Intellectual Property Rights on Ict Diffusion in Developing Countries

This study seeks to determine whether information communications technologies (ICT) diffusion in developing countries is affected by intellectual property right (IPR) regimes. Literature items that were: (1) published in the last decade, (2) openly accessible, and (3) cited at least ten times, were profiled to fulfil the purpose of this study. Negative impacts of IPR regimes ranked highest among all factors used in the profiled literature of this study. The IPR factors related to the Power of Innovators were most popular among IPR factors that leaned towards the positive impacts of IPR regime. However, ICT diffusion factors were the most popular among profiled studies that tilted towards mendable impacts of IPR regimes. Consequently, this study infers that ICT diffusion in developing countries is adversely affected by IPR regimes. Limitations of this study are rooted in the fact that most studies were not freely available and access fees were prohibitively unaffordable to researchers from developing countries. This study contributes towards an understanding of IPR regimes as part of important factors that inhibit ICT diffusion in developing countries.


INTRODUCTION
Globalization is an important issue of the day, and intellectual property is an important aspect of globalization, especially as the world moves toward a knowledge economy (Stiglitz, 2014). The process of economic globalization has enabled intellectual property to cross international boundaries more easily (Mohanty, 2014). Ståhle et al. (2015) examined the extent national intangible capital (NIC) explains gross domestic product (GDP) growth and to assess its impact on GDP formation in different countries, and found that intangible capital accounts for 45% of world GDP. New ideas or intellectual capital, more than savings or investments, are the new keys to prosperity and to the wealth of nations (Kefela, 2010). Consequently, in a knowledgebased economy, there is no doubt that a better understanding of IPRs is indispensable to facilitate informed policy making in all areas of human development (Suthersanen, 2006).
In earlier stages there was non-availability of most countries' own IPR and core knowledge, thus, a country had to take sides in global competition for access to core knowledge (Choung et al., 2011). The key instrument used to achieve a shift in IPR is the World Trade Organization's Agreement (WTO) on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which was agreed upon in 1994, and the 1996 Copyright Agreement of the United Nations-based World Intellectual Property Organization (Lor & Britz, 2007). The agreement represents an undertaking by members of the WTO to uphold certain minimum standards of protection for IPRs and to provide legal mechanisms for their enforcement (May, 2006). TRIPS signified the enforcement, for and on behalf of the WTO, of a new international standard, largely based on the standards of the most advanced countries (Azam, 2013).
Existing multilateral rules such as subsidies, trade policy, and IPR regimes, define limits on what is permissible (Bodansky et al., 2014). Thus, IPR regimes are governed by a mosaic of national, regional and international institutions extending from national courts and legislation, to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, to regional European Union (EU) rules over content (Wilson III, 2005). The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) calls on countries to enforce comprehensive minimum standards of IPR protection on a nondiscriminatory basis (Hoekman et al., 2005). In the case of intellectual property, one of the restrictions is that you cannot engage in abusive, anticompetitive behavior (Stiglitz, 2014).
Applicable technologies developed in richer countries may not be as readily accessible to developing countries because of intellectual property protection of privately owned technologies (Kapur & Crowley, 2008). Therefore, there is an inevitable possibility that a violation of intellectual property law might occur, unintentionally, while providing public sector information (Turban et al., 2015). The policy choices we make now, especially in the realms of technological infrastructure and intellectual property, will have enormous implications on the future of society (Smith & Elder, 2010). This study seeks to determine whether IPR regimes hinder or support ICT adoption by the developing countries.
The remainder of this study is presented through five sections as follows: Literature Overview, Methodology, Findings, Discussion, and Conclusions.

LITERATURE OVERVIEW
Intellectual property rights intensive goods and services constitute a rising share of the income that many developed countries derive from their presence in foreign markets (Ståhle et al., 2015;Mohanty, 2014). Consequently, the political economy of the distribution of information in the marketplace has indeed become a moral issue in the last few years, where access and use of essential information has become more difficult because of a stricter application of IPR regimes (Lor & Britz, 2007). Clarke (2003) observes that as the new economy is weightless and wealth creation depends upon ideas more so than on physical resources, protection of IPR regimes is paramount to Information Technology investment; thus, Governments must encourage investment in new technologies by both consumers and producers through the rigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights. Technologies such as mobile telephones and the internet allow for a greater acquisition and absorption of knowledge (McFarlane, 2009).
Intellectual property problems and proposed solutions are somewhat caused by the socioeconomic status of computer users where the income levels are far behind the position to get all necessary software programs with a license (Kuzu, 2009). Consequently, most Nigerian tertiary institutions solely rely on their proprietor for funding and the bulk of such fund goes to servicing the overhead cost (Achimugu et al., 2010).
The creation of local backward linkages is often seen as very beneficial for local firms, as these linkages may enhance sales and access to markets, and enables to benefit from technology transfer and training of the multinational corporations (Dunning & Fortanier, 2006). Firms have looked increasingly to foreign markets to sell their goods and to foreign destinations as platforms for production, making it easier for intellectual property to be accessed and copied in countries that provide weak IPR protection; This is one of the major reasons why firms investing heavily in Research and Development (R&D) are putting pressure on national governments to strengthen the international IPR regime (Anja & Neil, 2012). If instant imitation were certain, little incentive for the costly creation of intellectual achievements would persist (Harhoff, 2006).
Intellectual property rights are indeed starting to have substantial domestic impacts in developing and developed countries which cost or save millions, depending on one's perspective (Wilson III, 2005). Poor countries and poor people differ from rich ones not only because they have less capital but because they have less knowledge and knowledge must be used to alleviate poverty and contribute to economic growth (McFarlane, 2009). All catching-up countries, including at one time the United States and Germany, have done so through a lot of imitation, reverse engineering, and straightforward copying (Cimoli et al., 2008). International regulations affect the ways in which technological knowledge can be accessed; hence, stricter IPR protection regimes severely restrict options for reverse engineering (Stamm et al., 2009). However, the concept of knowledge as private property embedded-in is new to China, given the large ignorance on IPR regimes, education and propaganda (Frietsch & Wang, 2007).
Given the increased salience of intellectual property rights broadly and especially of patents to firms competing in the knowledge economy, it is perhaps not surprising that this increase has been accompanied by increased criticism and controversy over the functioning of patent systems throughout the world (Hall, 2007). The main debates of the past decades have concentrated on the modalities of technology transfer and intellectual property rights and thus also on the question of costs of access to technology in developing countries (Stamm et al., 2009). As the TRIPS2 agreement has increased the extent of international harmonization of IPR regimes, the question as to which elements of IPR regimes should be adopted and how they should be designed is also pertinent in many developing countries (Harhoff, 2006;Azam, 2013). If one accepts the "unfair copying" argument favouring IP protection, it follows that any subject matter which is open to imitation and copying, should be considered worthy of intellectual property protection (Suthersanen, 2006). Ownership of and access to information use a combination of technical lock-in, through the use of proprietary hardware and software, and ever more tightly defined definitions of intellectual property (often offering limited rights to use information rather than any permanent ownership of it) to secure maximum financial return on their production of information (Powell et al., 2012).
The patent systems in the United States and most other countries are often justified by an assumption that the prospect of patent protection will spur innovation, leading to the accrual of greater societal benefits than would be possible under non-patent systems (Torrance & Tomlinson, 2009). During the 1990s, governments' promotion of high-tech sectors has been rationalized and innovated in response to the strengthening of the domestic IPR regimes (Dimaio, 2008). In the last decade, the international market for software has enjoyed the increasingly robust protection available through copyright, and as countries have become TRIPs compliant, so the ability of software companies to protect their IPRs internationally has been enhanced (May, 2006). Some scholars have pointed out that standard setting is actually a much politicized process, especially in the global context (Liang & Xue, 2010). Nonetheless, the positions of the most relevant state actors in the North and South have been fairly predictable in that the United States has favoured the global extension of an intellectual property regime built around the "right to exclude" rather than the "right to distribute," while major developing economies such as China have contested this position (Boas et al., 2005). Stiglitz (2008) encapsulates intractable challenges of IPRs as follows: "Disclosure has long been an important part of the patent and intellectual property regime. Interestingly, in some of the more recent intellectual property disputes, the notion of disclosure has been contested".
The protection of IPR regimes is of core interest for consumers in all countries, particularly in developing countries (Sell, 2010). Brazil and India take common positions at multilateral forums, especially aimed at changing trade rules to their benefit (Cervo, 2010). The concern of how IPR regimes affect the processes of economic development and growth is multidimensional and complex (Asongu1 & Andrés, 2012). Therefore, this study seeks to determine whether IPR regimes hinder or support ICT adoption by the developing countries.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
To create a literature profile of the research that sheds light as to whether IPR regimes hinder or support ICT adoption by the developing countries, this study analysed scholarly articles using Google Scholar search: i. "ICT" -Information Communications Technology ii.
The reason for using Google Scholar with open access, to fulfil objectives of this study, is because open and free access contains literature from peer-reviewed studies that are particularly freely accessible to researchers in developing countries. This study utilized general search within this literature profiling exercise, and the reason for employing a "General Search" approach is simply that it reliably facilitates the repetition of searches without any confusion; henceforth it is relatively straightforward to obtain consistent results in repetitive searches provided the same search criteria are applied (Dwivedi, 2009;William et al., 2009).

LITERATURE PROFILING RESULTS
Google Scholar was used to find literature items that meet the selection criterion of this study, as  Furthermore, each of the 53 profiled studies was analyzed to refine the above broad categories according to IPR factors that informed the respective inclinations. IPR factors that emerged from the exercise were related to the following concepts: i. Economic Development, ii.
Power of Innovators, and iv.
Knowledge and Innovation.
The table below recaps how each factor spreads into different impacts of IPR regimes among the 53 profiled studies. Furthermore, table 2 ranks IPR factors in accordance with frequencies of use amongst the profiled studies.

Positive Impacts of IPR Regimes
Frequencies at which each IPR factor favored the leaning towards the positive impacts of IPR regimes (refer table 2) are ranked by dominance in the table below.

Negative Impacts of IPR Regimes
Proportions at which IPR factors lean towards negative impacts of IPR regimes (refer table 2) are ordered according to influence in the table below.

Mendable IPR Regimes
Rates at which IPR factors contributed towards mendable IPR regimes (refer table 2) are presented in the table below.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The preceding results of 53 profiled results assist to answer whether ICT diffusion in developing countries is affected by IPR regimes. The frequency at which each of the four IPR factors (see table 2) emerging from the 53 profiled studies were relied upon, ranged between 49.05% and 73.58%. Innovation and Knowledge related IPR factors were employed by most profiled studies 73.58% to inform the impact inclinations of IPR regimes (refer table 2). The IPR factors related to ICT Diffusion were used in 49.05% of the profiled studies (refer table 2).

Positive IPR Regime Impacts
The 53 profiled studies supported the view that IPR regimes usher positive impacts (refer table 1

Negative IPR Regime Impacts
Profiled studies that supported the view that IPR regimes convey negative impacts accounted for 47.17%, which was the highest proportion among the 53 profiled studies (refer IPR regimes are not good for economic development (Anja & Neil, 2012;Harhoff, 2006). A common finding is that the poorest countries are unlikely to benefit from strong IPR regimes (Hoekman et al., 2005;). Anja & Neil (2012) affirm that the early econometric research found little evidence of links between IPR protection and the volume of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). The naive notion that more and stronger IPR regimes are always good for innovation has been refuted by scientists in empirical and theoretical work over the last decades (Harhoff, 2006). The design of IPR regimes does not favour economic development in developing countries (Stamm et al., 2009;Stiglitz, 2008;Lor & Britz, 2006;Frietsch& Wang, 2007;Cimoli et al., 2008). Stricter IPR protection regimes severely restrict the options for reverse engineering and copycat strategies (Stammet et al., 2009). It should be clear that there is no reason to expect that the design of an IPR system, which balances costs and benefits of intellectual property protection, which is optimal for the United States, would also be optimal for developing countries (Stiglitz, 2008). However, appropriability conditions are also affected by the regimes of IPR, whereby, tighter IPR regimes imply harder conditions for imitation (Cimoli et al., 2008).
The ICT arena is characterized by the strategic control exercised by powerful corporations and nations (McFarlane, 2009;Choung et al., 2011). Computer software is generally characterized by more tenuous IPR rules (May, 2006). Though the technological character of digital goods may give the Northern countries incentives to use international institutions for bullying recalcitrant states into passing Western intellectual property laws, the same characteristics raise immense monitoring problems in the context of the international system of states; thence domestic authorities in the South are stymied by the technological difficulties of actually implementing effective digital property protection (Boas et al., 2005).

Mendable IPR Regime Impacts
Profiled studies that submitted for mendable IPR regime impacts (refer table 1) accounted for a total proportion of 18.87%. IPR factors associated with ICT Diffusion have a high popularity (33.33%) among mendable IPR regime impacts (refer table 6).
In essence, mendable IPR regime impact inclinations acknowledge that IPR regimes carry negative effects in developing countries, but, the situation is seen as transformable. Establishment of appropriately balanced IPR regimes and existing multilateral rules should define limits on what is permissible (Hoekman et al., 2005). Some countries have partly overcome these problems by creating special economic zones, techno cities and the like, that are relatively free from bureaucracy and friendly to entrepreneurs (Aubert, 2010). There is a need to determine elements of IPR regimes that should be adopted and how they should be designed in many developing countries (Harhoff, 2006;Sell, 2010;Hall, 2007). Governments' promotion of high-tech sectors should be rationalized and innovated in response to the strengthening of the domestic IPR regime (DiMaio, 2008).
The possibility of implementing different IPR rules, according to the level of economic development and the products concerned -a situation that prevailed until 1994 -was accepted because international agreements were founded on priorities of welfare and equity (Orsi & Coriat, 2006). Beyond the regulation of IPR, several global governance institutions have begun to provide models and policy guidelines based on their own research or in collaboration with social scientists with the objective of promoting technologies in the developing world (Stamm et al., 2009); Open Educational Resources (OERs) seeks to leverage technology, skills of the in-class teacher, that utilizes not only the Internet but also lower-tech delivery platforms, and that is created not only by developed countries of the West but also by educators in many countries worldwide (Larson & Murray, 2008); Creative Commons, a web-based organization that invites artists, photographers, musicians, educators and scholars who wish to make their work more readily available to others to post it on the Web under conditions that are less restrictive than the standard copyright conditions (Lor & Britz, 2007).