外文翻譯----基于植物新品種保護(hù)聯(lián)盟（upov）協(xié)議的保護(hù)進(jìn)展

1、<p><b>　　浙江工業(yè)大學(xué)法學(xué)院</b></p><p>　　畢業(yè)論文外文資料翻譯</p><p>　　學(xué)院（系）： 法學(xué)院 </p><p>　　專 業(yè)： 知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)二專業(yè)09年級(jí) </p><p>　　姓 名：

2、 魏爽 </p><p>　　學(xué) 號(hào)： 200905911027 </p><p>　　外文出處：World Patent Information 27 (2005) 232–243；</p><p>　　Biotechnology and Development M

3、onitor , No.23，2005</p><p>　　附 件 1.外文資料翻譯譯文；2.外文原文 </p><p>　　附件1：外文資料翻譯譯文一：</p><p>　　基于植物新品種保護(hù)聯(lián)盟（UPOV）協(xié)議的保護(hù)進(jìn)展</p><p>　　植物新品種保護(hù)聯(lián)盟（UPOV）慣例的適用及其1972，1978和1991年的修訂</p

4、><p>　　該國際協(xié)定的序言的第一句是在1961年12月2日，在巴黎寫下，內(nèi)容是：“我們深知保護(hù)植物新品種的重要性，不僅是對(duì)于農(nóng)業(yè)發(fā)展而言，對(duì)于育種者的切身利益也是至關(guān)重要……”植物育種者確實(shí)對(duì)農(nóng)業(yè)的發(fā)展貢獻(xiàn)良多。舉個(gè)例子，在法國，每公頃平均小麥產(chǎn)量從1910年的1.3公噸躍升到2002年的7公噸。在美國，每公頃玉米產(chǎn)量從1940年1.8公噸躍升到2000年8.5公噸，在南非，每公頃玉米產(chǎn)量從1950年1噸躍升到2

5、001年2.7噸，小麥產(chǎn)量從0.5噸躍升到2.4噸。依據(jù)不同的作物和地理位置，因?yàn)橹参镞z傳基因的改進(jìn)使得產(chǎn)量平均有30%到60%的漲幅。在對(duì)法國政府的倡議進(jìn)行了大量的準(zhǔn)備工作之后，終于在1961年12月2日的外交會(huì)議上修成正果，UPOV得以簽署和實(shí)行。以下13個(gè)歐洲國家加入該聯(lián)盟：奧地利，比利時(shí)，丹麥，芬蘭，德國，法國，意大利，荷蘭，挪威，西班牙，瑞典，瑞士和英國，外加歐洲經(jīng)濟(jì)共同體和國際知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)局，聯(lián)合國糧農(nóng)組織和經(jīng)合組織，還有以

6、下的非政府組織：ASSINSEL，AIPPI，CIOPORA，CIOPORA，F(xiàn)IS。</p><p>　　UPOV協(xié)定是最初由比利時(shí)、法國、德國、意大利和荷蘭的全權(quán)代表簽署，并且在以后的時(shí)間里仍然歡迎新的成員簽署加入。同樣簽字的還有丹麥、瑞士和英國。在認(rèn)清植物新品種是增強(qiáng)農(nóng)業(yè)和促進(jìn)整體經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的重要武器后，簽署UPOV協(xié)定的國家們希望對(duì)可持續(xù)的植物育種提供激勵(lì)。他們的目標(biāo)是以明確定義并獲得國際社會(huì)協(xié)調(diào)一致的原則

7、，來保證育種者擁有對(duì)其新品種精神和物質(zhì)上的權(quán)利。在UPOV協(xié)定之下，為獲得對(duì)新品種的保護(hù)，該新品中必須滿足下面三個(gè)技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)：</p><p>　　其必須與現(xiàn)有品種明確區(qū)分開</p><p>　　同一品種必須充分一致</p><p>　　在持續(xù)繁殖生產(chǎn)之后其根本特點(diǎn)必須始終保持穩(wěn)定</p><p>　　此外，該品種還必須歸屬于某一種類。保護(hù)即意

8、味著任何對(duì)新品種繁育技術(shù)和材料的商業(yè)化必須經(jīng)由育種者授權(quán)批準(zhǔn)。</p><p>　　在三個(gè)正式文件由英國、瑞士和德國提出以后，UPOV協(xié)定正式在1968年8月10日生效。以上便是UPOV的起源，該組織選擇日內(nèi)瓦作為其總部。</p><p>　　1972年的附加法案</p><p>　　UPOV協(xié)定在第27條款聲言：改動(dòng)案必須定期檢查，以提高該組織的運(yùn)作效率，為此，每

9、五年就要開會(huì)一次，除非理事會(huì)取消了會(huì)議。于是對(duì)協(xié)定的第一次修訂就在1972年發(fā)生了。</p><p>　　經(jīng)驗(yàn)顯示，因組織的經(jīng)費(fèi)開支帶來的費(fèi)用分?jǐn)倖栴}需要完善一下。根據(jù)第26條款第二條，組織的成員國被分成三個(gè)等級(jí)，相當(dāng)于一級(jí)進(jìn)貢者，三級(jí)進(jìn)貢者和五級(jí)進(jìn)貢者。1972年11月的外交會(huì)議，目的就是引進(jìn)一種五級(jí)的進(jìn)貢系統(tǒng)，取代原先的三級(jí)，同時(shí)授權(quán)理事會(huì)有權(quán)決定哪些國家可以只承擔(dān)0.5個(gè)進(jìn)貢者的責(zé)任。</p>

10、<p>　　這個(gè)額外的法案在1977年2月11日年正式生效。在那時(shí)，一個(gè)新的協(xié)議修正案又在籌劃之中了。</p><p><b>　　1978年修正案</b></p><p>　　在1973年成員國們意識(shí)到還是有必要對(duì)協(xié)定的實(shí)際的條例修訂一下。在UPOV理事會(huì)的支持之下做了大量的準(zhǔn)備工作之后，在1978年再次召集了一次外交會(huì)議。在遍撒請(qǐng)?zhí)?，聚攏了10個(gè)成

11、員國和27個(gè)非成員國，分別是阿根廷、澳大利亞、孟加拉、巴西、保加利亞、加拿大、芬蘭、匈牙利、伊朗、伊拉克、象牙海岸、日本、利比亞、盧森堡、墨西哥、摩洛哥、新西蘭、挪威、巴拿馬、秘魯、沙特、塞內(nèi)加爾、西班牙、泰國、美國、南斯拉夫，會(huì)議在10月23日舉行。會(huì)議采用了10個(gè)成員國一致通過的修正文本和兩個(gè)提議。</p><p>　　最重要的改動(dòng)案牽涉到UPOV作為一個(gè)政府間組織的身份。UPOV被授予合法的身份以及在各成員

12、國境域內(nèi)為達(dá)成目標(biāo)喝履行職責(zé)必要的權(quán)利，同時(shí)也允許他和瑞士聯(lián)邦一同進(jìn)入總部協(xié)議。</p><p>　　另外的協(xié)議旨在方便非成員國接觸UPOV。同時(shí)在第37條款內(nèi)增加了一個(gè)例外，就是允許美國保留其二元體系，該二院體系旨在對(duì)新品種繁衍方式的應(yīng)用領(lǐng)域進(jìn)行保護(hù)和分類。</p><p>　　1978年的修訂文本最終和1961年起早的那份相差有限。對(duì)于原來協(xié)議成員國，一條重要的增補(bǔ)條例是針對(duì)藤本植物和

13、樹木及二者的根莖，原先在不損害其新穎性的前提下允許在國外銷售4年，現(xiàn)在延長為6年。</p><p>　　有關(guān)優(yōu)先權(quán)的條例也完善了。針對(duì)不同作物種類的規(guī)則也得到修訂，當(dāng)然根本的原則還是不能變的。</p><p>　　原先由瑞士聯(lián)邦政府確立、并與牽涉其中的聯(lián)盟取得一致的，用于管理UPOV和WIPO之間技術(shù)和管理合作之程序的相關(guān)規(guī)定，如今被廢。所幸合作本身并未受影響。眼下相關(guān)合作事宜由在1982

14、年11月26日所簽署的一份文件來統(tǒng)一管理。根據(jù)該文件，WIPO要提供UPOV以后勤支持來應(yīng)對(duì)管理紊亂。該文件同時(shí)授權(quán)UPOV理事會(huì)任命WIPO的總負(fù)責(zé)人來擔(dān)任UPOV的總秘書長。最終，依照主要的根本原則，WIPO負(fù)責(zé)管理全體職員和財(cái)政供應(yīng)來支持UOPV的人事和財(cái)務(wù)。</p><p><b>　　1991年法案</b></p><p>　　到了1991年，對(duì)UPOV協(xié)議

15、的實(shí)施已經(jīng)累積了近三十年的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，而且成員國們也認(rèn)識(shí)到了所取得的進(jìn)步。DNA的結(jié)構(gòu)在1953年宣布發(fā)現(xiàn)了。在1961年到1991年的這段時(shí)間里，相繼的科學(xué)發(fā)現(xiàn)接踵而至，這些發(fā)現(xiàn)極大地影響了植物品種的改善和對(duì)植物新品種的保護(hù)。在1991年根據(jù)經(jīng)驗(yàn)所發(fā)現(xiàn)的和科學(xué)技術(shù)進(jìn)步所帶來的各種挑戰(zhàn)，聯(lián)盟正在努力做出改變以應(yīng)對(duì)之。</p><p>　　UPOV協(xié)議的所有法案都有五個(gè)主要特征。它們是：</p><p

16、>　　獲得保護(hù)的確實(shí)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)（新穎性，品種種類，區(qū)別于在先品種，特征一致性和穩(wěn)定性）</p><p><b>　　保護(hù)范圍力求最小</b></p><p><b>　　保護(hù)期限力求最短</b></p><p>　　為獲得新品種保護(hù)所需提供的植物基因和品種力求最少</p><p>　　協(xié)議準(zhǔn)入規(guī)定，

17、國民待遇和優(yōu)先權(quán)的應(yīng)用</p><p>　　接下來的這一段為1991年的重要新增條例提供了一個(gè)整體概觀。</p><p>　　對(duì)于保護(hù)的確定技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，在1991年沒有重大變化。但在當(dāng)時(shí)卻引入了一系列重要詞匯的定義例如“種植者”和“新品種”，這種做法進(jìn)一步明確了UPOV的體系和促進(jìn)了其內(nèi)部組織之間的和諧。有關(guān)保護(hù)范圍、新品種和為育種者權(quán)力所保護(hù)的新品種的材質(zhì)的相關(guān)分類也都得到了確立。<

18、/p><p>　　在當(dāng)時(shí)的環(huán)境下，新品種的本質(zhì)衍生（EDV）的概念的得到重要發(fā)展：EDV暗示著一個(gè)由已受保護(hù)的品種所衍生出來的新品種一樣可以受到保護(hù)。這種權(quán)利的衍生取決于在先受保護(hù)品種的育種者授權(quán)與否。其目的在于為各種形式的育種提供激勵(lì)，同時(shí)也方便生物技術(shù)發(fā)明之間的整合，一般生物技術(shù)發(fā)明在應(yīng)用于育種時(shí)都會(huì)受到專利權(quán)的保護(hù)。</p><p>　　育種者權(quán)利的免責(zé)條款之范圍得到重新定義?，F(xiàn)在更具體

19、地聲明如果對(duì)新品種的相關(guān)的行為是用于實(shí)驗(yàn)?zāi)康幕蛩较吕镞M(jìn)行的并且非商用，那么此時(shí)是不受到育種者權(quán)利約束的。其后的免責(zé)條款與此相同，例如在私人花園里或是為了維生而種植。</p><p>　　對(duì)于使用受保護(hù)品種來繁育新品種的行為，在1978年和1991年的法案中均不要求得到育種者的授權(quán)，均屬于免責(zé)條例。所繁育出的新品種用于其他用途，比如銷售，也都不需要得到被利用的新品種的育種者的授權(quán)，不過在一些1978年和1991年的

20、法案中明確規(guī)定的情形下另當(dāng)別論。1991年的法案明確說倘若將新品種的本質(zhì)衍生品種用于商業(yè)，包括育種者授權(quán)在內(nèi)的其他東西還是必要的。</p><p>　　作為一個(gè)非強(qiáng)制性的育種權(quán)免責(zé)條例，一條針對(duì)農(nóng)用種子的條例被加入U(xiǎn)POV條例中，該新條例允許UPOV成員國在一定條件下，允許農(nóng)民依照合理的限制來保存一些種子，當(dāng)時(shí)也不能侵犯原育種者的合法權(quán)益。</p><p>　　對(duì)藤本植物和樹木的最短保護(hù)期

21、限被延長至25年，其他的作物也延長到20年。與本文的背景有特定相關(guān)的是那一個(gè)確定獲取新品種保護(hù)所要有的最少數(shù)量的作物基因和種類的條例。當(dāng)協(xié)議在1991年修訂的時(shí)候，一條具體的用來檢驗(yàn)育種者權(quán)利之應(yīng)用的規(guī)定引入到協(xié)議中，從而為育種者權(quán)利實(shí)施的檢驗(yàn)方法提供了廣泛的選擇，比如讓育種者與其他的權(quán)威機(jī)構(gòu)在國家的和國際的層面上開展合作。因此，在保護(hù)任何品種的植物基因和種類的新品種之時(shí)，沒有遇到特別困難的地方。相應(yīng)的，1991年的法案便要求對(duì)任何植物

22、基因和品種均可授予保護(hù)權(quán)利。保護(hù)聯(lián)盟內(nèi)現(xiàn)有成員要求在五年內(nèi)達(dá)成這一目標(biāo)，而新進(jìn)成員則要求在十年內(nèi)需要達(dá)標(biāo)。</p><p>　　考慮到未來還有新的成員加入到協(xié)議中來，一些新的方便政府間組織也加入到協(xié)議中來的條例也被提了出來。</p><p>　　外文資料翻譯譯文二：</p><p>　　植物育種權(quán)孕育勝者與敗者</p><p>　　植物育種者

23、權(quán)利（PBR）</p><p>　　植物育種者權(quán)利（PBR）廣泛應(yīng)用于經(jīng)合組織國家和一些發(fā)展中國家，但它充滿爭(zhēng)議。私營種子公司宣揚(yáng)該種權(quán)利因?yàn)樗梢源碳ぴ谥参镉N方面的創(chuàng)新。有些人則爭(zhēng)辯說該種權(quán)利會(huì)妨礙農(nóng)民的種子供應(yīng)，同時(shí)削弱植物的基因多樣性。在這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論中一個(gè)顯著的問題是目前對(duì)PBR會(huì)產(chǎn)生的影響還缺乏觀察得來的證據(jù)。最近一個(gè)研究組織在拉丁美洲收集一些相關(guān)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，其中重心放在阿根廷。</p><

24、p>　　在1995年早期，有27個(gè)國家通過立法強(qiáng)化PBR的保護(hù)并且成為UPOV的成員。除了上述國家外，津巴布韋和智利同樣也有PBR的操作系統(tǒng)，并且由于新的關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)定的訂立，越來越多的國家也會(huì)跟著做。雖然許多國家均在考慮PBR，但是其社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)方面帶來的影響仍未可知。除了一兩個(gè)關(guān)于PBR的研究在美國開展過以外，其他再?zèng)]有評(píng)估性的研究開展過。</p><p>　　眼下的情況促使IICA組織和阿姆斯特丹大學(xué)與荷蘭連

25、同研究者一起在五個(gè)拉美國家開展研究，收集PBR在拉美開展過程中的爭(zhēng)論和影響方面的信息。該研究在1994年開展，試圖在以下四個(gè)方面尋找可證實(shí)PBR影響的數(shù)據(jù)：</p><p>　　私營種子公司在育種方面的投資</p><p>　　作物材質(zhì)的國際間轉(zhuǎn)讓</p><p><b>　　對(duì)公共胚質(zhì)的易得性</b></p><p>

26、<b>　　農(nóng)民中種子的傳播</b></p><p><b>　　PBR在拉美</b></p><p>　　阿根廷，智利和烏拉圭在15到20年前就建立了PBR保護(hù)體系。哥倫比亞則在1994年頒布了PBR法律，當(dāng)時(shí)墨西哥快要引入PBR。在這五個(gè)國家中，許許多多利益集團(tuán)都為PBR搖旗吶喊，他們分別是：</p><p>　　本地

27、種子公司，他們希望保護(hù)新品種來獲得專利費(fèi)。</p><p>　　本地的花果培育者，他們希望以PBR的實(shí)現(xiàn)為契機(jī)，多多接觸國外育種生產(chǎn)線和國外新品種</p><p>　　本地的公共農(nóng)業(yè)研究組織，他們正面臨巨大預(yù)算縮減，于是大力尋找財(cái)源</p><p>　　國外種子公司的子公司，他們希望保護(hù)PBR從而保護(hù)他們的育種生產(chǎn)線和新品種，從而打入拉美市場(chǎng)</p>

28、<p>　　國外政府，他們希望全面加強(qiáng)在拉美的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)。</p><p>　　在哥倫比亞和墨西哥，國外政治勢(shì)力賣力。比如墨西哥，要加入北美自由貿(mào)易體系就必須先引入PBR。反對(duì)聲音主要來自公共領(lǐng)域的研究者和一些與小農(nóng)一起奮斗的非政府組織，但總的來說反對(duì)者勢(shì)單力薄。在大多數(shù)國家中愚氓大眾并未被告知有關(guān)在種業(yè)領(lǐng)域?qū)嵭兄R(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)的計(jì)劃機(jī)器潛在影響。</p><p><b>

29、;　　輸家和贏家</b></p><p>　　PBR在拉美的實(shí)行時(shí)間還太短以至于不足以得出深刻的結(jié)論，無法了解PBR在這些國家未來究竟會(huì)如何。然而還是有一些暗示信號(hào)，顯示我們可以如何找到在PBR保護(hù)之下的贏家和輸家。首先，種業(yè)行業(yè)本身應(yīng)當(dāng)躋身贏家之列。PBR保護(hù)使種業(yè)公司控制其新品種的衍生并又獲得額外收益。至于這是否刺激他們更多地投資種業(yè)目前尚未可知。許多其他宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)因素將發(fā)揮舉足輕重的作用。種業(yè)全行

30、業(yè)總體上的盈利提升會(huì)促使更多的私人進(jìn)入該領(lǐng)域。那些有條件在公開的國際研究中心得到胚質(zhì)的育種著獲利最多，因?yàn)樗麄兯度氲呐cPBR相對(duì)無關(guān)，但是其產(chǎn)出卻受到保護(hù)。根據(jù)阿根廷經(jīng)的情況，跨國公司未必比本地公司在PBR保護(hù)下賺得多。然而打著知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的旗號(hào)方便人們動(dòng)不動(dòng)打官司來解決問題。本地公司和大型的跨國公司對(duì)簿公堂的時(shí)候顯然后者占便宜。保護(hù)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)能力的大小實(shí)際上成為權(quán)力擁有者財(cái)力大小的反映。</p><p>　　其次，

31、出口作物的培育者，比如鮮花和水果，可能最初是從PBR中獲利的，因?yàn)橛袡C(jī)會(huì)得到國外的新品種。但是這些好處有可能被育種者向拉美牌照持有者提出的的限制條款所抵消，因?yàn)橛糜诔隹诘幕ü麑?duì)于出口市場(chǎng)的生產(chǎn)來說是個(gè)打壓。培育者能不能占便宜取決于他們能不能和出口市場(chǎng)的牌照持有者好好合作。</p><p>　　再次，公共機(jī)構(gòu)可以從大公司的專利費(fèi)中占一點(diǎn)便宜，因?yàn)楹笳邔⑻峁┕矙C(jī)構(gòu)急需的資金來幫忙查看是否有違法行為。獲取傳統(tǒng)的公共胚

32、質(zhì)的經(jīng)費(fèi)被嚴(yán)格限制。其影響對(duì)公共和私人育種者的影響尚未可知。</p><p>　　最后，可能是農(nóng)民最終為PBR買單，盡管并非必要。PBR會(huì)使得種子更貴，因?yàn)镻BR主要就是打擊非官方的種子流通交易。這樣會(huì)逼著農(nóng)民每年在自己的田里省下更多的種子，而這種行為目前在拉美還是為法律允許的。在引入PBR之后，原本的留存種子的權(quán)利變成非法行為，被視為特權(quán)，這種留存種子的行為最終要留待行政力量裁決，并且還是會(huì)遭到限制。公共機(jī)構(gòu)研

33、究方向的轉(zhuǎn)變一樣會(huì)影響到農(nóng)民。這些機(jī)構(gòu)在某些作物上遵循商業(yè)慣例來辦事僅僅是為了維護(hù)非商用作為的育種能力呢？還是說他們經(jīng)費(fèi)上的縮減導(dǎo)致他們對(duì)商業(yè)上不具吸引力的作物失去興趣？</p><p><b>　　附件2：外文原文一</b></p><p>　　Progress of plant variety protection based on the Internation

34、al Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention)</p><p>　　The adoption of the UPOV Convention and its revisions in 1972, 1978 and 1991</p><p>　　The ?rst sentence of

35、the preamble to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, signed in Paris on December 2, 1961, reads ‘‘Convinced of the importance attaching to the protection of new varieties of plants,

36、 not only for the development of agriculture in their territory, but also for safeguarding the interests of breeders, . . .’’. Plant breeders have indeed contributed a great deal to the development of agriculture. In Fra

37、nce, for example, the average wheat yie</p><p>　　? International Association of Plant Breeders for the Protection of Plants Varieties (ASSINSEL).</p><p>　　? International Association for the Pro

38、tection of Industrial Property (AIPPI).</p><p>　　? International Community of Breeders of Asexually Reproduced Ornamental Varieties (CIOPORA), which later became the International Community of Breeders of As

39、exually Reproduced Fruit Tree and Ornamental Varieties (CIOPORA).</p><p>　　? International Federation of Seed Trade (FIS).</p><p>　　The UPOV Convention was signed by plenipotentiaries from Belgi

40、um, France, Germany, Italy and The Netherlands and, during the following year when it remained open for signature, it was also signed by Denmark, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.</p><p>　　In recognition o

41、f the fact that new varieties of plants are a powerful tool to enhance agricultural and overall economic development, the States party to the UPOV Convention wished to provide incentives for sustainable plant breeding. T

42、heir aim was to guarantee the moral and material rights of breeders in respect of their varieties, in accordance with clearly de?ned and internationally harmonized principles.</p><p>　　Under the UPOV Convent

43、ion, in order to obtain protection of a new variety, it is required to ful?ll the following three technical criteria:</p><p>　　? It must be clearly distinguishable from existing varieties.</p><p&g

44、t;　　? It must be sufficiently uniform.</p><p>　　? It must be stable in its essential characteristics after repeated reproduction or propagation.</p><p>　　Furthermore, it must have a suitable den

45、omination.‘‘Protection’’ means that any commercialization of propagating material of the variety is subject to the breeders authorization.</p><p>　　The UPOV Convention entered into effect on August 10, 1968,

46、 when the ?rst three instruments of rati?cation were deposited by the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany. This was the origin of UPOV, which chose Geneva for its headquarters.</p>

47、<p>　　The Additional Act of 1972</p><p>　　The UPOV Convention provided, in its Article 27, that it was ‘‘reviewed periodically with a view to the introduction of amendments designed to improve the worki

48、ng of the Union’’ and that, unless the Council decided otherwise, ‘‘for this purpose, conferences shall be held every ?ve years […]’’. The ?rst revision was thus to take place in 1972.</p><p>　　Experience ha

49、d already shown that the distribution of the ?nancial burden caused by the expenses of the Union needed re?nement. According to Article 26(2), the member States were divided into three classes, corresponding to one, thre

50、e and ?ve contribution units. The purpose of the Diplomatic Conference that was held in November 1972 was, therefore, to introduce a ?ve-class contribution system, with a span of contributions rising continuously from on

51、e to ?ve, the Council being empowered to author</p><p>　　The Additional Act entered into force on February 11, 1977. By that time, the work on a new revision of the Convention was already underway. </p>

52、;<p>　　The 1978 revision</p><p>　　The member States of UPOV had already realized in 1973 that there was a need to revise the substantive provisions of the Convention. After extensive preparatory work

53、under the auspices of the Council of UPOV, a Diplomatic Conference was convened in October 1978.Invitations were distributed widely and, together with the ten members of the Union, the following twenty-seven non-member S

54、tates took part in the Conference:Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria,Canada, Finland, Hungary, Ira</p><p>　　1978, the Conference adopted a revised text and two recommendations by unanimous vo

55、te of the 10 member States.</p><p>　　The most important amendment concerned the status of UPOV as an intergovernmental organization. UPOV was endowed with legal personality and also, on the territory of each

56、 member of the Union, the legal capacity necessary to achieve this aim and carry out its functions, and it was provided that it would also enter into a Headquarters Agreement with the Swiss Confederation.</p><

57、p>　　Other amendments were designed to facilitate the accession of States that were not yet members. An exception was incorporated into Article 37 to allow the United States of America to retain their dual system of pr

58、otection and the demarcation of the areas of application according to the manner of propagation of the variety.</p><p>　　The revised text adopted in 1978 ultimately differs little from the one drawn up in 19

59、61. For the ‘‘old’’ member States, an essential amendment was the prolongation</p><p>　　from four to six years of the period during which a variety could be marketed abroad without its novelty being affected

60、, in the case of vines, trees and their rootstocks.</p><p>　　The provision on priority was re?ned. Rules on variety denominations were also revised, although the fundamental principles remained unchanged.<

61、;/p><p>　　The provision under which the procedures for technical and administrative cooperation between UPOV and BIRPI (which in the meantime had become the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)) were

62、 to be governed by rules established by the Government of the Swiss Confederation, in agreement with the Unions concerned, was deleted. The cooperation itself was not thereby affected, however. It is at present governed

63、by an agreement, signed on November 26, 1982. According to that agreement, WIPO </p><p>　　The 1978 Act came into force on November 8, 1981.</p><p>　　The 1991 Act</p><p>　　By 1991, s

64、ome thirty years of experience had been gained in the application of the UPOV Convention and members of the Union were aware of some improvements that could be made. The discovery of the structure of DNA was announced in

65、 1953. During the period 1961–1991, consequential scienti?c discoveries and technological developments took place, which had profound implications for plant improvement and also for plant variety protection. Each of the

66、changes made in 1991 was to deal with a challenge </p><p>　　All Acts of the UPOV Convention have ?ve main features. They established the:</p><p>　　? standard criteria for protection (novelty, va

67、riety denomination, distinctness, uniformity and stability);</p><p>　　? minimum scope of protection;</p><p>　　? minimum duration of protection;</p><p>　　? minimum number of plant ge

68、nera and species for which variety protection must be provided;</p><p>　　? rules for accession to the Convention, national treatment and priority of applications.</p><p>　　The following section

69、provides a general overview on important amendments brought about by the 1991 Act.</p><p>　　With regard to the standard criteria for protection, no major changes were made in 1991. However, it was decided to

70、 introduce a number of de?nitions, among them de?nitions of ‘‘breeder’’ and ‘‘variety’’, which further clari?ed the UPOV system and contributed to harmonization in its operation.</p><p>　　Important clari?cat

71、ions were also made with regard to the scope of protection, to the varieties and to the material of these varieties covered by a breeders right.</p><p>　　In that context, the concept of Essentially Derived V

72、arieties (EDV) was developed: The EDV concept implies that a variety which is deemed to be essentially derived from a protected variety (the initial variety) may qualify for protection. Its exploitation, however, is subj

73、ect to the authorization of the breeder of the initial variety. The aim is to provide suitable incentives to all forms of plant breeding, thereby also facilitating the integration of biotechnological inventions, which ma

74、y be pr</p><p>　　In respect of the exceptions to the breeders right, their scope was rede?ned. It is now speci?ed that the relevant acts done for experimental purposes or done privately and for non-commercia

75、l purposes are not subject to the breeders right. The latter exceptions may be relevant, for example, in relation to subsistence farming or to private gardening.</p><p>　　With regard to the use of a protecte

76、d variety for breeding other varieties, the authorization of the breeder of the protected variety is not required in either the 1978 Act or in the 1991 Act (‘‘breeders exemption’’). In addition, acts done with these vari

77、eties (e.g. marketing) do not require the authorization of the breeder of the protected variety except for the circumstances speci?ed in the 1978 Act or in the 1991 Act. The 1991 Act speci?es that the authorization is re

78、quired, inter alia, for </p><p>　　As an optional exception to the breeders right, a provision on farm-saved seed was introduced which allows UPOV members to permit farmers, under certain conditions, to save

79、seed within reasonable limits and in a way which safeguards the legitimate interests of the breeder.</p><p>　　The minimum duration of protection was extended to 25 years for varieties of trees and vines and

80、to 20 years for other varieties. Of particular relevance in the context of this article is the provision on the minimum number of plant genera and species whose varieties must be protected. When the Convention was revise

81、d in 1991, speci?c provisions on the examination of the application for a breeders right were introduced which offered a broad range of options for variety testing involving cooperati</p><p>　　In respect of

82、the accession of future members, new provisions were adopted to allow certain intergovernmental organizations to become party to the Convention.</p><p><b>　　外文原文二：</b></p><p>　　Plant

83、 Breeders' Rights Create Winners and Losers</p><p>　　The plant breeders' rights (PBR) system is in use in most OECD countries as well as in some developing countries, but it is controversial. Private

84、 seed firms advocate PBR as it would stimulate innovation in plant breeding. Others argue that PBR may hamper the seed supply to farmers and may decrease genetic diversity. A notable problem in the controversy is that em

85、pirical evidence on the impact of PBR is lacking. A recent study has attempted to collect some experiences in Latin America, with an e</p><p>　　In early 1995, 27 countries had PBR legislation enforced and we

86、re member of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). Apart from these countries, Zimbabwe and Chile also have an operational PBR system, and, due to the new GATT agreement, many more

87、 countries will follow suit. Even though the PBR system is being considered by many countries, knowledge about its socioeconomic effects is poor. Apart from one or two studies on the effects of PBR in the USA, no ass<

88、;/p><p>　　PBR in Latin America </p><p>　　Argentina, Chile and Uruguay established PBR protection some 15 to 20 years ago. Colombia promulgated a PBR law in 1994, while Mexico is on the verge of int

89、roducing it. In all of these five countries a variety of interests groups have been advocating PBR: (1) domestic seed companies which want to protect their new plant varieties in order to obtain royalty income; (2) domes

90、tic cultivators of fruit and cut flowers for whom PBR protection is a condition to improve access to breeding lines and vari</p><p>　　Winners and losers</p><p>　　The period that PBR has been enf

91、orced in the Latin American countries is too short to draw farreaching conclusions about the impact of PBR in these countries. There are enough indications, however, that give a clue about where the winners and losers o

92、f PBR protection can be found. Firstly, the seed industry will presumably be among the winners. PBR protection enables the companies to control the exploitation of their varieties and to obtain additional income. Wh