Page modified: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 20:40:43
Bio privatisation (English bio private ring) one calls the possibility for everyone of protecting parts of the natural environment by patents for the commercial use. The term was coined/shaped by Richard M. Stallman, who beyond that demands a conceptual separation from Biopiraterie (English Biopiracy).
With the appropriation of genetic resources an appropriation of the traditional knowledge of indigener and local communities associated with it often accompanies. The bio diversity convention demands therefore the appropriate participation of these communities in the profits, which are obtained with genetic resources and with it associated knowledge (benefit sharing).
A great many non-governmental organizations criticize the bio privatisation and support locally the resistance. Besides a tendency appears Monsanto, Dow AgroSiences, Pioneer rear-Bred and Cargill for the concentration of the patents in the hands of US-American companies, as for instance.
With the discussion around bio privatisation and Biopiraterie must be differentiated between patenting of new products and procedure for their production and the registration by label names.
Examples
- A well-known example of bio privatisation is the attempt of the US enterprise Rice Tec succeeded first to announce in September 1997 a patent on new tearing places to register and these under the name Basmati as mark. Although Basmati is a common name for very high-quality tearing places, which is bred for centuries by Indian and rice farmers of Pakistan, these farmers would have lost the right by the trademark protection, their rice under its traditional name to marked out. Followed a legal argument, which won India at that time.
- A further example is the use of the Hoodia Kaktus by the Khoi San. The South African government let the Kaktus examine, since it is used of the shrub men traditioniell as and the active substance as P57 to patent. Later the patent was sold over a British Pharmafirma at the American Pharmakonzern Pfizer, which wanted to develop from it a without taking part the Khoi San in the yields. It succeeded to the Khoi San in one legal proceedings to secure a profit-sharing at the preparations developed from the Hoodia Kaktus. Pfizer returned the patent in the meantime again.
- In addition there are several patents on excerpts of the Niembaumes, whose fundamental effect already admits against insects and mushrooms in India for thousands of years is. Particularly the patent EP 0,436,257 B1, which was given 1994 to the US Ministry Of Agriculture as well as the enterprise W.R.Grace by the European patent office in Munich, had provided for attention. It concerns a "procedure for fighting against Fungi at plants" (patent claim 1) and/or a "procedure for protecting plants against fungal attack" (patent claim 7), whereby both procedures thereby are characterized, "that one the Fungi/the plant with a containing 0.1 to 10% of a hydrophobisch extracted which is essentially free from Azadirachtin 0.005 to 5.0% emulsifying Tensid and 0 to 99% water contacts". Such a procedure using such concrete - and nothing else placed the patent under protection - was new at the priority time of the patent (26 December 1989). Fears of Indian farmers regarding export restrictions and price increases due to economic interests of the company were unfounded, because on the one hand a European patent can never have validity in India and on the other hand no other actions than the use of the protected procedure of the patentees could be forbidden. Nevertheless 1993 the Neem Campain was created, in order to proceed approximately presumed to injustice given patents. Among other things the winner alternatives of the Nobelpreises Vandana Shiva raised objection against the distribution of the patent. In May 2000, after two-day negotiations in the objection complaint procedure before the technical complaint chamber of the EPA the patent became missing due to "inventive activity", beside the "novelty" the most important condition for patenting, cancellations. The complaint chamber found the fact that it in view of the fact that fungicides effects of vegetable oils often admits is, no inventive activity required to apply well-known prescriptions also to so far ungenutze plants and arrive in such a way at the patented procedures. A vote against patents on plants actually does not represent the decision against multiple, differently reading statements however.
- 1986 could be patented a US firm the Lianenart Banisteriopsis needed for the production of Ayahuasca caapi. 1999 then became Ayahuasca, which Banisteriopsis contains caapi as main part as mental property recognition and the patent of indigener peoples waived. But 2001 came into force the patent again, which released many protests and as example of the exploitation of native cultures is considered.
See also
- Privatisation, common property, genetic engineering
Literature
- Shiva, Vandana: Biopiraterie. Colonialism 21. Century. An introduction 2002, ISBN 3-897714-16-7
- Wullweber, Joscha: The green gold of the genes. Global conflicts and Biopiraterie 2004, ISBN 3-896915-94-0
- Jeffrey M. Smith: "Trojan Saaten. Genetically altered food - genetically altered humans. Munich, 2004, ISBN 3-570500-60-8
- BUKO campaign against Biopiraterie (Hg.): The Green booty Biopiraterie and resistance. Arguments, background, actions, although publishing house, 2005, ISBN 3-931786-40-4
Related links
Printer Friendly Format
Bookmark this page
Back to "Personal Loan No Credit Check, Online Economics"
Back to top