A Comprehensive Solution for Agriculture 4.0

  • Miguel Angel Rapela


This chapter contains a complete explanation of the system that is proposed as a solution. It begins with a description of the problem and argues that it was due to the application of models that responded to the noncooperative, competitive, and mainly zero-sum game theory, without any consideration for the existing relationships between all players. A solution based on a convex superadditive cooperative model of relationships among three sectors or players is proposed, and the balance and transfer of profits among them is presented in the form of a table. Mathematical formulas are provided to sustain the model.


Game theory Cooperative game theory Intellectual property rights Biotechnological inventions Plant genetic resources Balance and transfer Participant utilities 


  1. Aoki K (2009) Free seeds, not free beer: participatory plant breeding, OpenSource seeds, and acknowledging user innovation in agriculture. Fordham Law Rev 77(5):Article 9. Available at: Scholar
  2. Campi M (2016) The effect of intellectual property rights on agricultural productivity. Agric Econ 48:1–13Google Scholar
  3. Campi M, Nuvolari A (2015) Intellectual property protection in plant varieties. A worldwide index (1961-2011). Res Policy 44(4):951–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chantreuil F, Cooper JC (2005) Modeling the impacts of Bargaining Power in the Multilateral Distribution of Agricultural Biodiversity Conservation Funds. In: Cooper JC. Lipper LM, Zilberman D (eds) Agricultural Biodiversity and Biotechnology in Economic Development. Natural Resource Management and Policy, vol 27. Springer, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  5. Correa CM (1995) Sovereign and property rights over plant genetic resources. Agric Hum Values 12(4):58–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Correa CM (2009) Trends in Intellectual Property Rights relating to Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Background Study Paper No 49 October 2009. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and AgricultureGoogle Scholar
  7. Correa CM, Shashikant S, Meienberg F (2015) Plant variety protection in developing countries: a tool for designing a sui generis plant variety protection system: an alternative to UPOV 1991. Association for Plant Breeding for the Benefit of Society (APBREBES) and its member organizations: Berne Declaration, Development Fund, SEARICE, Third World Network. Available at Accessed 24 Oct 2017
  8. Dutfield GM (2008) Turning plant varieties into intellectual property: the UPOV convention. In: Tansey G, Rajotte T (eds) The future control of foods: a guide to international negotiations and rules on intellectual property, biodiversity and food security. Earthscan, London / Sterling, VA, IDRC. ISBN: 978-1-84407-429-7, pp 27–47Google Scholar
  9. Harding G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859):1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Leskien D, Flitner M (1997) Intellectual property rights and plant genetic resources: options for a sui generis system. Issues in genetic resources no. 6, June 1997. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, RomeGoogle Scholar
  11. Liu C, Zhang W (2016) Recent advances in protection of new varieties of plants. IP News and Cases, Liu Shen and Associates,
  12. Magaña Nieto A (1996) Formación de coaliciones en los juegos cooperativos y juegos con múltiples alternativas. Departament de Matematica Aplicada II. Universitat Politecnica de CataunyaGoogle Scholar
  13. OAU (1998) Organization of African Unity (OAU) African Model Legislation for the Protection of the Rights of Local Communities, Farmers and Breeders, and for the Regulation of Access to Biological Resources.
  14. Oberthur S, Gerstetter C, Lucha C, McGlade K, Pozarowska J, Rabitz F, Tedsen E (2011) Intellectual Property Rights on Genetic Resources and the fight against poverty. European Parliament, Directorate General for External Policies. Policy Department. European Parliament, 2011Google Scholar
  15. Oguamanam C (2006) Intellectual property rights in plant genetic resources: farmers’ rights and food security of indigenous and local communities. Drake J Agri Law 11:273–305Google Scholar
  16. Oguamanam C (2018) Wandering footloose – traditional knowledge and the “public domain” revisited. J World Intellect Prop 21(5–6):306–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Olson M (1971) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1st ed 1965, 2nd ed 1971Google Scholar
  18. Olson M (1982) The rise and decline of nations: economic growth, stagflation, and social rigidities. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  19. Onwuekwe CB (2004) The commons concept and intellectual property rights regime: whither plant genetic resources and traditional knowledge? Pierce Law Rev 2:65. Available at Scholar
  20. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. Ouma M (2017) Traditional knowledge: the challenges facing international lawmakers. WIPO Magazine, February 2017. This article is based on the keynote address by Dr. Ouma at the WIPO Seminar on Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge in Geneva, Switzerland, in November 2016Google Scholar
  22. Peleg B, Sudhölter P (2007) Introduction to the theory of cooperative games. Theory and decision library, series C: game theory, mathematical programming and operations research, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  23. Puga MS (2013). Estructuras jerárquicas y juegos cooperativos con utilidad transferible. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Universidade Da Coruña, Universidad de Vigo. 11 de enero 2013. Directoras: Fiestras Janeiro MG, Sánchez Rodríguez, EGoogle Scholar
  24. Rapela MA (2016) Ley 20.247 de Semillas y Creaciones Fitogenéticas: las razones para su actualización y los proyectos bajo análisis en Argentina. Revista Interdisciplinaria de Estudios Agrarios, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad de Buenos Aires 45:69–98Google Scholar
  25. Sullivan SN (2004) Plant genetic resources and the law: past, present, and future. Plant Physiol 135(1):10–15. Scholar
  26. Swanson T, Göschla T (2000) Property rights issues involving plant genetic resources: implications of ownership for economic efficiency. Ecol Econ 32(1):75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Turocy TL, von Stengel B (2001) Games theory. London School of Economics CDAM Research Report LSE-CDAM-2001Google Scholar
  28. Venkatesh P, Sekar I, Jha GK, Singh P, Sangeetha V, Pal S (2016) How do the stakeholders perceive plant variety protection in Indian seed sector? Curr Sci 110(12):25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. WIPO (2018a) WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore.
  30. WIPO (2018b) Genetic resources. WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore.
  31. WIPO (2018c) Consolidated document relating to intellectual property and genetic resources. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/36/4. April 10, 2018Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Intellectual Property CentreAustral UniversityBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations