The Research Of China’s Moderate Intellectual Property Protection In Economic Development

The speeding up of the development of knowledge globalization, makes the system of intellectual property protection become the important basis and guarantee for social and economic development and knowledge of the development strategy in one nation or region. As we know,the final purpose of intellectual property protection (i.e,IPP)is to promote economic, social and cultural development,while the development of society and economy will in turn affect the level of intellectual property protection.For a long term, as our country’s economic development is greatly behind developed countries, the application of intellectual property rights is relatively limited in scope, and the lack of enough attention to intellectual property rights and so on, there are certain hysteresis in our country about the research of the relationship between economic development and IPP,compared with the study of western countries.After the reform and opening up, as the acceleration of global integration and the expansion of international trade and cooperation gradually,the relationship or question between economic development and IPP began to be paid more attention to in our country.In order to fully reveal internal mechanism between IPP and economic development, to evaluate objectively real performance about IPP in China, and to correctly understand influencing factors in economic development to IPP, and to play fully mutual effect between IPP and economic development, and establish and perfect the real system of IPP in line with the actual facts in our country. Based on the background of China’s economic development, this paper used modified measuring methods of intellectual property protection, measuresd renewedly the level of IPP in our country, analysed the inner relationship between IPP and economic development in China, and drew some inspirational conclusions in the end.Firstly, the measurement and validation problem of China’s actual IPP. Whether one country or region’s IPP is suitable and reasonable or not, there must be some relationship with its strength of IPP. In order to better proof and explain the importance of moderate intellectual property protection on economic development in our country, this article firstly uses G-P index method, and calculates out China’s nominal intellectual property protection level (NIPR) using comprehensive and refined. Although higher NIPR index shows that China’s legislative level has basicly compliance with the TRIPS agreement under the framework of intellectual property protection legislation requirement, compared with developed countries, because of between developing countries and developed countries there still exists a a large gap in the enforcement level of law,so just takeing one country or region’s legislation as the overall level of IPP, it not only has no longer realistic comparability, but also will affect the credibility of the empirical research. Therefore, correcting and perfecting the former’s research methods, this paper emphasizes that one country or region’s IPP level is the results of the comprehensive function between intellectual property legislation level and enforcement level. By the use of H-Y index corrected method, comprehensively selecting social legal degree, the administrative protection level, the government efficiency of enforcement, the public awareness of protection and international supervision mechanism, this paper calculated out China’s intellectual property enforcement level, and then fixed out of China’s actual level of IPP (TIPR)in the years1985-2010(26years). The results being corrected and calculated shows, there exists obvious difference between NIPR and TIPR because the relative shortage of enforcement, and a large gap compared with European and other developed countries (like the United States, the Netherlands, Sweden, etc), it confirms the realistic situation of IPP in China, at the same time it provides a powerful interpretation for the United States and other developed countries’s unsatisfaction about IPP in China. Of course, in comparion with previous research methods simly, this article also explains its correction and advantage (H-Y index) different from others.Secondly, the intrinsic relationship between IPP and economic development in China. In order to further proof and explain the inner relationship between IPP and economic development in China. This paper firstly introduced the evolutionary process of typical economies(the United States,Japan,Korea,India), and by analyzing the results of other researchers, then constructed and derived our country’s (developing countries) association mechanism mode1between intellectual property protection and economic development, and get one of conclusions correspondly, namely when economic development level or the technical ability is low in developing countries, and the effect produced by imitation during the increase of economy will be better than the effect produced by innovation, and it should weaken intellectual property protection; When economic development is higher to a certain level, the effect produced by innovation will be better the effect produced by imitation, it’s time to strengthen intellectual property protection. In addition, there is another conclusion about intellectual property protection and technology innovation through the theoretical model, namely the local enterprises’s optimal innovation will be improved with the improvement of IPP and technical ability in developing countries. In particular, the local enterprises’s optimal innovation depends not only on the quality of their products, but also on the technology ability of imitation for competitor, the former is decided by technical ability level, the latter by its intellectual property protection. Obviously, the second conclusion belongs to first one. On the other hand, in order to better observe and analysize the relationship between economic development and IPP, according to mixed countries (regions) sample data, the empirical analysis found that without considering other influencing factors, the relationship between IPP and economic development is not a simple linear relation like traditional literatures described, but a right or left leaning "S" type relationship. Specifically, for developing countries (regions), it shows a "U" type, and for developed countries (regions), it presents a fall "U" type. At the same time, whether developing countries (regions) or developed country (region), there will be a long run in the "S" curve after the first inflection point, intellectual property rights protection and economic development is positively related with stage. Through the comparative analysis, the inner relationship between China’s IPP and economic development in more than30years of reform and opening up is according to the data of the empirical fitting regression results basicly. The correlative analysis not only better explain the moderation level of IPP in China, and further clarify the direction of position in market economic development about intellectual property protection policy.Thirdly, the economic factors on influence of intellectual property protection in China, the intellectual property protection of one country or region, not only depends on the local level of legislation, enforcement of law, but also will be affected by its degree of market openning, cost-benefit factor and the government’s economic behavior, and many other economic factors, among them cost-benefit is regarded as internal power factor to affect the behavior of IPP, and the level of opening up, the competitive degree of market and the government economic behavior are regarded as external power factors to affect the level of IPP in one country or region. Of course, internal factors and external factors also influenced and restrained each other.Specifically, this paper emphatically analyzed the result of equilibrium behaviors between government regulators and potential infringers with static game model, the game equilibrium model pointed out that the comparison of cost-profit was key facors to strengthen orweaken the protection of intellectual property. In addition, with the empirical methods like unit root test, cointegration test and causality test and so on, this paper found that there was a long-term equilibrium relationship between China’s IPP and economic growth, and economic growth is Granger reason of IPP,namely the change of economic growth is one of the important reasons for the change of IPP in China; The government economic behavior, mainly refered to the government financial education funds, the level of technology innovation are also one of the factors to influence the level of IPP in China, just compared with the influence degree of economic growth, the effects of both are slightly lower. At the same time, the empirical results also showed that there was negative correlation between China’s human capital level and intellectual property protection, and the influence of opening up to IPP in China is not significant.It is opposite to the expected analysis.Fourthly, the influence of IPP on economic growth in China. This paper analysed the conducting mechanism with theoretical model about IPP and economic growth in China, and cleared out the mai n transmission path between them:the first path is to e ncourage their home country or region’s technology to be innovated or transferred by IPP,and to speed or promote national or regional economic growth, it also is long-term transmission path; the second path is to directly influence the way of foreign trade (commodity trade, FDI trade and technology trade, etc), thus to affect its level of economic growth. Of course, the two paths is also influenced each other.On the basis of theoretical analysis, this paper first verified intellectual property protection on the influence of technological progress with empirical method, the empirical results showed that stronger protection of intellectual property is not obvious influence on China’s technological progress based on R&D, but afer the introducing variable of technology innovation knowledge stock, the regression results showed a certain weak correlation, the reason was related to the lower level of technological innovation and economic development,and related to domestic technology progress mainly relying on export-oriented technology imitation and technology import. Secondly, in the following second path of IPP on economic growth directly, this paper, on the one hand, from the general sense, analyzed intellectual property protection on the effects of foreign trade with theoretical model derivation method; On the other hand further and respectively verified the internal relations between technology trades, commodity trade and FDI trade and IPP of China with empirical method.The empirical results showed intellectual property protection in China had significantly positive correlation with increased imported technology, intellectual property protection greatly contributed to import range of technology in our country foreign trade. At the same time, the influence of IPP on FDI trade has been promoted step by step, but the influence of IPP on import goods trade gradually reduced at present, that is, with the strength of IPP, FDI trade and technology trade had partly replaced commodity trade, while the level of economic development and changes of exchange rate still played an important role in traditional import commodity trade.Of course, for the time and author’s limited ability to study, related to intellectual property protection about other fields, such as protection of intellectual property of endogenous technology differentiation, the cost and social welfare of intellectual property protection in China, as well as "technology spillover" effect problem of IPP, intellectual property protection and competitive ability of city etc, this paper involved less or had some disadvantages, but it’s preliminary results from study take certain matting function for latter’s further related research work about protection of intellectual property,and provided new ideas and poined to directions to expand the research in theory and practice above mentioned problems.