[Lokesh Vyas and Swaraj Paul Barooah] The IP Reveries series is an experimental ‘fun’ series set in an imaginary classroom where we are using a dialogue format to raise questions and discussions around IP that traditionally don’t find a place to get voiced either due to long standing assumptions, or due to being seen as ‘too trivial’ to discuss in more formal settings. The series is authored by Lokesh Vyas and myself in equal measure. For an introduction to this new IP Reveries series, please check the introduction post here. Classes I and II brief – In the first two classes, we tickled the term ‘IPR’ and assessed what is actually so ‘intellectual’ in “Intellectual Property Rights”. Today, we will look at the ‘P’ (i.e. property) part of IPR and check if it can get us something else.

[Joseph Henry Vogel, Manuel Ruiz Muller, Klaus Angerer, and Christopher May] “Access to genetic resources” and “fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising [from their] utilization” is the third objective of the 1992 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The expression is included in the full title of the 2010 Nagoya Protocol (NP). Neither agreement defined “material” in the phrase “genetic material” which resulted in misinterpretation that the object of access for R&D is tangible. Unfairness ensues.

[Lokesh Vyas and Swaraj Paul Barooah] I What’s in a name! In the last class, we essayed to examine the term IPR and saw how wide this umbrella opens. Given that the term “I.P.R.” is often the beginning of misunderstandings about the subject, the next few classes will seek to unravel the subconscious framework that these comprising words may have for the actual subject. The idea behind focusing on this theme is that while these considerations are almost never explicitly discussed in judgments or academic theory, to say that they haven’t played a strong role in the rhetorical narrative and understanding of “IPR” in the public consciousness would be a hasty conclusion. Indeed, this term was specifically ‘chosen’ to replace the term ‘monopoly’ or ‘privilege’ which had an unpleasant ring. (see text accompanying footnote 13 here). This class will start by digging into the term ‘Intellectual’ (‘I’) and seeing what it entails.

[Lokesh Vyas and Swaraj Paul Barooah] Intellectual Property Rights – a fascinating ‘subject’ that inadvertently touches upon so many aspects of our day to day life, whether we’re conscious of it or not. A few decades ago, even most lawyers wouldn’t have been able to clearly explain what a patent is. Fast forward to today, and while there’s still plenty of misunderstanding – patents, copyrights, trademarks, inventions, innovations, 4th industrial revolution, etc have all become buzzwords! Simultaneously, the ever growing division between “pro-IP” and “anti-IP” people have polarised views to such a large extent that it has become increasingly difficult to question another’s position, without being forced into a camp – a theme Shamnad touched upon frequently. Is there space for a genuine discussion around the whats, whys, whens and hows underlying the IP system? For asking questions such as – why does “pro-IP” often get translated to ‘easy grant of patents’ instead of ‘a better IP system’? Is IP a rule or an exception, in a free-market society? What implications do the colonial origins of the IP regime have in a post-colonial world, if any? What type of incentives do people look for, and what trade-offs can we make to give those incentives? What role does IP play in the larger ‘knowledge economy’? And for that matter – where does one even ask these questions? Legal academia desires formal strait-jacketed, peer-reviewed answers, not open-questions, with variable perspective-based answers (especially if they in turn give rise to further questions!). And classrooms often do not have time or mind-space to allow for wandering discussions, when they have a time-bound syllabus to teach.