Protecting the Right to Exist as a People: Intellectual Property as a Means to Protect Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous Culture

The dominant Western culture has created a legal system premised upon an individualistic and commercial foundation for intellectual property rights (IPR). This system necessarily excludes the protection of traditional knowledge and other components of Indigenous cultures, as well as concepts of communal responsibility for the keeping and transfer of such ideas and knowledge. These concepts are foundational to Indigenous knowledge systems in Alaska, as well as throughout the world. Today, a focus on this issue is critical to the preservation of indigenous cultures and their ways of knowing. We examine where national and international intellectual property rights systems are in addressing Indigenous cultural and intellectual property rights (Indigenous CIPR). We also examine opportunities for expansion of such rights in Alaska and around the world.Ye

Intellectual Property Rights and Biotechnology: How to Improve the Present Patent System

This paper discusses the problems related to assigning or denying intellectual property rights to biotechnological innovation, with particular reference to agro-biotechnologies and the relations between developed and developing countries. There are two types of problems to consider. First, the aim of protecting property rights on innovations is to create incentives towards research and innovation in general, which in some cases may be beneficial to society, in others not so. If the assignment of an intellectual property right does not guarantee the potential beneficial use of new knowledge, not assigning rights would not prevent its potentially dangerous utilization. Secondly, the holder of an intellectual property right has a power of exclusion which limits access by others to the newly produced knowledge. However, the production of new knowledge is very often a process which starts from a base of existing knowledge. Hence, discouraging access to existing knowledge also means discouraging the process of producing new knowledge. Paradoxically then, in protecting intellectual property we obtain the opposite result to the one expected and desired. Moreover, the holder of an intellectual property right may end up with excessive market power when commercializing the innovation. This paper will try to show that these problems cannot be solved, as sometimes is suggested, by denying protection of property rights on innovations, but by improving the procedures for awarding these rights and accompanying them with other measures such as liability rules governing potential damage and also antitrust measures.Intellectual property rights, Biotechnology, Patent system

Indigenous intellectual and cultural property rights

Paper presented at the 8th Asia-Pacific Specials, Health and Law Librarians Conference 22-26 August 1999 Hobart, Tasmania1999 heralds the beginning of the United Nations Decade for Indigenous Peoples. A number of issues will be highlighted throughout the decade and new opportunities will emerge. In recent years both Australia and New Zealand have witnessed a rebirth of interest in indigenous issues. One of the more complex issues that has emerged has been that of cultural and intellectual property rights. Assertion of property rights over traditional forms of knowledge will become one of the leading challenges for indigenous peoples during this decade. Indigenous intellectual and cultural property rights do not fit neatly into western legal frameworks and this therefore leaves the knowledge of indigenous peoples vulnerable to exploitation. Indigenous peoples are establishing their own networks and working through international organisations such as the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations to identify sectors where cultural and/or intellectual property rights are being compromised. Libraries and information centres store and provide access to a variety of resources that fall into the category of intellectual and cultural property and this will subject our sector to intense scrutiny. This paper will identify what constitutes cultural and intellectual property rights, how it conflicts with western law, and what the implications for libraries and information centres are

Knowledge diffusion from FDI and Intellectual Property Rights

We study the extent to which a country's strength of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protection mediates knowledge spillovers from Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Following the opposing views in the IPR debate, we propose a negative effect of IPR strength on unintentional horizontal (intra-industry) knowledge diffusion. Using a unique firm-level dataset of large, publicly traded firms in 22 (mostly) developed countries, we find partial support for these expectations. Strong IPR indeed reduces horizontal knowledge diffusion, while it stimulates backward (to suppliers) knowledge diffusion. Somewhat unexpectedly however, we also find that forward (to customers) knowledge diffusion decreases with IPR strength. In general, and in line with earlier literature, the results regarding backward knowledge diffusion are most robust to changes in model specification. Our results contribute to the debate regarding the desirability of strengthening national IPR systems, and suggest that local firms might indeed benefit from this through their (backward) linkages with multinationals. Additionally, our results suggest that the moderating effect of IPR strength might partly explain the inconclusive results in the FDI knowledge diffusion literature.

Intellectual property rights, human capital and the incidence of R&D expenditures

Numerous studies predict that developing countries with low human capital may not benefit from the strengthening of intellectual property rights. The authors extend an influential theoretical framework to highlight the role of intellectual property rights in the process of innovation and structural change. The resulting theory is consistent with a stylized fact that appears in the data, namely that countries with poor intellectual-property protection may accumulate human capital without a corresponding increase in research and development investment as a share of national income. The model predicts that without minimum intellectual-property protection, additional education may result in more imitation rather than innovation. The preponderance of the econometric evidence presented in this paper suggests that interactions between human capital and intellectual property rights determine global patterns of research and development effort, and intellectual property rights tend to raise the effect of education on the incidence of research and development.Economic Theory&Research,E-Business,Debt Markets,Labor Policies,Knowledge for Development

Matching Demand and Supply in a Weightless Economy: Market-Driven Creativity With and Without IPRs

Many cultural products have the same nonrival nature as scientific knowledge. They therefore face identical difficulties in creation and dissemination. One traditional view says market failure is endemic: societies tolerate monopolistic inefficiency in intellectual property (IP) protection to incentivize the creation and distribution of intellectual assets. This paper examines that tradeoff in dynamic, representative agent general equilibrium, and characterizes socially efficient creativity. Markets for intellectual assets protected by IP rights can produce too much or too little innovation.cultural good, finitely expansible, innovation, intellectual asset, intellectual property, Internet, IP valuation, IPR, knowledge product, MP3, nonrival, software

Intellectual Property Rights and Biotechnology: How to improve the present patent system

The paper discusses two types of problems related to assigning or denying intellectual property rights to agro-biotechnological innovations in the relation between developed and developing countries. First, protecting property rights on innovations creates incentives towards further research and innovation, which in some cases may be beneficial to society, in others not so. If the assigning of the right does not guarantee the potential beneficial use of the innovation, not assigning rights would not prevent its potentially dangerous utilization. Secondly, the power of exclusion of the holder of an intellectual property right limits access to the newly produced knowledge: this may discourage the process of producing new knowledge, harming developing countries. Moreover the property right holder may end up with excessive market power when commercializing the innovation, which is also harmful to developing countries. It is shown that these problems cannot be solved by denying protection to property rights on innovations, but by improving procedures for awarding these rights and accompanying them with appropriate liability rules and antitrust measures.Intellectual property rights, Biotechnology, Patent system

Application of the war of attrition game to the analysis of intellectual property disputes

In many developing countries intellectual property infringement and the commerce of pirate goods is an entrepreneurial activity. Digital piracy is very often the only media for having access to music, cinema, books and software. At the same time, bio-prospecting and infringement of indigenous knowledge rights by international consortiums is usual in places with high biodiversity. In these arenas transnational actors interact with local communities. Accusations of piracy often go both ways. This article analyzes the case of southeast Mexico. Using a war of attrition game theory model it explains different situations of intellectual property rights piracy and protection. It analyzes different levels of interaction and institutional settings from the global to the very local. The article proposes free IP zones as a solution of IP disputes. The formation of technological local clusters through Free Intellectual Property Zones (FIPZ) would allow firms to copy and share de facto public domain content for developing new products inside the FIPZ. Enforcement of intellectual property could be pursuit outside of the FIPZ. FIPZ are envisioned as a new type of a sui generis intellectual property regime

How stronger protection of intellectual property rights affects international trade flows

Intellectual property rights affect international trade flows when protected goods move across national boundaries. And intellectual property rights have grown in importance as the share of knowledge-intensive or high-technology products in international trade has doubled (from 12 percent in 1980 to 24 percent in 1994). The authors report new evidence about how protecting intellectual property rights affects international trade flows of nonfuel trade products. Employing a gravity model of bilateral trade, they estimate the effects of increased protection on a cross-section of 89 x 88 countries. To address estimation problems associated with zero trade flows between countries, they adopt a bivariate distributed probit regression mode. Their results confirm previous findings: stronger protection of intellectual property rights increase bilateral trade flows of manufactured nonfuel imports. But the results do not hold for trade flows in high technology, where the effect of protection intellectual property rights was found to be insignificant.Rules of Origin,Environmental Economics&Policies,Economic Theory&Research,Trade Policy,Payment Systems&Infrastructure,TF054105-DONOR FUNDED OPERATION ADMINISTRATION FEE INCOME AND EXPENSE ACCOUNT,Economic Theory&Research,Trade and Regional Integration,Rules of Origin,Environmental Economics&Policies