Protection through conventional IP does not work---determines majority of traditional knowledge to be ineligible and is too expensive

WIPO has given serious consideration to the possible protection of indigenous knowledge through various forms of intellectual property rights (IPRs), including copyright, patents, plant varieties, industrial designs, and trademarks. [19] As a practical matter, however, it may be difficult to protect [*72] traditional knowledge through IPRs due to problems fitting traditional knowledge into “certain accepted notions of intellectual property relating to ownership, originality, duration, fixation, inventiveness and uniqueness,” [20] among others. For example, it has been argued that IPRs are unsuitable for indigenous knowledge because they focus on individual rather than group rights, [21] they offer protection for fixed periods of time unlike the indeterminate periods applicable to indigenous knowledge, [22] and the requirement of a writing for protected works virtually excludes much of the indigenous knowledge that is transmitted orally though generations in traditional societies. [23] Additionally, IPRs are expensive to obtain and the costs of enforcement high. [24] Long and costly administrative and judicial procedures would render the IPR option unattractive for many indigenous people. Given this perceived incompatibility between IPRs and traditional knowledge, the case has been made for the development of a sui generis regime specifically adapted to the nature and characteristics of indigenous knowledge. [25] the argument for adopting a separate instrument for traditional knowledge is based on the recognition that traditional knowledge is created, owned, and utilized differently. [26] Unlike intellectual property law, traditional knowledge is designed not to confer economic benefits to individual creators but is intended for common exploitation. [27] “Consequently, it does not make sense to try and fit [it] within the rigidities of national intellectual property law.” [28]