Munzer - THE UNEASY CASE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
37 THE UNEASY CASE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE * S TEPHEN R. M UNZER ** & K AL R AUSTIALA *** I. I NTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 38 II. S PECIFYING R OBUST L EGAL P ROTECTION FOR T RADITIONAL K NOWLEDGE ......................................................................... 43 A. Legal Modalities and Their Analysis ................................. 43 B. Legal Protection of Traditional Knowledge ......................... 45 III. U NDERSTANDING T RADITIONAL K NOWLEDGE ........................... 46 A. Debates over Traditional Knowledge .................................. 46 B. Traditional Knowledge Defined ......................................... 48 C. Traditional Knowledge, Law, and International Politics .... 50 D. Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property ............... 52 IV. P ROPERTY A RGUMENTS FOR P ROTECTING T RADITIONAL K NOWLEDGE ......................................................................... 56 A. Framing the Inquiry .......................................................... 56 B. Assessing the Main Arguments for Intellectual Property Rights ............................................................................. 59 1. Desert Based on Labor ........................................... 59 2. Firstness ................................................................... 62 3. Stewardship ............................................................. 65 4. Stability .................................................................... 67 5. Moral Right of the Community .............................. 68 Permission is hereby granted for noncommercial reproduction of this Article in whole or in part for education or research purposes, including the making of multiple copies for classroom use, subject only to the condition that the names of the authors, a complete citation, and this copyright notice and grant of permission be included in all copies. * We thank Richard L. Abel, Stuart Banner, Ranee Adipat, Betsy Bennion, Eric R. Claeys, Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Mark Greenberg, Larry Helfer, Curt Hessler, Justin Kachadoorian, Thomas W. Merrill, Kali Murray, Chris Naticchia, James W. Nickel, Angela R. Riley, Seana Shiffrin, Chris Sprigman, Rebecca Tsosie, Mark Woodhead, and partici- pants at presentations at the American Philosophical Association, the Colorado Property Conference, the Law and Philosophy Discussion Group, St. Louis University School of Law, and the UCLA School of Law for their comments and assistance. We are grateful to Kristen A. Carpenter, Sonia K. Katyal, and Angela R. Riley for allowing us to see their forthcoming article in draft. See infra note 2. For financial support, we are indebted to the Academic Senate and the Dean’s Fund at UCLA. © 2009 Stephen R. Munzer & Kal Raustiala. ** Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law. *** Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law; Director, Ronald W. Burkle Center for Interna- tional Relations, UCLA.
Image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
38 CARDOZO ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT [Vol. 27:37 6. Incentives to Innovate ............................................. 73 7. Incentives to Commercialize .................................. 74 8. Unjust Enrichment, Misappropriation, and Restitution ............................................................... 75 9. Infringement and Dilution ..................................... 78 V. J USTIFIABLE I NTELLECTUAL P ROPERTY R IGHTS IN T RADITIONAL K NOWLEDGE ......................................................................... 80 A. Defensive Protection: Against and by Patents .................... 81 B. Offensive and Defensive Protection: Copyright and Trademark ...................................................................... 84 1. Copyright ................................................................. 85 2. Trademark ............................................................... 86 C. Offensive and Defensive Protection by Sui generis Rights ...89 D. Remedies ......................................................................... 94 VI. C ONCLUSION ............................................................................ 95 I. I NTRODUCTION Should intellectual property law protect traditional prac- tices, folkways, performances, and expertise? In recent years, indi- viduals and firms have patented customary herbal remedies, em- ployed snippets of traditional songs and dances in copyrighted material, and even obtained yoga-related patents, copyrights, and trademarks.
Image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern