Skip to main content
×
Home

History and the Debate Over Intellectual Property

  • Mike W. Peng (a1), David Ahlstrom (a2), Shawn M. Carraher (a1) and Weilei (Stone) Shi (a3)
Abstract
ABSTRACT

This article responds to recent calls for organizational research to address larger, more globally relevant questions and to pay attention to history, by analyzing the crucial debate over intellectual property rights (IPR) between the United States and China. Despite the recent US position, the United States has not always been a leading IPR advocate. Rather, it was a leading IPR violator during the nineteenth century. An institution-based view of IPR history suggests that both the US refusal to protect foreign IPR in the nineteenth century and the current Chinese lack of enthusiasm to meet US IPR demands represent rational choices. However, as cost-benefit considerations change institutional transitions are possible. We predict that to the same extent the United States voluntarily agreed to strengthen IPR protection when its economy became sufficiently innovation-driven, China will similarly improve its IPR protection.

摘要:

本文通过分析美国和中国之间关于知识产权 (IPR) 至关重要的辩论, 回应最近对组织研究以解决更大的在全球范围更相关的问题的和注重历史的呼吁。尽管近期的美国立场, 美国并不一直是领先的知识产权倡导者。相反, 在十九世纪它是一个领先的知识产权违规者。知识产权历史的制度基础观认为, 美国在十九世纪对保护外国IPR的拒绝和当前中国缺乏满足美国对IPR要求的热情体现了理性选择。然而, 由于成本效益分析的演化, 制度交易是可能的。我们预测, 与美国在其经济充分成为创新驱动时自愿同意加强IPR保护的程度一样, 中国将类似地改进其IPR保护。

यह शोध पत्र अंतर्राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर प्रासंगिक प्रश्नों के संगठनीय शोध में ध्यान देने व ऐतिहासिक परिप्रेक्ष्य लेने के अभिनव आह्वान के तहत चीन व अमरीका (यू. एस. ए.) के बीच महत्वपूर्ण बौद्धिक सम्पदा संरक्षण सम्बन्धी विवादों का विश्लेषण करता है. अपने वर्तमान दृष्टिकोण के बावजूद अमरीका सदैव बौद्धिक सम्पदा संरक्षण पर अग्रणी व्याख्याता नहीं था. इसके विपरीत 19 वीं शताब्दी में अमरीका बौद्धिक सम्पदा अधिकारों का उल्लंघन करने में अग्रणी था. संस्थागत परिप्रेक्ष्य में 19 वीं शताब्दी में बौद्धिक सम्पदा अधिकार बचने से इनकार और सम्प्रति चीन की अमरीकी बौद्धिक सम्पदा अधिकार बचानी में उत्साह की कमी-दोनों हे अपने सन्दर्भ में तर्कसंगत हैं. फिर भी जैसे-जैसे लागत-लाभ विश्लेषण विकसित होता है, संस्थागत परिवर्तन संभव है. हमारा अनुमान है की जिस स्तर तक अर्थव्यवस्था के नवरचनापरक होने पर जिस प्रकार अमरीका स्वेच्छा से बौद्धिक सम्पदा अधिकार लागू करने को राज़ी हुआ, उसी तरह चीन भी अपना बौद्धिक सम्पदा संरक्षण अधिकार मजबूत करेगा.

Sumário:

Este artigo responde aos recentes apelos à investigação organizacional para abordar questões mais amplas e globalmente relevantes e prestar atenção à história, analisando o debate crucial sobre os direitos de propriedade intelectual (IPR) entre os Estados Unidos e a China. Apesar da posição recente dos Estados Unidos, os Estados Unidos nem sempre foram um dos principais defensores dos IPR. Em vez disso, foram um dos principais violadores de IPR durante o século XIX. Uma visão baseada em instituições da história dos IPR sugere que tanto a recusa dos EUA em proteger os direitos de propriedade intelectual estrangeiros no século XIX como a atual falta de entusiasmo dos chineses para atender às demandas de IPR dos EUA representam escolhas racionais. No entanto, à medida que a análise custo-benefício evolui, transições institucionais são possíveis. Predizemos que, na mesma medida em que os Estados Unidos voluntariamente concordaram em reforçar a proteção dos IPR quando sua economia se tornou suficientemente inovadora, a China também melhorará sua proteção aos IPR.

АННОТАЦИЯ:

Данная статья отвечает на недавние отклики в научной литературе, которые призывают к решению более крупных и глобально значимых вопросов, а именно обратиться к истории и проанализировать важные дебаты по поводу прав интеллектуальной собственности (ПИС) между Соединенными Штатами и Китаем. Несмотря на современную позицию США, Соединенные Штаты не всегда были главным поборником прав интеллектуальной собственности. Напротив, они были главным нарушителем прав интеллектуальной собственности в девятнадцатом веке. С точки зрения институциональной теории, история прав интеллектуальной собственности предполагает, что отказ США от защиты иностранных прав интеллектуальной собственности в девятнадцатом веке и отсутствие энтузиазма у современного Китая удовлетворить требования США в отношении ПИС представляют теорию рационального выбора. Однако, согласно анализу эффективности затрат, институциональные переходы возможны. Мы прогнозируем, что в той же степени, как и Соединенные Штаты добровольно согласились укрепить защиту прав интеллектуальной собственности, когда их экономика стала достаточно инновационной, также и Китай будет стремиться к защите прав интеллектуальной собственности.

RESUMEN:

Este artículo responde a los recientes llamados por investigación organizacional para abordar cuestiones más amplias y relevantes a nivel mundial y prestar atención a la historia, analizando el debate fundamental sobre los derechos de propiedad intelectual (DPI) entre los Estados Unidos y China. Pese a la reciente posición estadounidense, Estados Unidos no siempre ha sido un defensor líder de los DPI. En cambio, ha sido un líder violando los DPI durante el siglo XIX. Una perspectiva basada en instituciones de la historia de los DPI sugiere que tanto la negativa de los Estados Unidos para proteger las demandas de los DPI extranjeros en el siglo XIX como la falta actual de entusiasmo de China para acatar las demandas de DPI de los Estados Unidos representa opciones racionales. Sin embargo, a medida que el análisis de costo-beneficio evoluciona, las transiciones institucionales son posible. Predecimos que en la misma medida en que los Estados Unidos acordaron voluntariamente fortalecer la protección de los DPI cuando su economía se volviera suficientemente impulsada por la innovación, China similarmente va a mejorar su protección de los DPI.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article 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 sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      History and the Debate Over Intellectual Property
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      History and the Debate Over Intellectual Property
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      History and the Debate Over Intellectual Property
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
References
Hide All
Abrami R. M., Kirby W. C., & McFarlan F. W. 2014. Why China can't innovate: And what it's doing about it. Harvard Business Review, 92 (3): 107111.
Ahlstrom D., Bruton G. D., & Yeh K. S. 2007. Venture capital in China: Past, present, and future. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24 (3): 247268.
Ahlstrom D., Lamond D., & Ding Z. 2009. Reexamining some management lessons from military history. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26 (4): 617642.
Ahlstrom D., & Wang L. C. 2009. Groupthink and France's defeat in the 1940 campaign. Journal of Management History, 15(2): 159--177.
Ahlstrom D., & Wang L. C. 2010. Entrepreneurial capitalism in East Asia: How history matters. In Landström H. & Lohrke F. (Eds.), The historical foundations of entrepreneurial research: 406428. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Ahuja G., & Yayavaram S. 2011. Explaining influence rents: The case for an institution-based view of strategy. Organization Science, 22 (6): 1631–1652.
Alford W. P. 1995. To steal a book is an elegant offense: Intellectual property law in Chinese civilization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Arthur W. B. 1994. Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Barley S. R. 2016. Ruminations on how we became a mystery house and how we might get out. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61: 18.
Boeing P., Mueller E., & Sander P. 2016. China's R&D explosion: Analyzing productivity effects across ownership types and over time. Research Policy, 45 (1): 159176.
Bruton G. D., & Ahlstrom D. 2003. An institutional view of China's venture capital industry: Explaining the differences between China and the West. Journal of Business Venturing, 18 (2): 233259.
Bugbee B. 1967. The genesis of American patent and copyright law. New York: Public Affairs Press.
BusinessWeek . 2006. The patent epidemic. January 9: 6062.
Campbell J. L. 2004. Institutional change and globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cao C., Li N., Li X., & Liu L. 2013. Reforming China's S&T system. Science, 341 (August 2): 460462.
Chandler A. D. 1990. Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise. Boston: MIT press.
Chaudhry P. E., & Zimmerman A. 2009. The economics of counterfeit trade. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Cheng M. L., & Huang C. 2016. Transforming China's IP system to stimulate innovation. In Lewin A. Y., Kenney M. & Murmann J. P. (Eds.), China's innovation challenge: Overcoming the middle-income trap: 152188. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chow D. C. K. 2003. The legal system of the People's Republic of China in a nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West.
David P. 1985. Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75 (2): 227332.
Davis G. F. 2015. What is organizational research for? Administrative Science Quarterly, 60 (2): 179188.
DiMaggio P. J., & Powell W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48 (2): 147160.
Draper T. 1996. A struggle for power: The American Revolution. New York: Times Books.
Feng N. H. 2007. To steal a book is just an elegant offense? Discussion on books’ copyright protection in imperial China. Library and Information Service, 51 (11): 5861.
Ferguson N. (Ed.). 1999. Virtual history: Alternatives and counterfactuals. New York: Basic Books.
Fisher W. W. 1999. The growth of intellectual property: A history of the ownership of ideas in the United States. Working paper, Harvard Law School. [Cited 15 July 2016]. Available from URL: www.cyber.law.harvard.edu
Friedman W. A., & Jones G. 2011. Business history: Time for debate. Business History Review, 85 (1): 18.
Galtsova P. 2008. Intellectual property reform in Russia: Analysis of part four of the Russian Civil Code. Master's thesis, Faculty of Law, Lund University, Sweden.
Gordon J. S. 2005. Empire of wealth: The epic history of American economic power. New York: Harper Perennial.
Gould S. J. 1993. Poe's greatest hit. Natural History, 102 (7): 1019.
Greif A., & Laitin D. 2004. A theory of endogenous institutional change. American Political Science Review, 98 (4): 633652.
Hall P. A., & Taylor R. 1996. Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44: 936957.
Hill C. W. L. 2007. Digital piracy: Causes, consequences, and strategic responses. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24 (1): 925.
Hofstede G. 2007. Asian management in the 21st century. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24 (4): 411420.
Howell A. 2015. Indigenous innovation with heterogeneous risk and new firm survival in a transitioning Chinese economy. Research Policy, 44 (10): 18661876.
Hu M.-C., & Mathews J. A. 2008. China's national innovation capacity. Research Policy, 37 (9): 14651479.
Ingram P., & Silverman B. 2002. Introduction. In Ingram P. & Silverman B. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in strategic management: 130. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
IP Commission, The (The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property). 2013. The IP commission report. Seattle: National Bureau of Asian Research.
Jaffe A. B., & Lerner J. 2007. Innovation and its discontents. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jandhyala S. 2015. International and domestic dynamics of intellectual property protection. Journal of World Business, 50 (2): 284293.
Johns A. 2009. Piracy: The intellectual property wars from Gutenberg to Gates. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jones G., & Khanna T. 2006. Bringing history (back) into international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (4): 453468.
Khan B. Z. 2005. The democratization of invention: Patents and copyrights in American economic development, 1790-1920. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Khan B. Z. 2013. Selling ideas: An international perspective on patenting and markets for technological innovations, 1790–1930. Business History Review, 87 (1): 3968.
Khan B. Z., & Sokoloff K. L. 2001. The early development of intellectual property institutions in the United States. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15 (3): 233246.
Khan B. Z., & Sokoloff K. L. 2004. Institutions and democratic invention in nineteenth-century America. American Economic Review, 94 (2): 395401.
Khoury T., & Peng M. W. 2011. Does institutional reform of intellectual property rights lead to more inbound FDI? Evidence from Latin America and the Caribbean. Journal of World Business, 46 (3): 337345.
Kieser A. 1994. Why organization theory needs historical analyses – and how this should be performed. Organization Science, 5 (4): 608620.
Klochikhin E. A. 2012. Russia's innovation policy: Stubborn path-dependencies and new approaches. Research Policy, 41 (9): 16201630.
Kumar N. 2003. Intellectual property rights, technology, and economic development: Experiences of Asian countries. Economic and Political Weekly, January 18: 209226.
Lewin A. Y. 2015. Letter from the editor. Management and Organization Review, 11 (1): 13.
Lewin A. Y., Kenney M., & Murmann J. P. (Eds.). 2016. China's innovation challenge: Overcoming the middle-income trap. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Li S. 2004. Why is property right protection lacking in China? An institutional explanation. California Management Review, 46 (3): 100115.
Li X. 2012. Behind the recent surge of Chinese patenting: An institutional view. Research Policy, 41 (1): 236249.
Liang Z., & Xue L. 2010. The evolution of China's IPR system and its impact on the patenting behaviors and strategies of multinationals in China. International Journal of Technology Management, 51 (5): 469496.
Liu F., Simon D. F., Sun Y., & Cao C. 2011. China's innovation policies: Evolution, institutional structure, and trajectory. Research Policy, 40 (7): 917937.
Lohr S. 2002. The intellectual property debate takes a page from 19th-century America. New York Times , October 14.
Lopes T. D. S., & Casson M. 2012. Brand protection and the globalization of British business. Business History Review, 86 (2): 287310.
Lubman S. 1999. Bird in a cage: Legal reform in China after Mao. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Marquis C., & Raynard M. 2015. Institutional strategies in emerging markets. Academy of Management Annals, 9 (1): 291335.
Mazzoleni R., & Nelson R. R. 1998. The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: A contribution to the current debate. Research Policy, 27 (3): 273284.
McCloskey D. N. 2016. Bourgeois equality: How ideas, not capital or institutions, enriched the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McKinsey Global Institute (McKinsey). 2015. The China effect on global innovation . Report.
Mertha A. C. 2007. The politics of piracy: Intellectual property in contemporary China. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Meyer J. W., Boli J., Thomas G. M., & Ramirez F. O. 1997. World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology, 103 (1): 144181.
Meyer K. E., & Peng M. W. 2016. Theoretical foundations of emerging economy business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 47 (1): 322.
Moser P. 2013. Patents and innovation: Evidence from economic history. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27 (1): 2344.
Moser P., & Voena A. 2012. Compulsory licensing: Evidence from the Trading with the Enemy Act. American Economic Review, 102 (2): 396427.
Naghavi A. 2007. Strategic intellectual property rights policy and North-South technology transfer. Review of World Economics, 143 (1): 5578.
Neustadt R. E., & May E. R. 1986. Thinking in time: The uses of history for decision-makers. New York: Free Press.
North D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. New York: Norton.
Paulson H. 2015. Dealing with China: An insider unmasks the new economic superpower. New York: Grand Central.
Peng M. W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28 (2): 275296.
Peng M. W. 2013. An institution-based view of IPR protection. Business Horizons, 56 (2): 135139.
Peng M. W., Ahlstrom D., Carraher S. M., & Shi W. 2017. An institution-based view of global IPR history. Journal of International Business Studies , forthcoming.
Peng M. W., Sun S. L., Pinkham B., & Chen H. 2009. The institution-based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23 (4): 6381.
Peng M. W., Wang D. Y. L., & Jiang Y. 2008. An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (5): 920936.
Pierson P. 2004. Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Poncet S. 2005. A fragmented China: Measure and determinants of Chinese domestic market disintegration. Review of International Economics, 13 (3): 409430.
Pouillard V. 2011. Design piracy in the fashion industries of Paris and New York in the interwar years. Business History Review, 85 (2): 319344.
Quinn A. H. 1998. Edgar Allan Poe: A critical biography. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Raustiala K., & Sprigman C. 2012. The knockoff economy: How imitation sparks innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Raustiala K., & Sprigman C. 2013. Fake it till you make it: The good news about China's knockoff economy. Foreign Affairs, 92 (4): 2530.
Robinson R. 2016. How Google stole the work of millions of authors. Wall Street Journal , February 8.
Scott W. R. 2014. Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shenkar O. 2010. Copycats: How smart companies use imitation to gain a strategic edge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Shi W., Sun S. L., Pinkham B. C., & Peng M. W. 2014. Domestic alliance network to attract foreign partners: Evidence from international joint ventures in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 45 (3): 338362.
Simon H. A. 1961. Administrative behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Singh K. 2007. The limited relevance of culture to strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24 (4): 421428.
Sokoloff K. L., & Khan B. Z. 1990. The democratization of invention during early industrialization: Evidence from the United States, 1790–1846. Journal of Economic History, 50 (2): 363378.
State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO). 2010. National patent development strategy (2011–2020). Beijing: SIPO.
Steinmo S., Thelen K., & Longstreth F. (Eds.) 1992. Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suttmeier R. P., & Yao X. 2011. China's IP transition: Rethinking intellectual property rights in a rising China. NBR Special Report 29. Seattle: National Bureau of Asian Research.
The Economist . 2014. Intellectual property in China: Patent fiction. December 13: 7374.
The Economist . 2016. Counterfeiting and piracy: Stamping it out. April 23: 5152.
Thompson K. 1986. Exporting entertainment: America in the world film market, 1907–1934. London: British Film Institute.
Tomalin C. 2011. Charles Dickens: A life. New York: Viking.
US Trade Representative (USTR). 2010. National trade estimate report on foreign trade barriers. Washington, DC: USTR.
Usselman S. 1999. Patents, engineering professionals, and the pipelines of innovation: The internalization of technical discovery by nineteenth-century American railroads. In Lamoreaux N. R., Raff D. M. G., & Temin P. (Eds.), Learning by doing in markets, firms, and countries: 61102. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Weber M., Baehr P. R., & Wells G. C. 2002. The Protestant ethic and the ‘spirit’ of capitalism and other writings. New York: Penguin Books.
Williamson O. E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.
Williamson P. J., & Yin E. 2014. Accelerated innovation: The new challenge from China. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55 (4): 2734.
Wren D. 1987. Management history: Issues and ideas of teaching and research. Journal of Management, 13 (2): 339350.
Yu P. K. 2008. Intellectual property, economic development, and the China puzzle. In Hansen H. C. (Ed.), Intellectual property law and policy: 9901023. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.
Yu P. K. 2011. The TRIPS enforcement dispute. Nebraska Law Review, 89: 10461131.
Yu P. K. 2013. Five oft–repeated questions about China's recent rise as a patent power. Cardozo Law Review de Novo, 78114.
Yu P. K. 2014a. The curious case of fake Beijing Olympics merchandise. In Calboli I. & Lee E. (Eds.), Trademark protection and territoriality challenges in a global economy: 259282. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Yu P. K. 2014b. The sweet and sour story of Chinese intellectual property rights. In Dutfeld G. & Suthersanen U. (Eds.), Technology, progress, and prosperity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Zimmerman A. 2013. Contending with Chinese counterfeits: Culture, growth, and management responses. Business Horizons, 56 (2): 141148.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Management and Organization Review
  • ISSN: 1740-8776
  • EISSN: 1740-8784
  • URL: /core/journals/management-and-organization-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 134
Total number of PDF views: 430 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 891 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 13th March 2017 - 19th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.