Advertisement

Establishing Effective Intellectual Property Rights And Reducing Barriers To Entry In Canadian Agricultural Biotechnology Research

Chapter
  • 887 Downloads
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 27)

Abstract

Governments face a second-best situation when they consider the appropriate policy for realizing the optimal level of agricultural research. As public research effort is constrained, private research is required. In absence of any effective way of excluding others from using intellectual innovations, a public good problem will exist. While intellectual property rights help to reduce the public good problem through granting market power to innovators seeking to commercialize their inventions, these rights also create deadweight losses. This paper examines the tradeoffs inherent in IPR policies and uses a Canadian example to show how some of the unwelcome effects can be minimized.

Key words

holdup intellectual property licensing strategic behavior 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Canadian Public Accounts, Federal and Provincial Public Accounts (various years).Google Scholar
  2. Crop Development Centre, 1997, Annual Report, University of Saskatchewan, Canada.Google Scholar
  3. Department of Justice of Canada, 2000, Chapter P-4, Patent Act. Retrieved from Consolidated Statutes; http://canada.justice.gc.ca/STABLE/EN/Laws/Chap/P/P-4.html.Google Scholar
  4. Diamond P. (ed.), 1999, Issues in Privatizing Social Security, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  5. Gadbow, R. M., and Richards, T. J. (eds.), 1990, Intellectual Property Rights—Global Consensus, Global Conflict, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
  6. Grace, E. S., 1997, Biotechnology Unzipped, Trifolium Books Inc., Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  7. Krattiger, A. F., 1997, Insect Resistance in Crops: A Case Study of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and Its Transfer to Developing Countries, ISAAA Briefs. No. 2, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Lindner, B., 1999, Prospects for public plant breeding in a small country, in: Proceedings of the 4th International Consortia of Agricultural Biotechnology Research (ICABR): The Shape of the Coming Agricultural Biotechnology Transformation. University of Rome “Tor Vergata,” Rome and Ravello, p. 17.Google Scholar
  9. McHughen, A., 1998, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on BioSafety Results of Field Tests of GM Plants and Micro-Organisms, Biologische Bundesanstalt für Land-und Forstwirtschaft, Braunschweig, Germany.Google Scholar
  10. McHughen, A., 2000, A Consumer’s Guide to GM Food: From Green Genes to Red Herrings, Oxford University Press, Bath Press Ltd., Bath, Avon.Google Scholar
  11. Phillips, P., and Stovin, D., 2000, The economics of intellectual property rights in the agricultural biotechnology sector, in: Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing Countries: Towards Optimizing the Benefits for the Poor, M. Qaim et al., eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Vaver, D., 1997, Intellectual Property Law: Copyright, Patents, Trade-Marks, Irwin Law, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations