Teman-teman, artikel berikut mungkin berguna untuk yang sedang berkampanye TRIPS dll. ---------- > From: Third World Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Yao Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Victoria Tauli Corpuz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sanitsuda Ekachai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Roberto Bissio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Josefina (Pennie) Azarcon-dela Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Hira Jhamtani-2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Farhad Mazhar (UBINIG) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Antonio Tujan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; C Rammanohar Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Article from Martin Khor > Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 10:34 AM > > WHY LIFE FORMS SHOULD NOT BE PATENTED > by Martin Khor, Third World Network > > Blurb: At a recent seminar on the World Trade Organisation > in Geneva, speakers and participants argued that living things > should not be patented, and that the WTO's rules on intellectual > property rights should be revised to enable countries not > to patent life. This position coincides with a growing movement > worldwide that is calling for "No to patents on Life." > --------------------------------- > > The patenting of living things or life forms, some of which have > been made mandatory by the World Trade Organisation, is unethical > and also against the economic and social interests of developing countries. > > Thus, the WTO's Agreement on trade-related intellectual property rights > (TRIPS) should be revised and the patenting of life should instead > be prohibited. > > This was one of the points put forward by speakers and some > participants at a panel discussion on the review of the TRIPS > Agreement during a seminar on Current Developments > in the WTO organised in Geneva by the Third World Network > on 14-15 September. > > The patenting of life forms has become the subject of a growing > worldwide campaign by citizen groups, environmentalists, > scientists, farmers' organisations and also religious leaders. They believe > that animals, plants, humans, micro-organisms and their parts > such as genes and cells, should not be patentable as these life > forms are creations of God and Nature. > > They also argue that life forms, even if they are genetically-modified, > are not inventions and thus do not meet the criteria of patentability. > > A debate has also been raging in the WTO, which is reviewing > Article 27.3b of the TRIPS treaty which deals with patenting of > life forms. It allows countries not to patent plants and animals > but makes the patenting of micro-organisms and microbiological > processes compulsory, thus opening the road to patenting of life. > > Opening the discussion at the TWN seminar, the chairperson, > Mr. Chakravarthi Raghavan, said that a basic rethinking is > now going on in the public arena on the nature of intellectual > property rights and TRIPS, on the need to balance the rights of > IPR holders and that of users and consumers. > > Raghavan said policy makers and negotiators from the South > should examine what had been promised in the TRIPS on technology > transfer and other positive aspects and compare these with the > actual results. They should also focus on the aspects of TRIPS > that had generated negative effects and that thus need to be reversed. > > Mr Nelson Ndirangu, a senior Kenyan diplomat based in Geneva, > said developing countries had general concerns that > TRIPS requires strong regimes to protect intellectual property. > > The advantage would go to those holding patents. Although the > developed countries had said that strong IPR rules would cause > technology transfer to take place, five years later this has not > happened, and thus the claims of benefit were similar to fraud. > > In relation to patenting of life forms, Kenya and the Africa > Group believes that this is unethical and should not be allowed. > This patenting also has serious implications for food security. > > African countries are not satisfied with Article 27.3(b) of > TRIPS. The requirement for protecting micro-organisms, non- > biological and microbiological processes and plant varieties is > unethical in allowing patents over life-forms, unfair in terms of > biopiracy; and harms food security for local communities and > harms biodiversity. > > Mr Ndirangu added that when a product is patented, it disallows > or discourages research. Big companies that patent would benefit > and produce what the market wants. "Those of us living on > subsistence cannot afford patented products from the North. Also, > in relation to products containing genetically modified > organisms, we are not sure if they are safe for health or the > environment." > > Ms Cecila Oh, legal advisor to the Third World Network said that the > TRIPS Agreement has contributed to the prevention of access to > technology for developing countries. > > In the case of patents on biological materials, there is a case > of 'double irony' in that patents are being granted over > biological materials and the traditional knowledge of the use of > such materials. This prevents access by developing countries to > such biological resources and knowledge, which originated largely > from the developing countries. In this context, the TRIPS > Agreement has facilitated the flow of resources and technology > from the South to the North. > > As UNCTAD's Trade and Development Report 1999 pointed out, IPR > protection has generated the outward flow of profits from > developing to developed countries, in terms of payments for > technology and licensing fees and royalties. > > Ms Oh said the patent system was not an appropriate reward system > for knowledge relating to biological materials. "The patent > system was designed to protect mechanical inventions, and makes > the distinction between mere discoveries and inventions. It is > clear that biological materials are naturally occurring and can > only be discoveries, and not inventions. > > "Patents confer monopolies over patented subject matter. In the > cases of seeds and plant varieties, patents on such biological > materials will have serious implications for agriculture and food > security in the developing countries. The monopoly over > biological resources and knowledge essential for agriculture, > medicinal and other uses may be misappropriated and vest in > individuals and corporations." > > Ms Oh added that from a scientific perspective, the distinctions > made in Article 27.3b (for example, between plants and animals > on one hand, and microorganisms, on the other) are artificial and > were drafted with the aim of allowing and requiring > microorganisms and microbiological processes to be patentable. > > Quoting from reports made by scientists, Ms Oh said: > "Scientifically, no such distinctions can be drawn, and > therefore, all living organisms and living processes cannot be > patentable." > > She said that there are four categories of patents on life forms > and processes, which should be prohibited or banned. These are: > > ** Patents based on bio-resources and knowledge of their use > pirated from countries and indigenous communities, which do not > satisfy the novelty or invention criteria; > > ** Patents on discoveries; e.g., microorganisms, cell lines, genomes, > genes (including human cell lines and human genomes and sequences), > which are all naturally occurring; > > ** Patents on transgenic techniques and constructs, and transgenic > plants, animals and micro-organisms (better known as genetically > modified organisms); and > > ** Patents on nuclear transplant cloning (for example, the techniques > that produced Dolly the sheep). > > Ms Oh said: "A system for rewards should be developed, but distorting the > patent system only serves to attract controversy and rejection of > the whole system." > > She added that at the WTO, the African Group of countries has > already submitted a comprehensive proposal with the main point > "that the review process should clarify that plants and animals > as well as microorganisms and all other living organisms and > their parts cannot be patented, and that natural processes that > produce plants, animals and other living organisms should also not > be patentable." > > The Africa Group had also proposed that the protection of > plant varieties should allow for protection of the > innovations of indigenous and local farming communities in > developing countries. > > At discussion time, Mr. Leo Palma of the Philippines Mission in > Genevasaid he subscribed to the view that there should be no > patents on life forms. He asked how this principle should be > brought forward. > > A delegate from Trinidad and Tobago said it was important to work > out the elements of an appropriate system of protection for plant > varieties. > > A delegate from the India Mission said it was useful to examine > the patent application forms and procedures in developed countries, > such as the United States. > > He proposed that in patent application forms a column be > added to include the source of origin of biological materials. > Before patents are granted, the source of origin as well as > evidence whether the knowledge had already been in use should be > looked at. > > This would help prevent patents being granted for products or > Knowledge that have already been in use in other parts of the world. > > ends > ## FREE DOMAIN [.COM|.NET|.ORG *] >> http://www.indoglobal.com << ## To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
