The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) published the results of a survey on the climate of intellectual property in 53 countries including Indonesia.
The business organization, part of the United States Chamber of Commerce based in Washington, D.C, ranked Indonesia 46th out of 53 countries.
Indonesia's position in the 8th edition of gipc report is down compared to the previous edition which ranked 43rd out of 50 countries.
Indonesia's ranking is only better than Pakistan's position in 51st place.
In this 2020 edition, GIPC added another 3 countries in its survey, namely the Dominican Republic, Greece and Kuwait.
I've written this theme for the 2018 and 2019 surveys.
Not only the rankings have decreased, of all indicators assessed are not much different from the previous year.
In this 8th edition, although Indonesia's ranking is not encouraging, the score of the survey conducted by GIPC reached 30.24% or better than the previous score of 30%.
In terms of ranking, Indonesia's position is alarming because it is well above the Asian countries surveyed.
Above Indonesia is Japan ranked 6th, followed by Singapore at 11th.
After that, South Korea 13, Taiwan 21, Malaysia 27, China 28, Brunei 35, United Arab Emirates 36, Philippines 37, Saudi Arabia 38, India 39, Vietnam 42, and Thailand 45.
Many records were given by GIPC to Indonesia for the score and rating.
GIPC outlines the report, namely the first Patents, Rights, Limitations of Patent Requirements and The Use of Mandatory Licenses for Patented Products.
When Indonesia has Patent Law No. 13/2016 with the aim of strengthening innovation and technology infrastructure, only limited to biopharmaceutical patents.
The act has not increased the scope of patents that increasingly challenge the dynamics. The policy was only limited to the introduction of a broader use of imported drug licenses or licenses.
Whereas Indonesia already has regulations except regulations against patents of hepatitis and HIV drugs. The regulation is capable because it allows the government to protect local patents from national security threats.
In fact, beleid published in the mid-2000s mentioned that it can export permits as long as it is licensed mandatory.
Gipc's criticism again against article 20 of the 2016 Law is that patent production has not supported industrial policies, especially technology transfer, investment absorption or employment.
Not to mention there is no clear legal definition in that policy as raiding similar products protects genuine patents.
Second, in terms of efficiency and economic impact, the Indonesian government does not have a systematic research program on the relationship between intellectual property rights and economic activity.
For example, Indonesians are actively involved in trying to understand and promote the link between registration and protection of intellectual property rights and economic activities through several workshops and seminars.
To date, said GPIC, there has been no series of systematic research published or published by the directorate.
However, the government through the Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy has used the methodology developed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to support the research and publication of reports on the economic impact of creative industries in Indonesia.
The report is titled Economic Contribution of Copyright and Related Rights Industry in Indonesia. There is an added value of 4.20% and 4.11% of jobs from research conducted by the Ministry of Justice.