Correlación estratigráfica al sur del Campo Llanito

In recent research based on the institutional approach to innovation, IPRs have become increasingly important in the sustainable development strategy of a firm and country. The intellectual property (IP) regime is the specific institution through which to legally secure exclusive rights for intangible assets, such as ideas, knowledge, inventions and discoveries (Song, 2006). IPRs protect owners that are granted monopolies against the utilisation or reproduction of innovations without a license for a certain period of time. IPRs include patents, trademarks, copyrights, industrial design rights and trade secrets in various fields (Boldrin and Levine, 2004).

IPRs have been frequently discussed and debated in the area of social science in relation to various topics, such as international trade, human resources, finance, innovation and industrial development, including biotechnology and media industries (Maskus, 2000; Lesser, 2001; Lall, 2003; Schneider, 2005; Branstetter et al., 2007). IPRs are broadly categorised by two objectives in the process of technical innovation: pro-creation and pro- diffusion. The creation of novel ideas and innovative technologies is the main agenda in the former, whereas the latter focuses on the diffusion of existing knowledge and technologies with the channel of imitation or licensing (also see Song, 2006). In developing countries, the pro-diffusion role of IPRs tends to be given a great deal of weight in the improvement of innovation capabilities over pro-creation, which plays a significant role in developed countries, because of a lack of financial, technical and organisational resources in the process

of technical innovation (Maskus, 2000; Lall, 2003). In the absence of intellectual assets, Hobday (1995) underscored the significance of technological linkages with multinational enterprise (MNEs) or firms in advanced economies as an important channel of knowledge learning, transfer, diffusion and spillover in emerging economies.

The large body of research on innovation provides discussion of the positive effects of tough IPRs on the development of technology capabilities through the promotion of knowledge generation and diffusion, technology transfer and private investment flows. Policy makers have reinforced IPRs with the aim of making active research capital investments in the generation and diffusion of knowledge in the local market by supporting technology proprietors (Maskus, 2000; Song, 2006). Also, tough IPRs target the increase of FDI inflows and innovation processes of technologically advanced countries (i.e., the United States) in host countries, because they are unlikely to enter into licensing contracts with firms and conduct R&D spending in countries with weak IPRs (Mansfield, 1994; Song, 2006); “weak

property rights in many emerging markets mean that firms have only limited ability to negotiate enforceable arms-length contracts. Fearful that they will lose intellectual property, firms from developed economies may hesitate to license technology in emerging economies”

(Mahmood and Mitchell, 2004, p.1350:1). Based on this view, the World Bank (1998) highlighted the importance of FDI, stronger IPRs and openness as significant factors influencing knowledge acquisition and foreign technology imports in developing countries.

However, strong IPRs can negatively affect local technology capabilities with the high likelihood of delays in the innovation rate in emerging economies, especially heavily FDI or foreign technology-dependent nations (Kim, 2002; Falvey et al., 2006; Branstetter et

al., 2007; Lee and Kim, 2008). Falvey et al. (2006) pointed out the positive effect of a soft IP

regime on economic and technological growth in low-income countries by facilitating technology transfer and FDI, but their negative links in middle-income countries because of

the difficulty of technology catch-up through imitation. Lall (2003) emphasised the importance of the level of development in terms of industry, technology and economy in producing a beneficial result in local markets under a tough IP regime (also see Lesser, 2001).

“Weak IPRs can help local firms in early stages to build technological capabilities by permitting imitation and reverse engineering. This is certainly borne out by the experience of the East Asian ‘Tigers’ like Korea and Taiwan that developed strong indigenous capabilities in an array of sophisticated industries. The available historical and cross-section evidence supports the presumption that the need for IPRs varies with the level of development. Many rich countries used weak IPR protection in their early stages of industrialization to develop local technological bases, increasing protection as they approached the leaders” (Lall, 2003,

p.1661:2). From the perspective of pro-diffusion, the strong protection of IPRs obstructs the flows of foreign capital and technology transfer in early industrialisation due to the high costs of imitation and technology import (Helpman, 1993; Maskus, 2000). Kim (2003) highlighted the point that “a) IPR protection would hinder rather than facilitate technology transfer to

and indigenous learning activities in the early stage of industrialization when learning takes place through reverse engineering and duplicative imitation of mature foreign products; b) only after countries have accumulated sufficient indigenous capabilities with extensive science and technology infrastructure to undertake creative imitation in the later stage that IPR protection becomes an important element in technology transfer and industrial activities”

(Kim, 2003, p.7:3).

This suggests that weak IPRs could benefit countries with a small domestic R&D base and scant talent, especially when entering the immature technology stage. Existing studies on technological advanced countries have shown the casual relationship among strong IPRs and innovative research capacity (Park and Ginarte, 1997; Song, 2006), and among strong IPRs and high-quality human capital (Helpman, 1993; Branstetter et al., 2007). To

benefit from IPRs in the context of developing countries, the development of autonomous R&D capacity and human capital are urgent for the improvement of imported techniques and further development of new products and technologies.

Therefore, the present study has analysed effective policy measures supporting IPRs as an important determinant of national technology capabilities, and by extension how the Korean and Japanese governments have tried to facilitate R&D and innovative activities in the creation, protection and utilisation of IP, the main driving forces for the reform of IPRs, especially patent-related policies, toward strong IPRs to accelerate patent registration and faster commercialisation; it has also analysed how policy measures and IP regime facilitate patented technology transfer, as well as the role that IPRs play in catching up and developing technology capabilities.