-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 28 March 2001 14:21
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Reforming patent law
In my previous contribution to the conference (26 March) I suggested that we should consider whether patents are appropriate and efficient instruments for promoting innovation, rewarding invention, and promoting the sharing of knowledge and sound scientific practice. In this connection, I would like to recommend to the conference an article by Prof. John H. Barton of Stanford, entitled 'Intellectual Property Rights: Reforming the Patent System', 2000, Science, vol.287, March 17, pp. 1933-1934. [The article is available on Ag BioTech InfoNet at http://www.biotech-info.net/reforming.html ....Moderator]
(Prof. Barton also participated in the Rockefeller-funded Bellagio meeting on 'Intellectual Property and Developing World Biotechnology', 27-30 March 2000).
In his Science paper, Prof. Barton identifies three problems caused by inefficiencies in the application of current US patent law. This is an important consideration for the rest of the world as well, bearing in mind the importance of the US market and the influence of the US in globalising patent laws through instruments like the WTO's Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Matters (TRIPs) agreement.
The three problems Barton identifies are:
1) the strategy, mainly by firms, of building up broad 'defensive patent
portfolios', often involving quite minor or trivial 'inventions', with the
associated enormous economic costs involved in registering and litigating
patents;
2) the tendency for patents to complicate and deter useful and desirable
follow-on research, which can occur when patents are granted on 'broadly
useful information and technology' or 'fundamental research processes';
3) the existence of 'invalid patents' - essentially, patents which should
not have been issued because the alleged invention falls short of the legal
requirements.
He proposes the following solution in each case:
1) raising the standards for patentability of an invention;
2) expanding the terms of 'freedom of use' for research; or instituting a
system of 'reasonable royalty compulsory licensing' for research purposes;
3) improve the quality of review of patent applications and make it easier
to mount a legal challenge against invalid patents.
It seems to me that these proposals would help to improve the patent system so that it provided a better balance between the private interests of innovators, and the public interest in education and research, quality science, and further innovation (in both the public and private sectors).
With regard to the South in particular, these reforms (if applied internationally) might help to address some of the issues raised in the Background Document, and in some of the contributions, to this conference, concerning the patenting of genetic resources which are native to developing countries, indigenous knowledge, the requirement of 'novelty' in patent law, 'biopiracy' and the neem tree, etc....
Dominic Glover
Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK
Email: D.Glover@ids.ac.uk
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 28 March 2001 17:05
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: How practical are IPRs in Least Developing Countries (LDCs)
This is from Willy Valdivia Granda. Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University. Fargo, ND. USA
Transgenic plants should be considered as an additional option for increasing the sustainability of larger number of poor farmers based on their specific needs, and their use should be promoted with the integration of numerous agricultural practices.
However, in many cases, transgenic technology may become unsuitable for poor farmers if it does not concentrate on their needs and if it requires unreachable management practices or dependence on transnational corporations. Regarding IPRs, leading economies have applied different standards for IPRs regarding genetic resources and transgenic plants. While the first [genetic resources] are considered resources of common property, the second are private property, subject to law regulations and penalties. IPRs have created monopolistic tendancies among biotechnology corporations and widened the gap between developed and developing countries. For example, developed countries hold 97% of patents worldwide, and more than 80% of gene transfer patents granted in developing countries belong to individuals or corporations based in developed countries. The top five biotechnology firms control more than 95% of gene transfer patents (Sagar et al., 2000). [A full reference for this article would be appreciated...Moderator]
In developing countries, the need of the smallholder farmers are unlikely to attract private funds. Attemps to apply IPRs to indigenous communities are impractical in many cases because many poor farmers do not share the goals of transnationals including the generation of revenues from agriculture. However, most corporations will not invest in or transfer technology to countries that do not have an intellectual property infrastructure. They are increasingly insisting on an equivalent infrastructure and intellectual property regime for developing countries. Therefore, it is legitimate to question whether a portion of the potential benefits of transgenic plants in developing countries may be lost because companies controlling the technology judge that crops impacting most poorer farmers are not compatible with their economic interests. Unless seeds for crops including rice, potato, cassava, cowpea, millet are provided free or at nominal cost, the potential benefits of plant biotechnology are unlikely to be realized.
Willy Valdivia Granda
Plant Sciences Dept
North Dakota State University
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]