The Greening of Technology Transfer:
Protection of the Environment and of Intellectual Property
Executive Summary
An international conference entitled was held on April
8-9, 1994 at Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord. The conference was organized by Suzanne Watson, J.D. 1993, M.I.P. 1994, Franklin Pierce Law Center (now Project Director with the Maine Science & Technology Foundation) under the auspices of Franklin Pierce Law Center and the Center for International Environmental Law, Washington, DC. A reception was held on the evening of April 8, hosted by the International Intellectual Property Association [IIPA], the U.S. affiliate of the Association Internationale pour la Protection de la Propriete Industrielle [AIPPI]. General funding for the conference was provided by the Endowment Fund of the Licensing Executives Society [LES-US/CAN] and a grant from the Pfizer Co.
Overview of Pre-Conference Issues
- Is there now an interrelationship between intellectual property protection and environmental protection. If not, should there be? Policies and mechanisms within intellectual property systems which promote creation and transfer of ecotechnologies need to be more widely understood. Should there be special intellectual property or technology transfer incentives for "environmentally superior technology"? Should there be special intellectual property treatment or technology transfer disincentives for technologies which "seriously prejudice" the environment? What are the best incentives for creation and diffusion of technology which benefits the environment? Will the "information revolution" have an impact? If so, what?
- Are the principles of intellectual property protection adaptable as incentives (or rewards) to traditional or indegenous groups to promote conservation of biodiversity? What mechanisms are most likely to give biodiversity-rich countries or communities incentives to conserve biological resources? What mechanisms exist or should exist to ensure that benefits of biodiversity exploitation are shared equitably with source countries or communities?
Conference Recommendations: A Partial List
- Establish electronic bulletin boards and other cost-effective methods [1] to ensure that the momentum of the international diologue continues between members of the environmental communities and the intellectual property communities and [2] to share interpretative commentaries on the major international instruments of intellectual property protection such as the TRIPs Agreement and of environmental protection such as the Convention on Biological Diversity.
- Educate members of the environmental communities and indigenous groups to become familiar with precedents, principles and procedures for effective intellectual property protection which currently exist -- including trademark and other non-patent forms of intellectual property -- and enlist the support of the World Intellectual Property Organization [WIPO] for this effort.
- Develop programs to assist entrepreneurs in less developed countries [LDCs] and indigenous groups to make effective use of such IP precedents, principles and procedures to their best advantage, and to become adept at the do's and don't's of effective technology transfer.
- Develop databases of appropriate non-proprietary technologies in patent disclosures and publications for access by entrepreneurial environmentalists in less developed countries [LDCs] and develop databases of innovations created by indigenous groups..
- Organize working groups from the Conference based upon geography and/or interest.
- Track and disseminate information about government and non-government initiatives for protection and transfer of ecotechnology, including NIH/NSF/USAID programs for international cooperative biodiversity groups, as well as contractual arrangements and consortia, and model agreements which are "win-win".
- Gather information about intellectual property organizations which are undertaking initiatives to look at environmental aspects of IP law and encourage comments from members of the environmental communities on such initiatives.
- conduct workshops through LES or other similar organization on what factors are key to the successful transfer of ecotechnology
Recurring Conference Observations
- A consensus was reached that there is no inherent conflict between strong environmental protection and strong intellectual property protection.
- Threats to the environment and depletion of biodiversity may require
developments in intellectual property protection heretofore unknown.
- Effective intellectual property protection involves much more than seeking and acquiring patents. Trademark and trade secret protection may be more important than patents in certain situations. Private rights of action under unfair competition laws could be extended to include actions against competitors which falsely suggest or imply, even negatively, compliance with environmental standards.
- Compulsory licenses are not as effective as creative cooperation in promoting technology transfers, and may actually hinder technology transfer.
- Collective or joint invention rights or collective trademark ownership rights may in theory be extended from corporate to social groups.
- The knowledge perimeter allowable for viable trade secret protection may in theory be extended from corporate to social groups; similarly, the definition of "prior art" for purposes of acquiring patent protection is not without
flexibility in terms of the same knowledge perimeter.
- No consensus was reached as to whether patent system should make special provisions for ecotechnologies or should treat all technological innovations according to equal standards. The competence of patent examiners to make such decisions, and the accuracy of such value judgments as technologies and environmental conditions evolve over time were challenged.
- Availability and value of technology are intimately related to the
availability and value of technological information.
- The question of financing ecotechnology transfer to users in less developed countries is separate from that of economic incentives of ecotechnology transfer to its creators.
See also, William O. Hennessey, Sustainable Development: A "Win-Win" for Licensing and for the Environment
Last modified 3/8/96
tgf