Intellectual Property World Trade Organization Compulsory License Punitive Damage Private Contract 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (CBAC) (2002) Patenting of higher life forms: a report to the government of canada biotechnology ministerial coordinating committee (Final report)Google Scholar
  2. Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) (2004) Patents. Available online: Scholar
  3. Centre for intellectual property (CIPP) (2004) Quarterly Newsletter, October. Available at: Scholar
  4. Food and Agricultural Organization (2004) Commission on genetic resources for food and agriculture. Available online: http://www.fao.orgGoogle Scholar
  5. Nottenburg C, Parday PG, Wright BD (2003) South-North trade, intellectual property jurisdiction, and freedom to operate in agricultural research on staple crops, Economic Development and cultural change 51:309-336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Phillips P (2003) The economic impact of herbicide tolerant Canola in Canada. In Kalaitzanondakes N (ed) Economic and environmental impacts of first generation Biotechnologies. CABI International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK.Google Scholar
  7. Phillips P (Forthcoming) Technology, ownership and governance: an alternative view of IPRs. In: Einsidel E (ed) Foresight on emerging technologies. University of Calgary Press, Calgary.Google Scholar
  8. Phillips P, Khachatourians G (2001) The Biotechnology revolution in global agriculture: innovation, invention and investment in the canola sector. CABI Wallingford, Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Sawhney VK (2001) Pollen Biotechnology. In: Khachatourians GG, McHughen A, Nip W-K, Scorza R, Hui Y-H (eds) Transgenic plants and crops. Marcel Dekker Inc New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Smyth S, Khachatourians G, Phillips P (2002) The case for institutional and biological mechanisms to control GM gene flow. Nat Biotechnol 20(6):537–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Traxler G (2003) Let them Eat GM? The Biotechnology picture in Latin America. Presentation to the conference Crossing over: genomics in the public arena, Kananaskis, Alberta, April 25Google Scholar
  12. US Patent Office (1999) Search of patent database undertaken on, October 9Google Scholar
  13. The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) (1991) The act of international convention for the protection of new varieties of plants of December 2, 1961, as Revised at Geneva on November 10, 1972, on October 23, 1978, and on March 19, 1991. Available online: Scholar
  14. The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) (1999) About UPOV. Available online: Scholar
  15. US General Accounting Office (2000) Biotechnology: information on prices of genetically modified seeds in the United States and Argentina. Available online: Scholar
  16. US Patent and Trademark office. 2004. Definition of a utility patent. Accessible on line at: Scholar
  17. World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) (2004) About WIPO. Available online: http://www.wipo.intGoogle Scholar
  18. Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980) 447 US 303Google Scholar
  19. Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) (2002) 4 SCR 45; 2002 SCC 76, (also known as the Harvard Oncomouse case)Google Scholar
  20. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2004) 1 S.C.R. 902Google Scholar
  21. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2003) F.C. 165 (CA)Google Scholar
  22. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2001) F.C.J. 436Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter W.B. Phillips
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political StudiesUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations