We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Edited by
Daniel Benoliel, University of Haifa, Israel,Peter K. Yu, Texas A & M University School of Law,Francis Gurry, World Intellectual Property Organization,Keun Lee, Seoul National University
Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are confronted with a new world order in which the major economic powers that promoted multilateralism have moved toward nationalism, localization of production, and de-legalization of dispute settlement in favor of balance of power diplomacy. A counterpart to this trend is declining interest in developmental assistance. It remains to be determined how countries that are not part of the new great power dynamic will acclimate to this new world. LMICs have the opportunity to leapfrog in the current technological environment. A key challenge is securing adequate capital investment, including through the private sector. There is a trend among the capital-exporting countries to negotiate bilateral and plurilateral agreements with LMICs that preclude regulatory measures requiring technology transfer as a condition of foreign direct investment. Because individual private investors within LMICs may lack substantial bargaining power, these agreements diminish LMICs’ capacity to secure favorable terms for technology transfer. LMICs confront terms of trade that favor high-income countries and, more broadly, the ascendance of managed trade policy among economically powerful states. These factors portend the perpetuation of the marked disparity in the distribution of global income and wealth. There are no “magic bullet” solutions on the horizon.
This chapter looks forward by looking back, examining the local production of COVID-19 vaccines in the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region. The focus is on technology transfer for local production. That is, while efforts to produce original, "home-grown" vaccines are discussed, attention is primarily directed at the production in LAC countries of the leading vaccines that were most used internationally. Through analysis of technology transfer, as well as the accompanying regulatory challenges, the chapter sheds light on the intense challenges involved with pandemic vaccine production in the Global South. To be sure, with LAC vaccination rates among the highest in the world by late 2022, the issues discussed in this chapter may appear not to be pressing any longer. But building production capabilities – and tapping into existing capabilities – has important implications for preparedness for future pandemics.
The protection of intellectual property (IP) is a question of life and death. COVID-19 vaccines, partially incentivized by IP, are estimated to have saved nearly 20 million lives worldwide during the first year of their availability in 2021. The vast majority of the benefit of this lifesaving technology, however, went to high- and upper-middle-income countries. Despite 10 billion vaccines having been produced by the end of 2021, only 4 percent of people in low-income countries were fully vaccinated. Paradoxically, IP may also be partly responsible for hundreds of thousands of lives lost in 2021, due to insufficient supply of vaccines and inequitable access during the critical first year of vaccine rollout, most notably in low-income countries that lacked the ability to buy or manufacture vaccines to save their populations. The contributors to this book diagnose a number of causes for the inequitable distribution of life-saving COVID-19 vaccines, from misguided reliance on intellectual property rights and voluntary mechanisms to share knowledge and vaccines, to the rise of vaccine nationalism and vaccine diplomacy, to unequal global intellectual property institutions that disenfranchise low-income countries and continue to reproduce colonial era dependency by poor countries on high income nations for life-saving technologies. Global experts herein suggest several reforms to prevent such inequity in the next pandemic, including delinking vaccine development from monopoly rights in technology, enhanced legal requirements to share publicly-funded technologies in pandemic times, and investment in technology transfer hubs and local vaccine manufacturing capacity in low and middle-income countries.
This chapter proposes the establishment of a Patent Philanthropy Initiative (PPI) as an alternative approach to equipping the global community with better preparedness for future public health crises. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) would be called upon to administer the PPI. Pharmaceutical companies owning USPTO-granted medical patents would be required to contribute 1 percent of their annual post-tax profits accrued from their patented medicines to the PPI. Such financial contributions would then be deployed by pharmaceutical companies to promote public health in the United States and abroad through transferring knowledge, donating medical products, constructing facilities, training professionals, and facilitating public health education.
Energy technologies are ‘the combination of hardware, techniques, skills, methods and processes’ involved in ‘producing, transforming, storing, transporting and using energy’. The IEA database captures over 500 mature and immature ‘clean energy’ technologies worldwide that contribute to achieving the goal of net-zero emissions. This chapter will show that international economic law is applicable to government interventions in even the early stages of technology development. For example, State-imposed R&D investment obligations may be banned by IIA provisions on performance requirements, and public incentives for R&D may be disciplined by WTO subsidy rules. Once commercialized, green technologies can reach foreign markets due to international trade and technology transfers that fall within the scope of international economic rules. Reducing trade barriers to environmental goods and services could give a further boost to the international movement of energy-related green technologies. While the importance of green technology transfers between countries is widely recognized, trade and investment rules must be consulted when imposing technology transfer measures.
Chapter 1 examines the popular and official fascination with Amerikanizm in the Soviet Union. The term connotated not only a desire to acquire American technology, but to learn to emulate uniquely American know-how, efficiency, practicality, ingenuity, and energy. Overwhelmingly, the Soviet people who visited the United States in the 1930s came to study American technology. To take advantage of the tantalizing business opportunities offered by this Soviet interest, the US government and businesses put few restrictions on visiting engineers. Although Ilf and Petrov were writers – “engineers of human souls” rather than engineers – they too focused on the promises of American “technique” (tekhnika), positing that in Soviet hands the capitalists’ tools would serve the workers’ interests.
Edited by
Scott L. Greer, University of Michigan,Michelle Falkenbach, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies,Josep Figueras, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies,Matthias Wismar, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies
This chapter explores the links between Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 (specifically targets 3.3, 3.8, and 3.b, which address the need to fight communicable diseases, achieve universal health coverage, and invest in research and development of vaccines and medicines, respectively) and SDG 9, which calls for the development of industry, innovation, and infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). By discussing two case studies, i.e., Brazil’s technology transfer strategy for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine through a public–private partnership and the implementation of the Mozambican Pharmaceutical Ltd., a Brazil-Mozambique South-South cooperation (SSC) project, it argues that initiatives such as technology transfer and local production of pharmaceuticals in LMICs can be a means to promote industrial and innovation goals while meeting health needs. With significant variations between them, the two case studies illustrate the dynamic interaction between SDG 3 and SDG 9, helping to elucidate the co-benefits between health policy and measures to promote scientific and technological development. The chapter calls for further research to better understand which channels, governance arrangements, and mechanisms can promote effective coordination between healthcare and industrial development.
In January 2023, Moderna announced its intent to increase the price of the COVID-19 vaccine it co-developed with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by 400%. The federal government should pressure Moderna to change course and resume buying doses for all Americans, leveraging its purchasing power to obtain a fair price.
This Article critically analyzes seven elements of the Biden administration trade policy: (1) buy American; (2) tariffs; (3) World Trade Organization; (4) free trade agreements; (5) China; (6) technology; and (7) Russia. Although President Biden has made a clean break from Trump policies in many areas, this is not the case when it comes to international trade. Regretfully, Biden has chosen to keep in place most of the failed trade policies of his predecessor—the Trump tariffs and the China trade war. It is not too late to shift ground, to negotiate mutual abolition of the Trump tariffs, to open free trade negotiations with the EU and UK, to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, to adopt a multilateral strategy with allies to check Chinese trade excesses, and to reengage with the World Trade Organization. Topping the list of needed reforms of the multilateral trading system are: (1) subsidies; (2) state-owned enterprises; and (3) forced technology transfer. These are best addressed through a WTO plurilateral agreement and/or preferential trade agreements. The Biden administration should prioritize these urgent reforms. Rather than promoting “free” trade and multilateral trade reforms, the Biden administration continues its predecessor’s nationalistic policies so that trade serves domestic political ends. Such state intervention in trade policy consists of the strategic use of tariffs, subsidies, “buy American” rules, and regional trade arrangements without regard to the rules of the multilateral trading system. These new policies represent a decisive retreat from globalization and openness to trade.
The Congress, directed by the Biden administration, has adopted a far-reaching industrial policy in the form of four laws that subsidize key sectors of the U.S. economy: American Rescue Plan Act ($40 billion); Infrastructure and Jobs Act ($1.2 trillion); Inflation Reduction Act ($369 billion); and Chips Act ($252.7 billion). This subsidization coupled with “buy American” protectionism constitute a departure from the free trade ideal that has characterized U.S. policy since the end of World War II.
The transfer of sericulture into Byzantium is a critical episode in the global dissemination of silk production technology. However, it is now widely accepted that the explanatory model portraying the transfer as a one-off event is at odds with the historical facts. This article seeks to reassess the transfer of this technology through the lens of appropriation, interpreted as a process. Based on a detailed analysis of the limited evidence available, it attempts to reconstruct the process from transregional and diachronic perspectives, embracing, on the one hand, the transmission of sericulture from China to Byzantium and, on the other, its development in Byzantium over time. This reconstruction offers an explanation for unresolved historical problems. It also constitutes a template for modelling the global transfer of technology in the premodern world, potentially of great value for an in-depth understanding of the transfer.
The importance of inter- and transdisciplinary research for addressing today’s complex challenges has been increasingly recognised. This requires new forms of communication and interaction between researchers from different disciplines and nonacademic stakeholders. Demonstrators constitute a crucial communication tool in technology research and development and have the potential to leverage communication between different bodies of knowledge. However, there is little knowledge on how to design demonstrators. This research aims to understand how demonstrators from the fields Internet of Things and Robotics are designed to communicate technology. The goal is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of demonstrator practice with readily implemented design knowledge and to advance theoretical knowledge in the field of communicating artefacts. We thematically analysed 28 demonstrator design cases, which led to a typology that assists in categorising and understanding 13 key design principles. The typology is built from three perspectives: First, in terms of the overall goal communication, second, in terms of visitor engagement goals (attraction, initial engagement, deep engagement) and third, in terms of resource-related goals (low effort in development and operation). With this typology, we have taken a significant step towards understanding demonstrator design principles for effective technology communication between different stakeholders.
Recent studies relate the introduction of Early Neolithic flint mining practices to the migration and rapid expansion of agricultural groups from north-western continental Europe into present-day Britain and southern Scandinavia. Here, the authors critically analyse this hypothesis, using a case study from south-western Sweden to demonstrate how transregional processes played out locally with their own dynamics, c. 4000 BC. They conclude that migration and population change only partly can explain what happened during the centuries immediately before and after 4000 BC. Local variation in human-material relationships also needs to be considered.
The lion's share of smartphones, computers, televisions, semiconductor devices, and other electronics goods is made in East Asia. Final electronics goods are assembled in China, and sophisticated parts and components (P&C) such as semiconductor chips, image sensors, and ceramic filters in upstream Asian economies such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. How did Asia become the center of electronics manufacturing? How did learning take place that allowed Asian workers to produce cutting-edge products? Are there lessons for countries like the US that seek to reshore manufacturing of semiconductors, flat-panel displays, and related products? This Element addresses these issues.
How do you read a patent and what subject matter is patentable? What is the purpose of a patent? Who is an inventor on the patent if work is done by many people on the project? What is the process of obtaining a patent in my country and globally? Read this chapter to see how you could lose commercialization rights to your own invention. When exactly does an invention or idea become patentable? Once you own a patent, how can you make money from it? What is the process of licensing and the key terms that should be negotiated in such a license agreement? What is the use of a copyright or a trade secret in biotech? What exactly constitutes patent infringement ? These questions and many others are addressed in this chapter on intellectual property.
Preparing for scale-up in commercial manufacturing is far away from the thoughts of companies involved in product development, but this chapter shows when to start planning and how to plan a practical budget for this activity. For companies with their first product in commercial development, the build vs buy decision is never an easy one and the examples and key points for consideration simplify that process. The biggest challenge in scaling up is the gap in culture between R&D production for experimental testing in preclinical stages and the control and quality oriented culture in the manufacturing location. The case studies and content in the chapter specifically highlight how to achieve a successful technology transfer into commercial GMP manufacturing. The chapter content also gives practical guidelines on what it takes to put GMP and quality systems in place.
Health technology assessment (HTA) is commonly used to guide evidence-informed decisions to optimize resource use, prioritize policies, and support countries to achieve universal health coverage. Producing HTAs requires time, scientific expertise, and political commitment, but these are not available in all settings – especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) where HTA processes may be less institutionalized. Transferring and adapting existing HTAs to local settings may offer a solution while reducing duplication efforts. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of tools, methods, approaches, and considerations which can aid HTA transfers. We systematically searched (from 2005 to 2020) six databases and, using predefined inclusion criteria, included twenty-two studies. Data extraction followed a structured process, while synthesis was more iterative. We identified a common approach for HTA transfers. It follows the de novo process of undertaking original HTAs, but with additional steps to assess relevance (applicability), quality, and transferability, as well as steps to adapt parameters where necessary. The EUnetHTA Adaptation Toolkit was the only tool that provided guidance for adapting multiple HTA domains. Other tools were specific to systematic reviews (n = 1) or economic evaluations (n = 12), where one provided guidance for systematic reviews of economic evaluations. Eight papers reported transferring an HTA, with only one transferring to an LMIC. Finally, we reported issues that may facilitate or hinder transferability. In conclusion, we identified fourteen transfer approaches in the form of guidance or checklists, but harmonized and pragmatic guidance for HTA transfers to suit settings with limited HTA capacity seems warranted.
Chapter 14 covers legal issues arising in the context of academic research and technology transfer. A brief history of university technology development and the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 are given, followed by a discussion of various issues that have arisen under the Act. The Act’s effect on ownership of IP is discussed with reference to Stanford v. Roche (2011). Its requirements for royalty sharing and US manufacturing are discussed. The area of march-in rights is illustrated through the dispute over Fabryzyme. Next focus shifts to the role of university technology transfer offices (TTOs) and ways that universities have attempted to shape university technology transfer over the years, including through the 2007 Nine Points document and the highlighting of issues such as reserved rights, limits on exclusivity, socially-responsible licensing and price controls. Next, other forms of university technology development agreement are discussed, including sponsored research and materials transfer agreements. The chapter concludes with a discussion of university policies relating to copyright.
Industrialization in China has followed complicated paths over the last century and a half. China, like Russia, Germany, and Japan, followed in the footsteps of the pioneering industrial nations. For the first pioneering generation, industrialization developed indigenously, building on preindustrial handicraft traditions, inventing new technologies using water and steam power, and creating new corporate management systems. The new technologies of steamships, railroads, the telegraph, and the telephone transformed transportation and communication networks. Private entrepreneurs played central roles in the development of the new industrial systems, aided by protective tariffs and other state measures designed to promote industrial and commercial development.
The last 50 years have seen an increasing dependence on academic institutions to develop and commercialize new biomedical innovations, a responsibility for which many universities are ill-equipped. To address this need, we created LEAP, an asset development and gap fund program at Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL). Beyond awarding funds to promising projects, this program aimed to promote a culture of academic entrepreneurship, and thus improve WUSTL technology transfer, by providing university inventors with individualized consulting and industry expert feedback. The purpose of this work is to document the structure of the LEAP program and evaluate its impact on the WUSTL entrepreneurial ecosystem. Our analysis utilizes program data, participant surveys, and WUSTL technology transfer office records to demonstrate that LEAP consistently attracted new investigators and that the training provided by the program was both impactful and highly valued by participants. We also show that an increase in annual WUSTL start-up formation during the years after LEAP was established and implicate the program in this increase. Taken together, our results illustrate that programs like LEAP could serve as a model for other institutions that seek to support academic entrepreneurship initiatives.
In this study, Marcello Mogetta examines the origins and early dissemination of concrete technology in Roman Republican architecture. Framing the genesis of innovative building processes and techniques within the context of Rome's early expansion, he traces technological change in monumental construction in long-established urban centers and new Roman colonial cites founded in the 2nd century BCE in central Italy. Mogetta weaves together excavation data from both public monuments and private domestic architecture that have been previously studied in isolation. Highlighting the organization of the building industry, he also explores the political motivations and cultural aspirations of patrons of monumental architecture, reconstructing how they negotiated economic and logistical constraints by drawing from both local traditions and long-distance networks. By incorporating the available evidence into the development of concrete technology, Mogetta also demonstrates the contributions of anonymous builders and contractors, shining a light on their ability to exploit locally available resources.