We must consider the importance of looking at colonized communities and how they reflect intellectual property, and how the people who were colonized are able to contribute in that society – and we can see that ‘western’ knowledge is often regarded as ip and knowledge from the global south is seen as traditional knowledge, which is infinitely harder to apply ip rules to

Findings Represented in the five documents is discourse that adheres to the ideological significance of international law, the value of trade over other protective measures, the formal understanding of the liberties within TRIPS, the importance of documenting and digitizing knowledge, and the belief that traditional communities are unable to understand the complex protection system of IPR. Inherent in understanding this analysis of data is acknowledging the historical positionality of Indigenous peoples and colonized communities. Currently, legal systems and their intersection with TK conflict within the text. The overall belief within the documents is that while IPR may be usable in certain cases to protect TK, it is not sufficient. Since there is no internationally accepted definition of TK, there cannot be protective measures afforded to it within the current IPR system of protection [: 3]. The discourse reveals the gaps in the protection of TK and shapes the ideology of what is considered TK. TK is referred to particular “knowledge resulting from intellectual activity in a traditional context, and includes know-how, practice, skills and innovations [3: 4]. This very general description leaves insufficient clarity for a workable definition of TK. Tradition is often framed as a representation of the past, something old, and often in juxtaposition to the idea of modern. TK may be generated, preserved, and transmitted through an intergenerational context, distinctly associated with traditional or Indigenous communities, while being integral to the cultural identity of an Indigenous or traditional community which is recognized for being the custodian for that knowledge. The idea that TK forms a part of a community’s self-identity and that knowledge forms part of a community’s social development is described [: 6]. What constitutes TK protection under patent law is limited to the rigid restrictions designed through Western law and understanding: formality. Patents are defined within the text as any new invention, in any field of technology, and include an inventive step and have industrial application []. Excluded from patentability are plants, animals, and biological processes for production. However, if a plant variety is altered by human means through microbiological processes, a patent or an effective sui generis system of protection must be applied. The altered plant variety must adhere to patent rules or a detailed sui generis regime in order to gain IPR protection. This reveals that if there is human interaction, ownership of an otherwise independent plant, animal, or biological process becomes possible. This restricts patent protection under IPR to that which is ‘new’. Patent protection is available for micro-organisms or non-biological and microbiological processes, favoring human alteration and ownership. To be eligible for protection TK: must be generated, preserved, and transmitted in a traditional or intergenerational context; must be transmitted between generations within an Indigenous community or traditional community; may need to be integral to the cultural identity of an Indigenous or traditional community; and there be an objective link with the community of origin and have a subjective association within that community [: 5, 74, 75, and 83]. “The IGC on Intellectual Property, GR, TK, and Folklore” text explains that legal protection can overlook Indigenous innovation and the innovative quality of TK systems due the nature of those systems [3: 10]. TK remains to be viewed as a holistic and unique subject-matter and is considered to be a discovery of nature rather than an invention [: 24 and 27]. The discourse presents a variety of ways TK could be protected: physically, through legal measures of IPR, and encouraged use of TK to increase understanding of its importance. These suggestions are outside of common protection measures for IPR, demonstrating that TK within the discourse still remains outside of IPR. With representation at the global level occurring through the nation-state, Indigenous and local communities rely on their governments to act on their behalf. TK holders are predominately in the Global South, which suffers from financial disparity, leaving limited options for the protection of traditional knowledge, by participation in trade negotiations and otherwise. Additionally, if TK was a possibility for patentability, the process is expensive and often patent officers do not understand the language that TK is spoken or written in. This inequality continues with the “TRIPS Agreement” stating that it does not restrict Members from creating their own sui generis regimes or other international instruments, such as databases, yet these suggestions neglect the immense amount of financial support required for these developments [].