Intellectual Property Rights: Implications for the Canola Sector and Publicly Funded Research<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews various vehicles to protect intellectual property in Canada including Plant Breeders'Rights. The experience to date following implementation of the Canadian Plant Breeders'Rights Act indicates that for crop agriculture, the majority of plant protection certificates were granted to canola, followed by potato and soybean. Fewer protection certificates were granted to wheat, barley, apples and berries. Several canola protection certificates consisted of hybrid varieties that were developed by private breeders. Ten private companies accounted for most of the plant protection certificates issued for canola. For canola patents, over 200 were filed in Canada during the 1986–97 period. Biotechnology patents numbered slightly over 100, with most of them comprising new plants, hybrid processes, nucleotide sequences, polypeptides, plant promoters, regulators and methods to produce improved fatty acid profiles. A large proportion of patent owners were transnational corporations or joint venture operations that controlled the distribution of identity preserved products from seed to end user. The paper highlights how publicly funded research has responded to greater investments in private plant breeding and suggests what policies may be necessary to ensure that maximum public benefits are achieved as a result of strengthened intellectual property right protection. L'auteur passe en revue les divers véhicules de protection de la propriété intellectuelle au Canada, y compris la Loi sur la protection des obtentions végétales. À la suite de la mise en application de cette loi au Canada, la majorité des certificats de protection des obtentions végétales sont allés au colza canola, suivi, par ordre d'importance, par la pomme de terre et le soja. Un plus petit nombre ont été accordés au blé et à l'orge, aupommier et à divers petits fruits. Plusieurs des certificats de protection accordés au canola portaient sur des variétés hybrides créés par des sélectionneurs privés. Dix sociétés privées, en effet, comptaient pour la plupart des certificats de protection émis pour le colza canola. Sur les brevets concernant le colza canola, au‐delà de 200 demandes étaient déposées au Canada durant lapériode 1986–1997. Les brevets de biotechnologie se chiffraient par plus de 100, la plupart portant sur des plantes nouvelles, sur desprocessus d'hybridation, des séquences de nucléotides, des polypeptides, des stimulateurs et des régulateurs de croissance ainsi que sur des méthodes visant à obtenir des profils acidolipidiques améliorés dans les cultures oléagineuses. Une grande proportion des détenteurs de brevets sont des sociétés multinationales ou des entreprises en co‐propriété qui contrôlent la distribution des produits dont l'identité est protégée dans toute la chaîne d'utilisation, de la semence à l'usager ultime. L'article montre comment la recherche financée par les fonds publics a réagi à l'accroissement des activités du secteur privé dans le domaine de la phytosélection et propose les mesures politiques qui pourraient devenir nécessaires pour que le secteur public puisse tirer le maximum d'avantages du renforcement de la protection des droits de propriété intellectuelle.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".