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

Effects of the South African IP Regime on Generating Value
Another UCT researcher-inventor interviewee argued that the Act may hinder
the socialisation of knowledge – because of the need, mentioned above, to
consider obtaining IP protection before engaging in research dissemination.
However, even this interviewee stated that in many instances, the cost of the publication
delay would likely be outweighed by the benefits of commercialisation.
The RCIPS interviewee stated that there might be difficulties in situations
where IP is jointly created or shared, resulting in a situation where one of the parties
(i.e. UCT) is required to comply with the Act while others may not be required
to do so. This would be the case where the other parties are not publicly funded
and thus not obliged to comply with the Act. The interviewee expressed hope that
NIPMO would issue guidelines addressing this concern. Thus far, UCT has negotiated
such situations by obtaining the necessary approvals from collaborating
partners. However, obtaining these approvals invariably delays the conclusion of
an agreement. Meanwhile, some philanthropic donors do not use a full-cost pricing
model (which would entitle them to the IP rights) and instead seek alternative
approaches to IP protection, such as direct IP transfers to them, which are subject
to NIPMO approval.
RCIPS often works with researchers and inventors to prepare patent applications.
It was stated that NIPMO compliance is onerous for RCIPS, but that UCT’s
administrative practices (e.g. the use of databases) and the provision of funding
by NIPMO to finance capacity enhancement are mitigating the burden. The
RCIPS interviewee said that capacity development funding is critical because universities
have to be
[...] suitably capacitated to cope with the implementation of the IPR Act – both in
terms of human resources [and] skills transfer to the research community, and [in
terms of] funding both to support early commercialisation as well as to pay for
patent application and maintenance. (RCIPS interviewee, 2012)
Researcher-inventor perspectives
The UCT researcher-inventor interviewees generally reported that they favour
the notion of open research, i.e. they favour extensive dissemination and publication
of their research findings, and participation in international research consortia.
They also stated that it is critical that resources are not wasted, that research
is properly directed, and that appropriate benefits accrue from their research. The
interviewees reported that they employ both full-cost and partial-cost funding
models. Sometimes the full-cost model of funding entails limitations on related
publications and strict regulation of confidentiality through the use of nondisclosure
agreements (NDAs). In contrast, the partial-cost model is one in which
the funder does not cover all costs and therefore does not own the IP (but must,
299