This article argues that intellectual property law contains an in-built bias that protects the intangible assets of companies while failing to recognize traditional knowledge as protectable subject matter. The rapid globalization of high-level intellectual property rights (IPRs) minimum standards is certain to exacerbate the situation. The main reason why IPRs are unfair is not that they are explicitly discriminatory but that they treat all knowledge in the world as the intellectual commons except that which is protected under patent or other mainstream IPRs. This situation is unjust to indigenous people and contrary to the interests of everybody except those who profit from exploiting traditional knowledge unfairly.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, W. M.
1990. Green development: Environment and sustainability in the third world. London: Routledge.
2.
Agarwal, A.1996. What's in a neem?Down to Earth (15 March): 27-38.
3.
Agrawal, A.1995a. Indigenous and scientific knowledge: Some critical thoughts. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor3 (3): 3-6.
4.
Agrawal, A.1995b. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change26:413-439.
5.
Bodley, J.
1976. Anthropology and contemporary human problems. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings.
6.
Boyle, J.
1996. Shamans, software and spleens: Law and the construction of the information society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
Clad, J.1984. Conservation and indigenous peoples: A study of convergent interests. Cultural Survival Quarterly8:68-73.
8.
Cleveland, D. A.
, and S. C. Murray. 1997. The world's crop genetic resources and the rights of indigenous farmers. Current Anthropology38 (4): 477-496.
9.
Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat
. 1997. Report of the workshop on traditional knowledge and biological diversity (UNEP/CBD/TKBD/1/3). Madrid, 24-28 November 1997. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
10.
Coombe, R.
1998. Cultural life of intellectual properties: Authorship, appropriation, and the law. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
11.
Costa e Silva, E. da.1995. The protection of intellectual property for local and indigenous communities. European Intellectual Property Review17 (11): 546-549.
12.
de Kocken, J.
, and G. van Roozendaal. 1997. The neem tree debate. Biotechnology and Development Monitor (March): 8-11.
13.
Dennis, P. A.1988. Herbal medicine among the Miskito of Eastern Nicaragua. Economic Botany42 (1): 16-28.
14.
Dickson, D.
, and K. S. Jayamaran. 1995. Aid groups back challenge to neem patents. Nature277:95.
15.
Drahos, P.
1996. A philosophy of intellectual property. Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth.
16.
Drahos, P.1997. Indigenous knowledge and the duties of intellectual property owners. Intellectual Property Journal11 (August): 179-201.
17.
Dutfield, G.
1999. Rights, resources and responses. In Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity, edited by D. A. Posey, 505-515. London: United Nations Environment Programme and Intermediate Technology.
18.
Eisenberg, R.1994. Technology transfer and the genome project: Problems with patenting research tools. Risk: Health, Safety and Environment5 (2): 163-175.
19.
Ellen, R.1986. What black elk left unsaid: On the illusory images of green primitivism. Anthropology Today2:8-12.
20.
Farnsworth, N. R.
1988. Screening plants for new medicines. In BioDiversity, edited by E. O. Wilson and F. M. Peter, 83-97. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21.
Four Directions Council. 1996. Forests, indigenous peoples and biodiversity: Contribution of the Four Directions Council. Unpublished submission to the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
22.
Golvan, C.1992. Aboriginal art and the protection of indigenous cultural rights. European Intellectual Property Law Review7:227-232.
23.
Griffiths, T.
1993. Indigenous knowledge and intellectual property: A preliminary review of the anthropological literature (unpublished commissioned paper). Oxford, UK: Working Group on Traditional Resource Rights.
24.
Hames, R.
1991. Wildlife conservation in tribal societies. In Biodiversity: Culture, conservation, and ecodevelopment, edited by M. L. Oldfield and J. B. Alcorn, 172-199. Boulder, CO: Westview.
25.
Hecht, S. B.
, and D. A. Posey. 1989. Preliminary results on soil management techniques of the Kayapo Indians. Advances in Economic Botany7:174-188.
26.
Heller, M. A.
, and R. S. Eisenberg. 1998. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science280:698-701.
27.
Hendricks, J. W.1988. Power and knowledge: Discourse and ideological transformation among the Shuar. American Ethnologist15 (2): 216-238.
28.
Honey Bee Network
. 1996. Patents on neem-III: Losers, gainers and onlookers. Honey Bee7 (1): 7-9.
29.
Inter-Commission Task Force on Indigenous Peoples
. 1997. Indigenous peoples and sustainability: Cases and actions. Utrecht, the Netherlands: IUCN and International Books.
30.
Johnson, M.
1992. Research on traditional environmental knowledge: Its development and its role. In Lore: Capturing traditional environmental knowledge, edited by M. Johnson. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.
31.
Kadidal, S.1997. Subject-matter imperialism? Biodiversity, foreign prior art and the neem patent controversy. Idea: The Journal of Law and Technology37 (2): 371-403.
32.
Kalland, A.
1994. Indigenous-local knowledge: Prospects and limitations. In Arctic environment: Report on the seminar on integration of indigenous peoples knowledge, Reykjavik, September 20-23, 1994, edited by B. V. Hansen, 150-167. Ministry for the Environment (Iceland), Ministry of the Environment (Denmark), and the Home Rule of Greenland (Denmark Office) (Reykjavik and Copenhagen).
33.
Langdon, E. J.1986. Las clasificaciones del yajé dentro del grupo Siona: Etnobotanica, etnoquimica e historia. América Indígena46 (1): 101-116.
34.
Lindstrom, L.
1990. Knowledge and power in a South Pacific society. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
35.
Martin, C.
1978. Keepers of the game. Berkeley: University of California Press.
36.
Menon, U.1993. The real issue behind neem patents. AIPSN Bulletin3 (3): 25-26.
37.
Pereira, W.
, and A. K. Gupta. 1993. A dialogue on indigenous knowledge. Honey Bee4(4): 6-10.
38.
Posey, D. A.1990. The science of the Mebengokre. Orion (summer): 16-23.
39.
Posey, D. A.
, and G. Dutfield. 1996. Beyond intellectual property: Toward traditional resource rights for indigenous peoples and local communities. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.
40.
Principe, P.P.
1989. The economic significance of plants and their constituents as drugs. In Economic and medicinal plant research vol. 3, edited by H. Wagner, H. Hikino, and N. R. Farnsworth, 1-17. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
41.
Redford, K. H.1991. The ecologically noble savage. Cultural Survival Quarterly15:46-48.
42.
Redford, K. H.
, and A. M. Stearman. 1993. Forest-dwelling native Amazonians and the conservation of biodiversity: Interests in common or in collision?Conservation Biology7:248-255.
43.
Reichel-Dolmatoff, G.1976. Cosmology as ecological analysis: A view from the rain forest. Man11:307-318.
44.
Ruddle, K.
, and R. E. Johannes. 1985. The traditional knowledge and management of coastal systems in Asia and the Pacific. Jakarta, Indonesia: UNESCO.
45.
Rural Advancement Foundation International
. 1994. Conserving indigenous knowledge: Integrating two systems of knowledge (Independent study commissioned by the United Nations Development Programme). New York: UNDP.
46.
Shiva, V.
1989. Staying alive: Women, ecology and development. Atlantic Heights, NJ: Zed.
47.
Stearman, A. M.
1992. Neotropical hunters and their neighbors: Effects of non-indigenous settlement patterns on three native Bolivian societies. In Conservation of neotropical forests: Building on traditional resource use, edited by K. H. Redford and C. Padoch, 108-128. New York: Columbia University Press.
48.
Stenson, A.
, and T. Gray. 1997. Cultural communities and intellectual property rights in plant genetic resources. In Justice, property and the environment: Social and legal perspectives, edited by T. Hayward and J. O'Neill, 178-193. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.
49.
Thurow, L.1998. Needed: A new system of intellectual property rights. Harvard Business Review (September-October): 95-103.
50.
Tully, J.
1993. An approach to political philosophy: Locke in contexts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.
Warren, D. M.
1995. The interface between and the integration of indigenous knowledge systems and modern technologies. Paper presented at XIII International Plant Protection Congress, 2-7 July, The Hague, the Netherlands.
52.
Winter, G.1992. Patent law policy in biotechnology. Journal of Environmental Law4 (2): 167-187.
53.
Working Group on Traditional Resource Rights. 1996. The role of knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles in the conservation of the world's biological diversity. Submission to the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
