changing the brazilian law on plant varieties denis borges barbosa catholic university of rio de...

Changing the Brazilian Changing the Brazilian Law on Plant VarietiesLaw on Plant Varieties

Denis Borges BarbosaDenis Borges BarbosaCatholic University of Rio de JaneiroCatholic University of Rio de Janeiro

Changing the Brazilian Changing the Brazilian Law on Plant Varieties Law on Plant Varieties

Why having a law in first place? Why having a law in first place? • An heterogenic demandAn heterogenic demand

TRIPs art. 27. 3.TRIPs art. 27. 3. Members may also exclude from Members may also exclude from patentability: (…) patentability: (…)

(b)(b) plants and animals other than micro-plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and essentially biological processes for the organisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes. biological and microbiological processes. However, However, Members shall provide for the protection of plant Members shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generissui generis system or by any combination thereof. system or by any combination thereof. The provisions of this subparagraph shall be reviewed The provisions of this subparagraph shall be reviewed four years after the date of entry into force of the four years after the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement.WTO Agreement.


Why having a law in first Why having a law in first place? place? • An autogenic demandAn autogenic demand

In 1808 the first Agro-In 1808 the first Agro-research unit in Brazil research unit in Brazil

In 1945 the first PVP In 1945 the first PVP statute statute (never implemented)(never implemented)

Local demand of Local demand of protection before TRIPsprotection before TRIPs


Is the local demand for PVPs signify Is the local demand for PVPs signify an autogenic demand? an autogenic demand?


Local PVP Holder (private)


Private Foreign PVP holder


Local Government PVP Holder

Why changing now? Why changing now?

Why changing now? Why changing now? In 1999 Brazil adopted the text of the In 1999 Brazil adopted the text of the

1978 UPOV Convention (“UPOV 1978”), 1978 UPOV Convention (“UPOV 1978”), barely two years after the enactment of barely two years after the enactment of the 1997 Statute and the inception of the 1997 Statute and the inception of PVPs. PVPs.

This led to an adjustment of most of the This led to an adjustment of most of the provisions in the 1997 Statute to conform provisions in the 1997 Statute to conform to UPOV 1978. to UPOV 1978.

Now, ten years later, changes to the 1997 Now, ten years later, changes to the 1997 Statute have been proposed, a number of Statute have been proposed, a number of which to conform its terms to some, but which to conform its terms to some, but not all, of the UPOV 1991 standards (the not all, of the UPOV 1991 standards (the “2009 Draft Amendment”) “2009 Draft Amendment”)

Why changing now? Why changing now? Before the 1997 Statute, Embrapa issued a Before the 1997 Statute, Embrapa issued a

document recommending the adoption of process document recommending the adoption of process patents in biotech and agricultural technologies, patents in biotech and agricultural technologies, and a UPOV-style PVP system. and a UPOV-style PVP system.

PVPs were necessary since most of the varieties PVPs were necessary since most of the varieties then employed by farmers had been developed then employed by farmers had been developed by national research institutes, that, due to the by national research institutes, that, due to the lack of royalties and appropriate funding, were in lack of royalties and appropriate funding, were in financial distress. financial distress.

Furthermore, the additional income would allow Furthermore, the additional income would allow them to retain highly trained personnel and avoid them to retain highly trained personnel and avoid their poaching by multinational corporations.their poaching by multinational corporations.

Brazilian agribusiness: a Brazilian agribusiness: a case of localization, not case of localization, not

homogeneityhomogeneity Brazilian commercial agriculture, a system Brazilian commercial agriculture, a system

largely based on intensive, technology-largely based on intensive, technology-dependent processes, was responsible for dependent processes, was responsible for 23% of the national GDP in 2007 23% of the national GDP in 2007 (generating over US$300 billion). (generating over US$300 billion).

In spite of the large product portfolio In spite of the large product portfolio offered by the global life sciences offered by the global life sciences corporations (which base their strategy on corporations (which base their strategy on trademark, not agriculture), Embrapa has trademark, not agriculture), Embrapa has managed to achieve success by focusing managed to achieve success by focusing on customization and adaptation of plant on customization and adaptation of plant varieties to local environments. varieties to local environments.

Brazilian agribusiness: a Brazilian agribusiness: a case of localization, not case of localization, not

homogeneityhomogeneity Embrapa’s success, was Embrapa’s success, was

due to a “focused” due to a “focused” approach, which meant approach, which meant addressing specific addressing specific problems caused by local problems caused by local issues (e.g climate, soil) issues (e.g climate, soil) or sanitary concerns, that or sanitary concerns, that allowed the development allowed the development of varieties suited to the of varieties suited to the cerradocerrado and the “boom” and the “boom” in grain productionin grain production

Real impact of PVPs on Real impact of PVPs on the Brazilian agriculturethe Brazilian agriculture

According to academic studies on the According to academic studies on the effect of introduction of the 1997 Statute, effect of introduction of the 1997 Statute, the impact of PVP on specific crops did not the impact of PVP on specific crops did not entail a significant cost increase for entail a significant cost increase for farmers.farmers.

This was apparently due This was apparently due • to the significant presence of farmer to the significant presence of farmer

cooperative research units, which do not cooperative research units, which do not operate on a royalty-return rationale, and also operate on a royalty-return rationale, and also

• to the ample availability of protected varieties to the ample availability of protected varieties supplied by informal sources or non-protected supplied by informal sources or non-protected varieties of market-acceptable productsvarieties of market-acceptable products


It would then appear that once PVPs were It would then appear that once PVPs were assured, Brazilian companies would not be assured, Brazilian companies would not be able to compete, both in research and on able to compete, both in research and on the market. the market.

In 2004 the top four corporations in In 2004 the top four corporations in commercial seeds held 29% of a US$25.2 commercial seeds held 29% of a US$25.2 billion industry.billion industry.

Between 2001 and 2005, companies from Between 2001 and 2005, companies from within the Monsanto group alone obtained within the Monsanto group alone obtained 55% of all approved field releases55% of all approved field releases


In spite of the above, the efficiency of In spite of the above, the efficiency of regional innovation has allowed Brazilian regional innovation has allowed Brazilian institutions to shine, contrary to the global institutions to shine, contrary to the global trend. trend.

Plant varieties developed locally have Plant varieties developed locally have accounted for most of the Brazilian grain accounted for most of the Brazilian grain market. market.

Embrapa alone was responsible for 44% of Embrapa alone was responsible for 44% of recommended soy varieties for the recommended soy varieties for the 2007/2008 crop. 2007/2008 crop.

Brazilian institutions jointly accounted for Brazilian institutions jointly accounted for 72% of same.72% of same.


According to the USDA, success factors in Brazilian According to the USDA, success factors in Brazilian ““(…) First, substantial undeveloped, but highly viable land (…) First, substantial undeveloped, but highly viable land

remains available for agricultural production. remains available for agricultural production. Second, a strong domestic demand from a large, Second, a strong domestic demand from a large,

increasingly urbanized population is bolstered by an outlook increasingly urbanized population is bolstered by an outlook for steady per capita income growth. for steady per capita income growth.

Third, rapidly growing domestic poultry and pork sectors Third, rapidly growing domestic poultry and pork sectors represent a robust source of demand for grains and protein represent a robust source of demand for grains and protein meals. meals.

Finally, an extensive national agricultural research Finally, an extensive national agricultural research network that already has a proven track record, network that already has a proven track record, especially with soybeans, of successful varietal especially with soybeans, of successful varietal development and adaptation to tropical conditions.development and adaptation to tropical conditions.

SCHNEPF, Randall D.; DOHLMAN, Erik and BOLLING, Christine. SCHNEPF, Randall D.; DOHLMAN, Erik and BOLLING, Christine. Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina: Developments and Prospects Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina: Developments and Prospects for Major Field Crops. In: Agriculture and Trade Report No. for Major Field Crops. In: Agriculture and Trade Report No. (WRS013), Economic Research Service, USDA, 85 pp, December (WRS013), Economic Research Service, USDA, 85 pp, December 2001. Available at: 2001. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/wrs013/http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/wrs013/ . . p. 61. p. 61.

Commingling with the Commingling with the beastsbeasts

In recent years, Embrapa’s relations In recent years, Embrapa’s relations with multinational enterprises acting in with multinational enterprises acting in the Brazilian marketplace have been, if the Brazilian marketplace have been, if anything, most amicable.anything, most amicable.

The frequent joint R&D efforts are The frequent joint R&D efforts are testament to a clearly collaborative and testament to a clearly collaborative and not contentious moodnot contentious mood

In the initial years of the present In the initial years of the present Federal Administration, Embrapa’s Federal Administration, Embrapa’s attitude towards its multinational attitude towards its multinational competitors was met with acerb competitors was met with acerb criticism from some leading members of criticism from some leading members of the ruling Worker’s Party (which despite the ruling Worker’s Party (which despite its name is not a conventional leftist its name is not a conventional leftist political orgazization).political orgazization).

The proposed changesThe proposed changes

Who set the 2009 Draft Amendment Who set the 2009 Draft Amendment in motion? in motion?

Even though Embrapa could have Even though Embrapa could have carried some weight in the carried some weight in the suggestions, the Brazilian PVP suggestions, the Brazilian PVP Registrar was the one that sponsored Registrar was the one that sponsored the proposal through the federal the proposal through the federal legislative courselegislative course


1.1. considering the changes are a considering the changes are a voluntaryvoluntary enhancement of protection vis-à-vis TRIPs or any enhancement of protection vis-à-vis TRIPs or any other international requirement, other international requirement, they should they should answer to particular Brazilian needs;answer to particular Brazilian needs;

2.2. under international standards (the under international standards (the national national treatmenttreatment principle applicable both under the Paris principle applicable both under the Paris Convention and TRIPs), the effects of such changes Convention and TRIPs), the effects of such changes should not be should not be negativelynegatively discriminatory or discriminatory or detrimental to foreign holders; detrimental to foreign holders;

3.3. an increase in PVP holder powers not matched by an increase in PVP holder powers not matched by any increase in their duties any increase in their duties should not should not imbalance imbalance the constitutionally sanctioned construction of IP the constitutionally sanctioned construction of IP rightsrights;;


1.1. changes changes should respond to objective should respond to objective and impersonally determined and impersonally determined shortcomingsshortcomings of the present of the present legislation. legislation.

2.2. changes changes should constitute a should constitute a potentially efficient solutionpotentially efficient solution to the to the perceived shortcomings of the present perceived shortcomings of the present legislation. legislation.


Extending the term of protectionExtending the term of protection In the 1997 Statute, the protection is In the 1997 Statute, the protection is

limited to 18 and 10 years, limited to 18 and 10 years, respectively, for trees and vines, and respectively, for trees and vines, and remaining varieties. The proposal is remaining varieties. The proposal is to extend the respective terms to 25 to extend the respective terms to 25 and 20 years.and 20 years.


Extending the term of protectionExtending the term of protection Longer protection terms are only sensible when Longer protection terms are only sensible when

their object yields small returns due to long their object yields small returns due to long development cycles. Brazilian researchers, development cycles. Brazilian researchers, however, have expressed that the problem is however, have expressed that the problem is defective enforcement, not insufficient return defective enforcement, not insufficient return periods. periods.

While claiming for a supplementary term is the While claiming for a supplementary term is the knee-jerking reaction of any holder, the grant of a knee-jerking reaction of any holder, the grant of a longer period may fail the litmus imposed by the longer period may fail the litmus imposed by the applicable balance of interests.applicable balance of interests.

It is our understanding that neither is this It is our understanding that neither is this proposal justified by any historical or proposal justified by any historical or environmental particularity, nor is it beneficial to environmental particularity, nor is it beneficial to the stated purposes of the 2009 Draft the stated purposes of the 2009 Draft Amendment. Amendment.


Extending the PVP to the productExtending the PVP to the product Under the UPOV 1978 model the present protection is Under the UPOV 1978 model the present protection is

limited to the reproductive material (germplasm). limited to the reproductive material (germplasm). • Article 9 - The protection shall afford its holder the right to commercial Article 9 - The protection shall afford its holder the right to commercial

reproduction on the territory of Brazil, third parties being prohibited reproduction on the territory of Brazil, third parties being prohibited during the term of protection from producing for commercial purposes, during the term of protection from producing for commercial purposes, offering for sale or marketing propagating material of the plant variety offering for sale or marketing propagating material of the plant variety without his authorization.without his authorization.

In case of infringement, crops cannot be seized as evidence In case of infringement, crops cannot be seized as evidence (except if crop and germ are the same).(except if crop and germ are the same).

The proposal extends same to the product itself and any The proposal extends same to the product itself and any product that uses the variety as an ingredient or product that uses the variety as an ingredient or component.component.

The stated purpose here is to improve piracy curtailing The stated purpose here is to improve piracy curtailing mechanisms and to increase the returns of research mechanisms and to increase the returns of research institutionsinstitutions


Extending the PVP to the productExtending the PVP to the product This proposal addresses a general This proposal addresses a general

economic problem arisen from the economic problem arisen from the concept of IP. concept of IP.

The paucity of IP users allows for The paucity of IP users allows for efficient control: as preventing a efficient control: as preventing a massive surge of free-riding is inefficient massive surge of free-riding is inefficient (if not impossible), plaintiffs can choose (if not impossible), plaintiffs can choose the illegal competitor to strike, and, with the illegal competitor to strike, and, with one finger, close the dick spillage. one finger, close the dick spillage.

That is precisely the strategy that makes That is precisely the strategy that makes Intellectual Property effective: shooting Intellectual Property effective: shooting at the gatekeepers.at the gatekeepers.

[1][1] Reinier H. Kraakman, Gatekeepers: The Anatomy Reinier H. Kraakman, Gatekeepers: The Anatomy of a Third-party Enforcement Strategy,2 J. L. Econ. & of a Third-party Enforcement Strategy,2 J. L. Econ. & Org. 53, 53–54 (1986).Org. 53, 53–54 (1986).


Extending the PVP to the productExtending the PVP to the product The difficulty in enforcing IP rights against a diffuse, somewhat The difficulty in enforcing IP rights against a diffuse, somewhat

broad range of infringers is a major obstacle to the efficiency of broad range of infringers is a major obstacle to the efficiency of any IP system. If the purpose of a PVP system is to keep a softer any IP system. If the purpose of a PVP system is to keep a softer approach to both sides of the fence, targeting this broader basis approach to both sides of the fence, targeting this broader basis might create a peculiar efficiency issue. might create a peculiar efficiency issue.

A possible solution, on the other hand, could be choosing specific A possible solution, on the other hand, could be choosing specific gatekeepers (distributors, seeding companies, etc.) as targets of gatekeepers (distributors, seeding companies, etc.) as targets of an enhanced protection mechanism.an enhanced protection mechanism.

By adding a new power to exclude any commercial product By adding a new power to exclude any commercial product issuing from the crop, including to the whole of parts of plants issuing from the crop, including to the whole of parts of plants and any product made directly from the material obtained from and any product made directly from the material obtained from the crop the Amendment draft seeks to elect new gatekeepers, the crop the Amendment draft seeks to elect new gatekeepers,

downstream the distribution chain. The underlying idea is - downstream the distribution chain. The underlying idea is - apparently – that anyone getting a pirated variety and being apparently – that anyone getting a pirated variety and being exposed to legal suit would filter out the upstream supplier exposed to legal suit would filter out the upstream supplier


Extending the PVP to the productExtending the PVP to the product The idea of aiming at upstream and downstream targets as a The idea of aiming at upstream and downstream targets as a

reasonable mechanism to tackle the central shortcoming of the reasonable mechanism to tackle the central shortcoming of the law (as voiced by providers) seems a fair proposal. Doing so law (as voiced by providers) seems a fair proposal. Doing so does not necessarily cause imbalances – as it merely implements does not necessarily cause imbalances – as it merely implements efficiently what the 1997 Statute did not.efficiently what the 1997 Statute did not.

This dislocation of liability, justifiable by its putative efficiency, This dislocation of liability, justifiable by its putative efficiency, should not be compromised by its half-hearted approach. should not be compromised by its half-hearted approach.

If the 2009 Draft Amendment wants to pick someone to curb If the 2009 Draft Amendment wants to pick someone to curb piracy, it must do so in a clean and unabashed way: language piracy, it must do so in a clean and unabashed way: language such as “when the holder is prevented by any reason such as “when the holder is prevented by any reason whatsoever to enforce the right provided in this article” goes whatsoever to enforce the right provided in this article” goes against efficiency. against efficiency.

The statute should simply make the prospective filters The statute should simply make the prospective filters responsible. responsible.


No limitations for ornamental No limitations for ornamental varieties varieties

According to the draft, some of the According to the draft, some of the limitations should not apply to limitations should not apply to ornamental varieties. There are ornamental varieties. There are significant local stakeholders significant local stakeholders producing ornamental varieties, producing ornamental varieties, and export interests are indicated and export interests are indicated as a determinant in this change. as a determinant in this change.

Nevertheless, one must repeat the Nevertheless, one must repeat the same caveat: there are no studies same caveat: there are no studies entertaining a balance of gains and entertaining a balance of gains and losses in this contextlosses in this context


Criminalizing PVP copyingCriminalizing PVP copying Under present Brazilian law, Under present Brazilian law,

violating a patent is a crime, violating a patent is a crime, as is infringing trademarks, as is infringing trademarks, copyrights, and so forth. copyrights, and so forth.

The 1997 Statute refrained The 1997 Statute refrained from creating a PVP from creating a PVP infringement-related crime. infringement-related crime.

The proposal aligns the PVP The proposal aligns the PVP system to the patent system to the patent standard: the actual standard: the actual prosecution shall be prosecution shall be contingent on the PVP holder contingent on the PVP holder pressing formal charges. pressing formal charges.


Curtailing the breeder’s exceptionCurtailing the breeder’s exception The proposal is to limit the applicability of breeder’s The proposal is to limit the applicability of breeder’s

exceptions, by means of which “a small rural exceptions, by means of which “a small rural producer, [who] multiplies seed, for donation or producer, [who] multiplies seed, for donation or exchange in dealings exclusively with other small exchange in dealings exclusively with other small rural producers, under programs of financing or rural producers, under programs of financing or support for small rural producers conducted by public support for small rural producers conducted by public bodies or non-governmental agencies, authorized by bodies or non-governmental agencies, authorized by the Government.(…)” is not in infringement of the Government.(…)” is not in infringement of exclusive protection rights. exclusive protection rights.

As a counterpart to this restriction, the proposal adds As a counterpart to this restriction, the proposal adds traditional populations or communities and family traditional populations or communities and family farmers to the list of persons entitled to the existing farmers to the list of persons entitled to the existing exceptions.exceptions.


Curtailing the breeder’s exceptionCurtailing the breeder’s exception According to the Registrar’s proposal, the lack According to the Registrar’s proposal, the lack

of a legal definition for “small producers” of a legal definition for “small producers” amplifies the exceptions beyond the intent of amplifies the exceptions beyond the intent of the law, affecting the protection’s efficacy.the law, affecting the protection’s efficacy.

Therefore, the 2009 Draft Amendment opts for Therefore, the 2009 Draft Amendment opts for the same definition employed by income tax the same definition employed by income tax law to define exempt producers. This, law to define exempt producers. This, according to the Registrar, amounts to 80% of according to the Registrar, amounts to 80% of the producers (though much less of the total the producers (though much less of the total production areaproduction area


Curtailing the breeder’s exceptionCurtailing the breeder’s exception Breeder’s exception is a highly Breeder’s exception is a highly

cherished concept and one of the cherished concept and one of the arguments that sold the 1997 act to arguments that sold the 1997 act to the public. Clarifying the concept of the public. Clarifying the concept of “small producer” may be “small producer” may be instrumental to enforcement, but instrumental to enforcement, but leaving the task to the evolution in leaving the task to the evolution in case law would be a wiser means to case law would be a wiser means to such end. such end.

Should Brazilian providers have the Should Brazilian providers have the guts and drive to seize their day in guts and drive to seize their day in court, that would be a better court, that would be a better alternative. alternative.


Curtailing the breeder’s exceptionCurtailing the breeder’s exception In theory, the clarification does not In theory, the clarification does not

swerve the balancing of the 1997 swerve the balancing of the 1997 Statute, but the proposal may stir Statute, but the proposal may stir societal reactions on a misguided societal reactions on a misguided assumption that it did. assumption that it did.

Creating a clear and straight Creating a clear and straight dislocation of liability (as we dislocation of liability (as we contended above) would probably contended above) would probably have enhanced the economic value of have enhanced the economic value of DPV to the needed level without the DPV to the needed level without the potential for causing such a potential for causing such a disturbance. disturbance.

On the other hand, the extension of On the other hand, the extension of the exception to Indian tribes, the exception to Indian tribes, household farmers and traditional household farmers and traditional communities would help on the communities would help on the political correctness front.political correctness front.


Curtailing the breeder’s exceptionCurtailing the breeder’s exception In theory, the clarification does not swerve the In theory, the clarification does not swerve the

balancing of the 1997 Statute, but the proposal may balancing of the 1997 Statute, but the proposal may stir societal reactions on a misguided assumption stir societal reactions on a misguided assumption that it did. that it did.

Creating a clear and straight dislocation of liability (as Creating a clear and straight dislocation of liability (as we contended above) would probably have enhanced we contended above) would probably have enhanced the economic value of DPV to the needed level the economic value of DPV to the needed level without the potential for causing such a disturbance. without the potential for causing such a disturbance.

On the other hand, the extension of the exception to On the other hand, the extension of the exception to Indian tribes, household farmers and traditional Indian tribes, household farmers and traditional communities would help on the political correctness communities would help on the political correctness front.front.

Does Brazil actually Does Brazil actually need it?need it?


The peculiar nature of agricultural The peculiar nature of agricultural research and business in Brazil defies the research and business in Brazil defies the conventional wisdom according to which conventional wisdom according to which PVPs are always detrimental to developing PVPs are always detrimental to developing countries. countries.

The comparative efficiency of localized The comparative efficiency of localized technology, which resulted from a long technology, which resulted from a long established, mostly government funded established, mostly government funded research environment may actually justify research environment may actually justify providing IP protection as a Brazilian providing IP protection as a Brazilian autonomous interest. autonomous interest.


On the other hand, conventional On the other hand, conventional wisdom may not be so far off the wisdom may not be so far off the mark, considering that Brazilian mark, considering that Brazilian agricultural technology and business agricultural technology and business – at least for the time being – are not – at least for the time being – are not exactly measurable by developing exactly measurable by developing country standards.country standards.


Local technology providers found Local technology providers found UPOV 1978 level PVPs disappointing, UPOV 1978 level PVPs disappointing, probably on account of their very probably on account of their very nature: a softer alternative to nature: a softer alternative to patents. patents.

Even though the local enforcement Even though the local enforcement system may not be perceived as system may not be perceived as particularly efficient, it is sufficiently particularly efficient, it is sufficiently adequate to make IPRs work nicely – adequate to make IPRs work nicely – insofar as patents go.insofar as patents go.


The other comparative distinction is The other comparative distinction is that patent owners generally face a that patent owners generally face a limited number of possible infringers. limited number of possible infringers. The gatekeeper rationale makes The gatekeeper rationale makes patents easy to enforce. patents easy to enforce.

By choosing millions of farmers as By choosing millions of farmers as prospective violators of PVP rights, a prospective violators of PVP rights, a UPOV 1978 model is somewhat self-UPOV 1978 model is somewhat self-defeating: that is the same problem defeating: that is the same problem with post-internet copyright. with post-internet copyright.


Therefore, perfecting the enforcement of Therefore, perfecting the enforcement of PVP rights serves the agricultural PVP rights serves the agricultural technology providers, both national and technology providers, both national and foreign, well. foreign, well.

One way of perfecting them is to focus on One way of perfecting them is to focus on a limited number of targets capable of a limited number of targets capable of filtering the effects of the larger group’s filtering the effects of the larger group’s infringing behavior. infringing behavior.

That device does not necessarily cause an That device does not necessarily cause an imbalance of interest that a constitutional imbalance of interest that a constitutional analysis and bare common sense would analysis and bare common sense would advise against. advise against.


However, excessive protection beyond the However, excessive protection beyond the true needs for inducing new plant true needs for inducing new plant technology in the current Brazilian technology in the current Brazilian environment must be provided with a environment must be provided with a prudential dose of restraint. prudential dose of restraint.

Bringing extensions needlessly to the Bringing extensions needlessly to the Brazilian legal system just because they Brazilian legal system just because they are stipulated in UPOV 1991 is not are stipulated in UPOV 1991 is not justifiable. justifiable.

Creating a goodwill crisis by restraining a Creating a goodwill crisis by restraining a much cherished breeder’s exception would much cherished breeder’s exception would seem to be a seem to be a faux pasfaux pas. .


The fact that in Brazil the local The fact that in Brazil the local holders voice their interest for a holders voice their interest for a more efficient PVP system is a very more efficient PVP system is a very interesting event. interesting event.

It shows It shows again again that IP as a whole may that IP as a whole may be felt as a reasonable tool for be felt as a reasonable tool for development, provided that both development, provided that both local and foreign technology local and foreign technology providers get a fair deal – or think providers get a fair deal – or think they do. they do.


The Swiss have done it with their The Swiss have done it with their patent system sometime in the early patent system sometime in the early XX Century. XX Century.

Brazil is doing it now, most Brazil is doing it now, most specifically with their PVP system. specifically with their PVP system.

The paper The paper

The new Brazilian Government The new Brazilian Government Draft Law on Plant VarietiesDraft Law on Plant Varieties

(or…. how a Developing Country (or…. how a Developing Country may want to enhance IP protection may want to enhance IP protection because it actually needs it.)because it actually needs it.)• By By Denis Borges BarbosaDenis Borges Barbosa ( (

[email protected]@nbb.com.br) and ) and Marcus LessaMarcus Lessa ( ([email protected]@nbb.com.br) )

changing the brazilian law on plant varieties denis borges barbosa catholic university of rio de...

Documents

brazilian law

plant varietieschanging

plant varietieswhy

brazilian agribusiness

plant varietiesis

protection of plant

adaptation of plant

pvp statute