| Pub. Date | : July 2022 |
|---|---|
| Product Name | : The IUP Journal of Law Review |
| Product Type | : Article |
| Product Code | : IJLR030722 |
| Author Name | : Anasruta Roy and Badal Chatterjee |
| Availability | : YES |
| Subject/Domain | : Arts & Humanities |
| Download Format | : PDF Format |
| No. of Pages | : 13 |
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) have a stronger influence on societal progress today than
at any other point in history. Whether it is a debate on the growth of open-source and free
software movements or the exploration of ways to empower indigenous communities to
benefit from traditional knowledge, or concerns about the impact of patenting plants, seeds,
animals and genes for profit, it is a contentious issue. More importantly, granting patents
and data protection rights on agricultural products has become increasingly hotly contested,
particularly in low- and middle-income countries where monopoly prices associated with
exclusive rights have made cultivation of several crops unviable for a vast majority of the
world's population. The paper examines the impact of IPR on low- and middle-income
countries by briefly exploring the historical development of IPR and the original purpose
behind granting periods of monopoly as an incentive to stimulate innovation, followed by an
analysis of the conflict between IPR and human rights, with reference to Pepsico vs. Gujarat
Farmers case.
A definition of intellectual property must concentrate on two elements: the property
element and the object to which the property element connects.
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are frequently referred to as intangible rights.
This categorization is based on the assumption that the object of the right is intangible.
All property rights bind the right holder to others in a legal relationship. The primary
distinction between real property rights and IPR is that the latter's object is nonphysical.
It can be considered an abstract object rather than a real item. It is possible
to 'possess' an abstract item without really owning it. A letter written to a friend, for
example, transfers the property in the letter but not the copyright.