Intellectual Property In Agriculture[.] Plant Breeders’ Rights and Geographical Indications: Towards a comprehensive approach to Intellectual Property in Agriculture (original) (raw)
Related papers
2010
See for example Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss and Rachel Wynberg 'The seeds of neo-colonialism: genetic engineering in food and farming' (2002) GroundWork, and Mariam Mayet 'The new green revolution in Africa: Trojan horse for GMOs?' (2007). 17 See in this regard the European Group on Ethics in Science and new Technologies to the European Commission 'Ethics of modern developments in agriculture technologies Opinion No 24' (17 December 2008) and the COGEM Report 'Socio-economic aspects of GMOs: building blocks for an EU sustainability assessment of genetically modified crops' CGM/090929-01. 18 This is referred to as the concept of dual knowledge in which a single 'discovery' may contribute to both scientific research and to a useful commercial application. Dual knowledge is often exploited in what is known as patent-paper pairs in which a publication is coupled with the patent. Empirical research shows a citation rate decline for such papers after formal IP rights have been granted, thus suggesting that IP rights may have a negative impact on the diffusion of scientific knowledge. Murray, Fiona and Stern, Scott 'Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis' (2007) 63 Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization 648-687. The pursuit of a dual knowledge strategy was enabled in the US by the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and is likely to become the practice in South Africa once the Intellectual Property Rights from Publicly Financed Research and Development Act 51 of 2008 becomes operational. Researchers in the developing world already face a host of barriers to effective research. See for example Forero-Pineda, Clemente and Jaramillo-Salazar, Hernan 'The access of researchers from developing countries to international science and technology' (2002) 54 International Social Science Journal 129-140. '[P]lant germplasm is a resource that reproduces itself, and a single 'taking' of germplasm could provide the material base upon which whole new sectors of production could be elaborated.' Jack R Kloppenburg First the seed: the political economy of plant biotechnology (1988) at 154 cited in 'Weeds, seeds & deeds' (note 25) at 262. 28 Mgbeoji questions the applicability of the common heritage concept during the colonial era, as the 'transfer of germ plasm from the colony to the mother country was more or less perceived as "an internal affair" of the colonial empires'. Ikechi Mgbeoji 'Beyond rhetoric: state sovereignty, common concern, and the inapplicability of the common heritage concept to plant genetic resources' (2003) 16 Leiden Journal of International Law 821 at 823. 29 The implications of the burgeoning regime for developing countries and for public sector research are discussed in Wright and Pardey 'Changing IP regimes: implications for developing country agriculture' (2006) 2 Int J Technology and Globalisation 93-114. broader environment (soil, water supply, etc). 37 From a social and economic perspective, there are concerns about food security and safety, cultural heritage, freedom of choice, and economic welfare. 38 These concerns are diverse and are often regulated in seemingly discreet areas of law which together spin an intricate web of rules, a complex regulatory regime, around PGRs. 39 1.2.2 A complex regulatory regime A proliferation of international organisations and instruments over the past few decades has given rise to 'an array of partially overlapping and nonhierarchical institutions governing a particular issue-area.' 40 These 'regime complexes' are in turn reflected in the provisions of domestic law.
PATENTING OF PLANTS AND EXCEPTIONS TO EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: LESSONS FROM EUROPEAN LAW
South Centre, 2021
Biotechnology has increased the use of patent law to protect the outcomes of plant breeding. While the TRIPS Agreement allows countries to exclude the patentability of plants and essentially biological processes to obtain them, many developing countries are granting patents on plants and plant components, such as seeds, cells, and genes. These patents can limit access to plant materials for further research and breeding and prevent farmers from saving and re-using seeds that incorporate patented materials. This study shows how European legislation has sought to strike a balance between the protection of plant-related inventions and the rights of breeders and farmers through the introduction of specific exceptions to patent rights and discusses what lessons can be drawn for developing countries.
The book “Intellectual Property in Agriculture”
Juan Antonio Vives-Vallés; Natale Rampazzo; Jakub Kepinski (eds.), Intellectual Property in Agriculture[.] Plant Breeders’ Rights and Geographical Indications: towards a comprehensive approach to Intellectual Property in Agriculture, Thomson Reuters Aranzadi, Cizur Menor, 2022
Intellectual Property Rights and Agricultural Biotechnology
Scientists, research directors, and policymakers face complex questions and decisions when managing intellectual property rights (IPR) for agricultural research. This chapter discusses the impact of IPR in a biotechnological context. It explains differences between principal categories of IPR relevant to agricultural research: plant variety rights, patents, trademarks, confidential information, trade secrets, and copyright. Material transfer agreements and farmers' rights are also discussed. National, regional, and international dimensions of these various forms of protection and agreements are reviewed, as well as the interrelationship between intellectual property and biodiversity rights.
Towards a Balanced Regime of Intellectual Property Rights for Agricultural Innovations
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights
The utilization of intellectual property (IP) rights in crop research is rapidly evolving, with an increasing number of countries and intergovernmental organizations becoming members of—and thereby ratifying the framework provided by — the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). Nevertheless, in some countries there has been intense debate over whether to implement the most modern version of UPOV (i.e., the 1991 Convention, or UPOV 91). The example of Chile is paradigmatic, where UPOV 91 has been ratified by the national legislature but not yet signed into law by the President. The delay in Chile is at least in part the result of misunderstanding surrounding the changes that UPOV 91 could effect in the country. This article seeks to clarify misconceptions by comparing the most controversial provisions of UPOV 91 with its predecessor (i.e., the 1978 Convention, or UPOV 78). Additionally, the authors draw upon the example of public sector research ins...
Although many developing countries have drafted legislation to address plant variety protection (PVP) requirements, relatively few have begun to implement PVP, and little guidance is available on appropriate strategies. This note looks at some of the key decisions facing agricultural policymakers in establishing a PVP regime, examines the implementation of PVP, assesses some of the impacts and limitations of PVP regimes, and identifies policy priorities that complement the establishment of IPRs for plant breeding
Farmers' Rights: Intellectual Property Regimes and the Struggle over Seeds
Politics & Society, 2004
This article analyzes "farmers' rights" as a strategy of resistance against the perceived inequities of intellectual property rights regimes for plant varieties. As commercial models of intellectual property have made their way into agriculture, farmers' traditional seed-saving practices have been increasingly delegitimized. In response, farmers have adopted the language of farmers' rights to demand greater material recognition of their contributions and better measures to protect their autonomy. This campaign has mixed implications. On one hand, farmers'rights are a unique form of right that may help transform conventions of intellectual property in ways that are better suited for registering and materially encouraging alternative forms of innovation, such as those offered by farming communities. On the other hand, farmers' rights have proved enormously difficult to enact. And by situating farmers'rights alongside easily enacted commercial breeders'rights, the campaign risks further legitimizing the inequities it is responding to.