On Jan. 18 the Institute for Policy Innovation hosted a panel discussion at the National Press Club on the topic of intellectual property and “traditional knowledge.” Below is an excerpt from the Epoch Times of China, which covered the event.
To see the event invitation that includes a list of the panelists, go to the home page of ipi.org.
To see the whole article by Gary Feuerberg, go to http://english.epochtimes.com/news/6-1-23/37256.html
- How can the traditional knowledge of indigenous people, "owned" as a heritage, fit into the intellectual property definition? Douglas Neumann, senior conservation officer with the U.S. State Department, spoke about the difficulties of trying to extend control when the knowledge is often sacred. Mr. Neumann has some expertise in this area of traditional knowledge; he is the State Department negotiator on issues relating to access and benefit sharing of genetic resources and biodiversity-related traditional knowledge of indigenous communities. For Mr. Neumann, the question of IPR and traditional knowledge is one of access for outsiders while benefit sharing of resources and respecting the sovereignty of countries.
"The big question is how do we get any sort of TK [traditional knowledge] protective systems and IPR systems to work in harmony so that we minimize any grey areas," Neumann said. It is also a question of jurisdiction. Mr. Neumann would prefer to see the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) look at these issues rather than the CBD, which he says is "more environmentally focused."
In America, we are accustomed to attributing IPR to the individual. But in the case of traditional knowledge, ownership belongs to a people or a country. Most people seem to agree that the country should somehow benefit. David Waskow, international program director for Friends of the Earth, spoke of the difficulties in how to benefit traditional communities who may have invested in some form of traditional knowledge for "generations and generations" and this knowledge is then patented, perhaps after the addition of some innovation.
Two points of view on how to handle the extension of IPR to traditional knowledge emerged from the discussions. On the one hand, the U.S. position by and large sees great benefits to the economy and society by putting into place a legal patent system which encourages innovation and the development of new products. On the other side is concern that the origin of the traditional knowledge belongs to a people or country, and they are not necessarily served well by a legal system imposed on their culture.
Mr. Neumann, reflecting the State Department view, said the U.S. is opposed to patent disclosure (i.e., requiring patent applications to disclose the origin of genetic resources in inventions) in part because it affects product development. However, Mr. Waskow pointed out the other perspective: "There are many folks who would agree with [the U.S.] view. Where they would differ with the U.S. practice is that the U.S. has often pressed in trade agreements for countries to adopt certain kinds of intellectual property protection in ways that limit the ability of those national governments to in fact put the kinds of protections they would like to see in place."
But how should life forms be regarded when scientists and practitioners have transformed these in some fashion? Can they make a claim on the life form itself? Mr. Waskow said that some people are repelled with the idea that life forms and seeds could ever be patented. In the opposite camp on this issue is Ananda M. Chakrabarty, Professor at the University of Illinois College of Medicine in Chicago, whose work led to the development of a genetically-manipulated microorganism. The latter was the subject matter of a landmark decision from the Supreme Court, which ruled that genetically engineered life forms are patentable ( Diamond vs. Chakrabarty).
Dr. Chakrabarty, who was born in India, pointed out that the success of India's recent economic growth is tied to its product patents. "Now that India has signed the TRIPS* agreement, there is a great opportunity for countries like India, [including] China, Brazil and other developing countries, to accept the fact that the future looks good. They will be able to generate new products to bring to the world market."