS Agreement and the Global Politics of
Intellectual Property Reform in Developing Countries, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
2009.
英文期刊報章論文（依作者姓氏與刊登時序排列）
Frederick M. Abbott, “Protecting First World Assets in the Third World: Intellectual Property Negotiations in the GATT Multilateral Framework” , Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 689-746, 1989.
Frederick M. Abbott, “The TRIPS-Legality of Measures Taken to Address Public Health Crises: A Synopsis”, Widener Law. Symposium Journal vol. 7, pp 71-85, 2001.
Frederick M. Abbott, “The WTO Medicines Decision: World Pharmaceutical Trade and the Protection of Public Health”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 317–358, 2005.
Keith Aoki, Neocolonialism, “Anticommons Property, and Biopiracy in the (Not-So-Brave) New World Order of International Intellectual Property Protection”, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 11–58, 1998.
Philip Alston, “Resisting the Merger and Acquisition of Human Rights by Trade Law: A Reply to Petersmann”, European Journal of International Law vol. 13:4, pp. 815–844, 2002.
Karen J. Alter and Sophie Meunier, “The Politics of International Regime Complexity”, Perspectives on Politics, vol. 7. no. 1, pp. 13-24, 2009.
Emily Ayoob, “Recent Development: the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement”, Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal |, vol. 28 pp. 175-193, 2010-2011.
Yochai Benkler, “Free as the air to Common Use: First Amendment Constrains on Enclosure of the Public Domain”, New York University Law Review, vol. 74, pp. 354-446, 1999.
James Boyle, “Fencing off Ideas: Enclosure & the Disappearance of the Public Domain”, Daedalus, Vol. 131, No. 2, pp. 13 – 25, 2002.
James Boyle, The second Enclosure movement and the Construction of the Public Domain, Duke University School of Law Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 66, pp. 33-74,Winter-Spring 2003.
Sara Boettiger & Alan Bennett, “The Bayh-Dole Act: Implications for Developing Countries", IDEA The Intellectual Property Law Review vol. 46, pp. 259-279, 2005-2006.
Paul S. Berman, “From International Law to Law and Globalization”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 43, pp. 485-556, 2005.
Paul S. Berman, “Global Legal Pluralism”, Southern California Review, Vol. 80, pp.1155-1237, 2007.
Barbosa, D. Borges, Marfret Chon, & Moncayo von Hase, “Slouching Towards Development in International Intellectual Property”, Michigan State Law Review, vol. 2007, pp.71–141,2008.
Robert Burrell & Kimberlee Weatherall, “Exporting Controversy? Reactions to the Copyright Provisions of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement: Lessons for U.S. Polic y”, University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology and Policy , vol. 2008, pp. 259–319, 2008.
Guido Calabresi & A. Douglas Melamed, “Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 85, No. 6., pp. 1089-1128, 1972.
Anupam Chander and Madhavi Sunder, “the Romance of Public Domain”, California Law Review, vol. 92, pp. 1331- 1373, 2004.
Carlos M. Correa, “Investment Protection in Bilateral and Free Trade Agreement Implications for the Granting of Compulsory Licenses”, Michigan Journal of International Law, vol. 331, pp. 332-353, 2004.
Carlos M. Correa, “Bilateralism in Intellectual Property: Defeating the WTO System for Access to Medicines”, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 36, issue 1,pp. 79-95, 2004.
Carlos M. Correa, “The Politics and Practicalities of a Disclosure of Origin Obligation”, Quaker United Nations Office, Occasional Paper No. 16, 2005.
Margaret Chon, “Intellectual Property and the Development Divide”, Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 27, pp. 2821-2912, 2006.
Thomas F. Cotter, “The Procompetitive Interest in International Property Law”, William and Mary Law Review, vol. 48 pp.483-557, 2006-2007.
Carolyn Deere-Birkbeck, “The pre-TRIPS context for developing country perspectives on intellectual property in the WTO: Setting the Context”, Research Handbook On The Protection Of Intellectual Property Under Wto Rules, Carlos Correa, ed., Edward Elgar:Oxford, 2009
Peter Drahos, “Information Feudalism in the Information Society”, The Information Society, vol. 11, pp. 209-222, 1995.
Peter Drahos, “Thinking Strategically About Intellectual Property Rights”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 21, Issue 3, pp. 201-211, April 1997.
Peter Drahos, “Expanding Intellectual Property’s Empire: The Role of FTAs”, GRAIN, pp. 2-7, Nov. 2003.
Peter Drahos, “Intellectual Properties and Pharmaceutical Companies: A Nodal Governance Approach”, Temple Law Review, vol. 77, pp. 401–424, 2004.
Peter Drahos, “BITS and BIPS: Bilateralism in Intellectual Property”, Journal of World Intellectual Property, vol. 4:6, pp. 791–808 (2008).
Vincenzo Denicolò and Luigi A. Franzoni, “The Contract Theory of Patents”, International Review of Law & Economics, Vol 23, No. 4, pp. 365-380, 2004.
Dreyfuss, “TRIPS-Round II: Should Users Strike Back? TRIPS-Round II: Should Users Strike Back?”, University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 21–35, 2004.
Rochelle C. Dreyfuss, Protecting the Public Domain of Science: Has the Time for an Experimental Use Defense Arrived?, Arizona Law Review, vol. 46, pp, 457–72, 2004.
Graeme B. Dinwoodie & Rochelle C. Dreyfuss, “TRIPS and the Dynamics of Intellectual Property Lawmaking”, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 36, pp. 95-122, 2004.
Graeme B. Dinwoodie & Rochelle C. Dreyfuss, “The International Intellectual Property Law System: New Actors, New Institutions, New Sources”, Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, vol. 10, pp. 205-214, 2006.
Klaus Dingwerth and Philipp Pattberg, “Global Governance as a Perspective on World Politics”, Global Governance, vol. 12, pp. 185-204 , 2006.
Ben Depoorter, “Property Rules, Liability Rules and Patent Market Failure”, Erasmus Law Review, vol. 1, pp. 59–74, 2008.
Rebecca S. Eisenberg, “Patents and the Progress of Science: Exclusive Rights and Experimental Use”, University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 56 pp. 1017-1086, 1989.
Rebecca S. Eisenberg, “Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Technology Transfer in Government-Sponsored Research”, Virginia Law Review, vol. 82, pp. 1663-1727, 1996.
Richard A. Epstein, “A Clear View of The Cathedral: The Dominance of Property Rules”,Yale Law Journal, 106, pp. 2091-2120, 1997.
Eleanor M. Fox, “Trade, Competition, and Intellectual Property—TRIPS and its Antitrust
Counterparts”, Vanderbilt Journal of. Transnational Law, vol. 29, pp. 481-505, 1996.
Robin C. Feldman, “The Insufficiency of Antitrust Analysis for Patent Misuse”, Hasting Law
Journal, December, vol. 55, pp.399-449, 2003-2004.
Thomas A Faunce et al., “Trans-Tasman Therapeutic Products Authority: Potential AUSFTA
Impacts on Safety and Cost-Effectiveness Regulation for Medicines”, Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 365-389, 2006.
Ruth L. Gana, “Prospects for Developing Countries under the TRIPS Agreement”, Vanderbilt Journal of. Transnational Law, vol. 29, pp. 735-775, 1996.
Daniel J. Gervais, “The Internationalization of Intellectual Property: New Challenge from the Very Old and the Very New”, Fordham Intellectual Property Media and Entertainment Journal,vol. 12, pp. 929–990, 2002.
Fiona Murray & Scott Stern, “Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder the Free Flow of Scientific Knowledge? An Empirical Test of the Anti-Commons Hypothesis”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 63, pp. 648-687, 2007.
James Mitchell Watkins and Mark Zachary Taylor, “Intellectual Property Protection and US Foreign Direct Investment in Emerging Economies”, Journal of Intellectual Property. Rights, vol. 15, pp. 415-428, 2010.
Ruth L. Okediji, “Back to Bilateralism? Pendulum Swings in International Intellectual Property Protection”, University of Ottawa Law & Technology Journal¸vol. 1, pp. 127-147, 2003-2004.
A. Samuel Oddi, “Nature and Scope of the Agreement TRIPS - Natural Rights and a "Polite Form of Economic Imperialism”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, vol. 29, pp. 415-70, 1996.
A. Samuel Oddi, “Un-Unified Economic Theories of Patents – The Not-Quite-Holy Grail”, Notre Dame Law Review, vol. 71, pp. 267–327, 1996.
A. Samuel Oddi, “The Tragicomedy of the Public Domain in Intellectual Property Law”, Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, vol. 25, pp. 1–64, 2002-2003.
A. Mitchell Polinsky, “On the Choice Between Property Rules and Liability Rules”, Economic Inquiry, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 233-246. , 1980.
Carlos Alberto Primo Braga, “The Economics of Intellectual Property Rights and the GATT: A View From the South”, Vanderbilt Journal of Trans-national Law, vol. 22, pp. 243-264, 1989.
Carlos A. Primo Braga and Carsten Fink, “The Relationship Between Intellectual Property Rights and Foreign Direct Investment”, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, vol. 9 163, pp. 163-186, 1998.
Gary Pulsinelli, “Share and Share Alike: Increasing Access to Government-Funded Inventions Under the Bayh-Dole Act”, Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, vol. 7, pp. 393- 482, 2006.
Arti K. Rai & Rebecca Eisenberg, “Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine”, Law & Contemporary Problems, vol. 66, no. 1–2, pp. 289–314, 2003.
Kal Raustiala & David G. Victor, “The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources”, International Organization , vol. 58, pp. 277-309, 2004.
Jerome H. Reichman, “Legal Hybrids Between the Patent and Copyright Paradigms”, Columbia Law Review, vol. 94, pp.2432 – 2558, 1994.
Jerome H. Reichman, “Universal Minimum Standards of Intellectual Property Protection under the TRIPS Component of the WTO Agreement”, The International Lawyer, vol. 29, pp. 345- 390, 1995.
Jerome H. Reichman, “From Free Riders to Fair Followers: Global Competition Under the TRIPS Agreement”, New York University Journal ofInternational Law and Politics, vol. 29, pp. 11–93, 1996-1997.
Jerome H. Reichman, “Bargaining Around the TRIPS Agreement: The Case for Ongoing Public-Private Initiatives to Facilitate Worldwide Intellectual Property Transactions”, Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, vol. 9, pp. 11–68 , 1998-1999.
Jerome H. Reichman, “The TRIPS Agreement Comes of Age: Conflict or Cooperation with the Developing Countries?”, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 441–470, 2000.
Jerome H. Reichman & Tracy Lewis, “Using Liability Rules to Stimulate Local Innovation in Developing Countries: Application to Traditional Knowledge”, International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime, Keith Maskus & Jerome H. Reichman ed., Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Jerome H. Reichman, “Intellectual Property in the Twenty-First Century: Will the Developing Countries Lead or Follow?”, Houston Law Review, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 1115-85, 2009.
Arti K. Rai, “Regulating Scientific Research: Intellectual Property Rights and the Norms of Science”, Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 94, pp. 77–152, 1999.
Henning G. Ruse-Khan, “The International Law Relation Between TRIPS and Subsequent TRIPS-PLUS Free Trade Agreements: Towards Safeguarding TRIPS: Toward Safeguarding TRIPS Flexibilities”, Journal of Intellectual Property Law, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 325-66, 2010-2011.
Peter Sainsbury, “Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement and the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme”, Yale Journal of Health Policy Law Ethics, vol. 4, pp. 387-99, 2004.
Pamela Samuelson, “The U.S. Digital Agenda at WIPO”, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 369–440, 1997.
Pamela Samuelson and Suzanne Scotchmer, “The Law and Economics of Reverse Engineering”, The Yale Law Journal, vol. 111, pp. 1575-1663, 2002.
Panmela Samuelson, “Enriching Disclosure of Public Domain”, Duke Law Journal, vol. 55, pp. 783–834, 2006.
Jeanne L. Schroeder, “Unnatural Rights: Hegel and Intellectual Property”, University of Miami Law Review, vol. 60, no 4, p. 453-504, 2006.
Suzanne Scotchmer, “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 29-41, 1991.
Suzanne Scotchmer, “The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Treaties”, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 415-437, 2004.
Susan K. Sell, “Intellectual Property Protection and Antitrust in the Developing World: Crisis, Coercion, and Choice”, International Organization, vol. 49, no.2, pp. 315-349, 1995.
Susan K. Sell, “The Quest for Global Governance in Intellectual. Property and Public Health: Structural, Discursive and Institutional Dimensions”, Temple Law Review, vol. 77, pp. 363–399, 2004.
Susan K. Sell, “TRIPS plus Free Trade Agreements and Access to Medicines”, Liverpool Law Review, vol. 28, pp 41-75, 2007.
Kenneth C. Shadlen, “Intellectual Property, Trade, and Development: Can Foes be Friends?”, Global governance, vol. 13, pp. 171-177, 2007.
H. E. Smith, “Property and Property Rules”, New York University Law Review, vol. 79, pp. 1719-1798, 2004.
Stewart E. Sterk, “Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Uncertainty About Property Rights”, Michigan Law Review, vol. 106, pp. 1285–1336, 2006.
Josepf E. Stiglitz, “Knowledge as Global Public Good”, Global Public Goods; International Cooperation in the 21st Century, ed. I. Kaul, I. Grunberg, M. A. Stern, NewYork/Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999.
Katherine J. Strandburg, “What Does the Public Get? Experimental Use and the Patent Bargain”, Wisconsin Law Review, vol. 2004, pp. 81–155, 2004.
L Danielle Tully, “Prospects for Progress: The TRIPS Agreement and Developing Countries After the DOHA Conference”, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, vol. 26, pp. 129-143, 2003.
Mathew Turk, “Bargaining and Intellectual Property Treaties: the Case for a Pro-Development Interpretation of TRIPS but not TRIPS-Plus”, New York University Law Review, vol. 42, pp. 981-1029, 2009-2010.
Laura S. Underkuffler, “On Property: An Essay”, Yale Law Journal, vol. 100, pp. 127–48, 1990.
Kenneth N. Waltz, “Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory”, Journal of International Affairs, vol. 44, pp. 21-37, 1995.
Kimberlee Weatherall, “ACTA as a New Kind of International IP Lawmaking”, American University International Law Review, vol. 26, pp. 839-901, 2011.
Peter K. Yu, “Piracy, Prejudice, and Perspectives: An Attempt to Use Shakespeare to Reconfigure the U.S.-China Intellectual Property Debate”, Boston University International Law Journal, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1–88, 2001.
Peter K. Yu, “From Prates to Partners: Protecting Intellectual Property in China in the Twenty-First Century”, American University Law Review, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 131–243, 2001.
Peter K. Yu, “The Objectives and Principles of the TRIPS Agreement”, Houston Law Review, vol. 46, pp. 979-1046, 2009.
Peter K. Yu, “A Tale of Two Development Agendas”, Ohio Northern University Law Review, vol. 35, pp. 465–573, 2009.
Peter K. Yu, “Six Secret (and Now Open) Fears of ACTA”, SMU Law Review, vol. 64, pp. 975-1094, 2011.