Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi

Distorted Architecture Of International Intellectual Property Regime And ...their negotiations with developed countries on GATT issues. 27We, however, have to underline that less-developed countries’ attemptsto use UNCTAD as an alternative forum was not successful in the field ofinternational intellectual property system. 28 On the contrary, insistent demandsof less-developed countries for amending the international intellectualproperty system to have a more preferential intellectual property regimeand their opposition to creation of higher international intellectual propertystandards caused the United States and the European Communities to adoptforum shifting strategy in the 1980s. 29C. Reaction of Developed Countries: Shifting from WIPO toGATT and TRIPSEspecially after the WIPO diplomatic conference held between 1980and 1984 ended in deadlock upon the United States’ opposition to any effortsand demands of less-developed countries for a revision of patent rules ofthe Paris Convention, the United States began to seek alternative venues forstronger intellectual property protection standards 30 .As Helleiner and Oyejide underlines, choosing an appropriate forum forinternational economic negotiations has an important effect on the outcomesand final agreements. 31 Both the United States and the EC were under anincreasing pressure from their intellectual property industries demandinghigher intellectual property standards to protect their global competitiveness 32and since less-developed countries could successfully repelled proposals forstronger intellectual property protection forming opposition blocs in suchfora as WIPO, UNCTAD and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and27ANSARI, p. 224.28A good example on success of the UNCTAD is Tokyo Round negotiations. During the TokyoRound, the studies drafted by the UNCTAD Secretariat affected the negotiation strategies ofless-developed countries. Although many analysts thought that the principle of special anddifferential treatment would weaken the international trade regime, it was accepted in Tokyo.(STEINBERG, p.357.)29DRAHOS, Developing Countries, p.769.30HELFER, p. 20.31HELLEINER and OYEJIDE, p.116.32HELFER, p.20. Intellectual property industries saw WIPO as a failure. Lou Clemente, Pfizer’sGeneral Counsel at the time explained their dissatisfaction as following: “Our experiencewith WIPO was the last straw in our attempt to operate by persuasion”. (DRAHOS, DevelopingCountries, p.769.)Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi C. XV, Y. 2011, Sa. 4 33