Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:35:41.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Having or Doing Intellectual Property Rights? Transgenic Seed on the Edge between Refeudalisation and Napsterisation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2011

Johannes Schubert ,
Stefan Böschen  and
Bernhard Gill
Johannes Schubert
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Munich University, Munich [[email protected]].
Stefan Böschen
Affiliation:
Wissenschaftszentrum Umwelt, Augsburg [[email protected]].
Bernhard Gill
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Munich University, Munich [[email protected]].
Get access

Abstract

In contrast to neoliberal rhetoric, the commercialisation of knowledge has proved to be an intricate endeavour that implies unexpected effects. Taking Monsanto’s transgenic canola and its propertisation regime as an example, we will shed some light on the counterintuitive phenomenon that strong intellectual property rights are in heavy contrast to the liberal utopia of full commodification, i.e. universal competition and ideal type market relationships. We will find that Monsanto, in order to avoid Napsterisation, has established and still maintains a rather repressive commercialisation regime that maximises property control by strongly reducing the exchangeability of seed and crops. It can therefore be interpreted as a new form of landlord dominion which contradicts the modernist idea of concordance between market liberalisation and individual emancipation.

Résumé

En contradiction avec la théorie néolibérale, la marchandisation de la connaissance se révèle être une affaire complexe avec des effets inattendus. En prenant l’exemple de Monsanto gérant la propriété de la canola transgénique, on entend porter au clair un phénomène contre-intuitif, à savoir que des droits de propriété intellectuelle bien gardés sont loin de l’utopie libérale d’une concurrence libre et non faussée. Il est montré que Monsanto a établi et maintient, pour éviter la napsterisation, un mode de commercialisation qui maximise son contrôle et limite très fortement l’échange de semences et de plants. On peut y voir une forme nouvelle de domination seigneuriale qui invalide l’idée moderniste d’une harmonie entre marché libre et émancipation de l’individu.

Zusammenfassung

Die Wissensvermarktung gestaltet sich schließlich komplizierter als gedacht, mit unerwartetenden Auswirkungen und dem Neoliberalismus widersprechend. Als Beispiel sei hier Monsanto zitiert, Verwalter transgenetischer Rapssamen (canola plant), anhand dessen ein kontraintuitives Phänomen verdeutlicht werden kann: Lizensen vertragen sich kaum mit der liberalen Utopie einer freien und unverfälschten Konkurrenz. Um die Napsterisierung zu verhindern, hat Monsanto bekannterweise eine Vermarktungstechnik aufgebaut und bis heute praktiziert, die die Kontrolle verstärkt und den Austausch von Samengut und Pflanzen begrenzt. Es handelt sich hier um eine neue Form herrschaftlicher Vormachtstellung, die die moderne Idee einer Harmonie zwischen freier Marktwirtschaft und individueller Emanzipation widerlegt.

Keywords

Intellectual property rightsKnowledge capitalismGenetic engineeringCommercialisation; Modernisation theoryDroit de propriété intellectuelleCapitalisme de la connaissanceSemence transgéniqueMarchandisationThéorie de la modernité.PatentwesenWissenskapitalismusTransgenetisches SaatgutVermarktungModernitätstheorie.
Type
Research Articles
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , April 2011 , pp. 1 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © A.E.S. 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, 2007. Interview conducted in Saskatoon, Canada, 2007, anonymised name.Google Scholar
Burton-Jones, Alan, 1999. Knowledge Capitalism: Business, Work, and Learning in the New Economy (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callon, Michel, 1998. “Introduction. The embeddedness of economic markets in economics”, in Callon, Michel, ed., The Laws of the Markets (Oxford, Blackwell).Google Scholar
Crosby, Alfred W., 1986. Ecological Imperialism. The Biological Expansion of Europe 900-1900 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Dolata, Ulrich, 2008. “Das Internet und die Transformation der Musikindustrie. Rekonstruktion und Erklärung eines unkontrollierten Wandels”, Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 18 (3), pp. 344-369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulton, Murray and Giannakas, Konstantinos, 2001. “Agricultural Biotechnology and Industry Structure”, AgBioForum, 4 (2), pp. 137-151.Google Scholar
Gill, Bernhard, 2009. “Property Claims in GM an Non-GM Crops: Intellectual Property Rights versus Brand Property Rights in Postindustrial Knowledge Societies”, International Journal of Argricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology (IJARGE), special Issue on “Rural Change: Re-Valorisation of Property Objects and the Institutionalisation of (New) Property Rights”, 8 (1), pp. 14-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, Bernhard, Bizer, Johann and Roller, Gerhard, 1998. Riskante Forschung. Zum Umgang mit Ungewißheit am Beispiel der Genforschung in Deutschland. Eine sozial- und rechtswissenschaftliche Untersuchung, (Berlin, Edition Sigma).Google Scholar
Glenn, Jane M., 2004. “Footloose: Civil Responsibility for GMO Gene Wandering in Canada”, Washburn Law Journal, 43 (3), pp. 573-547.Google Scholar
Flitner, Michael, 1995, Sammler, Räuber und Gelehrte. Die politischen Interessen an pflanzengenetischen Ressourcen 1895-1995, (Frankfurt/M., Campus).Google Scholar
Hann, Christoph, 2007. “A new double movement? Anthropological perspectives on property in the age of neoliberalism”, Socio-Economic Review, 5, pp. 287-318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IöW, et al. . 2004. Institut für ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung, Öko-Institut e.V., Schweisfurth-Stiftung, Freie Universität Berlin, Landesanstalt für Großschutzgebiete (Hrsg.): Agrobiodiversität entwickeln! Handlungsstrategien für eine nachhaltige Tier- und Pflanzenzucht. Endbericht. Berlin 2004, www.agrobiodiversitaet.net (Jan., 21. 2011).Google Scholar
Kershen, Drew L., 2004. “Of Straying Crops and Patent Rights”, Washburn Law Journal, 43 (3), pp. 575-610.Google Scholar
Kloppenburg, Jack R., 2004. First the Seed. The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology, 1492-2000 (Madisnon, Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press).Google Scholar
Mascarenas, Michael and Busch, Lawrence, 2006. “Seeds of Change: Intellectual Property Rights, Genetically Modified Soybeans and Seed Saving in the United States”, Sociologia Ruralis, 46 (2), pp. 122-138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, Henk E., 2005. “Wissen als geistiges Privateigentum? Die Einfriedung der Puplic Domain”, Leviathan, 33 (4), pp. 492-521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monsanto, , 2006a. “2006 Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement”, http://www.farmsource.com/images/pdf/2006%20EMTA%20Rev3.pdf, (Mai, 21. 2006).Google Scholar
Monsanto, , 2006b. “The Sum of our Commitments”, 2006 Pledge Report, http://www.monsanto.com/pdf/pubs/2006/pledge_report.pdf, (Sep., 17. 2007).Google Scholar
Nelson, Richard R., 1959. “The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research”, The Journal of Political Economy, 67 (3), pp. 297-306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Richard R., 2003. “The Advance of Technology and the Scientific Commons”, Philosophical Transactions – Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 361 (1809), pp. 1691-1708.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
North, Douglas C., 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mancur, 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhoten, Diana and Powell, Walter W., 2007. “The Frontiers of Intellectual Property: Expanded Protection versus New Models of Open Science”, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, pp. 345-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schubert, Johannes, 2007. Appropriating and commercialising immaterial goods in knowledge economies – Monsanto’s property Regime and the case of transgenic seed, thesis submitted for the Diploma in Sociology, www.ls2.soziologie.uni-muenchen.de/personen/wiss_ma/schubert_johannes/veroeffentlichungen/da_schubert_final.pdf.Google Scholar
Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2003. The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Treaties, (Cambridge, National Bureau of Economic Research), Working Paper 9114.Google Scholar
Simmel, Georg, 1907, Philosophie des Geldes (Leipzig, Druckner und Humbolt).Google Scholar
Slaughter, Sheila and Rhoades, Gary, 1996. “The Emergence of a Competitiveness Research and Development Policy Coalition and the Commercialization of Academic Science and Technology”, Science, Technology & Human Values, 21 (3), pp. 303-339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada, 2002. Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2002/2002scc76.html, (Mai, 22. 2006).Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada, 2004. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2004/2004scc34.html, (Apr., 27. 2006).Google Scholar
Syngenta, 2010. http://www.syngentacropprotection.com/prodrender/index.aspx?nav=APPLICATION&ProdID=723&ProdNM=Helix%20XTra (Aug., 6. 2010)Google Scholar
von Benda-Beckmann, Franz, von Benda-Beckmann, Keebet and Wiber, Melanie, 2006. Changing Properties of Property, (New York, Berghahn Books).Google Scholar
Wieland, Thomas, 2006. “Scientific Theory and Agricultural Practice: Plant Breeding in Germany from the Late 19th to the Early 20th Century”, Journal of the History of Biology, 39 (2), pp. 309-343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Oliver E., 2000. “The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead”, Journal of Economic Literature, XXXVIII, pp. 595-613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Joachim, 1999. “Gesetzliche Rahmenbedingungen für die Pflanzenzucht – Saatgut, Sortenwesen und Biotechnologie”, Biologie in unserer Zeit, 29 (3), pp. 167-176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar