In June of 2013, Pfizer’s Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, Roy F. Waldron, testified before Congress, insisting that “India’s protectionist and discriminatory policies, which exploit US [IP] to benefit its own industry, require an equally bold response.” Focusing on non-market strategy, propose one “bold response” that Pfizer might find useful in this regard.
Follow the 2013 Special 301 Report on India on page 38-40 click on India and see what US is accusing India of doing with respect to IP infringements. Look at Roy Waldron's testimonials and also look at Philip Morris International's non-market strategy for going against Australia's recent mandate on labeling used on cigarette packaging.
Question
Solution Preview
This material may consist of step-by-step explanations on how to solve a problem or examples of proper writing, including the use of citations, references, bibliographies, and formatting. This material is made available for the sole purpose of studying and learning - misuse is strictly forbidden.
As the world quickly becomes more interconnected, IPR protection becomes a greater challenge to leading nations and businesses. The slow evolution of IPR laws in developing markets like China and India in relation to the incredibly fast evolution rate of the Internet causes even greater difficulty to American businesses, government officials, and military interests. IPR is incredibly important because it allows a government or business to copyright their invention or technological advance and guard it against other nations seeking to sell the invention for lower than market value....By purchasing this solution you'll be able to access the following files:
Solution.docx.
Return to homework library