论文部分内容阅读
从传统文化相关的知识中的产品开发所取得的巨大商业成功,引发了关于生物多样性资源的权属之争,即这些具有巨大商业经济效益的生物资源是如CBD公约第8j条所规定的那样属于国家所有,抑或是属于TRIPS协定中所言由权利人私权所有。研究者所“发现”的产品可被授予专利,然而在TRIPS协定所确立的规则之下,少数族群要就来源于其传统知识的产品主张知识产权的保护,则存在法律上难以克服的障碍。TRIPS协定的制度设计从国际法层面上系统性地将少数族群的权利排除在外。其理论前提就是少数族群对其本地品种并不具有西方法律上所称的所有权,因此对生物多样性资源及与此有关的传统知识的利用和开发都属全球公共产品的利用范畴。
The tremendous commercial success gained from product development in traditional culturally relevant knowledge has triggered a tenure dispute over biodiversity resources, ie, those with significant commercial and economic benefits as defined in Article 8j of the CBD Convention That belongs to the state, or belong to the TRIPS agreement said by the rights of private ownership. However, under the rules established by the TRIPS Agreement, there is a legally insurmountable need for minorities to claim intellectual property protection for products derived from their traditional knowledge obstacle. The institutional design of the TRIPS Agreement systematically excludes the rights of minorities from the perspective of international law. The theoretical premise is that ethnic minorities do not have the legally-claimed ownership of their native breeds. Therefore, the utilization and development of biodiversity resources and the related traditional knowledge are all areas of public utility in the world.