Marahare is wrong!
Karjala* and Paterson** 17 Karjala was an american intellectual property law professor at Arizona State University. His major interests in teaching and research were primarily in the area of intellectual property, specifically in copyright and its applications in digital technologies. Paterson is a professor emeritus of law at the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver, Canada. (Dennis S.*, Robert K.**, “The Case Against Property Rights in Old Intagible Indigneous Property”, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, Fall 2017, https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1277&context=njtip, DOA: 6/29/24)//LFS – LMH
Don Marahare has reviewed the oft-cited “deficiencies” of traditional intellectual property law in the protection of traditional knowledge, such as the absence of protection for old knowledge or where no definitive author can be identified.65 He strongly supports the Model Law for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Expressions of Culture, discussed critically below,66 supplemented by ideas from such things as the Convention on Biological Diversity.67 We do not review his specific suggestions, because we feel that Mr. Marahare begins from an incorrect premise, namely, that the goal is to achieve “maximum protection over . . . traditional knowledge.”68 Protection of knowledge is only half of the IP equation. Protection does provide some benefits to some people, but protection is also socially detrimental in tying up knowledge that could otherwise be used freely to advance both culture and technology. A move toward more protection is not warranted unless it can be shown that the benefits outweigh the costs.