Attempt all the problems.
problem1) What grounds is a strategy of export-led growth held justified for a developing country? Critically examine its appropriateness.
problem2) Textile and Clothing sector occupies pivotal role in the Indian economy. Describe the constraints recently faced by Indian exporters while exporting garments to US and European Union.
problem3) Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of Indian electronics commodities. How could you make them competitive in the global market?
problem4)a) What are the main issues of international trade in services? What is the function of services in India's external trade?
b) Briefly describe the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).
Supreme Court judgment of 1st April, 2013 on Glivec is the blow for a patent regime with a higher threshold of inventiveness The Supreme Court upheld the Intellectual Property Appellate Board’s decision to deny patent protection to Novartis’s application covering a beta crystalline form of imatinib —medicine Novartis brands as Glivec, and which is very efficient against the form of cancer known as chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML). The judgment marked a crucial conclusion to a saga that has been a number of decades in the making. Story can start in 1972, if you like, when Indian Patents Act of 1970 — grounded in the findings of the Bakshi Tek Chand and Ayyangar Committee Reports — came into force, enabling explosive growth of Indian generics industry into world’s largest exporter of bulk medicines. Or, it can start in 2005, when India amended its patent law to comply with Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), a trade rule at World Trade Organisation (WTO) that established the new global regime of intellectual property.
No matter where we start, saga has come to a close, and the key lesson seeping through is that good sense won. Initially, Supreme Court decision was not about patentability of the imatinib compound as such: that patent, having been instituted in 1993, is excluded from purview of Indian patent system, which is only obligated to consider patents filed in 1995 or after. Case the Supreme Court heard was whether Novartis’ beta crystalline form of imatinib was worthy of patent protection: its judgment was that this alteration by Novartis didn’t satisfy standard of inventiveness required under Indian patent law. Secondly, Indian patent law is as yet unchallenged at WTO; Novartis’s earlier challenge to the constitutionality and TRIPs compatibility of Indian patent law was rebuffed by the Madras High Court in 2007 and no appeal was pursued. Thirdly, Supreme Court judgment effectively recast Indian patent law as being nuanced and original in its meshing of domestic political economy concerns with integrated global economy it participates in. Outcome of this nuance and originality? Imatinib would continue to be available to patients in India from multiple suppliers at the price 10 times less than current cost of Glivec; approximately 27,000 cancer patients in the country who pay for their imatinib would continue to have access to medicine in the public and private sectors at the lowest cost possible; and should Novartis ever suspend its charitable programme, all 15,000 of the cancer patients who currently receive imatinib free from Novartis will have similarly equitable access to the medicine.
1) What are the necessary requirements to get the product patented according to TRIPS agreement.
2) Do you feel the Judgment of Supreme Court of India would affect the R&D work by Pharma MNC’s in India.