How Can Software Licensing Help Farmers in the Developing World?

Answer: By providing a model for licensing agreements that can protect the farmers’ intellectual property rights in the seed that they use. 

I recently posted on the problem of biopiracy — the appropriation of genetic resources from developing nations by pharmaceutical and other companies.  Similar concerns have been raised about agro-companies obtaining exclusive intellectual property rights in plant genetic resources that have been first developed and used by farmers in developing nations. 

Fortunately, 3L Ryann Beck has come up with a clever solution that involves adapting the open source licencing systems commonly used for computer software.  Under Ryann’s proposal, a nonprofit steward would obtain intellectual property rights in plant genetic materials on behalf of the farmers who developed them.  Packages of the seeds would then be labeled with a “copy-left” license that would preclude purchasers from obtaining enforceable intellectual property rights in the seeds or derivatives of the seeds. 

Ryann’s proposal is contained in a new paper on SSRN.  Her paper got a nice write-up on the IPKat blog a few days ago, and is forthcoming in the Arizona Journal of Environmental Law and Policy.  The abstract appears after the jump. 

Continue ReadingHow Can Software Licensing Help Farmers in the Developing World?

Can New Patent Rules Help to Reduce Biopiracy?

Endowed with extraordinary genetic diversity, the world’s tropical rainforests have produced the raw material for many highly profitable pharmaceuticals.  Yet, the nations in which the rainforests are located — many of which are among the poorest in the world — often realize little economic benefit.  “Bioprospectors” have traditionally had little difficulty operating outside the legal regulation of source nations.  And, once biological materials are transported to the developed world, they may be made the basis for legally enforceable patents there.  Then, adding insult to injury — or perhaps more accurately, injury to insult — the patents may impair the ability of source nations to use their own genetic resources.  To critics, this dynamic — often labeled “biopiracy” — calls to mind the long tradition of exploitative north-south relationships going back to colonial days. 

The Convention on Biological Diversity aims to strengthen the position of source nations by requiring bioprospectors to obtain prior informed consent before using materials from other nations.  However, the treaty has a weak enforcement mechanism, and the United States is not even a party to it.

Responding to the weaknesses of the CBD, 3L Laura Grebe has an interesting new proposal to incorporate the prior informed consent concept into U.S. patent law.  Her proposal is described and defended in a new paper on SSRN entitled “Requiring Genetic Source Disclosure in the United States.”  In essence, Laura would require patent applicants to disclose the origin of their genetic materials and whether they obtained prior informed consent from the source nations.  Among other things, she hopes that U.S. reforms along these lines would become a model for other nations.

The abstract to Laura’s paper appears after the jump. 

Continue ReadingCan New Patent Rules Help to Reduce Biopiracy?

Gulf Oil Disaster — Lessons in Torts and Bailouts

The oil rig explosion that killed eleven workers and causes the daily flow of an estimated 200,000 gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico presents a gut check moment on tort policy.  A lot of harm has been and will be caused by this catastrophe, and somebody will bear the cost of that harm. Should it be the responsible parties? the victims? the taxpayers?

American tort law, under the principles of proximate cause and nuisance, tells some victims that they must bear the cost of their own harm because it is either too remote (not a “proximate” cause) or too common (to be compensable, damages from a public nuisance must be “different in kind” from those suffered by others) to require the responsible party to pay. The responsibility of those whose conduct caused the harm must have a “sensible and just” stopping point, according to established doctrine. As a general matter, under common law principles, it is “sensible and just” to cause victims to bear their own costs if the harm they suffer is essentially economic or emotional in nature, as opposed to bodily injury or property damage.

These uncompensated losses often hit the taxpayers as well as the victim. 

Continue ReadingGulf Oil Disaster — Lessons in Torts and Bailouts
Newer Posts
Older Posts