"What Innocent Bystanders?": The Impact of Law and Economics Reasoning on Rural Property Rights

Authors

  • Melanie G. Wiber University of New Brunswick

Keywords:

intellectual property rights, biotechnology, farmers' rights

Abstract

In May 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser innocent bystander status and ruled in favour of protecting the intellectual property rights of Monsanto, which holds a patent on genetically modified canola seed. Farmers around the world have protested this decision as an attack on their privileged position under national patent legislation, fueling a larger debate about biotechnology, farmer seed systems and intellectual property rights. This article looks at the patent infringement arguments in Canada in the context of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and of potential amendments to the Canada Patent Act. Law and economics scholars have critiqued both "innocent bystander" and "farmer autonomy" as legitimate defenses in such cases of patent infringement. In the process, they have ignored, and perhaps facilitated, wider issues of property transformations in the rural setting.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Publication Facts

Metric
This article
Other articles
Peer reviewers 
0
2.4

Reviewer profiles  N/A

Author statements

Author statements
This article
Other articles
Data availability 
N/A
16%
External funding 
No
32%
Competing interests 
N/A
11%
Metric
This journal
Other journals
Articles accepted 
4%
33%
Days to publication 
0
145

Indexed in

Editor & editorial board
profiles
Academic society 
Canadian Anthropology Society
Publisher 
University of Victoria

Downloads

Published

2022-06-30

How to Cite

Wiber, M. G. (2022). "What Innocent Bystanders?": The Impact of Law and Economics Reasoning on Rural Property Rights. Anthropologica, 51(1), 29–38. Retrieved from https://cas-sca.journals.uvic.ca/index.php/anthropologica/article/view/2535