Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of abbreviations
- Acknowledgments
- Part I The main problems
- Part II The protection of genetic resources in intellectual property law
- Part III The protection of traditional knowledge in the international patent system
- 4 Towards clearer legal definitions
- 5 The construction of an access- and benefit-sharing regime and intellectual property issues: criteria and options
- 6 The defensive protection of traditional knowledge in international patent law
- 7 Positive protection of traditional knowledge
- 8 Final observations
- Index
- Cambridge Cultural Social Studies
- References
7 - Positive protection of traditional knowledge
from Part III - The protection of traditional knowledge in the international patent system
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 August 2010
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of abbreviations
- Acknowledgments
- Part I The main problems
- Part II The protection of genetic resources in intellectual property law
- Part III The protection of traditional knowledge in the international patent system
- 4 Towards clearer legal definitions
- 5 The construction of an access- and benefit-sharing regime and intellectual property issues: criteria and options
- 6 The defensive protection of traditional knowledge in international patent law
- 7 Positive protection of traditional knowledge
- 8 Final observations
- Index
- Cambridge Cultural Social Studies
- References
Summary
Positive protection of plant genetic resources and related traditional knowledge in provider countries
While defensive protection seeks to prevent the granting of patents based on misappropriation of TK, positive protection seeks to grant exclusive rights on TK.
There are various options to protect TK subject-matters through IPRs existing in TRIPS or newly crafted sui generis IPRs. This action calls for a certain urgency at the domestic level since international negotiations in the relevant fora (in order to recognize new types of IPRs and to clarfy the concepts thereof) progress at a slow pace. Certain countries have been considering particular legislative measures to protect TK with national IP legislation. Nevertheless, treaties harmonizing IP concepts on this matter can grant protection beyond the boundaries of a certain State because of the principle of territoriality of IPRs (i.e. their enforcement stops at national boundaries).
There are two major types of protection of TK. The first is the holistic that intends to create one right to protect all the different aspects of a TK subject-matter. This protection seems to satisfy the needs and expectations of most of TK holders (section 4.1 above). The second type of protection divides the different aspects of a TK subject-matter according to the types of suitable IPRs. This section shall focus only on the latter as holistic protection requires too deep an anthropological study of TK and it is not immediately clear how this can relate to the existing IP system for an effective form of protection in the market economy and globalized world of intellectual property.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Protection of Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge in International Law of Intellectual Property , pp. 275 - 325Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
et al., “The Current Law of Plant Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge”, in and (eds.), Rights to Plant Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge (CABI, 2006) 83–92Google Scholar
, “Conserving Biodiversity and Rewarding Associated Knowledge and Innovation Systems: Honey Bee Perspective”, in and (eds.), Intellectual Property, Competition and Sustainable Development (University of Michigan Press, 2003) 148Google Scholar
, “The Interface between Intellectual Property and International Trade: The TRIPS Agreement” (2002) 1(1) Italian Intellectual Property42Google Scholar
and , “Intellectual Property Rights and Plant Genetic Resources: Options for a Sui Generis System” (International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, June 1997) 6Google Scholar
, “Plant Variety Protection in Africa” (2001) 45(1) Journal of African Law97–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “TRIPS and Plant Variety Protection” (1995) 17 European Intellectual Property Review281Google Scholar
, “Patenting Plants around the World” (1996) 18 European Intellectual Property Review531Google Scholar
, “Biological Resources and Intellectual Property Rights” (1992) 14 (5) European Intellectual Property Review154–57 (1992)Google Scholar
, “Saving the Patent System from Itself”, in (ed.), Perspectives on Properties of the Human Genome Project (Academic Press, 2003) 289, 291–95Google Scholar
, “Of Green Tulips and Legal Kudzu: Repackaging Rights in Subpatentable Innovation” (2000) 53 Vanderbilt Law Review1753Google Scholar
, “The Economics of Improvement in Intellectual Property Law” (1997) 75 Texas Law Review989Google Scholar
, “Open Source Genomics” (2002) 8 Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law254Google Scholar
, The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary (O'Reilly, 2001)Google Scholar
et al., The Enclosure and Recovery of the Commons: Biodiversity Indigenous Knowledge & Intellectual Property Rights (Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, Delhi, 1997)Google Scholar
and , “A New Generation of IPRs for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge in Plant Genetic Resources for Food, Agricultural and Pharmaceutical Uses”, in and (eds.), Rights to Plant Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge: Basic Issues and Perspectives (CABI on behalf of Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the World Trade Institute, London, 2006) 238Google Scholar
, Optional Law: Real Options in the Structure of Legal Entitlements (University of Chicago Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , “Solomonic Bargaining: Dividing a Legal Entitlement to Facilitate Cosean Trade” (1995) 104 Yale Law Journal1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , “The Law and Economics of Reverse Engineering” (2002) 111 Yale Law Journal1575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Legal Hybrids Between the Patent and Copyright Paradigms” (1994) 94 Columbia Law Review2432, 2453–2503 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Intellectual Property Protection for Cumulative Systems” (1994) 94 Columbia Law Review2678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Biodiversity and the Concept of Farmers' Rights in International Law (Peter Lang, 1999) 150Google Scholar
, “The Protection of Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge” (1998) 1(14) Journal of International Economic Law559–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm” (2002) 112 Yale Law Journal369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property – Issues and Options Surrounding the Protection of Traditional Knowledge – A Discussion Paper (Quaker UN Office, Geneva, 2001)Google Scholar
, “The Public and Private Domains: Intellectual Property Rights in Traditional Knowledge” (2000) 21 Science Communication274–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , “The Economic Justification for the Grant of Intellectual Property Rights: Patents for Convergence and Conflict” in , , and (eds.), The Intellectual Property System: Commentary and Materials (Kluwer, The Hague, 1999) 266–67Google Scholar
, “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention”, in (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (Princeton University Press, 1962) 609Google Scholar
, A Global Political Economic of Intellectual Property Rights: The New Enclosures? (Routledge Publishers, London, 2000)Google Scholar
and , Non-voluntary Licensing of Patented Inventions, Historical Perspective, Legal Framework under TRIPS, and an Overview of the Practice in Canada and the United States (Issue Paper No.5, UNCTAD/ICTSD, Geneva, June 2003)Google Scholar
and , “Analysis of Different Areas of Indigenous Resources”, in (ed.), Indigenous Heritage and Intellectual Property: Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (Kluwer, The Hague, 2008) 109–111Google Scholar
, “Public Policy and Global Technological Integration: An Introduction”, in and (eds.), Public Policy and Global Technological Integration (Kluwer, Deventer, 1997) 1Google Scholar
and , “Property Rules, Liability Rules and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral”, (1972) 85 Harvard Law Review1089, 1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and , Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age (Aspen Publishers, Gaithesburg and New York, 2000) 120–24Google Scholar
, “Patents and Traditional Knowledge of the Uses of Plants: Is a Communal Patent Regime Part of the Solution to the Scourge of Biopiracy?” (2001) 9 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies163Google Scholar
and , Case Study in Innovative Mechanisms for Sharing Benefits of Biodiversity and Related Knowledge, Geographical Indications and Trademarks (Center For International Environmental Law, Geneva, 1999) 37–38Google Scholar
et al., “Local Ecological Knowledge and Practice: An Original Approach in France” (2005) 8 Les notes de l'IddriGoogle Scholar
and , “Indigenous Peoples, Biotechnology and Intellectual Property Rights” (1993) 2(2) Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 141–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Global Trade, Local Economies and the Biodiversity Convention, in (ed.), Biodiversity and the Law (Island Press, Washington, 1996)Google Scholar
, Integrating Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Rules of the World Trade Organization: Law and Policy Discussion Paper: Discussion Draft (World Conservation Union, Center for International Environmental Law, Gland, Switzerland, 1998)Google Scholar
, “Indigenous People and the Digital Age: Intersecting Circles?” (1998) 20 European Intellectual Property Review335Google Scholar