20 research outputs found

    CREATING, PROTECTING, AND USING CROP BIOTECHNOLOGIES WORLDWIDE IN AN ERA OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

    Get PDF
    Proponents tout the positive incentive-to-innovate effects of intellectual property rights (IPRs), while others maintain that the expanding subject matter and geographical extent of IPRs are stifling crop research, especially research and development (R&D) dealing with developing-country crop concerns. Much of this debate relies on anecdotes and misleading or incomplete evidence on the extent and nature of the IPRs pertaining to crop technologies, including the jurisdictional extent of the property rights and their practice. In this paper we review the evidence on the scope of agricultural R&D worldwide, provide new data on the structure of crop-related IPRs, and summarize trends on the uptake of proprietary bioengineered crops.plant patents, utility patents, plant breeders' rights, crop varieties, public and private agricultural R&D, biotechnology, Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,

    Are intellectual property rights stifling agricultural biotechnology in developing countries: IFPRI 2000-2001 Annual Report Essay

    Get PDF
    For more than a century, plant breeders in government-funded research centers have sought out crop varieties with characteristics that might help poor farmers in developing countries grow more food. They have painstakingly bred and cross-bred these varieties through generations to achieve a desirable mix of characteristics. At an accelerating pace in the 1960s and 1970s the work of these breeders changed the developing world — the higher-yielding varieties of wheat, rice, and other food staples they produced helped avert catastrophic famine in Asia — and their work continues to improve the lives and livelihoods of millions of people. Now, however, critics of the newest tool in the agricultural researchers' toolbox — genetic engineering — argue that the new environment for agricultural research may leave farmers in the developing countries out in the cold. The largely misplaced concerns that patents and other forms of intellectual property are currently severely constraining the freedom to operate in developing countries is diverting attention from more crucial issues for agricultural researchers working on staple food crops.Intellectual property., Plant breeding Technological innovations., Plant genetic engineering., Biotechnology Developing countries.,

    Accessing other people’s technology for non-profit research

    Get PDF
    As patents and other forms of intellectual property become more pervasive in the next generation of biotechnologies, designing policies and practices to ensure sufficient freedom to operate (i.e., the ability to practice or use an innovation) will be crucial for non-profit research agencies, especially those intent on developing technologies destined for commercial release. Are non-profit organisations exempt from intellectual property claims? What constitutes infringement of a patent? How does a non-profit establish its freedom to operate? We address these issues in this paper and evaluate various options for accessing other people’s technologies. Options include crosslicensing agreements, research-only or cost-free licences, market segmentation strategies, mergers or joint ventures, and patent pooling or clearinghouse mechanisms. Responding creatively to the new intellectual property environment will have far reaching consequences for the future of non-profit research.Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,

    Accessing other people's technology: do non-profit agencies need it? how to obtain it?

    Get PDF
    As patents and other forms of intellectual property become more pervasive in the next generation of biotechnologies, designing polices and practices to ensure sufficient freedom to operate (i.e., the ability to practice or use an innovation) will be crucial for non-profit agencies in the developed and developing world, especially those intent on developing improved seed varieties and other technologies destined for commercial release. Are non-profits exempt from intellectual property claims? What constitutes infringement of a patent? How does a non-profit establish its freedom to operate? We address these issues in this paper and evaluate various options for accessing other people's technologies. Options include cross- licensing agreements, research-only or cost-free licenses, market segmentation strategies, mergers or joint ventures, and patent pooling or clearinghouse mechanisms. Responding creatively to the new intellectual property environment will have far reaching consequences for the future of non-profit research.Biotechnology., Intellectual property.,

    The Evolving Landscape of IP Rights for Plant Varieties in the United States, 1930-2008

    Get PDF
    The United States was the first country in the world to explicitly offer intellectual property protection for plant varieties. Beginning in 1930, asexually reproduced plants were afforded plant patent protection, in 1970 sexually propagated plants could be awarded plant variety protection certificates, and beginning in 1985, courts confirmed that varieties of all types of plants were eligible for utility patents. From 1930 to 2008, a total of 34,340 varietal rights applications were lodged. The number of rights being sought continues to grow, with 42 percent of all the varietal rights claimed since 2000. Contrary to popular perception, most of these rights are for horticultural crops (69 percent), with ornamentals accounting for the lion’s share of the horticulture-related rights (73 percent, or 50 percent of all plant rights). Food and feed crops constitute only 24 percent of the rights sought, although just two crops (corn and soybean) made up 84 percent of the 3,719 varietal rights claimed via utility patents. The structure of these rights has changed dramatically over the years. During the 1930s when the only rights on offer were plant patents, 72 percent of the rights sought were for ornamental crops and individual innovators played a substantial role (50 percent of the rights). By 2004-2008, the annual applications for plant patents had increased in number but fallen to a 60 percent share of the total rights claimed. During this recent period, utility patents were as popular as plant variety protection certificates, and ornamentals made up a large but much reduced share of the total (52 percent). Individual innovators accounted for only 12 percent of the rights, whereas the corporate sector sought the dominant share of varietal rights (82 percent in 2004-2008). These intellectual property markets are complex, with corporations, universities and other agencies seeking different types of rights for different crops.plant patents, plant variety protection, utility patents, Agricultural and Food Policy, Crop Production/Industries, Environmental Economics and Policy, Resource /Energy Economics and Policy, Q16, Q18, O32, O34,

    South-North trade, intellectual property jurisdictions, and freedom to operate in agricultural research on staple crops:

    Get PDF
    A biotechnology revolution is proceeding in tandem with international proliferation of intellectual property regimes and rights. Does the intellectual property impede agricultural research conducted in, or of consequence for, developing countries? This question has important spatial dimensions that link the location of production, the pattern of international trade, and the jurisdiction of intellectual property. Our main conclusion is that the current concerns about the freedom to operate in agricultural research oriented towards food crops for the developing world are exaggerated. Rights to intellectual property are confined to the jurisdictions where they are granted, and, presently, many of the intellectual property (IP) rights for biotechnologies potentially useful to developing-country agricultural producers are valid only in developed countries. IP problems might arise in technologies destined for crops grown in developing countries unencumbered by IP restrictions, if those crops are subsequently exported to countries in which IP is likely to prevail. Thus freedom to trade is also part of the IP story. However, using international production and trade data in the 15 crops critical to food security throughout the developing world, we show that exports from developing to developed countries are generally dwarfed by production and consumption in the developing world, the value of these exports is concentrated in a few crops and a few exporting countries, and the bulk of these exports go to Western Europe. Thus for now, most LDC researchers can focus primarily on domestic IPR in determining their freedom to operate with respect to food staples.Intellectual property., Biotechnology., Agricultural research., Trade regulation.,

    do non-profit agencies need it? how to obtain it?

    No full text
    As patents and other forms of intellectual property become more pervasive in the next generation of biotechnologies, designing polices and practices to ensure sufficient freedom to operate (i.e., the ability to practice or use an innovation) will be crucial for non-profit agencies in the developed and developing world, especially those intent on developing improved seed varieties and other technologies destined for commercial release. Are non-profits exempt from intellectual property claims? What constitutes infringement of a patent? How does a non-profit establish its freedom to operate? We address these issues in this paper and evaluate various options for accessing other people’s technologies. Options include cross- licensing agreements, research-only or cost-free licenses, market segmentation strategies, mergers or joint ventures, and patent pooling or clearinghouse mechanisms. Responding creatively to the new intellectual property environment will have far reaching consequences for the future of non-profit research.Non-PRIFPRI1EPT

    Accessing other people's technology

    No full text
    Public and private nonprofit institutions worldwide engaged in agricultural research and biotechnology are increasingly active participants in intellectual property transactions, interacting with the for-profit sector and even spawning private entities of their own. Notably absent from the group of nonprofit insti-tutes seeking patent protection are the 16 centers of the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR). Located primarily in developing countries, only a few centers have obtained patent protection for their inventions. Nonprofit research institutions are not in the business of selling products to con-sumers. If they are to realize a return on their investment, they must sell rights to their technologies to commercial entities or other research institutions rather than make them freely available. A nonprofit entity may, for example, exclusively license technology to a commercial partner, license the technology itself nonexclusively, or use the technology as the foundation for a spin-off company.Non-PRIFPRI1EPT

    Agrobacterium-Mediated Gene Transfer: A Lawyer's Perspective

    No full text
    corecore