Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge
Show Less

Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge

Case Studies and Conflicting Interests

  • Elgar Intellectual Property and Global Development series

Edited by Tania Bubela and E. Richard Gold

This fascinating study describes efforts to define and protect traditional knowledge and the associated issues of access to genetic resources, from the negotiation of the Convention on Biological Diversity to The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Nagoya Protocol. Drawing on the expertise of local specialists from around the globe, the chapters judiciously mix theory and empirical evidence to provide a deep and convincing understanding of traditional knowledge, innovation, access to genetic resources, and benefit sharing.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details

Chapter 5: Property Rights, Biocultural Resources and Two Tragedies: Some Lessons from Brazil

Edson Beas Rodrigues

Extract

5. Property rights, biocultural resources and two tragedies: Some lessons from Brazil Edson Beas Rodrigues Jr1 INTRODUCTION Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) temporarily confer on their holders the exclusive right to determine the use of the protected subject matter, taking into account their personal interests.2 Because IPRs grant holders the freedom to control their intangible assets and extract income,3 the right to exclude nonauthorized third parties from the enjoyment of protected subject matter is deemed the fundamental attribute of IPRs.4 The right to exclude third parties gives the holders of IPRs the prerogative to choose who can and cannot use their intangible assets,5 regardless of any independent state intervention.6 In recent years, a plethora of public statements, sponsored by representatives of local communities and developing countries, have advocated for the adoption of international regimes to protect Intangible Biocultural Resources 1 I am indebted to Dr. Cristina Theodore Assimakopoulos and Prof. Eliana Rodrigues (UNIFESP) for their valuable inputs and information, which were fundamental for preparing the itens related to the UNIFESP-Krahô case study. The present work was only made possible thanks to the financial support received from the Centre on Intellectual Property Policy at McGill University and from the Institute of International Trade Law and Development (IDCID). 2 Larissa M. Katz, ‘Exclusion and Exclusivity in Property Law’ (2008) Legal Studies Research Paper ie 08 –02 at 34–35. 3 James Boyle, ‘Foreword: the opposite of property?’ (2003a) 66 (1–2) L. & Comtemp. Probs 1–32 at 9–10 [Boyle...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.


Further information

or login to access all content.