The four case studies reveal the same pattern in different settings. New Zealand’s services commitments open the market, but the practical shape of each service is set by the IP layer that sits above, below or alongside it. Sometimes the IP right is the service itself, as in software and audiovisual production. Sometimes it is an upstream input, as in health. Sometimes it is a cultural or platform layer that gives the service its value, as in tourism. These are fair findings for the New Zealand context, but they also reflect the global reality of how IP and services interact in trade. The policy implication is that trade in services and protection of IP are not separate problems in the context of the markets that matter for New Zealand. They are two sides of the same coin, and they need to be treated as such in trade policy and trade negotiations.

Background

The direct-linkage cases, computer/software and audiovisual/streaming services, show that market access is not the same as practical access. Software depends on copyright, licensing and database control. Streaming depends on copyright, collective management and technical protection measures. In both settings the GATS schedule may be open while the IP layer still determines what can actually be supplied.

In streaming markets, licensing architecture and dispute-resolution institutions often determine whether formal access commitments become practical service supply.^[1]

The indirect-linkage cases show a different problem. Tourism depends on traditional knowledge, trade marks, destination branding and online travel platforms. Human health depends on pharmaceutical patents, clinical data, software licences and the status of rongoā Māori (traditional Māori medicine). In those sectors the service is not itself the IP product, but the service cannot be understood without the IP around it.

The health case shows the same pressure point. Patent, data-exclusivity^[2] and traditional-knowledge^[3] settings can redirect access conditions rather than resolve them. Formal openness can still be narrowed by control over regulatory data^[4] and digital infrastructure.^[5] Therefore, market constraints may be more about the interface between IP and services than about the GATS schedule itself.^[6]

Stats NZ survey data for 2021 further confirms how different these sectors are in practical IP behaviour.^[7] In computer systems design, firms overwhelmingly choose formal or contractual protection, with confidentiality agreements leading (30.1%) and a relatively low no-protection share (6.0%).^[8] In the audiovisual proxy sectors (information media and telecommunications, motion picture, arts and recreation), no protection is the largest single category (23.2%), with confidentiality (19.2%) and trade marks still substantial (15.1%), followed by general reliance on copyright (14.4%).^[9] Tourism and health show the strongest divergence from direct-linkage sectors: in accommodation and food services, no protection is 39.7%; in health care and social assistance it is 34.5%, even though confidentiality remains high at 31.6%.^[10] In short, from sectors chosen for case studies those most likely to choose not to protect IP are tourism-facing, audiovisual and healthcare sectors, while computer services providers are far more likely to protect in general through confidentiality, trade marks and copyright.^[11]

Overall, these patterns show a consistent gap between formal market openness and practical service supply. Across sectors, the decisive constraints sit at the interface between services commitments, IP settings and domestic regulation. The full case studies below apply this framework in detail.

Full case studies

• Study 1: Computer and Software Related Services
• Study 2: Audiovisual and Streaming Services
• Study 3: Tourism and Travel Services
• Study 4: Human Health Services

Taken together, the case studies suggest three policy conclusions.

First, the services trade commitments and the IP chapter need to be read together. A liberal schedule does not tell the whole story if licensing, data control or upstream patent rights set the real boundary of supply.

Second, sectors differ in the kind of IP pressure they face. Software and audiovisual content are rights-heavy at the point of delivery. Tourism is rights-light at the point of delivery but dependent on culture, branding and platform control. Health is rights-light inside the service sector itself but rights-heavy in the medicines and software that sustain it.

Third, New Zealand’s framework is uneven in ways that matter for policy. Copyright and trade marks do useful work, but traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, database investment and some forms of health-related input remain only partly protected or only indirectly governed.

Institutional coherence is important to whether formal rights support sustainable policy outcomes.^[12]

Findings

1. Trade in services and trade in IP emerge as a single policy problem. The studies show that the main constraints often sit at the interface between the two.

2. Explicit guidance appears important in sectors where cultural knowledge is commercially material. Tourism and health both show that mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) can be central to value creation while still being weakly protected by ordinary IP rules.

3. Platform and licence dependence is a central consideration. In software, audiovisual services and tourism, the practical gatekeeper is often a platform, not a schedule entry.

4. Policy space in health remains a significant consideration. Access to affordable medicines, clinical data governance and the treatment of traditional medicine should be central when trade commitments are negotiated or interpreted.

5. The case studies provide a useful template for future sectoral work. The same method can be extended to other services sectors where IP sits in the background but materially shapes trade outcomes.

The policy implication is that New Zealand should adopt a more integrated approach to trade policy, one that considers the interplay between services commitments and IP protection. New Zealand should not need to choose between openness and protection in the abstract. It should identify, sector by sector, where openness depends on IP rules, where IP protects the value being traded, and where the existing framework leaves important interests uncovered.

Where comprehensive integration is not feasible, a staged or limited cooperative model may therefore be a pragmatic way to improve coherence between the IP and services, whether in Free Trade Agreements or domestic legislation.^[13]