IPR fails to acknowledge logic of indigenous world views---can’t effectively and precisely establish TK (traditional knowledge) protection
Johnston and Heathcote 14 [Keri A.F. Johnston is a managing partner of Johnston Law in Toronto and Marion Heathcote is a partner with Davies Collison Cave in Sydney, both authors are guest editors for the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice special issue, 4/13/14, “The quest for ‘real’ protection for indigenous intangible property rights”, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 345-345, accessed 6/29/24]staghi
As Professor Anaya articulates and the authors of this special issue of JIPLP varyingly contemplate, the similarities between the inadequacies of the protection of tangible rights of indigenous peoples (eg indigenous land rights) and that of their intangible rights protection (including IPRs) tend to stem from a common source – the failure to acknowledge the “inherent logic of indigenous peoples’ world views”.2 Perhaps the solutions lie not just in finding ways to include indigenous IPRs in current IPR regimes, but through the facilitation of an entire paradigm shift to capture the nuances of these issues both effectively and precisely. How, for instance, can indigenous IPRs be valued commercially, and how may adequate compensation models be developed in exchange for the commercial use of these rights? A key to increasing the recognition of the inherent value of indigenous IPRs within their traditional cultural settings may lie in developing methods to properly value this worth in tangible terms. What seems necessary is a model to adequately measure the significance of indigenous IPRs, starting at the source (the indigenous community), and finding ways of translating this value into benefit systems that can be returned to the communities from which the IPRs were sourced. Hence recognition is attributed to the crucial part these IPRs play within the cultures from which they are derived.