The 2014 WEI International Academic Conference Proceedings Bali, Indonesia

PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE IN

RELATION WITH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
RIGHTS ON THE PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE FOR
PEOPLE AS AN ENDEAVOUR OF NATIONAL
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Imas Rosidawati Wiradirja1, Fontian Munzil2
1
Nusantara Islamic University (UNINUS),
2
Nusantara Islamic University (UNINUS),
Jl. Soekarno Hatta Bandung, Indonesia.

Abstract

As one of countries member of World Trade Organiza tion (WTO) and World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO), Indonesia must concern on and participate on initiatives to prevent
infringement on intellectual property rights (IPRs).
The objectives of this paper are to analyze and find answers on several problems as follows: firstly,
to find the legal protection on intellectual property rights on traditional knowledge specific regulation in
Indonesia which has not yet available; secondly, to find the concept of the governance of traditional knowledge
which performs justice principle in term of supporting the economic development in Indonesia.
This paper found that, first, the legal protection for traditional knowledge using the regulations of
Intellectual Property Rights, in fact, cannot give a total protection. In essence, the protection of Intellectual
Property Rights is monopolistic, exclusive, and individualistic making it to be private domain. This is much
different from traditional knowledge more focused on public domain. The purpose of legal protection will not
only avoid an unfair competition with Misappropriation but also for the economic development. Second, the
governance concept of traditional knowledge will be perfectly designed by making a Sui Generis system, by
creating a comparing document (prior art) as a defensive protection mean which accommodate the “benefit
sharing” concept. In this concept, the custodian of traditional knowledge is the community. The existing
regulation of Intellectual Property Rights after Indonesia ratified TRIPs cannot give any justice for the
protection toward traditional knowledge for the existence of misappropriation.

Keywords: Intellectual property rights, traditional knowledge, benefit sharing, misappropriation

A. Introduction

In the free trade era, there are many countries seeking for new alternative products to trade in market by
maximizing traditional knowledge based products from developing countries like Indonesia and trying to make
an acquisition of the products and develop them more. These efforts are intended to rule the global market
without giving any contributions to the countries who own the original products. 1
This is the case commonly found in developing countries like Indonesia where its biological and genetic
resources are fraudly explored, especially those related to traditional knowledge based products. This is due to
the increasing of biopiracy which takes place without any approvals from the rights owner and therefore not
giving any significant contribution or compensations. One of the cases is in Indonesia where the rights of

1
Sudarmanto, Produk Kategori Indikasi Geografis Potensi Kekayaan Intelektual Masyarakat
Indonesia, Lembaga Pengkajian Hukum Internasional Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, 2005, p.
109 – 110.

The West East Institute 55

The 2014 WEI International Academic Conference Proceedings Bali, Indonesia
Brotowali and Sambiloto plants is now being illegally acquired by Japan. According to the European Rights
Bureau - http.//ep.espacenet.com, there are at least 40 rights of Indonesian medical traditional plants acquired by
Japan even though some of them are cancelled. As the owner of those traditional medical plants, Indonesia has
not yet been able to economically enjoy the benefits of its traditional plants and natural resources.
Culture is one of the factors influencing on the way how Indonesian people see economic value of their
traditional knowledge. In general, Indonesian people do not value the economic benefits of their traditional
knowledge and have no intention to prevent it from being acquired by other people. Many Indonesian people
belief that traditional knowledge is a general knowledge belongs to everyone in the world. Therefore, giving the
knowledge to others is considered to be a noble act. This point of view is surely vulnerable to misappropriation2)
conducted by foreign researchers who develop their research in biotechnology or pharmacy with gaining
economic benefits as the driving force.
There is different point of view between Indonesian and Western people about traditional knowledge. The
difference lies in the basic concept and ownership aspect. Western people, who are individualistic and
capitalistic, view traditional knowledge as a property that belongs to an individual; meanwhile, Indonesian
people view it as a cultural heritage and cultural expression. However, there are chances for bridging this gap in
point of view about traditional knowledge.
The discussions about protection of traditional knowledge in Indonesia cover at least four following
important problems: 3
(1) The important of protection,
(2) Intellectual rights regime as an internationally recognized protection system,
(3) What most appropriate regime for protecting the rights of local people of Indonesia, and
(4) Efforts conducted by Indonesia Government in the future.

In 1997, WIPO established the Global Intellectual Property Issues Division with the purpose to identify
problems that may have significant impacts on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).4 One of the global issues that
has impact on IPR is the one relating to traditional knowledge protection as one of the kind of intellectual
activity in the industrial, scientific, literary or artistic field.. 5 There are many forums coordinated by Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD), World Health Organization(WHO) and UNESCO who conducted studies and
prepared inputs about things that need to study and to being given exact rules by developing international
agreement on utilization of biodiversity existed in a site.
From 2000 to 2012, negotiations intended to develop protection on Genetic Resources, Traditional
Knowledge, and Folklore in the forum of Inter-Governmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic
Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and Folklore (IGC IP-GRTK) on the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) still take place. Observation conducted by WIPO reported that the agreement commonly

2)
Misappropriation : “the unauthorized, improprer or unlawful use of funds or property for purpose
other than that for which intended”. Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed., 1990), 998.
3
Agus Sarjono, Hak Kekayaan Intelektual dan Pengetahuan Tradisional, Alumni, Bandung, 2006, p.
12-17.
4
WIPO, Intellectual Property Needs. (Geneva, 2001), 16.
5
Pengertian intellectual property yang didefinisikan oleh WIPO mencakup bentuk tersebut, disamping
bentuk yang sudah lazim dikenal seperti inventions, industrial design, trademarks copyrights, dan lain-lain.
WIPO, Ibid., 15.

The West East Institute 56

The 2014 WEI International Academic Conference Proceedings Bali, Indonesia
known as material transfer agreement (MTA) has been clausally protecting and related rights on intellectual
property rights are determined independently.6
One of the weaknesses in developing protection system on Traditional Knowledge is limited data,
documents, and information about the knowledge which actually has been existed for hundred years. The
unavailability of written documents about Traditional Knowledge has become the main reason why Patent
bureau difficult to issue patent documents as no prior art document available that can be used to decline the
related invention. This is surely not beneficial for indigenous people as the owner of the traditional knowledge. 7

B. Traditional Knowledge Protection and Challenge

Internationally, especially those related to IPR, Indonesia has implemented the TRIPs Agreement as one
of the point of agreement in World Trade Organization (WTO). However, in the other side, developed countries
still have no serious intention to consider local people’s intellectual rights for traditional knowledge. Premises
developed in GATT Uruguay Round agreement, especially those related to world trade commodities with IPR
8
(TRIPs), could not yet able to consider the interest of local people; meanwhile in the other side, developed
countries are very much enjoying the benefits of access to genetic resources which widely available in
developing countries. There should not be discrimination in the utilization of genetic resources between local
and foreign bioprospectors.9
Moreover, there are many developed countries like United States showing different attitudes when third
world countries exclaim their concern on the utilization and exploration of biodiversity and traditional
knowledge through Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). They refuse to sign the convention. The reason
why the United States refuses the convention is that CBD may inhibit the protection on intellectual property
rights.10 This is inconsistent with their interest in developing biotechnology industry.11
The demand on the protection of traditional knowledge and biodiversity resources firstly aroused in the
Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992. Indonesia has agreed to the United Nation Convention on
Biological Diversity by enacting the Law Number 5 year 1994 about the Enactment of the United Nation
Convention on Biological Diversity which mandated the establishment of a protocol for Biosafety. And on

6
Claudio Chiarolla, Plant Patenting, Benefit Sharing and the Law Applicable to the Food and
Agriculture Organisationb Standard Material Transfer, The Journal Of World Intellectual Property, Blackwell
Publishing Ltd, Volume 11 Number 1 Januari 2008, p. 2-6
7
Philip Schuler, Biopiracy and Commercialization of Ethnobotanical Knowledge, in : Poor Peoples’s
Knowledge Promoting Intellectual Property In Developing Countries, J. Michael Fingerand Philip Schuler (ed),
A Copublication of the World Bank and Oxford University Press, Washington, 2004, p.160.
8
Frederick M Abbott, “Protecting First World Assets in The Third World: Intellectual Property
Negotiations in the GATT Multilateral Frameworld”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnatonal Law, (Vol. 22, No. 4,
1989), 712-717.
9
Daniel Wiiger, Prevention of Misappropriation of Intangible Cultural Heritage through Intellectual
Property Laws, in : Poor Peoples’s Knowledge Promoting Intellectual Property In Developing Countries, J.
Michael Fingerand Philip Schuler (ed), A Copublication of the World Bank and Oxford University Press,
Washington, 2004, p.186.
10
Anthony D’amato & Doris Estelle Long, International Intellectual Property Anthology, (Cincinnati:
Anderson Publishing Co., 1996),p. 79.
11
Mark Anderson, “Convention on Biological Diversity”, Solicitor Journal, (16 Oktober 1992), p.
1030.

The West East Institute 57

The 2014 WEI International Academic Conference Proceedings Bali, Indonesia
August 16, 2004, Indonesian Government passed and enacted the Law Number 12 year 2004 about the
Enactment of Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Traditional knowledge is intellectual activities results that include skills, innovations, and practices
related to cultural tradition. The definition refers to the recommendation of World Intellectual Property Rights
Organization (WIPO) which defines traditional knowledge with the following two components:
1. “Knowledge” defined as one thing that is known and not merely a form of expression;
2. ”Traditional”, means that the knowledge related to certain culture.

Traditional knowledge are innovations and the volume of knowledge continually developed, acquired,
used, practiced, transmitted and sustained by communities through generations supported by their ecology,
environment, life styles, attitudes, societies and culture. 12
The definition of Traditional Knowledge by WIPO is not difference to the one defined by Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD). Traditional Knowledge is a key concept consisted in Article 8 (j) which determines
the importance of traditional knowledge roles as follows: …. To encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits
arising from the fillsation of such knowledge, innovation, and practices."
The complete statement of Article 8 (j) is as follows:
“ Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and
practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the
approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovation and practices and encourage
the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovation and
practices. “

The natures of Traditional Knowledge are as follows:

1. It is a collective and communal rights;
2. It transcends from generation to generation;
3. It is a means for natural conservation and sustainable utilization of biological diversity;
4. It not market oriented;
5. It is not widely known in international trade forum; and
6. It is well known in the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Of the following three focuses: Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and Folklore Expression,
genetic resources are the most interesting challenge for all stakeholders to develop a law in Intellectual Property
Rights (IPR) since it has concept, system, originality, ownership, and time-frame for protection which difference
to the well-known conventional IPR. Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and Folklore Expression
consist of ideas that have been preserved through oral and unwritten tradition. In term of ownership, all
conventional IPR regime, except Collective Brand and Geographic Indication, centered on individual ownership
and limited by time-frame. Meanwhile, Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and Folklore Expression are
communal ownership in nature and have no limit of ownership time due to its continual and generation to

12
Charles R. McManis, Biodiversity, Biotechnology and Traditional Knowledge Protection : Law,
Science and Practice, Biodiversity Law Intellectual Biotechnology Traditional, , Earthscan Sterling, VA,
London, 2007, p.4.

The West East Institute 58

The 2014 WEI International Academic Conference Proceedings Bali, Indonesia
generation development.13
The issues of IPR related to Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and Folklore Expression have
been existed in many policies including the ones about food and agriculture, biological diversity and
environment, human rights, culture, trade, and economic development. Genetic Resources, Traditional
Knowledge, and Folklore Expression are related to one another since additional values derived by a genetic
resource are coming from traditional knowledge belongs to a community. For example, traditional knowledge is
a means for discovery and development of medicines made of plants and able to save research fund and no need
long time to be discovered.
As the consequence, efforts intended to protect traditional knowledge should involve initiatives how to
consider it as a prior art and enforce that the unlawful PRI acquisition should be declined.

C. Sui Generis Concept System for Equitable Protection of Traditional Knowledge

Costa Rica is the first country to have concern on traditional knowledge and enacted a law for
protecting it. The country enacted the law using Sui Generis system in which the Article 82 of The Biodiversity
14
Law of the Republic of Costa Rica of 1998 determined that:
"The State expressly recognizes and protects, under the common denomination of sui generis community
intellectual rights, the knowledge, practices, and innovations of indigenous people and local communities
related to the use of components of biodiversity and associated knowledge. This right exists and is legally
recognized by the mere existence of the cultural practice or knowledge related to the genetic resources and
biochemical; it does not require prior declaration, explicit recognition nor official registration; therefore it
can include practices which in the future acquire, such status. This recognition implies that no form of
intellectual or industrial property rights protection regulated in this chapter, in special laws and in
international law shall affect such historic practices."

The Philippine has also developed a regime for protecting its traditional knowledge. Section 17 in Article
14 of their constitution says that:15
“The State shall recognize, respect and protect the rights of the indigenous cultural
communities to preserve and develop their cultures, traditions and institution. It shall consider these in the
formulation of national plans and policies.”
Moreover, the constitution was described in Indigenous People Rights Act 1997 which consisted of the
following things:
“Indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revitalize their
own cultural traditions and customs. The state shall preserve, protect and develop the pass, present and
future manifestation of their cultures as well as the right to the restitution of cultural, intellectual,
religious and spiritual property taken without their free and prior informed consent or in violation of
their laws, traditions and customs.”

13
Miranda Risang ayu, Pentingnya Perlindungan Defensif Terhadap Sumber Daya Genetik,
Pengetahuan Tradisional dan Ekspresi Budaya Tradisional Indonesia, Penemuan Hukum Nasional Dan
Internasional, Dalam Purnabakti Prof.Dr. Yudha Bhakti, SH.,MH. , Fikahati Aneska, Bandung, 2010, p. 390
14
Andriana & Gazalba Saleh , Perlindungan Hukum Varietas Baru Tanaman Dalam Perspektif Hak
Paten dan Hak Pemulia, Raja Grafindo Perkasa, Jakarta, 2004, p. 43
15
David Daoas, “Efforts at Protecting Traditional Konwledge: The Experience of Philipines”,
Roundtable on Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge, (WIPO/IPTK/RT/99/6a, October 27, 1999), 9.

The West East Institute 59

The 2014 WEI International Academic Conference Proceedings Bali, Indonesia
The laws are not only declarative in nature, but also normative which regulates what compensation people
will have when their rights are taken forcefully and without any agreement; or when the takeover of rights is
against the law, tradition, and people’s rules.
Australia has also tried to implement Aboriginal traditional law with modern IPR regime as in the case of
Milpururu vs Indofurn (pty) Ltd. 16 In this case, Australian court combined Aboriginal Law System and modern
IPR system. Common law is implemented to determine who has the rights on Aboriginal traditional design of
carpet; meanwhile, the protection of the rights is achieved through modern IPR system. This combination is
possible to make according to the common law system. In this system, the judges are the law makers. 17
In New Zealand, the protection of traditional knowledge is conducted through prior informed consent
(PIC) system. The implementation of the system is conducted in form of collaboration between Maori people
and Cancer Genetics Research Team of University of Otago. There were 12,000 Maori people contributed their
information needed by the team such as genealogical and medical information.
The collaboration (Kimihauora Trust) is supported by New Zealand Gastroenterologist Association and
New Zealand Health Research Council. Therefore, there is a mutual relationship between indigenous people and
researcher in applying the protection model which involves direct participation of people and implementation of
rights regime.
There are many studies conducted through many forums such as in WIPO (Standing Committee on
Information Technology, Standing Committee on Patent, Committee of Experts of the Union of the International
Patent Classification) and other organizations (such as World Health Organization, Convention on Biological
Diversity, United Convention to Combat Desertification, United Nation Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization, United Nation Conference on Trade and Development, World Trade Organization, and World
Bank).18
From Asian – African Forum on Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge and Genetic Resources,
18-21 June 2007 in Bandung to The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) forum in 2012 there were
identified that there were many spaces available for conducting further studies. There was also some
recommendation that the realization of law protecting genetic resource, traditional knowledge, and folklore
expression should be immediately enacted, and sui generis intellectual property system is implemented in those
issues.19
There are some alternatives that can be taken by government in order to protect the rights of indigenous
people in Indonesia such as enacting new laws using Sui Generis system which regulates the access for foreign
people to biological diversity resources and traditional knowledge in Indonesia and also the benefits sharing
between indigenous people and the users of the resources. Indonesian government needs also to take an action to

16
WIPO, Intellectual Property Needs, 64-65. Lihat juga Christine Haight Farley, “Protecting Folklore
of Indigenous Peoples: Is Intellectual Property the Answer?”, Connecticuit Law Review, (Fall, 1997), 4-7.
17
Rene David & John E.C. Brierley, Major Legal Systems in the World Today, 3rd ed., (London:
Stevens & Sons, 1985), p. 312-313.
18
Christopher May, The World Intellectual Property Organization Resurgence and the Development
Agenda, Routledge Taylor &Francis Group, London and New York, 2006,p. 3.
19
Ian F Spellerberg, Biological Diversity, Concerevation and Resource Management, Biodi versity
Conservation In Asean Emerging Issues & Regional Needs, Asean Academic Press, London, Printed and bound
in Malaysia 2007,p. 7

The West East Institute 60

The 2014 WEI International Academic Conference Proceedings Bali, Indonesia
encourage participation of indigenous people in utilizing and exploring genetic resources and traditional
knowledge for the sake of welfare of the people.
In other countries in Africa, South America, and Asia, WIFO-FFMs have found many different models of
protection.20 However, they share one thing in common in which they believe that traditional knowledge is
importance as an intellectual rights just like other rights such as copy rights, brand, and design that included in
IPR regime. It means that there is no yet a common law model available for protecting traditional knowledge.
This creates an opportunity for Indonesia to implement a protection system for its indigenous people. Here, the
question about what the most appropriate regime is for protecting indigenous people’s rights relevance to be
asked.
Indonesia has actually own its protection regime for traditional knowledge in form of folklore, 21 such as
the one determined in the Article 10 of the Law Number 19 year 2002 about copyrights. However, the regulation
determined in the article is still difficult to implement. One of the reasons why it is difficult is that the article still
needs a supporting implementation regulation which is not yet available until today.
The most important thing of sui generis system is that it recognizes firmly that indigenous people are the
owner of the traditional knowledge. Common law or customary law could become an alternative source of law
or materials for formulizing indigenous people’s rights in sui generis law. Principles consisted in common law
could be accommodated into sui generis law as follows: 22
1. Regulation consisted in sui generis law is simple.
2. Sui generis law should not neglect components of religion norms. This is in accordance with common
law system which magis religious in nature.
3. Sui generis law should be based on community system that appreciate togetherness and harmony.
4. Sui generis law should be able to guarantee or provide higher possibilities for supporting the
implementation of traditional knowledge including the knowledge about biological diversity in order
to provide benefits for the welfare of people.

Indonesia could also take an action to refer to WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual
Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC-IPGRTKF). If it is agreed, there are
some important components that could be included in sui generis law as follows:
The objectives of providing protection for traditional knowledge through sui generis law system are as
follows:
a) Creating a preservation, protection, and development system of the traditional knowledge.
b) Protecting the rights of traditional knowledge owners.
c) Developing the community’s capacity who own the traditional knowledge in Indonesia.
d) Improving national capacity to innovate based on traditional knowledge.

20
WIPO, Intellectual Property Needs, (2001).
21
Michael Blakeney, “What is Traditional Knowledge? Why Should It Be Protect? Who Should Protect
It? For Whom?” Undestanding The Value Chain”, dalam WIPO Roundtable on Intellectual Property and
Traditional Knowledge, WIPO/IPTK/RT/99/3, (October 6, 1999), 2. Dalam perspektif WIPO, folklore adalah
bagian dari pengetahuan tradisional. See WIPO, Intellectual Property Needs, 26.
22
Agus Sarjono, Hak Kekayaan …………., Op. Cit.,p.304

The West East Institute 61

The 2014 WEI International Academic Conference Proceedings Bali, Indonesia
Therefore, the protection of traditional knowledge is not only intended for avoiding it from being
missappropriationed by foreigners, but also to protect and preserve the traditional knowledge and provide
benefits for the indigenous people.
There are efforts intended to protect traditional knowledge, genetic resources, and folklore by formulizing a
law have been initiated. However, of the three law drafts, there is an inclination that law for protecting genetic
resources is separated from the law for protecting traditional knowledge and folklore which combined together
into one legal draft.
In sui generis law, there must be a clear definition that traditional knowledge should have exclusive
rights for the people who own traditional knowledge to announce and/or utilize their own knowledge which
covers the following things:
A). the rights holder over traditional knowledge has official rights to utilize and manage their knowledge
by considering the practice and habit of the community;
b). the rights holder over traditional knowledge has full rights to have protection from fraud claim over
the traditional knowledge;
c). the holder rights over traditional knowledge has the rights to have protection from acquisition and
utilization of the knowledge without any legal permission; and
d). the holder rights of traditional knowledge has the rights to share the equitable benefits of the
utilization of the traditional knowledge for the commercial interest of other parties.

Difference to the IPR regime, rights over traditional knowledge owned by people is not a timely limited
rights. The rights over traditional knowledge is granted without any time limitation. Therefore, the issue about
time limitation of rights is not relevance in sui generis law. The protection of traditional knowledge means
nothing if the law or regulation protecting the knowledge cannot be implemented effectively. One of the factors
supporting the effective implementation of the law is that the law implement sanctions in form of compensation
for breaching over the law. In the system of traditional knowledge in Indonesia, it is difficult to ask indigenous
people to actively participate on law enforcement efforts. Therefore, active initative should be taken by
government.

D. Conclusion

1. In conclusion I wish that the protection Traditional Knowledge of expressions of folklore should not be
undertaken for its own sake or as an end in itself, but “as a tool for achieving the goals and aspirations
of relevant peoples” including the respect for cultural rights and the protection of tradition-based
creativity as an ingredient of sustainable economic development. Apart from their core historical,
cultural, spiritual and social significance, they are also economic assets.

The West East Institute 62

The 2014 WEI International Academic Conference Proceedings Bali, Indonesia
2. Intellectual Property Rights protection over traditional knowledge by implementing IPR Law such as
through Law of Patent has not yet fully provided an appropriate protection. This is due to the
characteristics of IPR that is difference to traditional knowledge. IPR protection is exclusive,
monopolistic, individualistic, and private domain in nature; meanwhile traditional knowledge has
collectivism nature.
3. The most appropriate concept of traditional knowledge management is implementing sui generis law
based on tradition. The protection is intended to improve people’s welfare, and not only for the purpose
of humanity initiatives, but also for the sake of welfare of the indigenous people through providing
access to foreigners to share equitable benefits with the indigenous people who own the traditional
knowledge.

References Books
Achmad Zen Purba, 2005, Hak Kekayaan Intelektual Pasca TRIPs, Alumni, Bandung.
Agus Sarjono, 2006, Hak Kekayaan Intelektual dan Pengetahuan Tradisional, Alumni, Bandung.
_______, 2009, Membumikan HKI di Indonesia, Nuansa Aulia, Bandung.
Cita Citrawinda Priapantja, 2005, Budaya Hukum Indonesia Menghadapi Globalisasi Perlindungan Rahasia
Dagang Di Bidang Farmasi, Chandra Pratama, Jakarta.
______, 2003, Hak Kekayaan Intelektual Tantangan Masa Depan, Badan Penerbit Fakultas Hukum Universitas
Indonesia, Jakarta.
Carsten Fink, 2005, Paten Protection, Transnational Corporations, and Market Structure : A Simulation
Study of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry, in Intellectual Property and Development Lessons from
Recent Economic Research , Oxford University Press, New York
Claudio Chiarolla, 2008, Plant Patenting, Benefit Sharing and the Law Applicable to the Food and
Agriculture Organisationb Standard Material Transfer, The Journal Of World Intellectual
Property, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Volume 11 Number 1 Januari
__________, 2006, Commodifying Agricultural Biodiversity and Development Related Issues, The Journal
Of World Intellectual Property, Volume 9 January
Christopher May, 2006, The World Intellectual Property Organization Resurgence and the Development
Agenda, Routledge Taylor &Francis Group, London and New York
David Daoas, “Efforts at Protecting Traditional Konwledge: The Experience of Philipines”, Roundtable on
Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge, (WIPO/IPTK/RT/99/6a, October 27, 1999
Edi Sedyawati, Menuju Perlindungan & Pengembangan Ekspersi Folklor : Keterkaitan EF dengan
Pengetahuan Tradisional, dalam temu wicara ” Pemberdayaan Sumber Daya Genetik, Pengetauan
Tradisional, dan Ekspresi Folklor, Ditjen HKI, Padang, 8-9 Agustus 2006
Ian F Spellerberg, 2007, Biological Diversity, Concerevation and Resource Management, Biodi
versity Conservation In Asean Emerging Issues & Regional Needs, Asean Academic Press,
London, Printed and bound in Malaysia
James S Miller, 2007, Impact of the Convention on Biological Diversity : The Lesson of Ten Years of
Experience with Models for Equitable Sharing of Benefits, Biodiversity Law Intellectual
Biotechnology Traditional, Edited by Charles R. McManis, Earthscan Sterling, VA, London
Kerry ten Kate and Sarah A. Laird, 2004, Bioprospecting Agreements and Benefit Sharing with
Local Communities, in : Poor Peoples’s Knowledge Promoting Intellectual Property In
Developing Countries, J. Michael Fingerand Philip Schuler (ed), A Copublication of the World
Bank and Oxford University Press, Washington.
Miranda Risang ayu, 2010, Pentingnya Perlindungan Defensif Terhadap Sumber Daya Genetik, Pengetahuan
Tradisional dan Ekspresi Budaya Tradisional Indonesia, Penemuan Hukum Nasional Dan Internasional,
Dalam Purnabakti Prof.Dr. Yudha Bhakti, SH.,MH. , Fikahati Aneska, Bandung.
Ranti Fauza Mayana, 2004, Perlndungan Desain Industri Di Indonesia Dalam era Peradagangan Bebas,
Grasindo, Jakarta.
Rene David & John E.C. Brierley, 1985, Major Legal Systems in the World Today, 3rd ed., (London:
Stevens & Sons,

The West East Institute 63

The 2014 WEI International Academic Conference Proceedings Bali, Indonesia
Sarah A. Laird & Kerry Ten Kate, 2002 , “ Biodiversity prospecting : The commercial use of genetic
resources and best practice in benefit sharing, dalam Sarah A., Laird (ed.), Biodiversity and
Traditional Knowlledge – Equitable Partnershps in Practice, Earthscan, London.
Sudarmanto, 2005, Produk Kategori Indikasi Geografis Potensi Kekayaan Intelektual Masyarakat Indonesia,
Lembaga Pengkajian Hukum Internasional Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta,
Patricia Lucia Cantuaria Marin, 2002, Providing Protection for Plant Genetic Resources Patents, Sui Generis
System, and Biopartnerships, Kluwer Law International.
Philip Schuler, 2004, Biopiracy and Commercialization of Ethnobotanical Knowledge, in : Poor
Peoples’s Knowledge Promoting Intellectual Property In Developing Countries, J. Michael Fingerand
Philip Schuler (ed), A Copublication of the World Bank and Oxford University Press, Washington.
Tim Lindsey dkk, 2006, Hak Kekayaan Intelektual, Suatu Pengantar, Alumni, Bandung.
WIPO, Intellectual Property Needs and Expectation of Traditional Knowledge Holders: WIPO Reeport on Fact-
finding Missions oon 23-26

Regulations
 Law no. 5 year 1994 on ratified United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity
 Law no. 7 year 1994 on ratified WTO
 Law no. 5 year 2001 on Trademark
 Law no. 19 year 2002 on Copy Rights
 Law no. 21 year 2004 ratified Cartagena Protocol On Biosafety To The Convention On Biological
Diversity

Brief biography :
Dr.Imas Rosidawati Wiradirja, SH.,MH. :
Postgraduate Senior Lecturer, Nusantara Islamic University (UNINUS), Bandung, Indonesia.
Specialization Area : Intellectual Property Rights & Corporate Law. Program Coordinator of Business law
Postgraduate Islamic Nusantara University. Editor of Media Justitia Nusantara Academis Journal, Islamic
Nusantara University. E-mail: i_rosida_df@yahoo.co.id. Mobile Phone: +62 81322418864. Nusantara Islamic
University, Jln Soekarno Hatta 530, Bandung 40286, Bandung, Jawa Barat, Indonesia

Ir. Fontian Munzil, SH, MH, ME, CFP :

Postgraduate Senior Lecturer , Specialization Area Financial, Economic, Business dan Corruption Law.
Appeal Judge of Criminal Corruption Court. Ethic Code Commision Head of CFP, Chief Editor of Media
Justitia Nusantara Academis Journal, Islamic Nusantara University, Bandung, Jawa Barat, Indonesia. Instructor
of Financial Planning and business law. Having 15 years experience in Financial Industries (Banking &
Insurance). Certified as an Advocate, Capital Market Law Consultant, Financial Planner, Qualified Wealth
Planner, Mutual Fund Selling Agency, Diploma Financial Planner, Investment Link Certification, Life
Insurance. E-mail: fontian@mail.com. Mobile Phone: +62 818 08 777 000. Nusantara Islamic University, Jln
Soekarno Hatta 530, Bandung 40286, Bandung, Jawa Barat, Indonesia

The West East Institute 64