[calibraxis]

I think it's simple like most such questions. Take the 19th century US position: "IN the 19th century, the United States was both a rapidly industrializing nation and -- as Charles Dickens, among others, knew all too well -- a bold pirate of intellectual property." (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/14/business/new-economy-intel...)

(And a little research can show how drug companies take expensive fundamental research from taxpayers, and use marketing costs to inflate their R&D expenditures.)

Truly sovereign nations don't have to respect such inefficient dysfunctional systems which are designed to enrich some sectors at the cost of everyone else. The idea behind intellectual property is that someone with a stick attacks you if you use an idea. No sane developing country would submit themselves to such a regime unless they must. Anyone interested in more can read Ha-Joon Chang's work.

(It should be unnecessary to point out that, regarding the "stick", the US projects violence and starvation throughout the world via military and economic means.)