外文翻译----基于植物新品种保护联盟（UPOV）协议的保护进展.docx

浙江工业大学法学院毕业论文外文资料翻译学院（系）： 法学院 专 业： 知识产权二专业09年级 姓 名： 魏爽 学 号： 200905911027 外文出处：World Patent Information 27 (2005) 232243； Biotechnology and Development Monitor , No.23，2005附 件 1.外文资料翻译译文；2.外文原文 指导教师评语：该同学的外文翻译内容与论文主题相关、中文翻译基本通顺，法学术语运用较为恰当，为论文撰写起到一定参考作用，基本符合外文翻译要求。 签名： 钱 江 2012年2月20 日附件1：外文资料翻译译文一：基于植物新品种保护联盟（UPOV）协议的保护进展植物新品种保护联盟（UPOV）惯例的适用及其1972，1978和1991年的修订该国际协定的序言的第一句是在1961年12月2日，在巴黎写下，内容是：“我们深知保护植物新品种的重要性，不仅是对于农业发展而言，对于育种者的切身利益也是至关重要”植物育种者确实对农业的发展贡献良多。举个例子，在法国，每公顷平均小麦产量从1910年的1.3公吨跃升到2002年的7公吨。在美国，每公顷玉米产量从1940年1.8公吨跃升到2000年8.5公吨，在南非，每公顷玉米产量从1950年1吨跃升到2001年2.7吨，小麦产量从0.5吨跃升到2.4吨。依据不同的作物和地理位置，因为植物遗传基因的改进使得产量平均有30%到60%的涨幅。在对法国政府的倡议进行了大量的准备工作之后，终于在1961年12月2日的外交会议上修成正果，UPOV得以签署和实行。以下13个欧洲国家加入该联盟：奥地利，比利时，丹麦，芬兰，德国，法国，意大利，荷兰，挪威，西班牙，瑞典，瑞士和英国，外加欧洲经济共同体和国际知识产权保护局，联合国粮农组织和经合组织，还有以下的非政府组织：ASSINSEL，AIPPI，CIOPORA，CIOPORA，FIS。UPOV协定是最初由比利时、法国、德国、意大利和荷兰的全权代表签署，并且在以后的时间里仍然欢迎新的成员签署加入。同样签字的还有丹麦、瑞士和英国。在认清植物新品种是增强农业和促进整体经济发展的重要武器后，签署UPOV协定的国家们希望对可持续的植物育种提供激励。他们的目标是以明确定义并获得国际社会协调一致的原则，来保证育种者拥有对其新品种精神和物质上的权利。在UPOV协定之下，为获得对新品种的保护，该新品中必须满足下面三个技术标准：1、 其必须与现有品种明确区分开2、 同一品种必须充分一致3、 在持续繁殖生产之后其根本特点必须始终保持稳定此外，该品种还必须归属于某一种类。保护即意味着任何对新品种繁育技术和材料的商业化必须经由育种者授权批准。在三个正式文件由英国、瑞士和德国提出以后，UPOV协定正式在1968年8月10日生效。以上便是UPOV的起源，该组织选择日内瓦作为其总部。1972年的附加法案UPOV协定在第27条款声言：改动案必须定期检查，以提高该组织的运作效率，为此，每五年就要开会一次，除非理事会取消了会议。于是对协定的第一次修订就在1972年发生了。经验显示，因组织的经费开支带来的费用分摊问题需要完善一下。根据第26条款第二条，组织的成员国被分成三个等级，相当于一级进贡者，三级进贡者和五级进贡者。1972年11月的外交会议，目的就是引进一种五级的进贡系统，取代原先的三级，同时授权理事会有权决定哪些国家可以只承担0.5个进贡者的责任。这个额外的法案在1977年2月11日年正式生效。在那时，一个新的协议修正案又在筹划之中了。1978年修正案在1973年成员国们意识到还是有必要对协定的实际的条例修订一下。在UPOV理事会的支持之下做了大量的准备工作之后，在1978年再次召集了一次外交会议。在遍撒请帖之后，聚拢了10个成员国和27个非成员国，分别是阿根廷、澳大利亚、孟加拉、巴西、保加利亚、加拿大、芬兰、匈牙利、伊朗、伊拉克、象牙海岸、日本、利比亚、卢森堡、墨西哥、摩洛哥、新西兰、挪威、巴拿马、秘鲁、沙特、塞内加尔、西班牙、泰国、美国、南斯拉夫，会议在10月23日举行。会议采用了10个成员国一致通过的修正文本和两个提议。最重要的改动案牵涉到UPOV作为一个政府间组织的身份。UPOV被授予合法的身份以及在各成员国境域内为达成目标喝履行职责必要的权利，同时也允许他和瑞士联邦一同进入总部协议。另外的协议旨在方便非成员国接触UPOV。同时在第37条款内增加了一个例外，就是允许美国保留其二元体系，该二院体系旨在对新品种繁衍方式的应用领域进行保护和分类。1978年的修订文本最终和1961年起早的那份相差有限。对于原来协议成员国，一条重要的增补条例是针对藤本植物和树木及二者的根茎，原先在不损害其新颖性的前提下允许在国外销售4年，现在延长为6年。有关优先权的条例也完善了。针对不同作物种类的规则也得到修订，当然根本的原则还是不能变的。原先由瑞士联邦政府确立、并与牵涉其中的联盟取得一致的，用于管理UPOV和WIPO之间技术和管理合作之程序的相关规定，如今被废。所幸合作本身并未受影响。眼下相关合作事宜由在1982年11月26日所签署的一份文件来统一管理。根据该文件，WIPO要提供UPOV以后勤支持来应对管理紊乱。该文件同时授权UPOV理事会任命WIPO的总负责人来担任UPOV的总秘书长。最终，依照主要的根本原则，WIPO负责管理全体职员和财政供应来支持UOPV的人事和财务。1991年法案到了1991年，对UPOV协议的实施已经累积了近三十年的经验，而且成员国们也认识到了所取得的进步。DNA的结构在1953年宣布发现了。在1961年到1991年的这段时间里，相继的科学发现接踵而至，这些发现极大地影响了植物品种的改善和对植物新品种的保护。在1991年根据经验所发现的和科学技术进步所带来的各种挑战，联盟正在努力做出改变以应对之。UPOV协议的所有法案都有五个主要特征。它们是：1、 获得保护的确实标准（新颖性，品种种类，区别于在先品种，特征一致性和稳定性）2、 保护范围力求最小3、 保护期限力求最短4、 为获得新品种保护所需提供的植物基因和品种力求最少5、 协议准入规定，国民待遇和优先权的应用接下来的这一段为1991年的重要新增条例提供了一个整体概观。对于保护的确定技术标准，在1991年没有重大变化。但在当时却引入了一系列重要词汇的定义例如“种植者”和“新品种”，这种做法进一步明确了UPOV的体系和促进了其内部组织之间的和谐。有关保护范围、新品种和为育种者权力所保护的新品种的材质的相关分类也都得到了确立。在当时的环境下，新品种的本质衍生（EDV）的概念的得到重要发展：EDV暗示着一个由已受保护的品种所衍生出来的新品种一样可以受到保护。这种权利的衍生取决于在先受保护品种的育种者授权与否。其目的在于为各种形式的育种提供激励，同时也方便生物技术发明之间的整合，一般生物技术发明在应用于育种时都会受到专利权的保护。育种者权利的免责条款之范围得到重新定义。现在更具体地声明如果对新品种的相关的行为是用于实验目的或私下里进行的并且非商用，那么此时是不受到育种者权利约束的。其后的免责条款与此相同，例如在私人花园里或是为了维生而种植。对于使用受保护品种来繁育新品种的行为，在1978年和1991年的法案中均不要求得到育种者的授权，均属于免责条例。所繁育出的新品种用于其他用途，比如销售，也都不需要得到被利用的新品种的育种者的授权，不过在一些1978年和1991年的法案中明确规定的情形下另当别论。1991年的法案明确说倘若将新品种的本质衍生品种用于商业，包括育种者授权在内的其他东西还是必要的。作为一个非强制性的育种权免责条例，一条针对农用种子的条例被加入UPOV条例中，该新条例允许UPOV成员国在一定条件下，允许农民依照合理的限制来保存一些种子，当时也不能侵犯原育种者的合法权益。对藤本植物和树木的最短保护期限被延长至25年，其他的作物也延长到20年。与本文的背景有特定相关的是那一个确定获取新品种保护所要有的最少数量的作物基因和种类的条例。当协议在1991年修订的时候，一条具体的用来检验育种者权利之应用的规定引入到协议中，从而为育种者权利实施的检验方法提供了广泛的选择，比如让育种者与其他的权威机构在国家的和国际的层面上开展合作。因此，在保护任何品种的植物基因和种类的新品种之时，没有遇到特别困难的地方。相应的，1991年的法案便要求对任何植物基因和品种均可授予保护权利。保护联盟内现有成员要求在五年内达成这一目标，而新进成员则要求在十年内需要达标。考虑到未来还有新的成员加入到协议中来，一些新的方便政府间组织也加入到协议中来的条例也被提了出来。外文资料翻译译文二：植物育种权孕育胜者与败者植物育种者权利（PBR）植物育种者权利（PBR）广泛应用于经合组织国家和一些发展中国家，但它充满争议。私营种子公司宣扬该种权利因为它可以刺激在植物育种方面的创新。有些人则争辩说该种权利会妨碍农民的种子供应，同时削弱植物的基因多样性。在这场争论中一个显著的问题是目前对PBR会产生的影响还缺乏观察得来的证据。最近一个研究组织在拉丁美洲收集一些相关的经验，其中重心放在阿根廷。在1995年早期，有27个国家通过立法强化PBR的保护并且成为UPOV的成员。除了上述国家外，津巴布韦和智利同样也有PBR的操作系统，并且由于新的关贸总协定的订立，越来越多的国家也会跟着做。虽然许多国家均在考虑PBR，但是其社会经济方面带来的影响仍未可知。除了一两个关于PBR的研究在美国开展过以外，其他再没有评估性的研究开展过。眼下的情况促使IICA组织和阿姆斯特丹大学与荷兰连同研究者一起在五个拉美国家开展研究，收集PBR在拉美开展过程中的争论和影响方面的信息。该研究在1994年开展，试图在以下四个方面寻找可证实PBR影响的数据：1、 私营种子公司在育种方面的投资2、 作物材质的国际间转让3、 对公共胚质的易得性4、 农民中种子的传播PBR在拉美阿根廷，智利和乌拉圭在15到20年前就建立了PBR保护体系。哥伦比亚则在1994年颁布了PBR法律，当时墨西哥快要引入PBR。在这五个国家中，许许多多利益集团都为PBR摇旗呐喊，他们分别是：1、 本地种子公司，他们希望保护新品种来获得专利费。2、 本地的花果培育者，他们希望以PBR的实现为契机，多多接触国外育种生产线和国外新品种3、 本地的公共农业研究组织，他们正面临巨大预算缩减，于是大力寻找财源4、 国外种子公司的子公司，他们希望保护PBR从而保护他们的育种生产线和新品种，从而打入拉美市场5、 国外政府，他们希望全面加强在拉美的知识产权保护。在哥伦比亚和墨西哥，国外政治势力卖力。比如墨西哥，要加入北美自由贸易体系就必须先引入PBR。反对声音主要来自公共领域的研究者和一些与小农一起奋斗的非政府组织，但总的来说反对者势单力薄。在大多数国家中愚氓大众并未被告知有关在种业领域实行知识产权保护的计划机器潜在影响。输家和赢家PBR在拉美的实行时间还太短以至于不足以得出深刻的结论，无法了解PBR在这些国家未来究竟会如何。然而还是有一些暗示信号，显示我们可以如何找到在PBR保护之下的赢家和输家。首先，种业行业本身应当跻身赢家之列。PBR保护使种业公司控制其新品种的衍生并又获得额外收益。至于这是否刺激他们更多地投资种业目前尚未可知。许多其他宏观经济因素将发挥举足轻重的作用。种业全行业总体上的盈利提升会促使更多的私人进入该领域。那些有条件在公开的国际研究中心得到胚质的育种着获利最多，因为他们所投入的与PBR相对无关，但是其产出却受到保护。根据阿根廷经的情况，跨国公司未必比本地公司在PBR保护下赚得多。然而打着知识产权的旗号方便人们动不动打官司来解决问题。本地公司和大型的跨国公司对簿公堂的时候显然后者占便宜。保护知识产权能力的大小实际上成为权力拥有者财力大小的反映。其次，出口作物的培育者，比如鲜花和水果，可能最初是从PBR中获利的，因为有机会得到国外的新品种。但是这些好处有可能被育种者向拉美牌照持有者提出的的限制条款所抵消，因为用于出口的花果对于出口市场的生产来说是个打压。培育者能不能占便宜取决于他们能不能和出口市场的牌照持有者好好合作。再次，公共机构可以从大公司的专利费中占一点便宜，因为后者将提供公共机构急需的资金来帮忙查看是否有违法行为。获取传统的公共胚质的经费被严格限制。其影响对公共和私人育种者的影响尚未可知。最后，可能是农民最终为PBR买单，尽管并非必要。PBR会使得种子更贵，因为PBR主要就是打击非官方的种子流通交易。这样会逼着农民每年在自己的田里省下更多的种子，而这种行为目前在拉美还是为法律允许的。在引入PBR之后，原本的留存种子的权利变成非法行为，被视为特权，这种留存种子的行为最终要留待行政力量裁决，并且还是会遭到限制。公共机构研究方向的转变一样会影响到农民。这些机构在某些作物上遵循商业惯例来办事仅仅是为了维护非商用作为的育种能力呢？还是说他们经费上的缩减导致他们对商业上不具吸引力的作物失去兴趣？附件2：外文原文一Progress of plant variety protection based on the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention)The adoption of the UPOV Convention and its revisions in 1972, 1978 and 1991The rst sentence of 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, 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 France, for example, the average wheat yield has jumped from 1.3 metric tons in 1910 to 7 tons per hectare in 2002. In the United States of America (USA), maize yield has grown from 1.8 metric tons per hectare in 1940 to 8.5 tons per hectare in 2000; in South Africa, the average maize yield has grown from 1 ton per hectare in 1950 to 2.7 tons per hectare in 2001 and in wheat from 0.5 tons per hectare in 1950 to 2.4 tons per hectare in 2001.4 It is generally recognized that 3060% of that increase, according to the crop and the location, is due to genetic improvement, i.e. breeding.5 After extensive preparatory work at the initiative of the French Government, a Diplomatic Conference nished its work on December 2, 1961, with the adoption and signature of the UPOV Convention. The following thirteen European States participated: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, together with the European Economic Community (EEC), the United International Bureau for the Protection of Industrial, Literary and Artistic Property (BIRPI), which later became the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the following four non-governmental organizations: International Association of Plant Breeders for the Protection of Plants Varieties (ASSINSEL). International Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (AIPPI). International Community of Breeders of Asexually Reproduced Ornamental Varieties (CIOPORA), which later became the International Community of Breeders of Asexually Reproduced Fruit Tree and Ornamental Varieties (CIOPORA). International Federation of Seed Trade (FIS).The UPOV Convention was signed by plenipotentiaries from Belgium, 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.In recognition of 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. Their aim was to guarantee the moral and material rights of breeders in respect of their varieties, in accordance with clearly dened and internationally harmonized principles. Under the UPOV Convention, in order to obtain protection of a new variety, it is required to fulll the following three technical criteria: It must be clearly distinguishable from existing varieties. It must be sufficiently uniform. It must be stable in its essential characteristics after repeated reproduction or propagation. Furthermore, it must have a suitable denomination.Protection means that any commercialization of propagating material of the variety is subject to the breeders authorization. The UPOV Convention entered into effect on August 10, 1968, when the rst three instruments of ratication 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.The Additional Act of 1972The UPOV Convention provided, in its Article 27, that it was reviewed periodically with a view to the introduction of amendments designed to improve the working 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. Experience had already shown that the distribution of the nancial burden caused by the expenses of the Union needed renement. According to Article 26(2), the member States were divided into three classes, corresponding to one, three 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 one to ve, the Council being empowered to authorize a State, under specied circumstances, to contribute half a unit only. 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. The 1978 revisionThe 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 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 States took part in the Conference:Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria,Canada, Finland, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Ivory,Coast, Japan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg,Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Norway, Panama,Peru, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Spain, Thailand, United States of America and Yugoslavia. On October 23,1978, the Conference adopted a revised text and two recommendations by unanimous vote of the 10 member States. 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 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. 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 protection and the demarcation of the areas of application according to the manner of propagation of the variety. The revised text adopted in 1978 ultimately differs little from the one drawn up in 1961. For the old member States, an essential amendment was the prolongationfrom four to six years of the period during which a variety could be marketed abroad without its novelty being affected, in the case of vines, trees and their rootstocks.The provision on priority was rened. Rules on variety denominations were also revised, although the fundamental principles remained unchanged. 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 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 by an agreement, signed on November 26, 1982. According to that agreement, WIPO provides UPOV with logistical support against indemnication. The agreement also provides that the Council of UPOV appoints the Director General of WIPO to the post of Secretary-General of UPOV. Finally, subject to certain general provisions, the WIPO rules governing staff status and nances apply mutatis mutandis to the staff and nances of UPOV. The 1978 Act came into force on November 8, 1981.The 1991 ActBy 1991, some 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 1953. During the period 19611991, consequential scientic discoveries and technological developments took place, which had profound implications for plant improvement and also for plant variety protection. Each of the changes made in 1991 was to deal with a challenge identied through experience or arising from scientic and technical progress.All Acts of the UPOV Convention have ve main features. They established the: standard criteria for protection (novelty, variety denomination, distinctness, uniformity and stability); minimum scope of protection; minimum duration of protection; minimum number of plant genera and species for which variety protection must be provided; rules for accession to the Convention, national treatment and priority of applications.The following section provides a general overview on important amendments brought about by the 1991 Act. With regard to the standard criteria for protection, no major changes were made in 1991. However, it was decided to introduce a number of denitions, among them denitions of breeder and variety, which further claried the UPOV system and contributed to harmonization in its operation. Important clarications 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.In that context, the concept of Essentially Derived Varieties (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 subject 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 may be protected by patents, into modern plant breeding. In respect of the exceptions to the breeders right, their scope was redened. It is now specied that the relevant acts done for experimental purposes or done privately and for non-commercial 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. With regard to the use of a protected 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 varieties (e.g. marketing) do not require the authorization of the breeder of the protected variety except for the circumstances specied in the 1978 Act or in the 1991 Act. The 1991 Act species that the authorization is required, inter alia, for the commercial exploitation of an essentially derived variety.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 seed within reasonable limits and in a way which safeguards the legitimate interests of the breeder. The minimum duration of protection was extended to 25 years for varieties of trees and vines and 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 revised in 1991, specic provisions on the examination of the application for a breeders right were introduced which offered a broad range of options for variety testing involving cooperation, for example, with breeders and other authorities on a national and international level. Thus, no particular diffculty was seen in providing protection for varieties of all plant genera and species. Accordingly, the 1991 Act requires the grant of protect