UNIVERSITY of HAWNI Llbrarv
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
._----- UNIVERSITY OF HAWNI LlBRARV GLOBALIZATION WITHOUT CONVERGENCE: AN ANALYSIS OF THE HARMONIZATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS ACROSS THREE DIFFERENT LEGAL REGIMES A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT May 2008 By Benjamin A. Kudo Dissertation Committee: Olgierd N. Ordway, Chairperson Dharm Bhawuk Richard W. Brislin Kiyobiko Ito Patricia G. Steinhoff We certify that we have read this dissertation and that, in our opinion, it is satisfactory in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in International Management. Dissertation Committee ~ .. :/~a~ Chairperson ~ ~M4JY1l ~Lu.~ 4d2G J6r: ii ACKNOWLEDGMENT There are numerous individuals that I wish to express my deepest appreciation to for their assistance and support in this research. First of all, to those individuals who assisted in facilitating and obtaining appointments with the various jurists in each respective country. These individuals are listed below by country. United States: Honorable Gerald H. Kibe Honorable Richard Talman Honorable Mario R. Ramil (retired) R. Brian Tsujimura, Esq. Japan: Gary M. Kobayashi, Esq. Donald H. Amano, Esq. Kenneth T. Okamoto, Esq. Republic of the Philippines: Perfecto R. Yasay, Jr., Esq. Glenn Nakamura Teodoro D. Regala, Esq. Cynthia V. Antonio I am also indebted to my Committee members for their support and critical recommendations and suggestions to keep me focused on my topic and produce a scholarly product. To all of them I am eternally grateful. Finally, I wish to acknowledge the support of my friends and family. In particular, Professor Glenn Miyataki, who mentored me for several years and kept me on schedule to cross the finish line. To my twin brother, Professor Franklin T. Kudo, who encouraged me to maintain the highest level of scholarship and to strive to learn and achieve. To my faithful secretary, Stephanie Tanaka, who selfishly assisted me in the iii typing of the numerous drafts of my research paper, and to my children, Katherine and Robert, to whom I dedicate my efforts. iv ABSTRACf Globalization has created pressures on nations to conform their societies, culture, political ideologies, and laws in order to engender parity and facilitate economic trade, foreign direct investment and technology transfers. Multilateral trade and global economic alliances like the World Trade OrganivUion (''WTO'') have demanded that member nations conform their business practices and laws to achieve a "level playing field." In order to accomplish this, the WTO has adopted and relied considerably on convergence theory. This theory maintains, in part, that the harmonization oflaws such as those dealing with intellectual property ("IP") will make the global marketplace more efficient and fair and benefit participating nation economies. However, merely harmonizing IP laws may be insufficient to create a "level playing field" for trade and commerce. In order for convergence theory to work, not only must IP laws be harmonized, but more importantly, the respective legal regimes of the signatory countries must also be conformed. This research analyzes the harmonization ofIP laws across three different legal regimes. In particular, I focus on the regimes of America, Japan and the Philippines, which have harmonized their IP laws in accordance with the WTO requirements. Using legal case studies I conducted personal interviews of selected judges and justices from each legal regime to identify their mental processes used in judicial decision making. The research yielded results which indicated that given similar laws and facts, jurists from each legal regime use unique mental processes not used by jurists of other regimes. This finding was corroborated by the significant variations in judicial outcome between v regimes, and the lack of uniformity of outcome across all regimes. From this finding, I conclude that legal regimes appear to serve as a moderator ofjudicial outcome. Based on my conclusion, the mere harmonizing ofIP laws without concomitant changes to the legal regimes of member nations may not yield similar judicial outcomes. Consequently, the underlying use and reliance on convergence theory by WTO may not work and should be reevaluated in light of this research. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................................................... ill ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... x LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ XI PREFACE ..................................................................................................................... XII CIlAP'I'ER 1 IN'TRODUCfION .................................................................................... 1 1.1 Statement of Purpose ...................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research Questions and Limitations of Research ........................................... 4 1.3 Definitions ...................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Limitations of Research .................................................................................. 8 1.5 Dissertation Outline ...................................................................................... 10 CllAP'I'ER 2 GLOBALIZATION: CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE •••••••• 12 2.1 The Globalization Process ............................................................................ 12 2.2 Divergence: Global Inequality and Resistance ............................................. 15 2.3 Leveling the Global "playing Field": Intellectual Property Laws ............... 17 2.4 Global Convergence: Harmonizing Intellectual Property Laws ................... 23 i. Typology of Harmonization. .................................................................. 28 2.5 Harmonization: Transplanting Law to Other Legal Regimes ...................... 29 2.6 Legal Harmonization: A Cultmal Perspective ............................................. 33 2.7 Interpretation of Law: A Socio-Cultmal Perspective .................................. 41 i. Common Law Interpretation Process .................................................... 41 ii. Civil Law Interpretation Process ........................................................... 43 2.8 The Multiple Meanings of Law .................................................................... 44 i. Natmal Law ........................................................................................... 45 ii. Legal Positivism .................................................................................... 47 iii. Socio-Legal Theory of Law ................................................................... 48 2.9 Philosophy of Law: "Rule of Law" and "Rule by Men" ............................. 49 i. The Role of Jmists in Defining Jmisprudence....................................... 52 CIlAP'I'ER 3 LEGAL REGIMES AND THE GLOBALIZATION OF INTELLEcruAL PROPERTY LAW •..............................................•.••...................... 5S 3.1 Three Separate Legal Regimes ..................................................................... 55 3.2 Common Law Regime of the United States ................................................. 56 i. An Intellectual Property Regime: U.S. Law .......................................... 61 ii. The Judiciary of the United States ......................................................... 67 3.3 Civil Law Regime of Japan .......................................................................... 69 i. An Intellectual Property Regime: Japan Law ........................................ 75 ii. The Judiciary of Japan ........................................................................... 81 vii 3.4 Hybrid (Civil Law/Common LawlMuslim Law) Regime of the Philippines .......................................................................................... 84 i. An Intellectual Property Regime: Philippine Law ................................. 91 ii. The Judiciary of the Republic of the Philippines ................................... 94 3.5 Comparison of Legal Regimes ..................................................................... 95 3.6 Adjudication: The Role of Jurists ................................................................. 98 3.7 Judicial Authority and Independence ......................................................... 102 i. Litigation and Judicial Outcome .......................................................... 104 CHAP'fER 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...............•........................................ 109 4.1 Characteristics of Hermeneutic Qualitative Research ................................ 109 4.2 Research Design ......................................................................................... 112 i. Selection of Legal Regimes and Jurists ............................................... 112 ii. Case Studies: Development of Interview Materials ........................... 115 iii. Pre-testing of Interview Materials ....................................................... 119 iv. Translation and Transcription of Interviews .......................................