Keeping Rong from Wrong: The Identification and Protection of Traditional Intellectual Property in Chuuk, Federated States of Micronesia

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
James D. Nason ◽  
Joakim Peter

AbstractThis discussion reviews the differences between traditional Micronesian principles regarding traditional knowledge, or ‘esoteric’ knowledge, and Western copyright laws, which have been used in the expropriation and legal alienation of traditional knowledge. We consider this conflict in relation to contemporary Native American intellectual property issues and tribal responses for the protection of such knowledge and to control research activities. This is compared with the recent international and Pacific Islands governments' concerns and actions regarding commodification and misappropriation of traditional knowledge, including the new Pacific Model Law. Finally, we review the nature of traditional knowledge in Chuuk State and its current status and recommend specific steps that the Federated States of Micronesia might take legislatively to protect traditional knowledge as part of its significant cultural heritage.

Author(s):  
Brian Diettrich

This essay explores repatriation through the emergence of shared listening experiences. It argues that the repatriation of recorded voices is more meaningful and personal than the mere relocation of sound “objects” and more consequential than the transfer of historical media from the shelves of archival collections. The chapter focuses on case examples of repatriation from the Pacific Islands, and especially from the islands of Chuuk State in the Federated States of Micronesia. An examination of individual and community listening to recordings moves research practice toward the advocacy, responsibility, and applied potential that scholars have called for in a growing body of critical work in ethnomusicology.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Clare Morrison ◽  
Fran Humphries ◽  
Charles Lawson

Countries are increasingly using access and benefit sharing (ABS) as a legal mechanism to support the conservation and sustainable use of the world’s biological diversity. ABS regulates collection and/or use of genetic resources/traditional knowledge and sharing benefits from their use with the provider. The purpose of this review is to assess the trends, biases and gaps of ABS literature using a regional comparative approach about the key topics of concern between each region. It analyses four key topic groupings: (1) implementation of international, regional and national ABS policy and law; (2) intellectual property and ABS; (3) traditional knowledge; and (4) research, development and commercialisation. Findings included gaps in: (1) analysing effectiveness of national level implementation; (2) addressing apparent conflicts between support for intellectual property promoting exclusivity for traditional knowledge and challenges to intellectual property exclusivity for patents; (3) examining traditional knowledge of local communities (in contrast to Indigenous Peoples); and (4) lack of practical examples that quantify benefit sharing from research and commercialisation outcomes. We conclude that future research addressing the identified gaps and biases can promote more informed understanding among stakeholders about the ABS concept and whether it is capable of delivering concrete biological conservation, sustainable use and equity outcomes.


2013 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 1403-1433 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHRISTOPH ANTONS

AbstractTraditional knowledge related to biodiversity, agriculture, medicine and artistic expressions has recently attracted much interest amongst policy makers, legal academics and social scientists. Several United Nations organizations, such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Convention on Biological Diversity under the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), have been working on international models for the protection of such knowledge held by local and indigenous communities. Relevant national, regional or provincial level legislation comes in the form of intellectual property laws and laws related to health, heritage or environmental protection. In practice, however, it has proven difficult to agree on definitions of the subject matter, to delineate local communities and territories holding the knowledge, and to clearly identify the subjects and beneficiaries of the protection. In fact, claims to ‘cultural property’ and heritage have led to conflicts and tensions between communities, regions and nations. This paper will use Southeast Asian examples and case studies to show the importance of concepts such as Zomia, ‘regions of refuge’ and mandala as well as ‘borderlands’ studies to avoid essentialized notions of communities and cultures in order to develop a nuanced understanding of the difficulties for national and international lawmaking in this field. It will also develop a few suggestions on how conflicts and tensions could be avoided or ameliorated.


2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-37
Author(s):  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Marlowe Fox

Abstract In Part I of this two-part article, we explained why western assumptions built into intellectual property law make this area of law a problematic tool, as a way of protecting traditional knowledge (tk) and expressions of folklore (EoF) or traditional cultural expressions (tce) of indigenous peoples. Part II of this article aims to: 1) provide a brief review of the Convention on Biological Diversity (cbd) and the Nagoya Protocol, and examine the evolution of the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples from the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (trips Agreement) to the cbd to the Nagoya Protocol; and 2) examine possible core principles, inducted (rather than deduced) from actual practices already in place in the areas of patents, copyrights, and trademarks in relation to protecting tk and EoF. These explorations could allow for discussions regarding indigenous peoples, human rights and international trade law to become less adversarial.


Author(s):  
Jasmine Peters ◽  
Mariel S Bello ◽  
Leigh Spera ◽  
T Justin Gillenwater ◽  
Haig A Yenikomshian

Abstract Racial and ethnic disparities are endemic to the United States and are only beginning to attract the attention of researchers. With an increasingly diverse population, focused and tailored medicine to provide more equitable care is needed. For surgical trauma populations, this topic is a small but expanding field and still rarely mentioned in burn medicine. Disparities in prevention, treatment, and recovery outcomes between different racial and ethnic minorities who are burned are rarely discussed. The purpose of this study is to determine the current status of identified disparities of care in the burn population literature and areas of future research. A systematic review was conducted of literature utilizing PubMed for articles published between 2000-2020. Searches were used to identify articles that crossed the burn term (burn patient OR burn recovery OR burn survivor OR burn care) and a race/ethnicity and insurance status-related term (race/ethnicity OR African-American OR Black OR Asian OR Hispanic OR Latino OR Native American OR Indigenous OR Mixed race OR 2 or more races OR socioeconomic status OR insurance status). Inclusion criteria were English studies in the US that discussed disparities in burn injury outcomes or risk factors associated with race/ethnicity. 1,169 papers were populated, 55 were reviewed, and 36 articles met inclusion criteria. Most studies showed minorities had poorer inpatient and outpatient outcomes. While this is a concerning trend, there is a paucity of literature in this field and more research is needed to create culturally-tailored medical care and address the needs of disadvantaged burn survivors.


2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Caroline Joan S. Picart ◽  
Marlowe Fox

Abstract This article is the first part of a two-part piece, which considers the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples. After establishing pragmatic working definitions of who “indigenous peoples” are and what folklore (or “traditional cultural expression”) is, as compared with, but dialectically related to, “traditional knowledge,” this article does the following: 1) explains why western assumptions built into intellectual property law make this area of law a problematic tool for protecting traditional knowledge (TK) and expressions of folklore (EoF) or traditional cultural expressions (TCE) of indigenous peoples; and 2) creates a general sketch of human rights related legal instruments that could be and have been harnessed, with varying degrees of success, in the protection of the intellectual property of indigenous peoples.


2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarwono

<p align="center"><strong><em>Abstract</em></strong></p><p><em>            In order to provide the protection to the “traditional batik art knowledge” in Tirtomoyo, Wonogiri, the local government policy rests on the </em><em>potensial of art, commerce, services, education, tourism and sports</em><em>.Here, it can be drawn the real purpose, that is to develop, to conserve, and to protect the traditional knowledge as the heritage and cultural expression, especially the traditional knowledge. I</em><em>n th</em><em>is</em><em> case</em><em>, the Intellectual Property Right protection and its all varieties should be applied on the traditional intellectual art. However, it has not yet manifested the regional regulation on the Intellectual Property Right, especially the protection to the traditional knowledge.         There has not been confirmation about what institutions will be responsible or what kind of agencies will be involved in providing the protection to the traditional knowledge, like the batik art, dance art, and others, so that they don’t seem loose accountability in handling it. The policy on the Intellectual Property Right, especially the one related to the traditional knowledge, is still partial or supplement. The Industry and Trade Department of Wonogiri regency, which handles the micro and medium industry field and is not related directly to the batik handicraft industry, has planned to make a program of batik handicraft industry as the regional superior. </em></p><strong><em>Key words: Intellectual Property Right, Traditional knowledge, Batik Art.</em></strong>


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-65
Author(s):  
Trias Palupi Kurnianingrum

Patent as a branch of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) serves to protect inventions on the field of technology, one of them being medicine. The rise on the number of cases on the theft of genetic resources and traditional knowledge on the field of medicine for commercialization purposes shows that the protection of patent rights on traditional medicine knowledge is still not optimal. This article is the result of a normative juridical research which is supported by an empirical data, examines the protection of patent rights on traditional medicine knowledge and the implementation of Article 26 of Law No. 13 of 2016 on Patents (Patent Law year 2016). In the research results, it was mentioned that even though the TRIPs Agreement did not accommodate the traditional knowledge, the presence of Patent Law year 2016 complemented the Indonesian government's efforts to save the knowledge of traditional medicines from biopiracy and misappropriation. It is necessary to regulate the disclosure obligation in TRIPs agreement and further mechanism regarding benefit sharing and granting access to traditional medicines knowledge. AbstrakPaten merupakan salah satu cabang Hak Kekayaan Intelektual yang berfungsi untuk melindungi invensi di bidang teknologi, salah satunya obat-obatan. Maraknya kasus pencurian sumber daya genetik dan pengetahuan tradisional di bidang obat-obatan untuk tujuan komersialisasi menunjukkan bahwa pelindungan hak paten atas pengetahuan obat tradisional masih belum maksimal. Artikel ini merupakan hasil penelitian yuridis normatif yang didukung dengan data empiris, membahas mengenai pelindungan hak paten atas pengetahuan obat tradisional dan implementasi Pasal 26 Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2016 tentang Paten (UU Paten 2016). Di dalam hasil penelitian, disebutkan meskipun Perjanjian Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) belum mengakomodasi pengetahuan tradisional namun hadirnya UU Paten 2016 melengkapi usaha pemerintah Indonesia dalam menyelamatkan pengetahuan obat tradisional dari biopiracy dan misappropriation. Perlu pengaturan kewajiban disclosure di dalam Perjanjian TRIPs dan mekanisme lebih lanjut mengenai benefit sharing dan pemberian akses atas pengetahuan obat tradisional.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document