The net benefit is legal pluralism – current systems force Indigenous knowledge into Western legal systems. Only sui generis solves.

When this article promotes its theme of indigenizing intellectual property law, it means to apply legal pluralism to justify employment of Indigenous law as a primary source of law to begin the development of a sui generis legal system to bring to the fore essential protections for Indigenous knowledge, tangible and intangible cultural materials and artifacts, secret and sacred information and know-how, cultural expressions, and the biogenetic resources justly owned and possessed by Indigenous Peoples. By urging adoption of the indigenizing paradigm, this article implies that the current and most widely used and recognized laws governing intellectual property are, in their current form, incapable and at times inconsistent with protecting the rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples in their resources and intangible assets that have, through time, putatively derived from their origins, their interactions with their environment, their adaptations to the surrounding world, and their cosmology and creation stories.

The discourse about Indigenous rights in the information age is greatly enhanced by the opportunity to implement legal pluralism to demonstrate the capacity for Indigenous law and legal systems, whether complementary or not, to provide essential protections for Indigenous resources and intangible assets. Recognizing that Indigenous law is equivalent to western intellectual property law would evince a serious attempt by the dominant settler societies to work in partnership with Indigenous Peoples to develop a meaningful sui generis system of protection for Indigenous resources and intangible assets.

But for more important reasons, invoking legal pluralism to indigenize or act upon western intellectual property law is essential for protecting Indigenous resources and intangible assets. First, in a continually globalizing world, knowledge produces information that in turn produces an intangible asset. Asset production has the ability to create wealth and opportunities in Indigenous and neighboring com- munities. Wealth creation and increased opportunity in turn have the capacity to build infrastructures, enabling these communities to participate in the global economy.

Second, invoking legal pluralism to indigenize western intellectual property legal theory is required to protect the fundamental human rights that are part and parcel of the respect for Indigenous resources and intangible assets. In many Indigenous communities, the knowledge that has originated and evolved with Indigenous Peoples through experiences with their environments forms the basis of identity and community values. Absent access to the knowledge, or acquiescing in the misuse and misappropriation of that knowledge, Indigenous identities become hostage to external perceptions and influences that often relegate Indigenous Peoples to subordinate or nonexistent status at the fringes of the global community.

Third, invoking legal pluralism to indigenize western intellectual property law promotes the principle of equivalence with respect to legal systems. Thus, Indigenous communities are able to have recognized their respective Indigenous laws, which will then influence how parties are positioned in relation to Indigenous resources and intangible assets. This concept allows for democratic ideals to emerge thereby allowing Indigenous law to be justly placed on par with western intellectual property law.