Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T12:57:53.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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

Jonathan Curci
Jonathan Curci
Affiliation:
Touro International University, Rome
Get access

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 - 325
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cottier, T.et al., “The Current Law of Plant Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge”, in Cottier, T. and Biber-Klemm, S. (eds.), Rights to Plant Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge (CABI, 2006) 83–92Google Scholar
Gupta, A. K., “Conserving Biodiversity and Rewarding Associated Knowledge and Innovation Systems: Honey Bee Perspective”, in Cottier, T. and Mavroidis, P. (eds.), Intellectual Property, Competition and Sustainable Development (University of Michigan Press, 2003) 148Google Scholar
Ricolfi, M., “The Interface between Intellectual Property and International Trade: The TRIPS Agreement” (2002) 1(1) Italian Intellectual Property42Google Scholar
Dutfield, G., Intellectual Property Rights, Trade and Biodiversity (Earthscan, 2002) 82Google Scholar
Leskien, D. and Flitner, M., “Intellectual Property Rights and Plant Genetic Resources: Options for a Sui Generis System” (International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, June 1997) 6Google Scholar
Cullet, P., “Plant Variety Protection in Africa” (2001) 45(1) Journal of African Law97–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verma, S. K., “TRIPS and Plant Variety Protection” (1995) 17 European Intellectual Property Review281Google Scholar
Roberts, T., “Patenting Plants around the World” (1996) 18 European Intellectual Property Review531Google Scholar
Correa, C. M., “Biological Resources and Intellectual Property Rights” (1992) 14 (5) European Intellectual Property Review154–57 (1992)Google Scholar
Heller, M., “The Tragedy of the Anticommons” (1998) 111 Harvard Law Review621–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichman, J. H., “Saving the Patent System from Itself”, in Kieff, F. Scott (ed.), Perspectives on Properties of the Human Genome Project (Academic Press, 2003) 289, 291–95Google Scholar
Scothmer, S., “The Law and Economics of Reverse Engineering” (2002) 111 Yale Law Journal1575Google Scholar
Reichman, J. H., “Of Green Tulips and Legal Kudzu: Repackaging Rights in Subpatentable Innovation” (2000) 53 Vanderbilt Law Review1753Google Scholar
Lemley, M. A., “The Economics of Improvement in Intellectual Property Law” (1997) 75 Texas Law Review989Google Scholar
Burk, D., “Open Source Genomics” (2002) 8 Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law254Google Scholar
Raymond, E., The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary (O'Reilly, 2001)Google Scholar
Shiva, V.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
Cottier, T. and Panizzon, M., “A New Generation of IPRs for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge in Plant Genetic Resources for Food, Agricultural and Pharmaceutical Uses”, in Cottier, T. and Biber-Klemm, S. (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
Ayres, I., Optional Law: Real Options in the Structure of Legal Entitlements (University of Chicago Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, I. and Eric, T., “Solomonic Bargaining: Dividing a Legal Entitlement to Facilitate Cosean Trade” (1995) 104 Yale Law Journal1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, P. and Scotchmer, S., “The Law and Economics of Reverse Engineering” (2002) 111 Yale Law Journal1575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichman, J. H., “Legal Hybrids Between the Patent and Copyright Paradigms” (1994) 94 Columbia Law Review2432, 2453–2503 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R., “Intellectual Property Protection for Cumulative Systems” (1994) 94 Columbia Law Review2678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girsberger, M. A., Biodiversity and the Concept of Farmers' Rights in International Law (Peter Lang, 1999) 150Google Scholar
Cottier, T., “The Protection of Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge” (1998) 1(14) Journal of International Economic Law559–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benkler, Y., “Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm” (2002) 112 Yale Law Journal369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, M. and Eisenberg, R., “Can Patents Deter Innovation?” (1998) 280 Science698CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Correa, C., Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property – Issues and Options Surrounding the Protection of Traditional Knowledge – A Discussion Paper (Quaker UN Office, Geneva, 2001)Google Scholar
Dutfield, G., “The Public and Private Domains: Intellectual Property Rights in Traditional Knowledge” (2000) 21 Science Communication274–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braga, C. Primo and Fink, C., “The Economic Justification for the Grant of Intellectual Property Rights: Patents for Convergence and Conflict” in Abbott, F., Cottier, T., and Gurry, F. (eds.), The Intellectual Property System: Commentary and Materials (Kluwer, The Hague, 1999) 266–67Google Scholar
Arrow, K., “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention”, in Nelson, R. (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (Princeton University Press, 1962) 609Google Scholar
May, C., A Global Political Economic of Intellectual Property Rights: The New Enclosures? (Routledge Publishers, London, 2000)Google Scholar
Reichman, J. H. and Hasenzahl, C., 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
Taubman, T. and Leistner, M., “Analysis of Different Areas of Indigenous Resources”, in Lewinski, S. (ed.), Indigenous Heritage and Intellectual Property: Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (Kluwer, The Hague, 2008) 109–111Google Scholar
Abbott, F., “Public Policy and Global Technological Integration: An Introduction”, in Abbott, F. and Gerber, D. J. (eds.), Public Policy and Global Technological Integration (Kluwer, Deventer, 1997) 1Google Scholar
Reichman, J. H. and Samuelson, P., “Intellectual Property Rights in Data?” (1997) 50 Vanderbilt Law Review, 51Google Scholar
Calabresi, G. and Melamed, A. D., “Property Rules, Liability Rules and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral”, (1972) 85 Harvard Law Review1089, 1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merges, R., Menell, S. and Lemley, M. A., Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age (Aspen Publishers, Gaithesburg and New York, 2000) 120–24Google Scholar
Mgbeoji, I., “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
Downes, D. and Laird, S., 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
Berard, L.et al., “Local Ecological Knowledge and Practice: An Original Approach in France” (2005) 8 Les notes de l'IddriGoogle Scholar
Yamin, F. and Posey, D. A., “Indigenous Peoples, Biotechnology and Intellectual Property Rights” (1993) 2(2) Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 141–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downes, D., Global Trade, Local Economies and the Biodiversity Convention, in Snape, J. (ed.), Biodiversity and the Law (Island Press, Washington, 1996)Google Scholar
Downes, D., 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
Tunney, J., “Indigenous People and the Digital Age: Intersecting Circles?” (1998) 20 European Intellectual Property Review335Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×