Infringing on Investment: How One Company is Using Investment Protections of NAFTA to Save its Intellectual Property

J. Rabe
{"title":"Infringing on Investment: How One Company is Using Investment Protections of NAFTA to Save its Intellectual Property","authors":"J. Rabe","doi":"10.18060/7909.0031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1994, twenty years ago, the United States, Canada, and Mexico signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) into law.1 It had a number of goals, including the intent “to eliminate barriers of trade and investment between the United States, Canada and Mexico.”2 NAFTA has a number of provisions to achieve its goals, including decreasing the tariff between the three countries in order to increase trade.3 The decreasing tariff was intended to lower trade barriers with the hope of making consumer products cheaper.4 With respect to a number of consumer products, this hope was made into a reality.5 Importation from Mexican and Canadian factories without trade barriers made a number of goods, including automobiles, electronics, and clothing, cheaper in the United States.6 However, there is one area of consumer products that did not achieve the hoped for price decline in the United States: the prescription drug industry. There is a long-held belief in the United States that prescription drugs are made available at cheaper prices in countries such as Canada because of the availability of generic drugs.7 While this may not always be true in the cases of some prescription drugs,8 there is a basis for this claim.9","PeriodicalId":230320,"journal":{"name":"Indiana international and comparative law review","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indiana international and comparative law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18060/7909.0031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 1994, twenty years ago, the United States, Canada, and Mexico signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) into law.1 It had a number of goals, including the intent “to eliminate barriers of trade and investment between the United States, Canada and Mexico.”2 NAFTA has a number of provisions to achieve its goals, including decreasing the tariff between the three countries in order to increase trade.3 The decreasing tariff was intended to lower trade barriers with the hope of making consumer products cheaper.4 With respect to a number of consumer products, this hope was made into a reality.5 Importation from Mexican and Canadian factories without trade barriers made a number of goods, including automobiles, electronics, and clothing, cheaper in the United States.6 However, there is one area of consumer products that did not achieve the hoped for price decline in the United States: the prescription drug industry. There is a long-held belief in the United States that prescription drugs are made available at cheaper prices in countries such as Canada because of the availability of generic drugs.7 While this may not always be true in the cases of some prescription drugs,8 there is a basis for this claim.9
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
侵犯投资:一家公司如何利用北美自由贸易协定的投资保护来保护其知识产权
20年前的1994年,美国、加拿大和墨西哥签署了《北美自由贸易协定》(NAFTA),使之成为法律它有许多目标,包括“消除美国、加拿大和墨西哥之间的贸易和投资壁垒”的意图。“北美自由贸易协定有许多条款来实现其目标,包括降低三国之间的关税以增加贸易降低关税的目的是降低贸易壁垒,希望使消费品更便宜对于一些消费品来说,这种希望变成了现实从墨西哥和加拿大工厂进口的没有贸易壁垒的商品,使包括汽车、电子产品和服装在内的许多商品在美国变得更便宜。然而,有一个消费品领域没有实现美国所希望的价格下降,那就是处方药工业。在美国有一种长期持有的观点,认为处方药在加拿大等国家能以更便宜的价格买到,是因为仿制药的存在虽然在某些处方药的情况下这可能并不总是正确的,但这种说法是有根据的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sanctimonious Barbarity: The Forced Pregnancy Alito Dobbs Opinion Self-Determination: What Lessons from Kashmir? Striking a Balance: Extending Minimum Rights to U.S. Gig Economy Workers Based on E.U. Directive 2019/1153 on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions Issue Preclusion Out of the U.S. (?) The Evolution of the Italian Doctrine of Res Judicata in Comparative Context Animal Welfare, Who Cares? Why the United Nations Needs to Tackle Horse-Soring
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1