Vandana Shiva

The western patents lobby would however have us believe that patents are necessary are necessary for growth and high standards of living in free markets which are realized through technology generation. IPRs help stimulate investment, particularly foreign direct investment (FDI), technology transfer from [global] North to South, and research and innovation, by allowing inventors to recoup R&D costs. Essentially then the public benefits of patenting and disclosure far outweigh the costs of artificial monopolies in the marketplace. The real picture however couldn't be more different. IPRs have been used for plain 'political coercion' by industrial countries, particularly the US. By the late 1970s and 1980s the US government had acknowledged that a structural technology gap was seriously emerging between its economy and Japan's. Therefore, policy was directed to aggressively freeze the artificial advantage still enjoyed by American industry through an expansive IPR policy. A survey carried out in 1984 bears this out. Over eighty per cent of the companies contacted indicated that 'blocking technical areas' with no intention of working the invention was prime motive for patenting. Patents are described as 'trump cards' to negotiate licences. In other words, the patent system 'regulates' competition. It does not necessarily stimulate technology generation, much less diffusion.