Professor Graham Dutfield's Publications
Trading in knowledge: Development perspectives on TRIPS, trade and sustainability, ed. by Dutfield G, Bellmann C and Meléndez-Ortiz R (Routledge, 2013), 1-358
Review in World Trade Review 3.02 (July 2004) by Cynthia Cannady "North–South trade in intellectual property: can it be fair?" - http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=245327
© International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), 2003. An unprecedented surge in the scope and level of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection has been engulfing the world. This globalizing trend has shifted the balance of interests between private innovators and society at large and tensions have flared around key public policy concerns. As developing nations' policy options to use IPRs in support of their broader development strategy are being rapidly narrowed down, many experts are questioning the one-size-fits-all approach to IPR protection and are backing a rebalancing of the global regime. Developing countries face huge challenges when designing and implementing IPR-policy on all levels. This book offers perspectives from a diverse range of developing country participants including civil society participants, farmers, grassroots organizations, researchers and government officials. Contributions from well-known developed country authorities round out the selections.
Knowledge Management and Intellectual Property Concepts, Actors and Practices from the Past to the Present, ed. by Dutfield G and Arapostathis S (Edward Elgar Pub, 2013)
Essential reading, not just for IP historians and lawyers, but for anyone concerned at the insidious corporate take-over of modern life.
Intellectual property and human development: Current trends and future scenarios, ed. by Dutfield G and Wong T (Ashgate, 2010), 1-397
Review in nature biotechnology by Philip Grubb "A patently negative view of industry" - http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v21/n12/full/nbt1203-1439.html
© Public Interest Intellectual Property Advisors 2011. Copyright, the category of intellectual property (IP) most associated with the arts, is currently undergoing scrutiny from several sectors. Industry-oriented copyright owners, like music labels, are lobbying for more control of their songs. At the same time that digital rights management models are being reworked, the public is demanding greater access and less cost for copyrighted works. Authors and artists (who are not necessarily owners of their copyrighted work) are, ironically, not at the centre of this debate, although it is usually their creations over which these other parties are debating. Indeed, the individual artist working in today's IP environment has a different set of concerns than does the agency that commodifies his or her work. The legal interests of creators and the legal interests of copyright holders can be very different, and many of the legal issues at stake (e.g. moral rights) are highly dependent upon the jurisdiction in which the artist is working. The following sections describe some of the situations where contemporary artists face challenging IP issues, including jurisdictional inconsistencies. For these purposes, ‘contemporary art’ comprises visual and multimedia creative expressions made after the Second World War.
Intellectual Property Rights and the Life Science Industries: Past, Present and Future, Second (World Scientific, 2009),
Global Intellectual Property Law (Edward Elgar, 2008),
Innovation without patents: Harnessing the creative spirit in a diverse world, ed. by Dutfield G, Suthersanen U and Chow KB (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007)
Review in the Journal Intellectual Property Law and Practice by philippe de Jong "A new world view" - http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2008/05/22/jiplp.jpn096.short
Focusing on innovation and development, this book, easy to read and full of interesting detail, provides both valuable insight into the theoretical framework of innovation as supported by intellectual property protection and contains valuable case studies of national systems of innovation in the Pacific Rim States. - Thomas Dreier, University of Karlsruhe, Germany. This book is concerned with the extent to which innovations should or should not be protected as intellectual property, and the implications this has upon the ability of local manufacturers to learn to innovate. © The Editors and Contributors Severally 2007. All rights reserved.
Intellectual Property, Biogenetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge (Earthscan, 2004), xiii,258p,
Intellectual Property Rights and the Life Science Industries: A Twentieth Century History (Ashgate, 2003), ix,288p,
‘Who invented glivec? Does it matter anyway?’, Economic and Political Weekly, 48.32 (2013), 41-42,
This article looks at Glivec's journey from its invention to its patenting and sale while questioning the concept of credit for inventions in science and technology.
‘Transboundary Resources, Consent and Customary Law’, Law, Environment and Development Journal 2013, 259-263,
This brief commentary focuses on the unresolved access and benefit sharing (ABS) challenges of transboundary resources and situations where getting prior informed consent is not possible. In the absence of the global mechanism envisaged by the Nagoya Protocol, satisfactory ABS deals can still be struck but these are unlikely to be either common or effective in generating substantial benefits for the indigenous peoples. The commentary closes by underlining the moral imperative of ensuring that traditional knowledge and genetic resource users comply with the laws and customary practices established by indigenous groups rather than simply impose their own norms. However, there are many legal and conceptual obstacles to be overcome first.
‘Collective Invention and Patent Law Individualism: Origins and Functions of the Inventor’s Right of Attribution’, The WIPO Journal, 5.1 (2013), 25-34,
‘The Manchester Manifesto: A missed opportunity?’, Prometheus (United Kingdom), 29.3 (2011), 353-357,
Graham Dutfield is professor of international governance at Leeds, research affiliate of the Intellectual Property Law and Technology Program at York University, Toronto, and adjunct professor at the Center for Studies of Intellectual Property Rights at Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan. His research on intellectual property crosses several disciplines, including law, history, politics, economics and anthropology. © 2011 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.
‘Patent on Steroids: What Hormones Tell Us about the Evolution of Patent Law’, Intellectual Property Journal, 23.3 (2011), 249-266,
The hormones era from 1900 to the 1960s was a period of intensifying pharmaceutical industry internationalisation and competition within and across national boundaries. Patents and patent strategy were essential aspects of this evolutionary process. Hormones are chemical messengers produced by living organisms including humans. They form a wide range of products from anti-inflammatories to contraceptives. As soon as hormones were found to have commercial potential, industry faced the challenge of how to mass-produce them. This was obviously a scientific matter, but it was also a business issue and an intellectual property one. Both production pathways of extraction and hormone synthesis turned out to be equally capable of resulting in patentable subject matter. This was so even when said matter was based on a substance produced by an organism or else was a laboratory-produced copy of one. This set a historic precedent for the patenting of “natural” things like antibiotics, genes, cells, microbes, plants and animals. Thus, the patenting of hormones helped allow us to conceive of biotechnological products as patentable inventions.
‘A critical analysis of the debate on traditional knowledge, drug discovery and drug-based biopiracy’, European Intellectual Property Review, 33.4 (2011), 237-243,
‘Why traditional knowledge is important in drug discovery’, FUTURE MED CHEM, 2.9 (2010), 1405-1409,
‘Who invents life – blind watchmakers, intelligent designers or genetic engineers?’, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 5.7 (2010), 531-540,
‘Sustainable development in world trade law’, EUR LAW J, 14.3 (2008), 387-388,
‘Delivering drugs to the poor: will the TRIPS Amendment help?’, Am J Law Med, 34.2-3 (2008), 107-124,
‘Global biopiracy: Patents, plants and indigenous knowledge’, LAW SOC REV, 41.3 (2007), 746-748,
‘DNA patenting: implications for public health research’, Bull World Health Organ, 84.5 (2006), 388-392,
I weigh the arguments for and against the patenting of functional DNA sequences including genes, and find the objections to be compelling. Is an outright ban on DNA patenting the right policy response? Not necessarily. Governments may wish to consider options ranging from patent law reforms to the creation of new rights. There are alternative ways to protect DNA sequences that industry may choose if DNA patenting is restricted or banned. Some of these alternatives may be more harmful than patents. Such unintended consequences of patent bans mean that we should think hard before concluding that prohibition is the only response to legitimate concerns about the appropriateness of patents in the field of human genomics.
‘Patent Systems as Regulatory Institutions’, Indian Economic Journal, 54.1 (2006), 62-90,
‘Piracy as Terrorism, Copying as Theft: The New Intellectual Property Fundamentalism in International Law and Politics’, None 2006, 1361-4169,
‘Turning knowledge into power: intellectual property and the world trade system’, AUST J INT AFF, 59.4 (2005), 533-547,
‘Dangerous harvest: Drug plants and the transformation of indigenous landscapes’, GEOGR J, 171 (2005), 179-180,
‘Mind sharing’, Foreign Policy 2005, 84-85,
‘Harmonisation or differentiation in intellectual property protection? The lessons of history’, Prometheus (United Kingdom), 23.2 (2005), 131-147,
Developing countries find themselves pressured to harmonise their intellectual property (IP) standards so that they match those of the United States, Europe and Japan. This article provides historical evidence to support the authors' claim that when developed countries demand that the rest of the world adopt their current IP regulations, developed countries are preventing other countries from adopting appropriate patent and copyright standards for their levels of development. Developed countries thereby deny a freedom to others that they themselves enjoyed when they were developing. © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd.
‘The Innovation Dilemma: Intellectual Property and the Historical Legacy of Cumulative Creativity’, Circulation Research, 1.4 (2004), 379-421,
patent and copyright law
‘Regulating access and benefit sharing’, BIOTECHNOL DEV MONIT 2002, 2-7,
‘TRIPS-Related Aspects of Traditional Knowledge’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 33.2 (2001), 233-275,
‘The Limits of Substantive Patent Law Harmonization’, in Patent Law in Global Perspective, ed. by Okediji RL and Bagley MA (Oxford Universiry Press, 2014),
Patent law harmonization at the level of principles, rules, and institutional structures is a highly ambitious goal. Its practical intent is to facilitate secure patent coverage on a global scale and for the longest period possible, and to accelerate and cheapen the process of attaining it. Economically the stakes are very high, not just for businesses but also for nations. Generally speaking, harmonization based on high protection standards benefits leading innovator countries and large businesses already enjoying strong market power assisted by their ownership of sizeable intellectual property portfolios. Follower nations and businesses seeking to enhance their innovation levels prefer, understandably, to maintain a greater freedom to copy than such harmonization would allow. This chapter reviews recent harmonization efforts at the international level and explains their lack of success despite the apparent economic and political dominance of advocates and the relative weakness of opponents.
‘Geographical indications and agricultural community development: Is the European model appropriate for developing countries?’, in The Intellectual Property and Food Project: From Rewarding Innovation and Creation to Feeding the World, ed. by Lawson C and Sanderson J (Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2013), 175-200,
‘Legal and Economic Aspects of Traditional Knowledge’, in International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime, ed. by Reichman and Maskus (Cambridge University Press, 2005), 495-520,
‘The genetic code is 3.6 billion years old: it’s time for a rewrite’: Questioning the metaphors and analogies of synthetic biology and life science patenting’, in New Frontiers in the Philosophy of Intellectual Property (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [n.d.]), 172-202,
‘Intellectual property rights and gene-based technologies for animal production and health - Issues for developing countries’ Conference on Applications of Gene-Based Technologies for Improving Animal Production and Health in Developing Countries,
Intellectual property rights (IPR) are legal and institutional devices to protect creations of the mind. With respect to gene-based innovation, the most significant IPR is patents. Appropriate patent regimes have the potential to foster innovation in animal biotechnology and the transfer of gene-based technologies. Inappropriate patent systems may be counter-productive. Indeed, many critics are doubtful that the current international patent standards, based as they are on a combination of the United States of America' and European regimes, can help countries that lack the capacity to do much life science and biotechnology research to become more innovative or contribute to the acquisition, absorption and, where desirable, the adaptation of new gene-based technologies from outside. Present legislation in Europe, North America and internationally is considered, together with the controversies and important policy questions for developing countries, and the choices facing countries seeking to enhance their scientific and technological capacities in these areas.
‘What is biopiracy?’, in International Expert Workshop on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing, Record of Discussion, ed. by BellotRojas M and Bernier S ([n.pub.], 2004), 89-92,
‘New forms of sui generis protection’, in International Expert Workshop on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing, Record of Discussion, ed. by BellotRojas M and Bernier S ([n.pub.], 2004), 196-198,
‘Protecting traditional knowledge and folklore’, in MOLENGRAFICA SERIES 2002: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, ARTICLES ON THE LEGAL PROTECTION OF CULTURAL EXPRESSIONS AND INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE, ed. by Grosheide FW and Brinkhof JJ ([n.pub.], 2002), 63-99,
‘The Genetic Code is 3.6 billion years old. It's time for a rewrite": Biotech patenting in the 21st Century’ Summer Institute in Intellectual Property, Biotechnology & Agricultural Sciences, Drake University, USA, 1/6/2009,