top of page
Search

Striking a Balance Between Intellectual Property Rights and Human Rights in the Era of Technology and Innovation

Abstract:

Intellectual property (IP) rights are critical for safeguarding artists and encouraging innovation. Patents grant innovators exclusive rights to their inventions, allowing them to recover expenses and prevent imitation. Copyrights preserve the work of authors, artists, and musicians by ensuring recognition and reward. Without copyright, creativity may suffer. Trademarks are essential for business identity. Overall, intellectual property rights are critical for fostering creativity and ensuring innovation. Without copyright protection, people may be less likely to create unique contexts, resulting in a stagnation of artistic and cultural expression. Trademarks are another important part of intellectual property rights, as they safeguard businesses' brand identification and reputation.  


For example, Coca-Cola is a drink company that has its own trademark. This is done to prevent the other companies who are willing to sell juice or drinks from copying their trademark. This is also done with the purpose of stopping and lowering the competition in the market. However, the balance between intellectual property rights and broader societal interests, such as access to critical resources, has become a significant cause of conflict.

 

Understanding the Link Between Intellectual Perspectives Rights and Human Rights

The possibility of limiting access to knowledge and information is at the heart of the conflict between intellectual property rights (IPR) and human rights. Furthermore, there is a considerable divide in technological growth, with certain areas leading in innovation and others trailing behind. The problem is exacerbated when cutting-edge technology, which is protected by strict intellectual property laws, is out of reach for people in developing countries. As a result, striking a balance between these two spheres while also ensuring access to knowledge, information, and technological innovation presents a significant challenge.


Flexible intellectual property rules are quite important. These laws should include provisions such as forced licensing, which allow countries to temporarily waive patent rights, particularly during emergencies such as public health crises. This standard helps to ensure that everyone has access to critical innovations when they need them, while also remembering that everyone has the right to good health.  


It is also critical for inventors to consider the impact of their creations on society from the start. Including ethical assessments early on ensures that new inventions respect people’s rights and values. And it’s not just a one-time event; keeping an eye on how things are going and adjusting as needed is critical. 


Sharing knowledge and resources is an important step towards ensuring that everyone benefits from innovative ideas. By fostering open-source software and making research more available, more people may participate in and use new technologies, thus promoting everyone’s right to learn and profit from progress. By encouraging open-source software and assuring open access to research and educational resources, more people may profit from technological breakthroughs while also supporting the right to education and stimulating innovation. 


Public awareness is crucial. Individuals can promote justice by teaching others about the ethical consequences of intellectual property decisions. Engaging civil society ensures that many viewpoints are included when developing policy, making the process more democratic. To strike a balance between intellectual property rights and human rights, legislative frameworks, responsible innovation, inclusive policies, international collaboration, public-private partnerships, and public awareness must all be combined. It is about working together to build a fair and ethical innovation environment for all.  


In the Novartis v Union of India case (AIR 2013 SC 1311), the Supreme Court of India rendered a landmark decision that prioritized life-saving pharmaceuticals over patent rights. Novartis, a pharmaceutical corporation, sought a patent for the cancer medicine “imatinib mesylate”, but the court denied it. They claimed that imatinib mesylate did not meet the Patent Act’s standards because it was not an innovation. The court’s opinion emphasized that simply discovering a novel form of an existing material is insufficient to obtain a patent.


In the Bayer Corporation v Union of India case (AIR 2014 Bom 178), the court permitted NATCO Pharma Ltd. To manufacture and distribute Nexavar since it is in the public interest. This demonstrated that India is more concerned with the well-being of its citizens than with protecting the profits of large pharmaceutical companies.  Countries such as South Africa, Thailand, and India have had difficulty finding the most important medicines that are cheap for their citizens. Thailand, for example, has awarded licenses for heart and AIDS medications to benefit more people and set an example for other countries. 


Image Source: http://surl.li/wqutpu


Balancing Intellectual Property Rights With Human Rights: Patent Rights Versus Right to Health and Right to Food

The link between Intellectual property Rights (IPR) and Human Rights is clear in the context of medical patents and the Rights to Health, which was particularly underlined during the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Many medications used to treat HIV/AIDS are patent-protected, influencing drug prices and access. In terms of the Right to Food, genetic engineering patents have an impact on farmer rights and food access. Although the relationship between IPR and Human Rights has been acknowledged, discussions are generally held in Human Rights forums. This means that there is a clear disparity: Human Rights language is frequently discussed in Intellectual property Rights organizations, but the reverse is less prevalent. This disparity emphasizes the need for a more balanced approach in which both realms interact and are treated equally. 


The balance between intellectual property rights (IPR) and human rights remains a key concern, especially in an era of technological advancement and creativity. While intellectual property rights are essential for safeguarding innovation and promoting creativity, they must not obstruct access to crucial resources and breakthroughs that are critical for human well-being. Recent legal cases, such as Novartis v Union of India and Bayer Corporation v Union of India, highlight the growing acceptance of the public interest over exclusive patent rights, particularly for life-saving pharmaceuticals. 

 

We can build an innovative ecosystem that benefits everyone while also aligning with all persons’ fundamental rights by prioritizing ethical standards, accessibility and larger ideals of human dignity. 

 

References:

 

*This article is authored by Samiksha Biswakarma, Student of Symbiosis Law School, Noida and reviewed by Amrit Shree Upadhyay, Associate Editor, Lawpinion.

Comments

bottom of page