Interest Groups and Patent Reform in India

Indias patent reforms represent a shift in Indias policy from one of enormous opposition to revising patent laws according to the WTO, to one of compliance with many aspects of TRIPs (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement. Industry and civil society had a strong interest in blocking reforms on IPRs (Intellectual Property Rights), and initially played an important role in preventing reforms of Indias patent law. India has recently changed its patent regime, led by important industry groups who revised their positions, and new NGOs that promoted reform. The preferences of actors and their changing interests are important factors in the reform process. Perceived benefits from the new regime partly explain the rise of a pro-reform constituency among industry and NGOs. Yet preference formation is complex and depends on interpretation of strategies by various actors. The Indian pharmaceutical case reflects the imperatives both to forge ahead on patent reform, while protecting the generic market and restricting IPRs. NGOs that emerged to support patent reform also played a role in directing policy towards protecting traditional knowledge. The interests of actors do not always follow predictable paths, and are not fixed. Evaluating the preferences of actors rather than assuming them provides insights into the way policy processes are shaped.intellectual property rights, industry groups, NGOs, reform, preferences.

India's policy on genetically modified crops

No Abstrac

INDIA'S PLANT VARIETY AND FARMERS' RIGHT LEGISLATION: POTENTIAL IMPACT ON STAKEHOLDER ACCESS TO GENETIC RESOURCES

The demand for extending intellectual property protection to agriculture in developing countries has met with counterclaims for granting farmers' rights. Developing countries are currently attempting to fulfill these demands by evolving new IPR regimes that simultaneously protect the rights of breeders and farmers. What are the possible implications of establishing such a system of multiple rights on the utilization and exchange of genetic resources among various actors? Could the attempt to distribute ownership rights to various stakeholders pose the threat of an "anticommons", where resources are underutilized due to multiple ownership? The answers to these questions have important implications for the future of agricultural growth in developing countries. India is one of the first countries in the world to have passed a legislation granting rights to both breeders and farmers under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001. The law emerged from a process that attempted to incorporate the interests of various stakeholders, including private sector breeders, public sector institutions, non-governmental organizations and farmers, within the property rights framework. India's Act allows four types of varieties to be registered reflecting the interests of actors: New Variety, Extant Variety, Essentially Derived Variety and Farmers' Variety. Although this multiple rights system aims to equitably distribute rights, it could pose problems of overlapping claims and result in complicated bargaining requirements for utilization of varieties. A potential implication is an 'anticommons tragedy' where too many parties independently posses the right to exclude giving rise to underutilization of resources. India and other developing nations, in seeking to achieve the important goal of recognizing farmers. rights, must not overlook the need for promoting exchange of agricultural resources. India's Plant Variety and Farmers' Right Act is significant both in the domestic and international context as several other countries are trying to establish similar legislations. Advanced nations must recognize that compelling developing countries to grant breeders rights could result in systems that run counter to their interests. Developed and developing countries must make a concerted effort to ensure that emerging IPR regimes do not restrict stakeholder access to genetic resources

Interest Groups and Patent Reform in India

Abstract. India’s patent reforms represent a shift in India’s policy from one of enormous opposition to revising patent laws according to the WTO, to one of compliance with many aspects of TRIPs (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement. Industry and civil society had a strong interest in blocking reforms on IPRs (Intellectual Property Rights), and initially played an important role in preventing reforms of India’s patent law. India has recently changed its patent regime, led by important industry groups who revised their positions, and new NGOs that promoted reform. The preferences of actors and their changing interests are important factors in the reform process. Perceived benefits from the new regime partly explain the rise of a pro-reform constituency among industry and NGOs. Yet preference formation is complex and depends on interpretation of strategies by various actors. The Indian pharmaceutical case reflects the imperatives both to forge ahead on patent reform, while protecting the generic market and restricting IPRs. NGOs that emerged to support patent reform also played a role in directing policy towards protecting traditional knowledge. The interests of actors do not always follow predictable paths, and are not fixed. Evaluating the preferences of actors rather than assuming them provides insights into the way polic

Rights and access to plant genetic resources under India's new law

PRISI; GRP1; Theme 10; Subtheme 10.1; IFPRI3EPT

India's policy on IPRs and agriculture: relevance of FAO's new international treaty

PRIFPRI3EPT

potential impact on stakeholder access to genetic resources

The demand for extending intellectual property protection to agriculture in developing countries has met with counterclaims for granting farmers’ rights. Developing countries are currently attempting to fulfill these demands by evolving new IPR regimes that simultaneously protect the rights of breeders and farmers. What are the possible implications of establishing such a system of multiple rights on the utilization and exchange of genetic resources among various actors? Could the attempt to distribute ownership rights to various stakeholders pose the threat of an ‘anticommons,’ where resources are underutilized due to multiple ownership? The answers to these questions have important implications for the future of agricultural growth in developing countries. India is one of the first countries in the world to have passed a legislation granting rights to both breeders and farmers under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001. The law emerged from a process that attempted to incorporate the interests of various stakeholders, including private sector breeders, public sector institutions, non-governmental organizations and farmers, within the property rights framework. India’s Act allows four types of varieties to be registered reflecting the interests of actors: New Variety, Extant Variety, Essentially Derived Variety and Farmers’ Variety. Although this multiple rights system aims to equitably distribute rights, it could pose problems of overlapping claims and result in complicated bargaining requirements for utilization of varieties. A potential implication is an ‘anticommons tragedy’ where too many parties independently posses the right to exclude giving rise to underutilization of resources. India and other developing nations, in seeking to achieve the important goal of recognizing farmers’ rights, must not overlook the need for promoting exchange of agricultural resources. India’s Plant Variety and Farmers’ Right Act is significant both in the domestic and international context as several other countries are trying to establish similar legislations. Advanced nations must recognize that compelling developing countries to grant breeders rights could result in systems that run counter to their interests. Developed and developing countries must make a concerted effort to ensure that emerging IPR regimes do not restrict stakeholder access to genetic resources.Non-PRIFPRI1EPT

Interest Groups and Patent Reform in India

India’s patent reforms represent a shift in India’s policy from one of enormous opposition to revising patent laws according to the WTO, to one of compliance with many aspects of TRIPs (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement. Industry and civil society had a strong interest in blocking reforms on IPRs (Intellectual Property Rights), and initially played an important role in preventing reforms of India’s patent law. India has recently changed its patent regime, led by important industry groups who revised their positions, and new NGOs that promoted reform. The preferences of actors and their changing interests are important factors in the reform process. Perceived benefits from the new regime partly explain the rise of a pro-reform constituency among industry and NGOs. Yet preference formation is complex and depends on interpretation of strategies by various actors.[IGIDR WP 06]Intellectual Property Rights; industry groups; NGOs; reform; preferences; Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights

Eptd Discussion Paper No. 96

The demand for extending intellectual property protection to agriculture in developing countries has met with counterclaims for granting farmers rights. Developing countries are currently attempting to fulfill these demands by evolving new IPR regimes that simultaneously protect the rights of breeders and farmers. What are the possible implications of establishing such a system of multiple rights on the utilization and exchange of genetic resources among various actors? Could the attempt to distribute ownership rights to various stakeholders pose the threat of an anticommons, where resources are underutilized due to multiple ownership? The answers to these questions have important implications for the future of agricultural growth in developing countries. India is one of the first countries in the world to have passed a legislation granting rights to both breeders and farmers under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001. The law emerged from a process that attempted to incorporate the interests of various stakeholders, including private sector breeders, public sector institutions, nongovernmental organizations and farmers, within the property rights framework. Indias Act allows four types of varieties to be registered reflecting the interests of actors: New Variety, Extant Variety, Essentially Derived Variety and Farmers Variety. Although this multiple rights system aims to equitably distribute rights, it could pose problems of overlapping claims and result in complicated bargaining requirements for utilization of varieties. A potential implication is an anticommons tragedy where too many parties independently posses the right to exclude giving rise to underutilization of resources. India and other developing nations, in seekin..