In the wake of the TRIPS agreement and the rapid globalization of the world economy, there is a growing consensus among developed and developing countries alike that intellectual property protection is a vital component of economic development and prosperity. However, the degree to which intellectual property standards are being strengthened in practical terms differs from place to place -- and often varies considerably even within a given country.

The editors of Economic Perspectives asked five intellectual property experts with recent experience in the developing world to share their observations and experiences about the challenges and opportunities for promoting intellectual property there. The views they have expressed are their own.

Ralph Oman is counsel at the Dechert, Price & Rhoads law firm in Washington, D.C., as well as a lecturer in intellectual property and patent law at the George Washington University Law School. He spent two weeks in Sri Lanka in 1998 at the invitation of the Computer and Information Technology Council of Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka is a very special country with a bright future. On a recent two-week working visit, I talked with some of the best and the brightest people in Sri Lanka. The good news is that these men and women have concluded that strong intellectual property protection -- for patents, copyrights, and trademarks -- will spur strong economic growth and cultural development.

Sri Lanka has a long tradition of folk poetry and authorship, and its contemporary writers have unique stories to tell. I actually met and talked with Romesh Gunesekera, who was a 1994 Booker Prize nominee. He told me that he was both proud and thankful that strong copyright protection for his books already exists in Sri Lanka. Its literature, poetry, architecture, art, and music all represent a high level of artistic achievement. The future of Sri Lanka's ceramics industry is also promising -- a future that will depend increasingly on copyright protection. The same is true for the needlework and textile design industry. And Sri Lanka's computer wizards are already writing software for the world market. Some of the best known international companies are waiting in the wings, ready to make major investments in Sri Lanka once it gets its intellectual property laws in order.

Even with these bright spots, however, piracy of software, motion pictures, and music continues, and this activity hurts Sri Lankan creators far more than it hurts foreign companies. While foreigners lose some money to pirating, they always have access to other markets. On the other hand, Sri Lankan creators have fewer alternatives, and piracy destroys their livelihood. Without copyright protection, a Sri Lankan computer programmer has problems on two levels. First, she cannot compete against a cheap, pirated version of an American software package. Second, even if she could get her program published, she could not stop her own countrymen from stealing her work. Just as bad money chases good money out of the marketplace, pirated products displace legitimate products, whatever their nationality. So Sri Lankan creators can't pay the rent and feed their children. That is bad for them, bad for the country, and bad for world trade.

Copyright gives creative men and women -- and the companies that hire them -- strong incentives to invest time and money in the creation of books, software, movies, art, and music. A copyright expert from Ghana put it this way: "Why plant the field if someone else can harvest the crop?" In an environment of strong copyright protection, music, literature, art, and science can flourish.

A new copyright law in Sri Lanka would recognize that there is no future in piracy. Pirates are low-tech parasites. A Sri Lankan software company that designs custom-tailored programs for the needs of Sri Lanka and its businesses will give Silicon Valley a run for its money -- but only if its software is protected. And this local enterprise will pay taxes, and it will employ far more people, at better pay, and in technologically far more sophisticated and satisfying jobs, than a back-room copy shop whose stock in trade is pirated computer diskettes. In a non-pirate market, the Sri Lankan software will drive down the price of the foreign software. That is how competition works.

One of Sri Lanka's best-known motion picture directors, Vishwaneth Keerthisera, has a real problem competing with pirated videocassettes. At a recent awards ceremony where he was honored for one of his films, he said: "My biggest award will be my ability to show it to a full cinema hall. If I can draw the audience to see my film, that's my real award."

The same is true on the patent side of the shop. Without strong protection, inventors cannot find the financial backing they need to commercialize their innovative ideas. The Sri Lankan inventor P.N. Nandadasa developed an environmentally friendly packaging technique using coconut husks, and, with his patent in hand, he has made it a commercial success. With international patent protection, his idea should really take off.

Sri Lanka has decided to upgrade its intellectual property laws. With these changes, it will establish itself as a leader in intellectual property protection, as an example to its neighbors, and as an avid booster of its own talented people. With a strong regime for protecting authors and inventors, Sri Lanka will stand out as an attractive target for foreign investment in this year of her golden jubilee, and for many years to come.

Judith M. Saffer is president of the Copyright Society of the United States and Assistant General Counsel of Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) in New York, one of the world's leading music copyright agencies. She took part in a regional conference on intellectual property rights held in Cotonou, Benin, in 1997.

The purpose of the conference was to develop a strategy to combat the piracy of intellectual property in West Africa. The focus was primarily on music; the participants considered various ways of reducing the unauthorized reproduction of music and encouraging regional cooperation.

Most of the conference participants acknowledged that those who create and market intellectual property should be compensated -- at least theoretically. In practice, technological advances make piracy easy, and combating it in emerging markets is a particularly difficult task.

Yet there is a growing awareness among developing countries that protection for creators and entrepreneurs will serve not only the interests of industrialized nations, but will also benefit their own economies. In emerging markets, it is imperative to foster creativity. If countries wish to promote national economic progress, protection must be available for owners of intellectual property, whether the creator is a national of that country or a foreign individual or entity.

There is no doubt that providing protection for intellectual property benefits creators. What is harder in developing countries is to convince government officials that everyone benefits when there is a reasonable level of enforcement of intellectual property laws.

When there are inadequate economic incentives, developing countries find it difficult to attract foreign investment to their nascent industries. Without proper enforcement of copyright, trademark, and patent laws, infringement, piracy, and misappropriation run rampant. Under these circumstances, investors are reluctant to finance new businesses. The television, motion picture, and music industries - which rely heavily on intellectual property -- flourish in many countries. However, these same industries hesitate to export products or invest in the development of new products in places where protection is ignored. In countries with weak intellectual property laws and weak enforcement, there is no opportunity for the establishment of distribution chains or for the development of licensing skills and expertise. It turns out that the argument that less developed countries cannot afford to pay for "legitimate" copies of intellectual property is shortsighted and counterproductive.

However, perhaps the most important reason for protecting intellectual property is that, without adequate laws and aggressive enforcement of those laws, a country is far less likely to be able to develop its own intellectual property industries. Local creators need to be rewarded economically and must be assured that there will be protection for their creations. Further, local entrepreneurs in developing countries must have some assurance that their efforts and investments will be defended from those who would exploit them without compensation. In short, creators must feel that if they are successful, they will be able to earn a living from their endeavors.

After lengthly meetings and much debate, the participants at the Cotonou conference were able to draft a report and to adopt a declaration that may reduce piracy and unauthorized performance of music in West Africa. The declaration calls for the creation of national intellectual property commissions and for the creation of independent collection societies that would license music to broadcasters and collect royalties. It remains to be seen whether the conference participants will be able to convince their respective governments about the importance of eradicating piracy. Many countries in Africa already have adequate copyright laws. The key is whether these laws are sufficiently enforced, through both civil and criminal penalties, and whether countries in the region will agree to adopt regulations concerning border controls to keep infringing materials from going from one nation to another.

Karl F. Jorda is the David Rines Professor of Intellectual Property Law and Industrial Innovation at the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire. He gave a series of lectures in Pakistan in 1997 on the economic benefits of intellectual property protection.

When I visited Pakistan I had the opportunity to speak before a variety of business and legal groups, to give a series of media interviews, and to visit law firms, publishers, and the Pakistani patent, trademark, and copyright offices.

Over the years, I have come to some basic conclusions about the role of intellectual property rights, and I tried to convey some of these observations to my audiences in Pakistan.

An effective intellectual property system is indispensable to technological and cultural development -- which is in turn indispensable to economic growth and social welfare. For that reason, intellectual property protection should be part of a country's infrastructure from the beginning rather than postponed until a country has reached a more advanced state of development. Intellectual property rights benefit more than just foreign corporations; they can benefit citizens in any given country. After all, there is genius and creativity everywhere that needs nurturing.

There is also a strong correlation between the quantity of investments a country can generate and the quality of its intellectual property systems. Technology transfer, licensing, and investment are much easier to bring into fruition when strong patent and copyright protections are in place.

Several of the groups I addressed in Pakistan were skeptical. Some argued that the degree of commitment to intellectual property rights in any country should be commensurate with a country's degree of economic development. Others claimed that stronger intellectual property laws would restrict the access of millions of poor people to needed medicines. One newspaper reported on a speech I gave in Lahore by suggesting that "the protection of intellectual property rights was a matter of greater concern for the developed world than the protection of basic rights," which was certainly not the message that I was carrying.

However, the realization that inadequate intellectual property protection has negative effects on Pakistan's economic development is beginning to set in. One chief executive officer at an Islamabad record firm described to me how pirating was driving local recording companies and publishers out of business. The number of employees in his firm had dropped from 400 to just 11; another company had recently folded up completely.

Among the problems Pakistan faces in upgrading its intellectual property protection are understaffed and underfinanced government intellectual property agencies, a lack of teaching on the subject in universities, and a cumbersome judicial system that passes down rather nominal damage awards and penalties for pirating. Yet a number of people I met with felt that the climate for intellectual property protection was improving. They pointed to better laws being enacted, more anti-piracy raids, and a greater consciousness in government circles of the importance of intellectual property in fostering economic development and foreign investment.

Salli A. Swartz is a practicing attorney specializing in intellectual property law with the firm of Masson, Pieron, Swartz, Beaucourt & Associes in Paris. She visited Madagascar in 1997.

While I was in Madagascar, I conducted a series of seminars, workshops and talks on intellectual property issues. I met with a wide spectrum of Malagasy, including government officials, journalists, TV and radio executives, business people, and attorneys. I also distributed hundreds of pages of documents as well as the forms required for royalty payments.

I wanted to learn as much as I could about the situation there so that I could offer my different audiences a working concept of intellectual property rights and help them find practical solutions to the problems they were facing. While Madagascar has, on paper, one of the most complete intellectual property laws I have ever reviewed, along with an established government office for the protection of artists' rights, there remains a certain level of misunderstanding concerning the concept of ownership of intellectual property rights and the corresponding obligation to obtain authorization and remit payment for the use of music and movie rights. During radio and television interviews, the first question I was invariably asked was "What are intellectual property rights?"

I was particularly interested in finding out more about the problems Madagascar was having in enforcing its intellectual property laws since it became increasingly apparent as my visit progressed that the major problem in respect to intellectual property in Madagascar was enforcement. From what I was told, infractions occurred almost daily in both the public and private sectors.

For example, I learned that certain television stations often purchased videos of well-known American or French movies and played them over the air. An attorney who represented one private television station stated that he was unaware of the obligation to pay royalties and indicated that he did not know to whom such royalties should be paid and how to pay them. I discovered that Madagascar has no movie theaters, and as a result, videotapes of popular movies are often shown in public places. One person I met expressed the concern that if royalties had to be paid, the public videotape showings would stop and children instead would go unattended in the street. Another attorney explained that many judges were unaware of the country's intellectual property law. Even when they were alerted to the law's contents, they hestiated to apply it.

The government officials with whom I spoke appeared to be aware of these violations but were somewhat frustrated by their inability to do anything about the situation. One complicating factor they cited was the frequent turnover among ministers, which made it more difficult to enact the enabling legislation that these officials deemed necessary to enforce the law. I disagreed with the necessity of putting more legislation into place before taking other positive steps, but I also came to recognize that changing political leadership could indeed complicate effective enforcement.

When I addressed my audiences in Madagascar, I made the point that intellectual property violations damaged the country's economic standing. Yet since the country's economy faced a whole host of urgent challenges, it was difficult to convince the government officials with whom I spoke of the urgency of taking steps to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Understandably, many of these officials were focused on what they felt were more pressing problems, such as education and the provision of basic infrastructure such as roads, telephones, and electricity outside the major cities.

Yet the consequences of lax intellectual property enforcement were already being felt. I was told that several Malagasy recording artists were expremely frustrated over their inability to collect royalties when their songs were played over the radio. Certain had reportedly already left Madagascar, and others were seriously considering leaving the country.

Most of the groups I addressed did seem sensitive to the argument that major pharmaceutical companies would not consider investing in Madagascar (which has a wealth of plant and animal life) if intellectual property rights were not respected. I also pointed to the loss of potential investment by clothing and other manufacturers from abroad due to the perception that intellectual property rights, such as trademarks, would not be effectively protected. And although Madagascar is a developing country, I reminded my audiences that it must live up to its international obligations under the TRIPS agreement.

After I left the country, I learned that two private radio stations had filled out the forms to pay royalties and that the Malagasy Order of Journalists was to launch an information campaign about intellectual property rights. Several months after my visit, a French journalist sent me a note, after having visited the country on behalf of the French government, informing me that the issues I raised were still being debated publicly.

Steven Robinson is an intellectual property attorney based in New York City. In 1998 he spent a month in Vietnam where he presented a series of lectures and seminars to law school faculty and students, the business community, economists, and government officials.

Vietnam, in the area of intellectual property rights and in many others areas, is the mass of contradictions I had been told to expect. Still, it was impossible for me to come out of this smart, friendly and industrious country without optimism for it. The current environment for intellectual property and information law in Vietnam is, basically, a demonstration on the national level of why intellectual property rights are also referred to generically as "economic rights." A growing number of entrepreneurs owe their success, in part, to the adoption and use of trademarks, which are legally protected under the law of Vietnam. But infringements of successful and well-known marks are rampant, and enforcement is lacking. There is also a growing software industry in Vietnam. Yet despite legal protection for copyrights in software and in other works, pirated software is everywhere.

One is often told that Vietnam is different and that principles of intellectual property rights that have served the development of other national economies are inapplicable here. But the observation is misleading, and for large sections of the economy, simply untrue.

First, it is worthwhile looking to La Vie, the established brand leader in Vietnam for bottled water and the ongoing target of multiple, flagrant infringements of its trademark and trade dress. In the North, where infringing bottles are ubiquitous, anyone asking for a bottle of La Vie is likely to be given a bottle labeled La Vi, Le Vile, Le Vu, La Vio Le, or the better known La Ville and La Villa, all of which sport carefully detailed imitations of La Vie's label design and bottle decoration. In a class of about 100 law students I taught in mid-April, the entire class, without exception, had at one time or another been sold a bottle of water that infringed La Vie's trademark, trade dress, or both.

La Vie became the market leader because it meets or exceeds the requirements for water purity set by the government of Vietnam. The company places an analysis of the mineral content on the side panel of its bottle. Its competitors are not so detail oriented. Despite the company's ongoing, well-publicized efforts, the enforcement of La Vie's trademark rights has been spotty at best, and often the same group of infringers who stop using one imitation of La Vie will simply start up again using another. As trademark attorneys everywhere will attest, there is nothing like success to inspire infringement. But in this case, the frequency of confusing imitation is not simply a matter of measuring damages for trademark infringement, there are additional, important public health considerations and related public costs.

A second example is a Ho Chi Minh City software developer whose company launched its first mass market application, a Vietnamese language product, and sold 5,000 copies. The CEO also estimates that there are 60,000 pirated copies of the program in circulation in Vietnam. The copyright interest in software, as well as in other forms of work typically protected by copyright, exists under the law of Vietnam. But again, enforcement is lacking.

On this basis, the case for optimism about intellectual property rights in Vietnam may not be obvious. However, these examples show that economic forces that support wider recognition and respect for intellectual property are at work in Vietnam. Notwithstanding an ineffective enforcement environment, La Vie has been able to establish national recognition for its brand of bottled water. Consumers now routinely rely on the La Vie name in making purchasing decisions. In the second case, so many people were willing to pay more for an authorized copy of domestically produced software that the developer could break even, even in the face of widespread piracy.

Enforcement of intellectual property has lagged because it is only now becoming a priority. Less than 10 years ago, there was hunger in Vietnam, and in some areas the memory of that time remains fresh. In those days, most people's economic interests were simply too fundamental to permit considerations of intellectual property rights to be a factor. A sale, any sale, whether of a genuine brand name item or a counterfeit, of an authorized copy of software or a pirated version, meant food for a family. Simply put, in a subsistence economy, intellectual property rights are a luxury.

But that time is now history. Today, Vietnam is one of the largest exporters of rice in the world. In such a climate, intellectual property rights are increasingly recognized as important and, for some, as essential tools for continued development.

In 1996, Vietnam instituted a new Civil Code that provides substantial protections for intellectual property rights. In June 1997, Vietnam signed a bilateral copyright agreement with the United States in which it promised to recognize the rights of copyright owners from the United States whose works were published or distributed in Vietnam. The basic intellectual property rights are now in place, and there is general recognition that Vietnam's next set of intellectual property challenges lies in enforcement.

Substantial reform is needed. Right holders must be assured that there is a regular mechanism, whether through administrative agencies, the courts, or both, to enjoin infringements and award damages, and to resolve ownership disputes and other matters. At present, the press describes officials dealing with infringements as "requesting" that the offending activity cease. Effective enforcement will begin as soon as these "requests" are replaced with lawful orders from the proper authorities requiring that intellectual property rights violations stop on pain of meaningful civil, criminal, and administrative penalties.

The incentive to undertake such reforms seems likely to develop as the consumer goods, media, entertainment, and publishing industries grow and make a greater contribution to Vietnam's economy. In 1994, the courts of Vietnam issued their first judgment ever in favor of a copyright infringement plaintiff, a Ho Chi Minh City composer, arranger, and performer, and the court awarded damages. By the standards of developed economies, the damages were negligible, but a precedent was set. In short, now that intellectual property rights are having greater economic impact, there is reason to think that a consensus for the political, administrative, and legal reforms necessary to improve enforcement will grow. In the programs I taught, participants asked more questions about how the government's enforcement efforts could be improved than about any other single topic.

In sum, Vietnamese experience with intellectual property is beginning to look like that of other market economies. That is good news, because it means that Vietnam can draw on the experience of other countries in developing its system of intellectual property rights protection and enforcement. It also means that the lessons learned in the development of Vietnam's intellectual property rights infrastructure may provide important insights as to how and when this vital area of law can play a part in the economic development of other countries.