Geographical Indication (GI) options for Ethiopian Coffee and Ghanaian Cocoa

Innovation & Intellectual Property
Open science, open knowledge, open research
Interrogating the value of OA for research productivity, visibility, accessibility and
knowledge in South Africa needs to be approached from a multi-disciplinary perspective.
This entails moving beyond consideration of copyright and IP laws and
traditional boundaries of scholarly publishing into consideration of the potential,
offered by OA publishing, of what is sometimes referred to as “open science”,
“open knowledge” or “open research”. The openness orientation implied by these
terms entails the prioritisation of wide dissemination and sharing of the outputs
of scientific research. This approach requires institution-wide commitment and
change at universities. It requires the creation and/or strengthening of a research
value chain that incorporates all levels of the academic hierarchy engaged in
researching, writing and publishing. Abrahams et al. (2008) propose a framework
“based on open knowledge approaches to knowledge production, publishing and
dissemination in response to identified constraints and challenges to a productive
academic research and publishing sector” (2008, p. 9).
This research endeavour thus combined consideration of ideas around IP
commercialisation with consideration of the dynamics of knowledge socialisation
and of the many transitions that are possible for managing IP and disseminating
knowledge.
3. Findings Part 1: the Act and Regulations
Evolution of the South African approach, 1996 to 2012
The Act and Regulations have their roots (see Figure 13.1) in the government’s
1996 White Paper on Science and Technology, which flagged the need for an IP
regime that encourages innovation (DACST, 1996, Chap. 6). This orientation was
reiterated in the Department of Science and Technology’s (DST’s) 2002 National
Research and Development (R&D) Strategy, which lamented the absence of a formal
policy framework for IP protection of publicly financed research and expressly
mentioned the US Bayh–Dole Act as a model to emulate (DST, 2002, pp. 22, 67).
The R&D Strategy was partially implemented by the creation of the Intellectual
Property Rights from Publicly Financed Research Framework in 2006, which
formed the blueprint for the eventual IPR-PFRD Act of 2008. The Framework
preceded the publication by the Department of Science and Technology (DST)
of a Ten-Year Innovation Plan in 2008 that identified financing and IP management
as major challenges to successful IP commercialisation. Accordingly, the
Ten-Year Plan provided for creation of the Technology Innovation Agency (TIA)
to provide funding, and creation of the National IP Management Office (NIPMO)
288