TRIPS enabled the hegemonic control of knowledge

Gigantic blocs of capital—big pharma, big tech, and showbiz—not only strongly supported it but also played a vital role in its inception and transnational enforcement. Nevertheless, according to Luigi Pellizzoni and Marja Ylönen, “TRIPs [sic] extended the scope of patentability to all commercially exploitable products and processes, including genetically modifed plants and animals” (Pellizzoni & Ylönen, 2012, p.  56). As every piece of written information became copyrighted, the expansion of digitalisation simultaneously meant making intellectual property(private) ubiquitous because all social interactions digitally mediated by writing were now part of the intellectual property system. A further paradox arose. While information could be accessed like never before without the then current constraints of space and time, the “proliferation of intellectual property rights inhibits access to such information in areas (basic research in general, the life sciences, software)”, which were mostly part of the so-called public domain (David & Foray, 2002, p. 13). Accessible knowledge meant it would have to be situated outside capitalist markets, consequently constraining profit (Nelson, 2003, p.  1701). Knowledge expropriation was absolutely pivotal in changing this dynamic. The loss of capitalist dynamism after the so-called Golden Age (after World War II) accelerated the need to impose control over knowledge as a necessary condition of production (Sum & Jessop, 2013, p. 292)

Te strategy to secure hegemonic control over knowledge did not fundamentally change; the novelty was the new tactics. While governments J. Romeiro Hermeto 23 and universities were already vastly entangled with capital (Conner, 2005, p. 472f), the expansion and universalisation of intellectual property gave capital a tighter grip on knowledge which could endure a greater separation/autonomy within the productive process, enabling an even greater division of labour. “Designed in California, made in China” is one of the many examples in which knowledge production and industrial production have been separated. As such, it required an extension of the powerful protection thus far reserved for the immediate private property of the means of production. On the other hand, producing novel knowledge and technology is an uncertain practice. It is uncertain when it is going to be accomplished and whether it is going to be successful, and how many resources it is going to take before it can yield the expected results. Tis unpredictable character renders private capital an unsuitable candidate for this endeavour. Instead, resources are drawn from society—usually by the capitalist state—enabling the so-called basic research (Hull, 2019, p. 31f)

TRIPS was clearly not an organic development of the forces of the so called free-market. Instead, it “came about after the chief executive ofcers of Bristol-Myers, CBS, DuPont, General Electric, General Motors, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Monsanto and Pfzer joined forces to form the Intellectual Property Committee (IPC)” (George, 2012, p. 45). It consolidates intellectual property rights in an international system (Sonderholm, 2012, p. 110). Yet, its greatest advocates were those countries that violated previous intellectual property agreements (Chang, 2001, p. 10).

By the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, DuPont played a major role in integrating scientifc endeavour into capital. Patents became so crucial that it gave rise to the so-called profession of Patent Locksmith. Patent bureaucracy did not fall short of importance to inventions themselves. Knowledge control was imposed not only by isolated patents but also by what Drahos and Braithwaite call a “web of patents”, thus enabling great power to block competition (Drahos & Braithwaite, 2002, p. 46). The cartelisation of economies was—probably inadvertently—legalised by means of the universalisation of the patent system

Almost a century later, TRIPS came about and was integrated into the World Trade Organization (WTO). However, it emerged from the General Agreement on Tarifs and Trade (GATT). At frst, it seemed an incongruity because the GATT “related to goods crossing borders, not knowledge” (Drahos & Braithwaite, 2002, p. 68); however, the private companies involved—see supra—, headed by Pfzer, promoted a plan to actualise TRIPS. Pfzer sponsored a crusade to behavioural-perception change, “linking the trade regime to investment” (Drahos & Braithwaite, 2002, p. 68). National strategies of investment were therefore encumbered. Te strategy imposed over the world was relatively simple: if US-American conditions of intellectual property were not met, trade would be blocked. According to Drahos and Braithwaite, “less than 50 individuals had managed to globalise a set of regulatory norms for the conduct of all those doing business or aspiring to do business in the information age” (Drahos & Braithwaite, 2002, p. 73). This imposition was a spectacular feat and an impressive display of capitalist power. Only fifty people were responsible for how the entire world would come to terms with intellectual property under TRIPS.