Towards Better Balanced IPRs: Improving Access to Health through Better Access to Education



Abstract Views
323

Downloads
241

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Mar 27, 2023
Published Apr 27, 2023
10.24018/ejpolitics.2023.2.2.83

Abstract viewed = 323 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

This is an excerpt from a larger work on biotechnology patents and access to healthcare looking to provide an alternative, rather indirect solution that might improve the whole IPRs environment and ease the longstanding strife between access to health and patent protection.

This paper argues that increase of the overall standard in developing and least developed countries through provision of better education, in turn, supported by IPRs resources, can contribute to better access to healthcare and novel patented medicines.

For this purpose, an analytical method is used going through various approaches to IPRs ranging from public-private interests, information and patents, individualism and IPRs as well as looking into the concept of knowledge economy. Human rights, albeit the common battleground, deserve their rightful place in this paper, however, they are not directly addressed to leave room for the other aspects mentioned. It concludes with the findings that IPRs contribution to education might be beneficial for both IPRs holders and the general society.

This article derives from a doctoral dissertation “Biotechnology Patent Protection in the Information Era” to be defended in the spring term of 2022-2023 at the Istanbul Commerce University (Istanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi).

Keywords: access to health individualism information IPRs knowledge economy patents public-private interests

References

  1. Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management science, 48(1), 44–60 at https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/3957/IB_Putting+Patents.pdf?sequence=2.
     Google Scholar
  2. Al-Samarrai, S., Cerdan-Infantes, P., Bigarinova, A., Bodmer, J., Vital, M. J. A., Antoninis, M., ... & Murakami, Y. (2021). Education finance watch 2021. World Bank Group and UNESCO, at https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/226481614027788096/pdf/Education-Finance-Watch-2021.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  3. Baker, D. (2014). The schooled society. In The Schooled Society. Stanford University Press.
     Google Scholar
  4. Baldini, N. (2009). Implementing Bayh–Dole-like laws: Faculty problems and their impact on university patenting activity. Research policy, 38(8), 1217–1224 at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1395680.
     Google Scholar
  5. Bayh-Dole Act. Section 6(a) of Pub. L. 96–517, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 3018.
     Google Scholar
  6. Biagioli, M. (2019). Weighing intellectual property: Can we balance the social costs and benefits of patenting? History of Science, 57(1), 140–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0073275318797787.
     Google Scholar
  7. BioMoby, see http://biomoby.open-bio.org/.
     Google Scholar
  8. Biotechnology in the Community: Communication from the Commission to the Council, COM(83)672 final/2-Annex at 12-13 on the Strategic significance of biotechnology at http://aei.pitt.edu/1241/1/biotechnology_COM_83_672.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  9. Black’s Law Dictionary, 1999.
     Google Scholar
  10. Bluhm, M. (2019). The role of monopoly in America’s prescription drug crisis, at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e449c8c3ef68d752f3e70dc/t/5ea4d29f9bc8f31a1117feec/1587860128096/WhitePaper_DrugPrices_Bluhm.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  11. Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A. C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1), 199–232 at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bo-Carlsson/publication/225899001_Technology_transfer_in_United_States_universities/links/00b7d518147604eabc000000/Technology-transfer-in-United-States-universities.pdf accessed on 1 June 2022.
     Google Scholar
  12. COE-Education Expenditures by Country, at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd.
     Google Scholar
  13. Collier, R. (2013). Drug patents: the evergreening problem. Canadian Medical Association. Journal, 185(9), E385 at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3680578/.
     Google Scholar
  14. Correa, C. M. (2002). Protection of data submitted for the registration of pharmaceuticals: implementing the standards of the TRIPS agreement. Geneva: South Centre at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252112121_Protection_of_Data_Submitted_for_the_Registration_of_Pharmaceuticals_Implementing_the_Standards_of_the_TripS_Agreement.
     Google Scholar
  15. Craig, L. H. (1974). Daniel bell, the coming of post-industrial society. New York: Basic Books [Don Mills: General Publishing], 1973, pp. xiii, 507. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de science politique, 7(3), 593–595.
     Google Scholar
  16. David, P. A. (2004). Patronage, Reputation, and Common Agency Contracting in the Scientific Revolution: From Keeping ‘Nature’s Secrets’ to the Institutionalization of ‘Open Science. SIEPR Policy paper, (03–039) at [PDF] researchgate.net.
     Google Scholar
  17. Drahos, P. (2016). A philosophy of intellectual property. Routledge, pp. 199–230, available at https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n1902/pdf/book.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  18. Drahos, P. (2016). A philosophy of intellectual property. Routledge at https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n1902/pdf/book.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  19. Drahos, P., & Braithwaite, J. (2004). Hegemony based on knowledge: the role of intellectual property. Law in Context, 21(1), 204–223 at https://search.informit.org/doi/pdf/10.3316/informit.154759180293640.
     Google Scholar
  20. Drahos, P., & Braithwaite, J. (2017). Information feudalism: Who owns the knowledge economy? Routledge.
     Google Scholar
  21. Drucker, P. (2017). The age of discontinuity: Guidelines to our changing society. Routledge
     Google Scholar
  22. Economist Intelligence Unit (2007). Innovation: Transforming the Way Business Creates at http://graphics.eiu.com/upload/portal/ciscoinnosmallfile.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  23. Edquist, C. (2004). Reflections on the systems of innovation approach. Science and public policy, 31(6), 485–489 at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Charles-Edquist-2/publication/250198762_Final_Remarks_Reflections_on_the_systems_of_innovation_approach/links/549826910cf2c5a7e342a048/Final-Remarks-Reflections-on-the-systems-of-innovation-approach.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  24. Elster, J. (1989). Nuts and bolts for the social sciences. Cambridge University Press, at http://epistemh.pbworks.com/f/C+(2).+Elster+Nuts+and+Bolts.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  25. Ernst and Omland in Ernst, H., & Omland, N. (2011). The Patent Asset Index–A new approach to benchmark patent portfolios. World Patent Information, 33(1), 34–41,40 at https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/4012648/Publications%20PDF/3_Ernst,%20Omland%20(2010)%20-%20WPI%20-%20The%20Patent%20Asset%20Index.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  26. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research policy, 29(2), 109-123 at https://ams-forschungsnetzwerk.at/downloadpub/Etzk.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  27. Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2017). The triple helix: University–industry–government innovation and entrepreneurship. Routledge.
     Google Scholar
  28. Fagerberg, J. (2006, March). Innovation, technology, and the global knowledge economy: Challenges for future growth. In Green Roads to Growth” Project and Conference, Copenhagen at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan-Fagerberg-2/publication/24134945_Innovation_technology_and_the_global_knowledge_economy_Challenges_for_future_growth/links/54038cc80cf23d9765a5cf19/Innovation-technology-and-the-global-knowledge-economy-Challenges-for-future-growth.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  29. Fisch, C. O., Block, J. H., & Sandner, P. G. (2016). Chinese university patents: quantity, quality, and the role of subsidy programs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(1), 60–84 at [PDF] researchgate.net.
     Google Scholar
  30. Fisch, C. O., Hassel, T. M., Sandner, P. G., & Block, J. H. (2015). University patenting: A comparison of 300 leading universities worldwide. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(2), 318–345 at https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w7718/w7718.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  31. Fox, H. G. (1946). Patents in relation to monopoly. Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue Canadienne de economiques et science politique, 12(3), 328–34.
     Google Scholar
  32. I Timoneda, J. J. (2007), ‘Patents Are Not Monopolies’ C&EN Chemical and Engineering, at https://cen.acs.org/articles/85/i34/Patents-Monopolies.html.
     Google Scholar
  33. Frank, D. J., & Meyer, J. W. (2007). University expansion and the knowledge society. Theory and society, 36(4), 287–311 at http://kieranhealy.org/files/misc/frank-meyer.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  34. Gervais, D. J. (2004). The Compatibility of the “Skill and Labour” Originality Standard with the Berne Convention and the TRIPs Agreement. European Intellectual Property Review, 26(2), 75–80.
     Google Scholar
  35. Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research policy, 35(6), 790–807 at https://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/veranstaltungen/inno_patenting_conf/GeunaNesta.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  36. Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2010). The race between education and technology. Harvard university press.
     Google Scholar
  37. Gorodnichenko, Y., & Roland, G. (2011). Individualism, innovation, and long-run growth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(Supplement 4), 21316–21319.
     Google Scholar
  38. Grossmann, I., & Na, J. (2014). Research in culture and psychology: Past lessons and future challenges. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 5(1), 1–14.
     Google Scholar
  39. HapMap, see https://www.genome.gov/10001688/international-hapmap-project.
     Google Scholar
  40. Hegel, G. W. F. (2001). The Philosophy of Right, 1886, ed. Translated by SW Dyde Kitchener, Ontario. at https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/hegel/right.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  41. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Review of Economics and statistics, 80(1), 119–127 at https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w5068/w5068.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  42. Hesse, C. (2002). The rise of intellectual property, 700 BC-AD 2000: An idea in the balance. Daedalus, 131(2), 26–45,38 at https://www.amacad.org/publication/intellectual-property-700-bc-ad-2000 accessed on 31 May 2022.
     Google Scholar
  43. Hesse, C. (2020). Publishing and Cultural Politics in Revolutionary Paris. In Publishing and Cultural Politics in Revolutionary Paris. University of California Press at https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft0z09n7hf;brand=ucpress.
     Google Scholar
  44. Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2012). Research intensity and knowledge transfer activity in UK universities. Research policy, 41(2), 262–275.
     Google Scholar
  45. High-growth firms and intellectual property rights: IP profile of high-potential SMEs in Europe, (May 2019), published by EPO and EUIPO Munich, Germany, and Alicante, Spain, https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/observatory/documents/reports/2019_High-growth_firms_and_intellectual_property_rights/2019_High-growth_firms_and_intellectual_property_rights.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  46. Hofstede, G. H., & Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage Publications.
     Google Scholar
  47. Hollis, A., & Pogge, T. (2010). Product-development partnerships and the health impact fund (Vol. 9, No. 4). IGH Discussion Paper No, at https://healthimpactfund.org/en/publications/.
     Google Scholar
  48. Hu, M. C., & Mathews, J. A. (2005). National innovative capacity in East Asia. Research policy, 34(9), 1322–1349 at https://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeerespol/v_3a34_3ay_3a2005_3ai_3a9_3ap_3a1322-1349.htm.
     Google Scholar
  49. Jefferson, R. (2006). Science as social enterprise: the CAMBIA biOS initiative. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(4), 13-44 at https://click.endnote.com/viewer?doi=10.1162%2Fitgg.2006.1.4.13&token=WzM2MjQyMjcsIjEwLjExNjIvaXRnZy4yMDA2LjEuNC4xMyJd.5GrFlJUAfVBwfIczPI9YmMOUITI.
     Google Scholar
  50. Joly, Y. (2010). Open biotechnology: licenses needed. Nature Biotechnology, 28(5), 417–419.
     Google Scholar
  51. Jones, C. I., & Vollrath, D. (2013). Introduction to Economic Growth. WW Norton&Company. Inc. New York, NY.
     Google Scholar
  52. Kahin, B. (2006). Patent Reform for a Digital Economy. Computer & Communications Industry Association at https://www.ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CCIA_WP_PatReformDigEcon.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  53. Karmel, M. (2003). A drug for all reasons why the pharmaceutical industry now targets healthy people. UTNE-MINNEAPOLIS, 16–17 at https://content.utne.com/2003-07-01/DrugforAllReasons.
     Google Scholar
  54. Kongolo, T., & Shyllon, F. (2004). Panorama of the most controversial IP issues in developing countries. European Intellectual Property Review, 26(6), 258–262.
     Google Scholar
  55. Krattiger, A., Mahoney, R. T., Nelsen, L., Thomson, J. A., Bennett, A. B., Satyanarayana, K., ... & Kowalski, S. P. (2007). Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: a handbook of best practices, Volumes 2., at https://www.ipmall.info/sites/default/files/hosted_resources/IP_handbook/iphandbook_volume_2.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  56. Landry, R., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2007). Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(6), 561–592.
     Google Scholar
  57. Lee, D. (2017). The Origins of Individualism. Critical Review,29(3), 351–361.
     Google Scholar
  58. Little, W., McGivern, R., & Kerins, N. (2016). Introduction to sociology-2nd Canadian edition. BC Campus, at https://openlibrary-repo.ecampusontario.ca/jspui/handle/123456789/316.
     Google Scholar
  59. Locke, J. (2015). The second treatise of civil government. Broadview Press. Chapter 16 Property, Second Treatise, §§ 25–51, at https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s3.html#:~:text=The%20Labour%20of%20his%20Body,thereby%20makes%20it%20his%20Property.
     Google Scholar
  60. Machlup, F. (1958). An economic review of the patent system (No. 15). US Government Printing Office, at https://cdn.mises.org/An%20Economic%20Review%20of%20the%20Patent%20System_Vol_3_3.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  61. Martin, B. (1995). Against intellectual property. Philosophy and Social Action, 21, 7–22 at https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/95psa.html.
     Google Scholar
  62. May, C. (1998). Thinking, buying, selling: Intellectual property rights in political economy. New Political Economy, 3(1), 59–78.
     Google Scholar
  63. Menell, P. S., Lemley, M. A., Merges, R. P., & Balganesh, S. (2021). Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age: 2021–Chapters 1 and 2, at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3884159.
     Google Scholar
  64. Mgbeoji, I. (2006). Global Biopiracy: Patents, Plants, and Indigenous Knowledge. ubc Press.
     Google Scholar
  65. Mgbeoji, I., & Allen, B. (2003). Patent First, Litigate Later! The Scramble for Speculative and Overly Broad Genetic Patents: Implications for Access to Health Care and Biomedical Research. Canadian Journal for Law and Technology, 83–98,87 at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1569635.
     Google Scholar
  66. Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism (reprinted, 2001). Kitchener, ON: Batoche Books, at https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/utilitarianism.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  67. Mohd. AKHTAR KHAN. (1987). Individualism: Origin and Evolution. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 126–132.
     Google Scholar
  68. Morton vs N.Y. Eye Infirmary, 17 F Cas 879 (CCSDNY 1862)
     Google Scholar
  69. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research policy, 30(1), 99–119 at [PDF] researchgate.net.
     Google Scholar
  70. Nealey, T., Daignault, R. M., & Cai, Y. (2014). Trade secrets in life science and pharmaceutical companies. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine, 5(4), a020982. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a020982.
     Google Scholar
  71. NIH db GaP (database of Genotypes and Phenotypes), see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/gap/cgi-bin/about.html.
     Google Scholar
  72. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia (Vol. 5038). New York: Basic Books, at https://antilogicalism.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/anarchy-state-utopia.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  73. Oddi, A. S. (1995). Un-unified economic theories of patents--the not-quite-holy grail. Notre Dame L. Rev., 71, 267,275–77, at https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/268210637.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  74. Oguamanam, C. (2008). Beyond theories: intellectual property dynamics in the global knowledge economy. Wake Forest Intell. Prop. LJ, 9, 104,144, at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chidi-Oguamanam/publication/336778868_Beyond_Theories_The_Intellectual_Property_Dynamic_in_the_Global_Knowledge_Economy/links/5db23acda6fdccc99d945ea7/Beyond-Theories-The-Intellectual-Property-Dynamic-in-the-Global-Knowledge-Economy.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  75. Oguamanam, C. (2008). Local knowledge as trapped knowledge: intellectual property, culture, power, and politics. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 11(1), 29–57,31
     Google Scholar
  76. Oguamanam, C. (2010). Patents and pharmaceutical R&D: consolidating private–public partnership approach to global public health crises. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 13(4), 556–580 at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2283246.
     Google Scholar
  77. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004). Patents and innovation: Trends and policy challenges. OECD Publishing at https://www.oecd.org/science/inno/24508541.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  78. Overdiek, M., Rausch, T., & Gramke, K. (2020). World-class patents—the “gold” of the knowledge economy? Business Service, 100 (9), 718–723,719 at https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10273-020-2744-x.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  79. Pogge, T. (2012). The health impact fund: enhancing justice and efficiency in global health. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 13(4), 537–559, at https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2012.703172.
     Google Scholar
  80. PUBLIC LAW 96-517-DEC. 12, 1980. Public Law 96-517. 94 STAT. 3015. 96th Congress. An Act. To amend the patent and trademark laws at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-94/pdf/STATUTE-94-Pg3015.pdf#page=14.
     Google Scholar
  81. Public Library of Science, see http://www.plos.org/.
     Google Scholar
  82. Quinn, G. (2017), ‘Debunking the Myth that Patents Create a Monopoly,’ IPWatchdog.com, at https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/02/25/debunking-myth-patents-create-monopoly/id=78756/.
     Google Scholar
  83. Radelli, M. (2021). Patent evergreening technological advancement and abusive commercial practices. Availability of essential medicine in the case of access to insulin. QMLJ, 66.
     Google Scholar
  84. Rawls, J. (2020). A theory of justice: Revised edition. Harvard university press, at https://giuseppecapograssi.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/rawls99.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  85. Resnik, D. B. (2003). A pluralistic account of intellectual property. Journal of business ethics, 46(4), 319–335.
     Google Scholar
  86. Robinson, W. C. (1890). The law of patents for useful inventions (Vol. 2). Little, Brown, at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3124814&view=1up&seq=98&skin=2021.
     Google Scholar
  87. Rosenberg, N., & Nelson, R. R. (1994). American universities and technical advance in industry. Research policy, 23(3), 323–348 at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_5100/rosenberg_1994.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  88. Sam Dryden, in his foreword Krattiger, A., Mahoney, R. T., Nelsen, L., Thomson, J. A., Bennett, A. B., Satyanarayana, K., ... & Kowalski, S. (2007). Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: a handbook of best practices. Vol. 1. MIHR and PIPRA, at https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1124&context=law_facpub.
     Google Scholar
  89. Sampat, B. N., Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2003). Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh–Dole act: a re-examination. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1371–1390 at https://www.mgmt.purdue.edu/centers/ijio/accepted/SMZ.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  90. Samuelson, P. (2000). Privacy As Intellectual Property? Stanford Law Review, 52(5), 1125–1173. https://doi.org/10.2307/122951.
     Google Scholar
  91. Santos, H. C., Varnum, M. E., & Grossmann, I. (2017). Global increases in individualism. Psychological science, 28(9), 1228–1239.
     Google Scholar
  92. Seip, M., Van Der Heijden, A., & Bax, M. (2022). Scale-ups and intellectual property rights: the role of technological and commercialisation capabilities in firm growth. International Journal of Innovation Management, 26(04), 2250033.
     Google Scholar
  93. Shah, A. (2010), Pharmaceutical corporations and medical research—global issues. Global Issues: Social, Political, Economic and Environmental Issues That Affect Us All—Global Issues at https://www.globalissues.org/article/52/pharmaceutical-corporations-and-medical-research.
     Google Scholar
  94. Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. International journal of industrial organization, 21(9), 1357–1369 at https://www.krannert.purdue.edu/centers/ijio/accepted/sww.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  95. Stallberg, C. G. (2007). The legal status of academic employees’ inventions in Britain and Germany and its consequences for R&D agreements. Intellectual property quarterly, 4.
     Google Scholar
  96. Stehr, N. (2012). Knowledge societies. The Wiley‐Blackwell encyclopedia of globalization.
     Google Scholar
  97. Swart, K. W. (1962). “Individualism” in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (1826-1860). Journal of the History of Ideas, 23(1), 77–90.
     Google Scholar
  98. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management science, 48(1), 90–104.
     Google Scholar
  99. United States Code, 1994 Edition, Supplement 3, Title 35-PATENTS
     Google Scholar
  100. Välimaa, J., & Hoffman, D. (2008). Knowledge society discourse and higher education. Higher education, 56(3), 265–285.
     Google Scholar
  101. Van Overwalle, G. (2012). Individualism, collectivism, and openness in patent law: from exclusion to inclusion through licensing. In Individualism and collectiveness in intellectual property law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
     Google Scholar
  102. Von Falck, A., & Schmaltz, C. (2005). University inventions: Classification and remuneration in Germany, the Netherlands, France, the UK, the US and Japan. IIC-INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMPETITION LAW, 36(8), 912–927.
     Google Scholar
  103. Von Graevenitz, G., Hall, B. H., Helmers, C., & Rosazza Bondibene, C. (2013). A study of patent thickets. Intellectual Property Office UK at https://web.archive.org/web/20170120235804id_/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/311234/ipresearch-thickets.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  104. Wong, P., & Singh, A. (2010). University patenting activities and their link to the quantity and quality of scientific publications. Scientometrics, 83(1), 271–294 at https://web2-bschool.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/media_rp/publications/MX8Rm1422877585.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  105. World Bank press release ‘Two-Thirds of Poorer Countries Are Cutting Education Budgets Due to COVID-19’ (22 February 2021) at https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2021/02/22/two-thirds-of-poorer-countries-are-cutting-education-budgets-due-to-covid-19.
     Google Scholar
  106. Wyatt, I. D., & Hecker, D. E. (2006). Occupational changes during the 20th century. Monthly Labor Review, 35 at https://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/03/art3full.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  107. Zapp, M. (2022). Revisiting the global knowledge economy: the worldwide expansion of research and development personnel, 1980–2015. Minerva, 1–28 at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-021-09455-4.
     Google Scholar
  108. Zapp, M., & Lerch, J. C. (2020). Imagining the World: Conceptions and Determinants of Internationalization in Higher Education Curricula Worldwide. Sociology of Education, 1, 21 at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mike-Zapp-2/publication/342179621_Imagining_the_World_Conceptions_and_Determinants_of_Internationalization_in_Higher_Education_Curricula_Worldwide/links/5ee79a37299bf1faac560e8c/Imagining-the-World-Conceptions-and-Determinants-of-Internationalization-in-Higher-Education-Curricula-Worldwide.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  109. Zengrui, T., Buitrago, G. A., & Odilova, S. (2017). Will a Collectivistic Culture protect your Intellectual Property? Effect of Individualism on Intellectual Property Protection. International Business Research, 10(11), 111–116 at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a163/32a8cd200bb67e42dd71af12f15128177e83.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  110. Zhou, Y. R. (2022). Vaccine nationalism: contested relationships between COVID-19 and globalization. Globalizations, 19(3), 450–465 at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2021.1963202.
     Google Scholar