Human rights as a contraint on intellectual property rights: the case of patent and plant variety protection rights, genetic resources and traditional knowledge

Author(s):  
Charles R. McManis
2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guntra A. Aistara

Costa Rica's entry into the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) was hotly contested and the subject of a national referendum. For activists opposing the treaty, questions of 'privatizing seeds' through imposing intellectual property rights were among the main concerns raised by the treaty, as one requirement of CAFTA was signing the international Convention on Plant Variety Protection known as UPOV. The threat to farmers' seeds in Costa Rica and many other parts of the world is more complicated than being a clear-cut issue of privatization. Struggles for control over seeds are a crucial part of the political economy of agriculture that are grounded in debates over the significance of the physical and social properties of seeds as a natural resource. This article explores how debates over intellectual property rights to seeds confound simple distinctions between public domain and private property, and the implications for agricultural genetic diversity. Moreover, through the story of Costa Rica's engagement with CAFTA and UPOV, I contemplate the broader effects of the free trade paradigm on reconfiguring ideas not only of property but also of personhood and democracy. I will argue that through reconfiguring the boundary between the public domain and private property in the realm of seeds, recent intellectual property trends also reinscribe the definition of farmers along pre-defined class lines. Through their actions, groups involved offer competing visions of how a local resource should be defined and internationally connected; these visions can be understood as competing visions of political ecology in practice.Keywords: Costa Rica, CAFTA, UPOV, intellectual property, seeds


2001 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Cullet

Plant variety protection has come to the fore in the wake of the adoption of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). TRIPS generally imposes the patentability of inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology and specifically mandates the introduction of a form of legal protection on plant varieties. Article 27.3(b) thus states that member states “shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof.”


HortScience ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 186d-186
Author(s):  
Janice M. Strachan

The Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Act provides intellectual property rights to new varieties of seed-reproduced plants. Eligible varieties must demonstrate that they are uniform, stable, and distinct from all other varieties. In 1991 the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) adopted a new Convention. As a member of UPOV, the United States needed to amend the PVP Act to conform to the 1991 UPOV Convention. Amendments to the PVP Act were signed by President Clinton on 6 Oct. 1994, and will become effective on 4 Apr. 1995. Among other changes, these amendments will provide protection to tuber-propagated varieties and first-generation hybrids. An overview of the amendments and a comparison of rights granted under PVP and plant patents will be presented.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document