Patents are a performance , in both their creation and subsequent enactions. They require skill, tacit/embodied knowledge, and practice if they are to be successfully enacted. Western intellectual property law, however, is blind to the performative aspect of patents. This sociolegal reality has helped to create significant asymmetries between nations, particularly after the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) exported Western patent law to all corners of the globe. The article begins by reviewing the philosophical underpinnings of Western patent law, focusing specifically on those aspects that locate intellectual property within the disembodied subject. Next, attention turns to detailing the formation and implementation of TRIPS. Two asymmetries created by TRIPS are then discussed, which take place at the front and back ends of the patenting process. When taken together, these asymmetries work to further lock in global inequalities. The article concludes with suggestions about how these global inequalities might be reduced in light of this argument.
Adede, A. (2003). Origins and history of the TRIPS negotiations . In C. Bellman, G. Dutfield, & R. Meledez-Ortiz (Eds.), Trading in knowledge: Development perspectives on TRIPS, trade, and sustainability (pp. 23-35). Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
2.
Akrich, M. (1993). Essay of technosociology: A gasogene in Costa Rica. In P. Lemonnier (Ed.), Technological choices: Transformation in material cultures since the Neolithic (pp. 289-337). New York: Routledge.
3.
Aoki, K. (1996). (Intellectual) Property and sovereignty: Notes toward a cultural geography of authorship. Stanford Law Review , 48, 1293-1355.
4.
Atleson, J. (1983). Values and assumptions in American labor law. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
5.
Barton, J., & Wolfgang, S. (1994). Material transfer agreements in genetic resources exchange: The case of the international agricultural research centres. Issues in Genetic Resources, 1, 1-63. Retrieved October 21, 2006, from http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org/publications/pdf/109.pdf .
6.
Baumol, W. (2002). The free-market innovation machine: Analyzing the growth miracle of capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
Bijker, W., & Law, J. (Eds.). (1992). Shaping technology/building society. Cambridge: MIT Press.
8.
Carolan, M. (2008). More-than-representational knowledge/s of countryside: How we think as bodies. Sociologia Ruralis. In press.
9.
Chang, H. (2001). Intellectual property rights and economic development: Historical lessons and emerging issues. Journal of Human Development , 2, 287-309.
10.
Colfer, C., Sheil, D., & Kishi, M. (2006). Forest and human health: Assessing the evidence (Occasional Paper No. 45). Jakarta, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research. Retrieved August 18, 2007, from http://www.iufro.org/download/file/1125/3240/cifor-op-45.pdf .
11.
Collins, H. (1974). The TEA set: Tacit knowledge and scientific networks . Science Studies, 4, 165-86.
12.
Collins, H. (1992). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1985)
13.
Cottier, T. (1991). The prospects for intellectual property in GATT . Common Market Law Review, 28, 383-414.
14.
Drahos, P. (1996). Philosophy of intellectual property. Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth.
15.
Dutfield, G., & Suthersanen, U. (2005). Harmonisation or differentiation in intellectual property protection? The lessons of history. Prometheus, 23, 131-147.
16.
Edmonds Institute. (2006, March). Out of Brazil: A peanut worth billions (to the U.S.). Report produced by the Edmonds Institute, Edmonds, WA. Retrieved September 15, 2007, from http://www.edmonds-institute.org/outofbrazil.pdf.
17.
Eisenberg, R. (2004). Obvious to whom? Evaluating inventions from the perspective of PHOSITA. Berkley Technology Law Journal, 19, 885-906.
18.
Elangi, B.I. (2004). From the Paris convention to the TRIPS agreement: A one-hundred-and-twelve year transition period for the industrialized countries . Journal of World Intellectual Property, 7, 115-130.
19.
Fourcade, M. (2007). The politics of method and its agentic, performative and ontological others. Social Science History, 31, 107-114.
20.
Friedland, J. (2001). Ideation and appropriation: Wittgenstein on intellectual property. Law and Critique, 12, 185-199.
21.
Gonzalez-Arnal, S. (2004). Indigenous knowledge, patenting, and the biotechnology industry. In M. Brannigan (Ed.), Cross-cultural biotechnology (pp. 139-152). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
22.
Gordon, W. (1993). A property right in self-expression: Equality and individualism in the natural law of intellectual property. Yale Law Journal, 102, 1533-1609.
23.
Grossman, P. (2000). Corporate interest and trade liberalization: The North American Free Trade Agreement and environmental protection. Organization & Environment, 13, 61-85.
24.
Hounshell, D., & Smith, J. (1988). Science and corporate strategy: Du Pont R&D, 1902-1980. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling, and skill. New York: Routledge.
26.
Johnson, C. (1995). Japan: Who governs? The rise of the developmental state. New York: Norton.
27.
Keese, P. (2001). Even free access is still beyond the means of most scholars in Africa. Nature, 410, 1021.
28.
Kuanpoth, J. (2003). The political economy of the TRIPS agreement: Lessons from Asian countries. In C. Bellman , G. Dutfield, & R. Meledez-Ortiz (Eds.), Trading in knowledge: Development perspectives on TRIPS, trade, and sustainability (pp. 45-56). Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
29.
Kumar, N. (2003). Intellectual property rights, technology, and economic development. Economic and Political Weekly, 38, 209-225.
30.
de Laet, M. (2000). Patents, travel, space: Ethnographic encounters with objects in transit. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18, 149-168.
31.
de Laet, M., & Mol, A. (2000). The Zimbabwe bush pump: Mechanics of a fluid technology . Social Studies of Science, 30, 225-263.
32.
de Laet, M., & Raven, D. (1989). Interview met Bruno Latour. Focaal , 11/12, 193-208.
33.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
34.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
Lloyd, G. (1993). The man of reason: Male and female in Western philosophy. New York: Routledge . (Original work published 1984)
36.
Locke, J. (1980). Second treatise of government. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. (Original work published 1764)
37.
Loury, G. (1979). Market structure and innovation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 93, 395-410.
38.
Mantell, K. (2001, December 12). Brazil's shamans seek biopiracy protection . Science and Development Network. Retrieved September 12, 2007, from http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readNews&itemid=67&language=1.
39.
May, C. (2000). A global political economy of intellectual property rights: The new enclosures?New York, London: Routledge.
40.
May, C. (2007). The world intellectual property organization: Resurgence and the development agenda. New York: Routledge.
41.
May, C., & Sell, S. (2006). Intellectual property rights. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
42.
Mol, A., & Law, J. (1995). Notes on materiality and sociality. Sociological Review, 43, 274-294.
43.
Office of the Press Secretary. (2001, July 17). Remarks by the President to the World Bank. Press release, The White House. Retrieved September 16, 2007, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010717-1.html .
44.
Oliver, C. (2005). The treadmill of production under NAFTA: Multilateral trade, environmental regulation, and national sovereignty. Organization & Environment, 18, 55-71.
45.
Padma, T. (2005, January 10). Digital library to protect indigenous knowledge. Science and Development Network. Retrieved September 02, 2007, from http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readNews&itemid=1840&language=1.
46.
Parry, B. (2004). Trading the genome: Investigating the commodification of bio-information. New York: Columbia University Press.
47.
Pluhar, E. (2006). Legal and moral rights of sentient beings and the full personhood view. Organization & Environment, 19, 275-279.
48.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension garden city. New York: Doubleday.
49.
Recharger Magazine. (2006, February 03). 2005 sets record for int'l patent filings. Retrieved April 18, 2007, from http://www.rechargermag.com/articles/37426/ .
50.
Rivette, K., & Kline, D. (1999). Rembrandts in the attic: Unlocking the hidden value of patents. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
51.
Salleh, A. (2006). Resistance to corporate biocolonization. Organization & Environment, 19, 406-410.
52.
Schulz, F. (1951). Classical Roman law. Oxford , UK: Clarendon Press.
53.
Scotchmer, S., & Green, J. (1990). Novelty and disclosure in patent law. RAND Journal of Economics, 21, 131-146.
54.
Sell, S. (2003). Private power, public law: The globalization of intellectual property rights. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55.
Shiva, V. (1997). Biopiracy: The plunder of nature and knowledge . Boston: South End Press.
56.
Silva, E. (1994). Contemporary environmental politics in Chile: The struggle over the comprehensive law. Organization & Environment, 8, 323-343.
57.
Steen, K. (2001). Patents, patriotism, and skilled in the art: USA v. The Chemical Foundation, Inc., 1923 -26. Isis, 92, 91-122.
58.
Steidlmeier, P. (1993). The moral legitimacy of intellectual property claims: American business and developing country perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 157-164.
59.
Stewart, T. (1993). The GATT Uruguay round: A negotiating history (1986-1992). Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation.
60.
Stewart, L., & Burgin, A. (2005). Whole gene synthesis: A gene-o-matic future. Frontiers in Drug Design and Discovery, 1, 297-341.
61.
The Economist. (2006). Life 2.0-synthetic biology. The Economist, 380, 67-70.
62.
United Nations. (2007). The least developed countries report: Knowledge, technological learning, and innovation for development. New York: Author .
63.
Urry, J. (2003). Global complexity. Malden, MA: Cambridge University Press.
64.
Weinrib, E. (1995). The idea of private law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
65.
Wengenroth, U. (1997). Germany: Competition abroad-cooperation at home, 1870-1900. In A. Chandler, F. Amatori, & T. Hikino (Eds.), Big business and the wealth of nations (pp. 139-175). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
66.
Whitehead, A.N. (1964). Concept of nature. Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.
