- citati u SCIndeksu: [1]
- citati u CrossRef-u:0
- citati u Google Scholaru:[
 ]
- posete u poslednjih 30 dana:6
- preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:5
|
|
|
2017, vol. 65, br. 1, str. 7-24
|
|
Očuvanje biodiverziteta i pravo intelektualne svojine - konceptualni nesporazum
Biodiversity conservation and intellectual property law: A conceptual misunderstanding
Sažetak
Autor je postavio tezu o konceptualnom neskladu između prava intelektualne svojine i ciljeva Konvencije o zaštiti biodiverziteta. Teza je razrađena kao analiza: a) problema na nivou pojedinih instituta patentnog prava i prava zaštite genetskih resursa i tradicionalnog znanja, b) javnih politika podsticanja tehnološkog razvoja i konzervacije biodiverziteta i v) sukoba ideoloških vrednosti iz kojih su te javne politike proizašle. Zaključak je da se u centru problema nalazi različit i protivrečan pravni, politički i ideološki tretman javnog domena, zavisno od toga da li se na njega gleda iz ugla interesa razvijenog ili tzv. trećeg sveta.
Abstract
The author has set up a thesis on conceptual incompatibility of intellectual property rights and the objectives of the Convention on the protection of biodiversity. The thesis is developed through analysis of: a) the problem at the level of particular institutes of patent law and the law of protection of genetic resources and traditional knowledge, b) public policy incentives for technological development and conservation of biodiversity, and c) conflicts of ideological values from which this policies emerge. The conclusion is that the core of the problem is in different and contradictory legal, political and ideological treatment of the public domain, depending on whether it is seen from the perspective of the interests of the developed or the so-called third world.
|
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
  
|
Bratspies, R.M. (2006) The New Discovery Doctrine: Some Thoughts on Property Rights and Traditional Knowledge. American Indian Law Review, 31(2): 315
|
|
|
Finston, S.K. (2005) The Relevance of Genetic Resources to the Pharmaceutical Industry. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 8(2): 141-155
|
|
|
Fowler, C. (2001) Protecting farmer innovation: The convention on biological diversity. Jurimetrics, 41
|
|
|
Ho, C. (2006) Biopiracy and beyond: A consideration of socio-cultural conflicts with global patent policies. University of Michigen Journal of Law Reform, 39
|
|
3
|
Saks, Dž. (2014) Doba održivog razvoja. Beograd, Saks, Dž. Doba održivog razvoja, Beograd 2014
|
|
|
Sampath, P. (2005) Regulating bioprospecting: Institutions for drug research, access and benefit sharing. United Nations University
|
|
|
Srinivas, K. (2016) Traditional knowledge and intellectual property rights: A note on issues, some solutions and some suggestions. Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law and Policy, 3, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1140623, April 2016
|
|
|
Swanson, T. The economics of the biodiversity convention. University of Cambridge Disusssion Paper, GEC 92-08, http://www.cserge.ac.uk/sites/default/files/gec_1992_08.pdf, mart 2016
|
|
|
Ullrich, H. (2005) Traditional Knowledge, Biodiversity, Benefit-Sharing and the Patent System: Romantics v. Economics?. u: European University Institute Working Paper 7, Florence
|
|
|
UNCTAD-ICDS (2005) Resource book on TRIPS and development. Geneva
|
|
|
Vogel, J.H., ed. (2010) The museum of bioprospecting, intellectual property and the public domain: A place, a process, a philosophy. London
|
|
|
WIPO (2016) Second revision of the consolidated document related to intellectual property and genetic resources. WO/GA/48/9
|
|
|
WIPO (2008) The protection of traditional knowledge: Draft gap analysis. Geneva, dokument WIPO/GRTKF/IC/13/5(b)rev. Annex I), www.wipo.int/tk/en/igc/gap-analyses.html, April 2016
|
|
|
World Trade Organization (2006) The relationship between the TRIPS agreement and the convention on biological diversity: Summary of issues raised and points made. IP/C/W/368/Rev. 1
|
|
|
|
|