IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v16y2000i1p96-114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An economic approach to identifying an “effective sui generis system” for plant variety protection under trips

Author

Listed:
  • W. Lesser

    (Agricultural Resource and Managerial Economics, Cornell University, 405 Warren Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-7801)

Abstract

Developing countries required under the WTO TRIPs agreement to provide some intellectual property protection for plants are choosing Plant Breeders' Rights (PBR). TRIPs specifies only an “effective sui generis system” without further clarification. This article develops an “effective” system based on the detailed TRIPs patent requirements. In general, the requirements map well with current UPOV Acts. A complete analysis must also consider implementation. The US “registration” system, which allows limited distinctness, provides weaker protection than European “examination” systems. Some evidence indicates the US system provides inadequate protection while European systems may release too few varieties. The recent UPOV “initial variety” system should use high initial variety standards to discourage breeders from delaying introductions. UPOV 1991 makes seed saving a national option; preliminary results indicate seed saving does not unduly reduce breeders' profits, but may lead to growers unprofitably delaying replacing seed [Econ-Lit citations: Q130, K390]. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Suggested Citation

  • W. Lesser, 2000. "An economic approach to identifying an “effective sui generis system” for plant variety protection under trips," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 96-114.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:16:y:2000:i:1:p:96-114
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6297(200024)16:1<96::AID-AGR8>3.0.CO;2-F
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Klemperer, 1990. "How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 113-130, Spring.
    2. Nogues,Julio, 1990. "Notes on patents, distortions, and development," Policy Research Working Paper Series 315, The World Bank.
    3. repec:bla:econom:v:59:y:1992:i:233:p:35-51 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Foster, William E. & Perrin, Richard, 1991. "Economic Incentives and Plant Breeding Research," Archive 259517, North Carolina State University, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    5. LeRoy Hansen & Mary Knudson, 1996. "Property Right Protection of Reproducible Genetic Material," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 18(3), pages 403-414.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sunil Kanwar & Robert Evenson, 2003. "Does intellectual property protection spur technological change?," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 55(2), pages 235-264, April.
    2. Adrien Hervouet & Marc Baudry, 2011. "Promoting innovation in the seed market and biodiversity: the role of IPRs and commercialization rules," Post-Print hal-02012239, HAL.
    3. Marc Baudry & Adrien Hervouet, 2017. "The private value of plant variety protection and the impact of exemption rules," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 202-226, April.
    4. Bowman, Diana M., 2007. "Patently obvious: Intellectual property rights and nanotechnology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 307-315.
    5. Baudry Marc & Hervouet Adrien, 2016. "Innovation in the Seed Market: The Role of IPRs and Commercialization Rules," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 14(1), pages 51-68, May.
    6. Jackson, Lee Ann, 2000. "Agricultural Biotechnology And The Privatization Of Genetic Information: Implications For Innovation And Equity," Working Papers 14365, University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lesser, William H., 2000. "An Economic Approach To Identifying An 'Effective Sui Generis System' For Plant Variety Protection Unders Trips," Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy, June 24-25, 1999, Washington, D.C. 25996, Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance.
    2. Lesser, William H., 1997. "Assessing the Implications of IPR on Plant and Animal Agriculture," Staff Papers 121166, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
    3. Leonard F.S. Wang & Arijit Mukherjee, 2014. "Patent Protection, Innovation and Technology Licensing," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3-4), pages 245-254, December.
    4. Schankerman, Mark & Schuett, Florian, 2016. "Screening for Patent Quality," CEPR Discussion Papers 11688, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Shiyuan Pan & Heng-fu Zou & Tailong Li, 2010. "Patent Protection, Technological Change and Wage Inequality," CEMA Working Papers 437, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.
    6. Scotchmer, suzanne, 1998. "The Independent-Invention Defense in Intellectual Property," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt2s5174q8, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    7. Clément Bonnet, 2016. "Revisiting the optimal patent policy tradeoff for environmental technologies," EconomiX Working Papers 2016-34, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    8. Wei Lim, 1998. "Multistage R&D competition and patent policy," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 68(2), pages 153-173, June.
    9. Eric Budish & Benjamin Roin & Heidi Williams, 2013. "Do fixed patent terms distort innovation? Evidence from cancer clinical trials," Discussion Papers 13-001, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    10. Picard, Pierre M. & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, 2013. "Patent office governance and patent examination quality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 14-25.
    11. Roland Kirstein & Birgit Will, 2006. "Efficient compensation for employees' inventions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 129-148, April.
    12. Grönqvist, Charlotta, 2009. "Empirical studies on the private value of Finnish patents," Bank of Finland Scientific Monographs, Bank of Finland, volume 0, number sm2009_041, July.
    13. Patricia M. Danzon & Eric L. Keuffel, 2014. "Regulation of the Pharmaceutical-Biotechnology Industry," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Regulation and Its Reform: What Have We Learned?, pages 407-484, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. David Moroz, 2005. "Production of Scientific Knowledge and Radical Uncertainty: The Limits of the Normative Approach in Innovation Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, November.
    15. Anja, Breitwieser & Neil, Foster, 2012. "Intellectual property rights, innovation and technology transfer: a survey," MPRA Paper 36094, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Chadha, Alka, 2009. "TRIPs and patenting activity: Evidence from the Indian pharmaceutical industry," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 499-505, March.
    17. Choi, Jay Pil, 1998. "Patent Litigation as an Information-Transmission Mechanism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1249-1263, December.
    18. Robert M. Hunt, 2006. "When Do More Patents Reduce R&D?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 87-91, May.
    19. Schankerman, Mark & Schütt, Florian, 2016. "Screening for Patent Quality : Examination, Fees, and the Courts," Other publications TiSEM fa319822-6e68-4e05-8547-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2011. "The quality factor in patent systems," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(6), pages 1755-1793, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:16:y:2000:i:1:p:96-114. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.