1,721,345 research outputs found
Intellectual Property, Indigenous Knowledge, and Climate Change
No full textIndigenous communities have been hard hit by the impacts of environmental degradation, biodiversity and climate change. Carold Betzold and Anaid Flesken have observed:\ud
\ud
'About 300 million people belong to one of the roughly 5,000 Indigenous peoples worldwide. While their ecological footprint is very small, Indigenous peoples tend to be disproportionately affected by environmental problems, for they tend to live in sensitive ecosystems, are closely related to, and directly depend on the natural environment and its resources. Environmental degradation hence compounds the already difficult situation of Indigenous peoples, who typically suffer from problems such as poverty, marginalisation, discrimination, and exclusion from policy-making processes.'\ud
\ud
There has a particular concern about the impact of climate change and global warming upon Indigenous communities and their lands, territories, natural resources and associated traditional knowledge.\ud
\ud
There have been fierce debates over intellectual property, the environment, and climate change in a range of international fora. The question of the protection of Indigenous intellectual property and traditional knowledge has emerged during these international discussions. There has been a significant fragmentation of the global governance of intellectual property, climate change, and Indigenous knowledge
Introduction: Mapping Indigenous Intellectual Property
No full textThe United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007 provides a broad, holistic definition of Indigenous intellectual property. The preamble took the view that 'respect for indigenous knowledge, cultures and traditional practices contributes to sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment.' Article 31 (1) provides a broad recognition of Indigenous intellectual property:\ud
\ud
'Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.'\ud
\ud
Article 31 (2) stipulates: 'In conjunction with indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights.
The legacy of David Unaipon
No full textThe historical case of David Unaipon is a good starting point for a wider discussion of Indigenous intellectual property law, practice and reform. His story is a microcosm of larger battles over the cultural appropriation of Indigenous culture, iconography and science. David Unaipon could be seen as a beneficiary of intellectual property law. He is a creator of copyright works; an inventor of patented inventions; and an iconic figure, worthy of personality rights. His creative and scientific work has been an inspiration for others. David Unaipon could also be seen as being disenfranchised by intellectual property law. He lost ownership of his economic rights in respect of literary works; and his moral rights have not been respected under copyright law. His case also highlights the deficiencies of copyright law in respect of its failure to provide comprehensive recognition of communal authorship and ownership of copyright works. While he was a patent applicant, David Unaipon never seemed to have benefitted from the patent system. His experience raises questions about access to justice. The government and commercial use of the persona of David Unaipon raises complex questions about trade mark law, passing off and personality rights. The story of David Unaipon highlights the need for the systematic and holistic reformation of intellectual property law, so that it better serves Indigenous communities and peoples
The doomsday vault: Seed banks, food security, and climate change
No full text"It could easily provide the back-drop for a James Bond movie. Deep inside a mountain near the North Pole, down a fortified tunnel, and behind airlocked doors in a vault frozen to -18 degrees Celsius, scientists are squirreling away millions of seed samples. The samples constitute the very foundation of agriculture, the biological diversity needed so the world's major food crops can adapt to the next pest or disease, or to climate change. It's little wonder that the Svalbard Global Seed Vault has captured the public's imagination more than almost any agricultural topic in recent years. Popular press reports about the ‘Doomsday Vault,’ however, typically mask the complexity of the endeavor and, if anything, underestimate its practical utility." Cary Fowler\ud
\ud
This chapter considers the use of seed banks to address concerns about intellectual property, climate change and food security. It has a number of themes. First of all, it is interested in the use of ‘Big Science’ projects to address pressing global scientific concerns and Millennium Development Goals. Second, it highlights the increasing use of banks as a means of managing both property and intellectual property across a wide range of fields of agriculture and biotechnology. Third, it considers the linkage of intellectual property, access to genetic resources and benefit sharing. There are a variety of positions in this debate. Some see requirements in respect of access to genetic resources and benefit sharing as an inconvenient burden for science and commerce. Others defend access to genetic resources and benefit sharing as meaningful and productive. Those inclined to somewhat more conspiratorial views suggest that access to genetic resources and benefit sharing are a ruse to facilitate biopiracy.\ud
\ud
This chapter has a number of components. Section I focuses upon the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) network – often raised as a model for Climate Innovation Centres. Section II considers the Svalbard Global Seed Vault – the so-called Doomsday Vault. After a consideration of the World Summit on Food Security in 2009, it is concluded in this chapter that any future international agreement on climate change needs to address intellectual property, plant genetic resources and food security
Inventing life: Intellectual property and the new biology
No full textIn 2009, the National Research Council of the National Academies released a report on A New Biology for the 21st Century. The council preferred the term ‘New Biology’ to capture the convergence and integration of the various disciplines of biology. The National Research Council stressed: ‘The essence of the New Biology, as defined by the committee, is integration—re-integration of the many sub-disciplines of biology, and the integration into biology of physicists, chemists, computer scientists, engineers, and mathematicians to create a research community with the capacity to tackle a broad range of scientific and societal problems.’ They define the ‘New Biology’ as ‘integrating life science research with physical science, engineering, computational science, and mathematics’. The National Research Council reflected:\ud
\ud
'Biology is at a point of inflection. Years of research have generated detailed information about the components of the complex systems that characterize life––genes, cells, organisms, ecosystems––and this knowledge has begun to fuse into greater understanding of how all those components work together as systems. Powerful tools are allowing biologists to probe complex systems in ever greater detail, from molecular events in individual cells to global biogeochemical cycles. Integration within biology and increasingly fruitful collaboration with physical, earth, and computational scientists, mathematicians, and engineers are making it possible to predict and control the activities of biological systems in ever greater detail.'\ud
\ud
The National Research Council contended that the New Biology could address a number of pressing challenges. First, it stressed that the New Biology could ‘generate food plants to adapt and grow sustainably in changing environments’. Second, the New Biology could ‘understand and sustain ecosystem function and biodiversity in the face of rapid change’. Third, the New Biology could ‘expand sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels’. Moreover, it was hoped that the New Biology could lead to a better understanding of individual health: ‘The New Biology can accelerate fundamental understanding of the systems that underlie health and the development of the tools and technologies that will in turn lead to more efficient approaches to developing therapeutics and enabling individualized, predictive medicine.’\ud
\ud
Biological research has certainly been changing direction in response to changing societal problems. Over the last decade, increasing awareness of the impacts of climate change and dwindling supplies of fossil fuels can be seen to have generated investment in fields such as biofuels, climate-ready crops and storage of agricultural genetic resources. In considering biotechnology’s role in the twenty-first century, biological future-predictor Carlson’s firm Biodesic states: ‘The problems the world faces today – ecosystem responses to global warming, geriatric care in the developed world or infectious diseases in the developing world, the efficient production of more goods using less energy and fewer raw materials – all depend on understanding and then applying biology as a technology.’\ud
\ud
This collection considers the roles of intellectual property law in regulating emerging technologies in the biological sciences. Stephen Hilgartner comments that patent law plays a significant part in social negotiations about the shape of emerging technological systems or artefacts:\ud
\ud
'Emerging technology – especially in such hotbeds of change as the life sciences, information technology, biomedicine, and nanotechnology – became a site of contention where competing groups pursued incompatible normative visions. Indeed, as people recognized that questions about the shape of technological systems were nothing less than questions about the future shape of societies, science and technology achieved central significance in contemporary democracies. In this context, states face ongoing difficulties trying to mediate these tensions and establish mechanisms for addressing problems of representation and participation in the sociopolitical process that shapes emerging technology.'\ud
\ud
The introduction to the collection will provide a thumbnail, comparative overview of recent developments in intellectual property and biotechnology – as a foundation to the collection. Section I of this introduction considers recent developments in United States patent law, policy and practice with respect to biotechnology – in particular, highlighting the Myriad Genetics dispute and the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bilski v. Kappos. Section II considers the cross-currents in Canadian jurisprudence in intellectual property and biotechnology. Section III surveys developments in the European Union – and the interpretation of the European Biotechnology Directive. Section IV focuses upon Australia and New Zealand, and considers the policy responses to the controversy of Genetic Technologies Limited’s patents in respect of non-coding DNA and genomic mapping. Section V outlines the parts of the collection and the contents of the chapters
The World Indigenous Network: Rio+20, intellectual property, sustainable development, and the future we want
No full textThe United Nations Rio 20 summit has raised a number of difficult questions about law, culture and technology: what is the relationship between intellectual property, the environment and climate change? What role does intellectual property play in sustainable development? Who will own and control the Green Economy? What is the best way to encourage the transfer of environmentally sound technologies? What are the respective roles of the public sector and the private sector in green innovation? How should biodiversity, traditional knowledge and Indigenous intellectual property be protected? Should there be due acknowledgment of the position of small island states, particularly those situated in the Pacific
Cosmo, Cosmolino: Patent law and nanotechnology
No full textPatent law has a significant instrumental and symbolic role in regulating nanotechnology. A 2011 report of the United States Federal Trade Commission noted that ‘the patent system plays a critical role in promoting innovation across industries from biotechnology to nanotechnology, and by entities from large corporations to independent inventors’. This chapter considers the much contested legal, ethical and social issues involved with regulating the patenting of nanotechnology. Section I considers the efforts of patent offices to classify nanotechnology and the empirical evidence about patent filing rates. Section II examines whether there is a ‘tragedy of the anticommons’ emerging in respect of nanotechnology. It contemplates access mechanisms – such as the defence of experimental use, patent pools, open innovation models and technology transfer. Section III explores ethical and social concerns associated with nanotechnology – in particular, issues about the impact upon human health and the environment
The Lazarus effect: The (RED) campaign, and creative capitalism
No full text"4,400 people die every day of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. Treatment exists. In about 60 days, a patient can go from here to here. We call this transformation the Lazarus Effect. It is the result of two pills a day taken by a HIV/AIDS patient for about 60 days. Learn more about how you can help give people the chance of life and joinred.com."The Lazarus Effect video, the (RED) Campaign.This Chapter explores how a number of non-government organizations, charities, and philanthropists have promoted ’grants' as a means of stimulating investment in research and development into neglected diseases. Each section considers the nature of the campaign; the use of intellectual property rights, such as trade marks; and the criticisms made of such endeavors. Section 2 looks at the (RED) Campaign, which is designed to boost corporate funding and consumer support for the Global Fund. Section 3 examines the role of the Gates Foundation in funding research and development in respect of infectious diseases. It explores the championing by Bill Gates of ’creative capitalism'. Section 4 considers the part of the Clinton Foundation in the debate over access to essential medicines. The Chapter concludes that, despite their qualities, such marketing initiatives fail to address the underlying inequalities and injustices of international patent law
Makers empire: Australian copyright law, 3D printing, and the 'ideas boom'
No full textIn Australia, there has been an interest in integrating 3D printing into government policies in respect of education, innovation, and manufacturing. There has been an increasing concern about the need to boost Australia’s national and science technology policy and performance. Of particular concern has been the decline in Australia’s manufacturing industries. Much like the United States, there has been a hope in Australia that 3D printing will revive Australia’s advanced manufacturing capacities. As Guy Rundle observed, there has been much interest in the manufacturing hubs of 3D printing in the United States. The ‘America Makes’ program has involved the creation of advanced manufacturing hubs to stimulate innovation – particularly in regions of the United States, which have suffered from economic depression. There has been an interest in emulating this innovation model in Australia. There has also been a deep problem in terms of the commercialisation of technology in Australia – with many inventions languishing in the so-called ‘Valley of Death’. The Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has promoted an innovation agenda as leader of the Conservative coalition of the Liberal Party and the National Party. He has highlighted the role of 3D printing. For instance, Turnbull promoted the work of Stephen Brinks from 3D Brink at Western Sydney University. The education, innovation, and manufacturing initiatives in the United States have certainly attracted interest and attention in Australia. \ud
\ud
...\ud
\ud
This Chapter considers a number of developments in respect of Australian copyright law, 3D Printing, and the Maker Movement. Part 1 focuses upon copyright subsistence about 3D printing. 3D printing raises questions about the nature and scope of the intellectual property commons. There have been issues associated with the protection of art, craft, and designs associated with intellectual property. Part 2 examines concerns about copyright infringement, and 3D printing. It focuses upon questions surrounding the authorisation of copyright infringement. It also looks at the regime of intermediary liability, as well as matters of technological protection measures. There is also consideration of Australia’s new copyright site-blocking laws. Part 3 focuses upon the debate over copyright exceptions in Australia, in light of the work of the Australian Law Reform Commission, and the Productivity Commission. In particular, there is a discussion of the merits of Australia adopting an open-ended, defence of fair use – like the United States. Such an exception would be particularly helpful for 3D printing, the Maker Movement, and crowdfunding
The future of printcrime: Intellectual property, innovation law, and 3D printing
No full textIn a 2006 short story, ‘Printcrime’, Cory Doctorow imagined a dystopian future of contraband 3D printers. In the work, police try to shut down a bootleg operation, which engaged in the 3D printing of intellectual property. In his 2009 novel Makers, Cory Doctorow explored the rise of the maker community, and its do-it-yourself ethic. In an interview about the novel, the author reflected:\ud
\ud
<i>"There has never been a better time to be a maker because finding the people who know how to fix the thing that's broken has never been easier. Finding someone else who has done 80% of what you want to do, and sharing the things you have done with other people, has never been easier. A maker is someone who is of and in the 21st century." </i>\ud
\ud
Rather prophetically, he discussed the prospect of intellectual property conflicts around 3D printing (particularly around copyright infringement and trademark infringement), and future controversies over 3D printing guns. In his 2015 short story, ‘The Man Who Sold the Moon’, Cory Doctorow imagined 3D printing in space. This body of creative work has been an important inspiration for the Maker Movement – but it has also shown a critical engagement with the law, ethics, and public policy associated with 3D printing and additive manufacturing.\ud
\ud
Inspired by such science fiction, there have since been a number of optimistic, utopian manifestos published on the topic of 3D printing and the rise of the Maker Movement. There has been high hopes that the emerging, disruptive technology will be part of a new industrial revolution. The founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, situates 3D printing within the framework of a fourth industrial revolution. He predicted: ‘As current size, cost and speed constraints are progressively overcome, 3D printing will become more pervasive to include integrated electronic components such as circuit boards and even human cells and organs.’ Schwab anticipated that there would be a ‘new generation of self-altering products capable of responding to environmental changes such as heat and humidity.’ Moreover, he expected that ‘this technology could be used in clothing or footwear, as well as in health-related products such as implants designed to adapt to the human body.’ Schwab placed 3D printing alongside autonomous vehicles, advanced robotics, and new material as physical manifestations of larger technological megatrends.\ud
\ud
In this context, this collection provides a sober, critical evaluation of the legal, ethical, and public policy issues in respect of intellectual property, innovation law, and 3D printing. Building upon Mark Lemley’s chapter, ‘IP in a World Without Scarcity,’ it considers the legal opportunities and challenges of the Maker Revolution. It provides both theoretical and empirical insights in respect of 3D printing, intellectual property, innovation, and regulation
- …
