Abstract

For the past several decades, there has been a push to provide some sort of right akin to an intellectual property right in traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expression. This push has encountered staunch resistance from a number of different quarters. Many of the objections are practical. However, underlying these practical concerns is a core philosophical concern. A system of traditional knowledge rights, this argument suggests, simply does not satisfy the basic rationale for granting property rights in intangibles like inventions and expressive works. Intellectual property is meant to encourage innovation and creative activity. Most traditional knowledge, by contrast, is not innovative, at least in the same sense as the inventions and works that qualify for patents and copyrights. At present, the "anti-property" camp seems to have the better of the argument, as even the World Intellectual Property Organisation has abandoned the notion of true property rights.This article seeks to refute this philosophical objection to a property model for traditional knowledge. It argues that the classic philosophical argument justifying intellectual "property" namely, that property rights are justified only as a way to spur innovation and other creative activity is incorrect in two ways. First, the argument misstates the main goal of an intellectual property system. While intellectual property may serve as an incentive for innovation, society's primary concern is not the innovation per se, but instead the dissemination of knowledge. Second, there may be policy reasons other than the development of knowledge that can justify intellectual property-like rights.The article then applies these observations to the particular question of traditional knowledge and cultural expression. It demonstrates that a system of property rights could be useful in helping to encourage the dissemination of traditional knowledge, even if that knowledge is not "new" in the classic sense. Second, other important social concerns, especially the goal of ensuring accuracy in knowledge, may justify a system of property rights. While these arguments may not ultimately support a property rights system—after all, the practical concerns remain very real—they do help to refute the underlying philosophical objection.

Highlights

  • The current intellectual property system by and large ignores so-called ―traditional knowledge.‖ Rooted in western notions of individualism, the intellectual property system concentrates almost exclusively on discrete new knowledge produced by a particular author or inventor

  • The exclusive nature of property rights poses an immediate obstacle to any system of intellectual property rights in traditional knowledge

  • The key to an intellectual property right designed to preserve culture is that it allows the owner to prevent others from using the traditional knowledge

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The current intellectual property system by and large ignores so-called ―traditional knowledge.‖ Rooted in western notions of individualism, the intellectual property system concentrates almost exclusively on discrete new knowledge produced by a particular author or inventor. Because the problem stems largely from the way the rules are drafted, the second part of the traditional knowledge debate could be largely resolved by revising the statutes to ensure that existing traditional knowledge, in whatever form, bars someone from obtaining rights in the same knowledge In this author's opinion, it would greatly help to reduce the confusion in the so-called ―traditional knowledge debate‖ if the two distinct issues were recognised as such and discussed separately. Rather than create a sui generis scheme like that employed by other nations, the Bill would essentially extend to traditional knowledge the existing protections set out in South Africa's current performers' rights, copyright, trademark, and design laws.. Rather than create a sui generis scheme like that employed by other nations, the Bill would essentially extend to traditional knowledge the existing protections set out in South Africa's current performers' rights, copyright, trademark, and design laws.7 In this second respect, the Bill goes against the international trend. This paper makes no attempt to resolve these technical issues, and takes no position as to whether a fair and effective property rights regime can ever be implemented

Property right aspects of the Bill
Objections to property rights in traditional knowledge
Practical objections to intellectual property rights
Policy objections to property rights
Rethinking intellectual property policy
Other justifications for property rights
Accuracy in the transmission and use of knowledge
Conclusion
Objectives and
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call