Search

Over the past four decades, Intellectual Property (IP) has been one of the main controversies of US-China trade relations. But the current US-China trade war contains a new focus - technology transfer. This article adopts a socio-legal and economic approach to examine the current technology and trade tensions between these two countries and why China became an Information Technology (IT) powerhouse. It first provides an overview of IP and technology transfer rules under the Phase One US-China Economic and Trade Agreement (POA). It then explores different forms of forced technology transfer activities and the in-depth reasons for the US to shift its main IP concerns from IP enforcement to technology transfer. It explains why the US and China trade war is inevitable, why the current US-China IP-trade war is significantly different from previous ones, and the economic and political reasons behind the global technology leadership competition by the two countries. Finally, the author concludes that the POA and its technology transfer rules are not the ends of the game but just the start of the global technology leadership competition between the US and China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is technology transfer and what does it need to succeed? Various factors concerning the scientist, the academic institution, a fresh entrepreneur or an existing company, government policies and the environment contribute to greater efficiency in transferring technologies from academia to industry. These factors are discussed here with reference to the situation in the US and India. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper will focus on the recent development of the Chinese IP abuse legislation and its potential impact on IP protection and the operation of technology-driven foreign enterprises in China. Firstly, it will provide a brief overview of the TRIPS''s requirements on IPR abuse and technology transfer, and the recent development of IP abuse laws at the domestic level, particularly in the US and the EC. Secondly, by drawing a comparison with similar laws in the US and the EC, this paper will critically examine the recent development of the Chinese laws regarding technology transfer and IP abuse prevention, including both the recently enacted Anti-Monopoly Law 2008 (AML) and other prior-AML regulations. Thirdly, the paper will examine both opportunities and potential risks these laws may bring to foreign IP holders/technology-driven companies when operating in China, particularly focusing on the impact of the IP-related provision in the AML. Recent development in antitrust litigation in which Microsoft is a party, including the recent anti-monopoly investigation against Microsoft in China, will also be examined. Lastly, it will provide some practical suggestions for foreign IP holders and technology-driven companies to operate in China, such as useful defences against potential IP abuse claims, and other strategies for flexibly applying the IP abuse rules and better participating in future IP abuse legislative process in China. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article analyzes the U.S. licensing experience longitudinally, discussing policy implications, addressing emerging trends specifically among developing nations, and suggesting that royalty revenue-driven technology licensing in developing countries is the wrong public policy to adopt. Enactment of the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act in 1980 encouraged research institutions in the U.S. to patent technology developed with federal funding. This enabled substantial growth in patenting. The article explores the effects of the act in licensing at U.S. research institutions. A detailed examination of licensing patterns among U.S. institutions reveals four broad institutional categories. Investment in patents and licensing programs has certain advantages, such as encouraging development of technology and innovation. But earning licensing income from academic research is neither a lucrative nor a reliable financial investment. It is unlikely that scientific centers in developing countries would prove more likely or capable or producing readily commercial technologies than those in the U.S. The article suggests that efforts to transfer technology and foster economic growth in developing countries ought to be encouraged, but emphasis on licensing programs may prove to be financially unproductive.

This article explores the initiatives launched to deal with the global prevalence of piracy as of September 1990. Multinational firms are pressuring the U.S. government to control the unauthorized use of intellectual property. While developed countries are pushing the lesser developed countries to enact and enforce appropriate legal protections, both nationally and through cooperation with global organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Most experts agree that intellectual property protection will promote foreign investment in lesser developed countries and aid technology transfer.

The article reflects on the impact of selling intellectual property by university technology transfer offices in the U.S. to patent aggregators on the future development of technologies as of 2013. It informs that a report by the U.S. Executive Office of the President has revealed that 62 percent of patent lawsuits in 2012 in the U.S. have been initiated by patent assertion entities (PAEs). It also mentions that the STOP Act requires the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to reexamine patents.

The article reports on the revolutionary changes in patenting academic research in the U.S. It cites that Genentech Inc., a Californian biotechnology company, has resolved a case with the University of California with the settlement payment of $200 million over the allegation that a researcher has slipped human growth hormone DNA out of the university's laboratory. Furthermore, a study reveals that patented discoveries made at universities are redirected to privately owned firms because of system failures. In addition, industry experts suggest some ways to keep patents at the universities including ensuring relations between technology-transfer offices and faculty members.

The article reports that calling India "a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology," the U.S. Administration this week agreed to share U.S. civil nuclear technology with its ally despite India's refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. A Washington visit by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also produced a protocol on the contentious issue of intellectual property rights for joint research projects. Export controls between the nations will also be scaled back, agricultural projects boosted, and joint space projects tackled.

The article reports on the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act (B-D), which has had a profound impact on science in the U.S. and, indirectly, in other nations as well. Under B-D, the U.S. government renounced intellectual property claims on research supported by federal funds in universities or other nongovernment institutions. The argument in its favor went this way: because few patents were being issued on government-funded work, scientists and their institutions needed an incentive to patent their discoveries and then license the new technology for development into useful products. To those who had worried about technology transfer, it's a huge success.