Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intellectual Property Regimes and Their Impact on Agricultural Research and Development

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Social Justice and Agricultural Innovation

  • 202 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter gives an overview of the different intellectual property regimes that cover innovations in agriculture. It starts by giving an overview of the main justifications for intellectual property. It continues by discussing philosophical arguments based on desert, need and personality theories. After that, it offers an overview of the main forms of intellectual property protection, concentrating on patents, plant breeders’ rights, copyright and geographical indications. Finally, it introduces some of the major problems of proprietary science, in relation to the six dimensions of social justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (1995), art. 31.

  2. 2.

    See Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (1995), art. 27.1.

  3. 3.

    See Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (1995), art. 33.

References

  • Anderson, Molly D. 2018. Scientific knowledge of food and agriculture in public institutions: Movement from public to private goods. In Routledge Handbook of Food as a Commons, edited by José Luis Vivero-Pol, Tomaso Ferrando, Olivier De Schutter and Ugo Mattei, 185–202. Oxon & NewYork: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atenas, Javiera, Leo Havemann, and Ernesto Priego. 2014. Opening teaching landscapes: The importance of quality assurance in the delivery of open educational resources. Open Praxis 6 (1): 29–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attas, Daniel. 2008. Lockean justifications of intellectual property. In intellectual property and theories of justice, ed. Axel Gosseries, Alain Marciano, and Alain Strowel, 29–56. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, Christoph. 2006. Exclusion by inclusion? On difficulties with regard to an effective ethical assessment of patenting in the field of agricultural bio-technology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (6): 521–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beitz, Charles R. 2005. The moral rights of creators of artistic and literary works. Journal of Political Philosophy 13 (3): 330–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belleflamme, Paul. 2006. Patents and incentives to innovate: Some theoretical and empirical economic evidence. Ethical Perspectives: Journal of the European Ethics Network 13 (2): 267–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessen, James, Jennifer Ford, and Michael J. Meurer. 2011. The private and social costs of patent trolls. Regulation 34: 26–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biagioli, Mario. 2006. Patent republic: Representing inventions, constructing rights and authors. Social Research: An International Quarterly 73 (4): 1129–1172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biddle, Justin B. 2014. Can patents prohibit research? On the social epistemology of patenting and licensing in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 45: 14–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biddle, Justin B. 2016. Intellectual property rights and global climate change: Toward resolving an apparent dilemma. Ethics, Policy & Environment 19 (3): 301–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breakey, Hugh. 2009. Liberalism and intellectual property rights. Politics, Philosophy & Economics 8 (3): 329–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chopra, Samir. 2018. End intellectual property. Aeon, Accessed March 14, 2019. https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-of-intellectual-property-is-nonsensical-and-pernicious.

  • Conde Gutiérrez, Carlos. 2011. Copyrights y derechos morales de autor: la experiencia del common law en el Reino Unido. Revista La Propiedad Inmaterial 15 (November):19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conde Gutiérrez, Carlos. 2017. Invenciones Contrarias al Orden Público y Moral. In Derecho de Patentes, edited by Ernesto Rengifo García, 503–534. Bogotá: Universidad del Externado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Correa, Carlos M. 1995. Sovereign and property rights over plant genetic resources. Agriculture and Human Values 12 (4): 58–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cwik, Bryan. 2014. Labor as the basis for intellectual property rights. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (4): 681–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jonge, Bram. 2011. What is fair and equitable benefit-sharing? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (2): 127–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter, Olivier. 2011. The right of everyone to enjoy the benefits from scientific progress and the right to food: from conflict to complementarity. Human Rights Quarterly 33: 304–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derclaye, Estelle. 2012. Eudemonic intellectual property: Patents and related rights as engines of happiness, peace, and sustainability. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 14 (3): 495–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drahos, Peter. 1996. A philosophy of intellectual property. Aldershot: Dartmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drahos, Peter, and John Braithwaite. 2003. Information feudalism: Who owns the knowledge economy?. New York: New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwivedi, Gaurav, Sharanabasava Hallihosur, and Latha Rangan. 2010. Evergreening: A deceptive device in patent rights. Technology in Society 32 (4): 324–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeney, Oliver, Julian Cockbain, Michael Morrison, Lisa Diependaele, Kristof Van Assche, and Sigrid Sterckx. 2018. Patenting foundational technologies: Lessons from CRISPR and other core biotechnologies. The American Journal of Bioethics 18 (12): 36–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsberg, Ellen-Marie, Anders Braarud Hanssen, Hanne Marie Nielsen, and Ingrid Olesen. 2017. Patent ethics: The misalignment of views between the patent system and the wider society. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • García Márquez, Gabriel. 2002. Vivir para contarla. Bogotá: Diana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glover, Dominic. 2010. The corporate shaping of GM crops as a technology for the poor. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37 (1): 67–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goeschl, Timo, and Timothy Swanson. 2003. Pests, plagues, and patents. Journal of the European Economic Association 1 (2–3): 561–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosseries, Axel. 2011. Piratear es robar? Dixit 14: 37–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrini, Christi J., Margaret A. Curnutte, Jacob S. Sherkow, and Christopher T. Scott. 2017. The rise of the ethical license. Nature Biotechnology 35 (1): 22–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halewood, Michael. 2013. What kind of goods are plant genetic resources for food and agriculture? Towards the identification and development of a new global commons. International Journal of the Commons 7 (2): 278–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpert, Madeleine-Thérèse, and M Jahi Chappell. 2017. Prima facie reasons to question enclosed intellectual property regimes and favor open-source regimes for germplasm. F1000Research 6:284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassoun, Nicole. 2015. The global health impact index: Promoting global health. PLoS ONE 10 (12): e0141374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugen, Hans Morten, Manuel Ruiz Muller, and Savita Mullapudi Narasimhan. 2011. Food security and intellectual property rights: finding the linkages. In Intellectual property and human development: Current trends and future scenarios, ed. Tzen Wong and Graham Dutfield, 103–138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heins, Volker. 2008. Human rights, intellectual property, and struggles for recognition. Human Rights Review 9 (2): 213–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hettinger, Edwin C. 1989. Justifying intellectual property. Philosophy & Public Affairs 18 (1): 31–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollis, Aidan, and Thomas W. Pogge. 2008. The health impact fund: Making new medicines accessible for all. In Oslo & New Haven: Incentives for Global Health. http://www.healthimpactfund.org/hif_book.pdf. Accessed 31 March 2012.

  • Hongladarom, Soraj. 2015. Intellectual property rights and food security: The role of external relations. In Food Security and Food Safety for the Twenty-first Century, 255–262. Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, Nien-hê. 2000. Moral desert, fairness and legitimate expectations in the market. Journal of Political Philosophy 8 (1): 91–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, Justin. 1988. The philosophy of intellectual property. The Georgetown Law Review 77: 287–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, Gordon. 2009. Clearing the rubbish: Locke, the waste proviso, and the moral justification of intellectual property. Public Affairs Quarterly 23 (1): 67–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, Claus, and Adam Walters. 2005. Risk and responsibility in chemical research: The case of agent orange. HYLE–International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 11 (2): 147–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, Aaron. 2012. Fairness in practice: A social contract for a global economy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, Thomas. 1813. Letter to Isaac McPherson—August 13, 1813. In Wikisource. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_Isaac_McPherson_-_August_13_1813.

  • Kapczynski, Amy. 2008. The access to knowledge mobilization and the new politics of intellectual property. Yale Law Journal 117 (5): 804–885.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, Jack. 2005. First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology, 2nd ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korthals, Michiel. 2018. Is intensive farming ethically acceptable? Annals of Advanced Agricultural Sciences 2 (2): 15–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korthals, Michiel, and Henk van den Belt. 2014. Intellectual property rights and trade in the food and agricultural sectors. In Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics, edited by Paul B. Thompson and David M. Kaplan, 1271–1278. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambrecht, Maxime. 2017. The time limit on copyright: An unlikely tragedy of the intellectual commons. European Journal of Law and Economics 43 (3): 475–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes, William M., and Richard A. Posner. 2004. The political economy of intellectual property law. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, Peter. 2007. Creativity or coercion: Alternative perspectives on rights to intellectual property. Journal of Business Ethics 71 (4): 441–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liivak, Oscar, and Eduardo M. Peñalver. 2013. The right not to use in property and patent law. Cornell Law Review 98: 1437–1493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, John. 1689. Two Treatises of Government. Edited by Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louwaars, Niels. 2012. Seed science in the 21st century: rights that scientists have to deal with. Seed Science Research 22 (S1): S9–S14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louwaars, Niels, Bram De Jonge, and Peter Munyi. 2013. “Intellectual Property Rights in the Plant Sciences and Development Goals in Agriculture: An Historical Perspective.” In Knowledge Management and Intellectual Property, edited by Stathis Arapostathis and Graham Dutfield, 252–272. Cheltenham & Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, James, and Tim Hubbard. 2007. The big idea: Prizes to stimulate R&D for new medicines. Chicago-Kent Law Review 82 (3): 1519–1554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mancilla, Alejandra. 2012. Noncivil disobedience and the right of necessity. A point of convergence. Krisis 3: 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, Christopher. 2007. The hypocrisy of forgetfulness: the contemporary significance of early innovations in intellectual property. Review of International Political Economy 14 (1): 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merges, Robert P. 1994. Of property rules, coase, and intellectual property. Columbia Law Review 94 (8): 2655–2673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merges, Robert P. 2010. Individual creators in the cultural commons. Cornell Law Review 95: 793–805.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merges, Robert P. 2011. Justifying intellectual property. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, Adam. 2008. Personality-based, rule-utilitarian, and lockean justifications of intellectual property. In The handbook of information and computer ethics, edited by Kenneth Einar Himma and Herman T. Tavani, 105–130. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, Adam. 2011. Intellectual Property. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, Jason W. 2018. The Capitalocene Part II: accumulation by appropriation and the centrality of unpaid work/energy. The Journal of Peasant Studies 45 (2): 237–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, Kali N. 2006. Rules for radicals: A politics of patent law. Journal of Intellectual Property Law 14: 63–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, state, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, John. 2018. Food, needs and commons. In Routledge Handbook of Food as a Commons, edited by José Luis Vivero-Pol, Tomasso Ferrando, Olivier De Schutter and Ugo Mattei, 103–120. Oxon & New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papaioannou, Theodoros. 2006. Towards a critique of the moral foundations of intellectual property rights. Journal of Global Ethics 2 (1): 67–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peres, Sara. 2015. Saving the gene pool for the future: Seed banks as archives. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.09.002.

  • Pogge, Thomas W. 2010. The Health Impact Fund: better pharmaceutical innovations at much lower prices. In Incentives for global health: Patent law and access to essential medicines, ed. Thomas W. Pogge, Matthew Rimmer, and Kim Rubenstein, 135–154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prifti, Viola. 2015. The breeder’s exception to patent rights: Analysis of compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS agreement. Cham et al.: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prifti, Viola. 2016. Die Rolle des öffentlichen Interesses an Pflanzenpatenten: Eine europäische Perspektive. In Biopatente, ed. Barbara Brandl and Stephan Schleissing, 55–74. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radder, Hans. 2010. The commodification of academic research. In Science and the modern university, ed. Hans Radder, 1–23. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radder, Hans. 2013. Exploring Philosophical Issues in the Patenting of Scientific and Technological Inventions. Philosophy & Technology 26 (3): 283–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raustiala, Kal, and Stephen R. Munzer. 2007. The global struggle over geographic indications. European Journal of International Law 18 (2): 337–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, David B. 2003. A pluralistic account of intellectual property. Journal of Business Ethics 46 (4): 319–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, David B. 2016. Scientific realism and the patent system. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 47 (1): 69–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robaey, Zoë. 2016. Transferring moral responsibility for technological hazards: the case of GMOs in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (5): 767–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robaey, Zoë, and Cristian Timmermann. 2018. “Fair agricultural innovation for a changing climate.” In Food Justice, the Environment, and Climate Change, edited by Erinn Cunniff Gilson and Sarah Kenehan, 213–230. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiebinger, Londa. 2004. Feminist history of colonial science. Hypatia 19 (1): 233–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, Ingrid. 2010. Das Europäische Patentsystem. Wandel von Governance durch Parlamente und Zivilgesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main & New York: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, Brad. 2015. What does It mean to invent nature? UC Irvine Law Review 5: 1193–1229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, Paula E. 2012. How economics shapes science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterckx, Sigrid. 2006. The moral justifiability of patents. Ethical Perspectives 13 (2): 249–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterckx, Sigrid. 2011. Patenting and licensing of university research: promoting innovation or undermining academic values? Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (1): 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, Joseph E. 1999. “Knowledge as a global public good.” In Global public goods: international cooperation in the 21st century, edited by Inge Kaul, Isabelle Grunberg and Marc A. Stern, 308–325. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, Leo. 1952. On Locke’s doctrine of natural right. The Philosophical Review 61 (4): 475–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunder, Madhavi. 2007. The invention of traditional knowledge. Law and Contemporary Problems 70: 97–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Paul B. 2009. Philosophy of Agricultural Technology. In Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, ed. Anthonie Meijers, 1257–1273. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Paul B. 2015. From field to fork: Food ethics for everyone. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermann, Cristian. 2014a. An assessment of prominent proposals to amend intellectual property regimes using a human rights framework. La Propiedad Inmaterial 18: 221–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermann, Cristian. 2014b. Limiting and facilitating access to innovations in medicine and agriculture: A brief exposition of the ethical arguments. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10: 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermann, Cristian. 2015. Pesticides and the patent bargain. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9515-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmermann, Cristian. 2017. Harvesting the uncollected fruits of other people´s intellectual labour. Acta bioethica 23 (2): 259–269. https://doi.org/10.4067/s1726-569x2017000200259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trerise, Jonathan. 2010. Against the strength of patent protection. The Monist 93 (3): 464–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trerise, Jonathan. 2016. The influence of patents on science. Politics, Philosophy & Economics 15 (4): 424–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tvedt, Morten Walløe, and Ellen-Marie Forsberg. 2017. The room for ethical considerations in patent law applied to biotechnology. The Journal of World Intellectual Property 20 (5–6): 160–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Overwalle, Geertrui. 2009. Patents in agricultural biotechnology and the right to food. Geneva: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Overwalle, Geertrui. 2010. Turning patent swords into shares. Science 330 (6011): 1630–1631.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varelius, Jukka. 2014. Do patents and copyrights give their holders excessive control over the material property of others? Ethics and Information Technology 16 (4): 299–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, Jeremy. 1992. From authors to copiers: Individual rights and social values in intellectual property. Chicago-Kent Law Review 68: 841–887.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickson, Fern. 2016. Do we care about Synbiodiversity? Questions arising from an investigation into whether there are GM crops in the Svalbard global seed vault. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (5): 787–811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widerquist, Karl. 2010. Lockean theories of property: Justifications for unilateral appropiation. Public Reason 2 (1): 3–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willinsky, John. 2006. The access principle: The case for open access to research and scholarship, Digital libraries and electronic publishing. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, James. 2007. GM crops: Patently wrong? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (3): 261–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, James. 2009. Could there be a right to own intellectual property? Law and Philosophy 28 (4): 393–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, James. 2010. Ontology and the regulation of intellectual property. The Monist 93 (3): 450–463.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interdisciplinary Center for Studies in Bioethics, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Cristian Timmermann

Authors
  1. Cristian Timmermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristian Timmermann .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Timmermann, C. (2020). Intellectual Property Regimes and Their Impact on Agricultural Research and Development. In: Social Justice and Agricultural Innovation. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics, vol 31. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56193-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation