Although Chart 2 does not distinguish between domestic and foreign operations, we can speculate that THE strategic decisions of SMEs have also influenced the impact and trajectories of IP policy in different countries (Bessen-Meurer, 2008). Global fragmentation of value chains is linked to multi-directional information and knowledge flows of companies participating in the international network of multinational companies (Markus, Sia, Soh-Soh, 2012) and weak protection in the fight against intellectual property increases the risk of information leaks and misappropriation (p. B. Martinez-Noya – Garcia-Canal, 2011). Successful integration of GVC requires a dense flow of information to communicate, in addition to costs and other products, specifications, standards and technical know-how (Gereffi, Humphrey, Sturgeon, 2005). In this context, leading companies must be able to balance the benefits of aggregating the production process and resulting in cost reductions against the risk of losing control of some of their own intangible assets. As a result, major GVC trade companies are interested in stricter RANDs in trade agreements to reduce the risk of intellectual property ownership due to international production fragmentation. However, in order to circumvent the difficulty of using formal IP protection channels and to find other ways to enforce intellectual property rights without limiting the scope of CPC activity, other IP management mechanisms are increasingly emerging, mainly on the basis of an attempt to go beyond legal procedures. Strategies such as a finer cut of processes (Gooris – Peters, 2016) or a kind of holistic approach using corporate social responsibility to impose stricter IPR standards along the chains (Gillai, Rammohan, Lee, 2014), or measures to promote a “culture of IP protection and compliance” across the global WIP chain are becoming the mainstream , 2017).
The growing role of intangible assets (technology, design and branding) in production is increasingly reflected in the growing share of intangible assets in the value of finished products in international trade (Durand -Milberg, 2020; WIPO, 2017; Timmer et al., 2016). Hsieh and Rossi-Hansberg (2020) lead a second industrial revolution in the services sector, which led to an increase in productivity in the services sector through ICT, like machinery and mechanical engineering during the first industrial revolution. In addition, leading companies in GMCs are increasingly focusing on intangible values, while relocating assets to their partners in middle- and low-income countries. As a result, TRIPS calls for enhanced protection of intangible assets such as data protection, trademarks and copyright. Areas with larger intangible capital – whether on the basis of technological knowledge or the goodwill of consumers (brands) – can also earn more through the careful choice of their implementation strategies. Correa, C.M. 2000. Intellectual property rights, WTO and developing countries: the TRIPS agreement and policy options. London: Zed Books. The standard line of support for TRIPS stems from the recognition of the current importance of the knowledge and private intellectual property (IP) economy as an important element of international trade (WTO, 2008: 39).