IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/unm/unuint/200304.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Defining an Intellectual Property Right on Traditional Medicinal Knowledge: A Process-Oriented Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Gehl Sampath, Padmashree

    (United Nations University, Institute for New Technologies)

Abstract

The focus of this paper is to find an operative definition of traditional knowledge for purposes of drug research and development. Starting out with the international debate on Art. 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1993 and the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1995, it argues that the critical elements of any sui generis system should be rights' definitions that clearly identify the nature of information that is to be protected as traditional knowledge and the set of beneficiaries that are to exercise the right. Using the theory of cumulative innovation in biotechnology-based pharmaceutical research, the paper derives a justification for an intellectual property right for traditional medicinal knowledge that is based on its actual/ potential contribution to pharmaceutical research. Such a right, apart from clearly giving us the basis for demarcating communities/ groups of people who ought to exercise it, also helps achieve three incentive effects - the incentive to reveal information that is useful for the society at large, the incentive to keep such knowledge pools intact and lastly, the incentive to conserve biodiversity. These incentive effects provide us with a more robust basis to argue for a sui generis right over traditional medicinal knowledge

Suggested Citation

  • Gehl Sampath, Padmashree, 2003. "Defining an Intellectual Property Right on Traditional Medicinal Knowledge: A Process-Oriented Perspective," UNU-INTECH Discussion Paper Series 2003-04, United Nations University - INTECH.
  • Handle: RePEc:unm:unuint:200304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/discussion-papers/2003-4.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gordon C. Rausser & Arthur A. Small, 2000. "Valuing Research Leads: Bioprospecting and the Conservation of Genetic Resources," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(1), pages 173-206, February.
    2. Nancy Gallini & Suzanne Scotchmer, 2002. "Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System?," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 51-78, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Stanley M. Besen & Leo J. Raskind, 1991. "An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Intellectual Property," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 3-27, Winter.
    4. Archibugi, Daniele & Michie, Jonathan, 1995. "The Globalisation of Technology: A New Taxonomy," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 19(1), pages 121-140, February.
    5. Bromley, D.W. & Cernea, M.M., 1989. "The Management Of Common Property Natural Resources - Some Conceptual And Operational Fallacies," World Bank - Discussion Papers 57, World Bank.
    6. Landes, William M & Posner, Richard A, 1989. "An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(2), pages 325-363, June.
    7. Suzanne Scotchmer, 1991. "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 29-41, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stan J. Liebowitz & Richard Watt, 2006. "How To Best Ensure Remuneration For Creators In The Market For Music? Copyright And Its Alternatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 513-545, September.
    2. Frederick R. Warren-Boulton & Kenneth C. Baseman & Glenn A. Woroch, 1994. "The Economics of Intellectual Property Protection for Software: The Proper Role for Copyright," Industrial Organization 9411004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Ozgur Aydogmus & Erkan Gürpinar, 2022. "Science, Technology and Institutional Change in Knowledge Production: An Evolutionary Game Theoretic Framework," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1163-1188, December.
    4. Massimiliano Granieri, 2011. "A Law and Economics Introduction to Patent Law and Procedure," Chapters, in: Federico Munari & Raffaele Oriani (ed.), The Economic Valuation of Patents, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Gauguier, Jean-Jacques, 2009. "L’industrialisation de l’Open Source," Economics Thesis from University Paris Dauphine, Paris Dauphine University, number 123456789/4388 edited by Toledano, Joëlle.
    6. Sebastian von Engelhardt & Sushmita Swaminathan, 2008. "Open Source Software, Closed Source Software or Both: Impacts on Industry Growth and the Role of Intellectual Property Rights," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 799, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    7. Roland Kirstein & Birgit Will, 2006. "Efficient compensation for employees' inventions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 129-148, April.
    8. Mukherjee, Arijit & Stern, Scott, 2009. "Disclosure or secrecy? The dynamics of Open Science," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 449-462, May.
    9. Pierre Azoulay & Danielle Li, 2020. "Scientific Grant Funding," NBER Working Papers 26889, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Griffith, Rachel & Lee, Sokbae & Straathof, Bas, 2017. "Recombinant innovation and the boundaries of the firm," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 34-56.
    11. David Moroz, 2005. "Production of Scientific Knowledge and Radical Uncertainty: The Limits of the Normative Approach in Innovation Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, November.
    12. Aydogmus, Ozgur, 2022. "Increasing returns and path dependence in knowledge creation and their effects on the dynamics of patent pools," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 467-477.
    13. Alexander Cuntz & Matthias Sahli, 2024. "Intermediary liability and trade in follow-on innovation," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 48(1), pages 1-42, March.
    14. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Stefano Comino & ?Fabio Manenti & ?Antonio Nicol•, 2007. "Sequential innovations with unobservable follow-on investments," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0041, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
    16. Barbara Biasi & Petra Moser, 2018. "Effects of Copyrights on Science - Evidence from the US Book Republication Program," Working Papers 18-06, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    17. Mabrouki, Mohamed, 2018. "Le brevet : un instrument efficace pour promouvoir l’innovation au profit de la croissance ou un mal nécessaire ? [Patent: an effective instrument to promote innovation for the benefit of growth or," MPRA Paper 85752, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Nancy Gallini, 2011. "Private agreements for coordinating patent rights: the case of patent pools," ECONOMIA E POLITICA INDUSTRIALE, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2011(3), pages 5-30.
    19. Mohamed MABROUKI, 2018. "Patent Life And Scope: What Is The Optimal Combination?," Journal of Smart Economic Growth, , vol. 3(2), pages 71-105, December.
    20. Anna Rita Bennato & Laura Magazzini, 2009. "International Cooperation in Pharmaceutical Research," Working Papers 62/2009, University of Verona, Department of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:unm:unuint:200304. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ad Notten (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/meritnl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.