Balancing Protection of Plant Varieties and Other Public Interests

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with the very important conflict between the farmers' right and the right of new plant varieties, the breeders' right.

The paper examines the interaction between intellectual property rights for new plant varieties and farmers' rights. It describes the UPOV Convention and India's sui generis system, two important mechanisms for compliance with the TRIPS Agreement. It identifies the main issues arising from the protection of plant varieties, namely threats to biodiversity, food security and potential monopolistic practices.

It concludes that a revision of the UPOV Convention is needed to incorporate farmers' rights and environmental sustainability.

The paper offers a comprehensive description of the discussion and the arguments involved. However, it is not clear what the methodology is and exactly how it is applied.  Also, I cannot see what new has been added to the discussion.

The document needs a lot of editing e.g.

l.52 It should be ........... to comply with the TRIPS Agreement.

l.78 "But the key issue is the conflict between the farmers' right and the right of new plant varieties." This is a repetition of l.76.

Throughout the paper there are editorial errors that make it difficult to read, so they should be addressed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper deals with an important issue. However:

-Starting the introduction by quoting two documentaries is an approach appropriate for a newspaper or magazine article, not so much for a journal paper.

-The paper is not analytical, lacks methodology and is highly descriptive.

- Unfortunately it adds nothing new to the discussion.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer :

I want to express my very deep appreciation, and the appreciation of all of us, to the referees’ great efforts and suggestions for my manuscript. They are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding to our researches. Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revised our paper according to your comments, please the documents attached.

Best regards,

Wu Chenwen

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is a good attempt to analyse how India's plant variety protection law is distinct and innovative when it comes to the question of protecting farmers' rights. Despite this, the manuscript has many flaws that must be approved before any possible publication.

Firstly, the manuscript requires extensive editing of English language. Second, the manuscript needs to discuss theoretically or conceptually what it means by "other Public Interest", which is a term used in the title as well as the main text. In doing so, the manuscript also requires an articulation of how and based on what criteria and circumstances, other public interest can be conceptualised to also mean "farmers' rights", which is another term regularly used in the article. Lastly, the conclusion needs to be rewritten to provide new arguments, ideas and issues for further research.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires extensive editing of English language to get rid of grammatical errors and to maintain flow and coherence.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer :

I want to express my very deep appreciation, and the appreciation of all of us, to the referees’ great efforts and suggestions for my manuscript. They are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding to our researches. Thanks for your comments on our paper. I have revised my paper according to your comments, please see the document attached.

Best regards,

Wu Chenwen

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations to the authors, the paper provides a thoughtful reflection and suggestions for improvements, especially when considering developing countries.

The introduction could be expanded and improved by conducting a review and historical contextualization of UPOV and TRIPS. It could also address how breeding companies have operated in countries where plant variety protection does not strictly adhere to what is agreed upon in TRIPS.

There are some acronyms that are used and should be spelled out in full on their first appearance in the text and abstract. For example: WTO and TRIPS (there are others)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

I want to express my very deep appreciation, and the appreciation of all of us, to the referees’ great efforts and suggestions for my manuscript. They are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding to my research. Thanks for your comments on our paper. I have revised our paper according to your comments:

Comment: There are some acronyms that are used and should be spelled out in full on their first appearance in the text and abstract. For example: WTO and TRIPS (there are others)

Response: Thanks for your kind remind, and we have tried our best to improve the English writing. I have made all acronyms spelled out in full on their first appearance. (Please see Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in Line 10, International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV convention) in Line11,17 associated Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Line 24, intellectual property rights (IPRs) in Line173,  Plant breeders’ rights (PBRs) in 177,Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in 209,  International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (Plant Treaty) in Line 271,  Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Line265, International Association of Plant Breeders for the Protection of Plant Varieties (ASSISNEL) in Line 418,  Indian protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ rights Act of 2001 in Line 532).

I appreciate your review very much.

Best regards,

Wu Chenwen

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I regret to say that the paper presents significant methodological issues, which ultimately do not support the research objectives in the first place.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper requires extensive editing to read smoothly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

 

I want to express my very deep appreciation, to the referees’ great efforts and suggestions for my manuscript. They are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving my paper, as well as the important guiding to my research. Thanks for your comments on my paper. I have proofread the paper and edited the English language of the paper to make the logic and word of the paper clear and coherence.

 

Here is the response for your kind comment on methodological issues.

Response: Since this is a legal article, the primary research methods used are legal research methods, specifically textual analysis and comparative analysis. This article mainly employs these methods to analyze and compare the legal texts of the UPOV Convention and India’s Regulation in Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFR Act), aiming to identify their main differences in value orientation and the protection of legal interests. By comparing these differences in the protection of legal interests, the impact of these two new plant variety protection mechanisms on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can be analyzed. The analysis concludes that the Indian mechanism is more conducive to sustainable development and suggests that this mechanism should be referenced by the UPOV Convention to better promote the achievement of the SDGs.

 

I appreciate your review very much.

 

Best regards,

 

Wu Chenwen

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for making revisions. The manuscript reads well now.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript reads better now.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

 

I want to express my very deep appreciation, to the referees’ great efforts and suggestions for my manuscript. They are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving my paper, as well as the important guiding to my research. Thanks for your comments on my paper. I have proofread the paper and edited the English language of the paper.

I appreciate your review very much.

 

Best regards,

 

Wu Chenwen

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper takes a sustainable development perspective to revisit the new system of plant variety protection critically and compare it with the Indian model of protecting new plant varieties. Both legislative models are being evaluated from the perspective of sustainable development and not only from the perspective of the effectiveness of intellectual property protection.

It examines the relationship between SDGs and new plant varieties from the broader public interest perspective, i.e. environmental protection, fair competition, farmers' rights, and breeders' rights.

The adopted methodology is a normative legal approach, based on textual analysis. The paper also develops and applies an index to measure the level of sustainability of the plant varieties protection mechanisms. However, assigning values in this way seems rather arbitrary. The theoretical arguments for the pros and cons cover the issue.

Overall, the paper presents all the arguments relating to this very important debate.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some corrections that are suggested, are as follows:

L9 .. According to the Agreement on Trade-Related  Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), World Trade…..

L 27  ….by the UN General Assembly and is a 27 roadmap

L 37…. utilizes…

L 45… Nevertheless, …

L101 …. also considers broader public interests.

L 291 …. PBRs can prohibit farmers from storing, propagating and selling seeds.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

I want to express my very deep appreciation, to the referees’ great efforts and suggestions for my manuscript. They are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving my paper, as well as the important guiding to my research. Thanks for your comments on my paper. 

You have correctly identified a key point regarding the issue of assignment, which is a major limitation of this research method and an important focus for future research. A more objective assignment method might indeed be necessary. However, since this study is primarily concerned with comparison, the assignment in question is intended merely to clarify the comparative results. The main focus is whether the relevant sustainable development issues are addressed in the two mechanisms. In this context, the current method may  be sufficient.

I appreciate your  your patience and meticulousness with the language. Your suggestions are crucial. I have made corrections as you suggested, and I also proofread the paper and edited the language.

Thank you again for your reviewing.