In "Changing Channels and Bridging Divides: The Failure and Redemption of American Broadcast Television Regulation" Professor Varona analyzes how the Supreme Court, Congress and the FCC have defined the legal duties of commercial broadcasters throughout the maturation of the television industry. First, he shows how the public trustee doctrine has failed, with broadcasters today airing very little 'public interest' programming. Second, he examines how and why the FCC has failed to effectively elucidate and enforce the public trustee doctrine, focusing on the irreconcilable First Amendment and commercial tensions inherent in the public trustee doctrine since its inception and the 'capture' of the FCC and Congress itself by the broadcast industry and the conglomerates that control it. Finally, he discusses and critiques existing proposals for reform and then advance his own proposal, which would require television broadcasters to subsidize broadband Internet access for low-income and otherwise underserved households.

Biology is increasingly computational. The convergence between computing and biology suggests that open source methods can be used to organize early phase drug discovery. The authors argue that a new approach, 'open source drug discovery,' would significantly reduce the cost of discovering, developing, and manufacturing cures for tropical diseases. First, it would give hundreds of scientists a practical way to donate urgently needed manpower. Second, open source discoveries would not be patented. This would permit sponsors to award development contracts to whichever company offered the lowest bid. Finally, competition from generic drug makers would keep manufacturing prices at or near the cost of production. These cost advantages could significantly accelerate drug development for the 500 million people who currently suffer from tropical diseases.

The public sector should adopt policies that facilitate technology transfer to developing countries.

Dean Muscoplat presents these introductory statements from the April 29, 2004, conference on "Intellectual Property Rights for the Public Good: Obligations of U.S. Universities to Developing Countries," held at the University of Minnesota. This article presents three lessons guiding his approach to intellectual property and biotechnology and the examination of the economic, societal, and ethical implications of agricultural research.

Professor Susan K. Sell argues that in developing intellectual property protections, policymakers must consider humanitarian policies that promote social goals, such as protecting public health and alleviating malnutrition. Specifically, the granting of exclusive rights through patents must be balanced against the economic effects of higher product and transaction costs and the potential that competitors may be able to adapt or improve upon the invention so as to increase its value. Wedged in the middle of this struggle are the nation\'s universities, which may feel caught between the conflicting imperatives of attracting private sector funding and generating revenue through patenting activity on the one hand, and promoting the public good on the other.

The authors review the evidence on the scope of agricultural research and development worldwide, provide new data on the structure of crop-related intellectual property rights, and summarize trends on the uptake of proprietary bioengineered crops. Proponents tout the positive incentive-to-innovate effects of intellectual property rights, while others maintain that the expanding subject matter and geographical extent of intellectual property rights are stifling crop research, especially research and development dealing with developing-country crop concerns. Much of this debate relies on anecdotes and misleading or incomplete evidence on the extent and nature of the intellectual property rights pertaining to crop technologies, including the jurisdictional extent of the property rights and their practice.

Researchers Ronald P. Cantrell, Gene P. Hettel, Gerard F. Barry, and Ruaraidh Sackville Hamilton of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in \"Impact of Intellectual Property on Nonprofit Research Institutions and the Developing Countries They Serve\", demonstrate that technological innovation is essential for human progress. Accordingly, intellectual property rights can be instrumental in the advancement of developing countries. However, while recognizing their importance, it must be stressed that intellectual property rights themselves are only tools to be used in humanitarian efforts to give developing countries improved access to the new technologies they need, and it is suggested that the key is to match the proper intellectual property rights with specific socioeconomic, technical, commercial and administrative conditions with particular developing countries, and to manage them well. Recognizing the unique role that intellectual property rights can play in development, IRRI and other institutions have worked hard to adjust intellectual property policies in response to the 1993 Convention on Biological Diversity, the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, and, most recently, the 2004 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. As the Institute has studied different intellectual property regimes and situations in different countries, NARES partners have expressed that they desire specific training on how to deal with issues such as plant variety protection and the movement of germplasm. IRRI places a high priority on this activity and, in conjunction with the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, is expanding intellectual property training at all institutional levels. As suppliers of new technologies, IRRI argues that the public and private sectors must cooperate to help developing countries obtain both proprietary and global public goods and has identified its role in facilitating access to both, as an unbiased broker for the former and a continuing producer of the latter. Some skeptics believe that the private sector will not contribute when only humanitarian issues are at stake, but IRRI contends that the example of golden rice illustrates that the Syngentas of the world truly want to help make a difference and are starting to show admirable goodwill. Moreover, IRRI fully supports attempts, such as the University of California at Davis\'s initiative with Xa21 to compensate developing countries for their contributions to the creation of commercial products. Nevertheless there is a recognition that WIPO and UNEP are correct in stating that more must be done and evidence that intellectual property controversies are not insurmountable problems, but rather new and extraordinary opportunities to tap into an exploitable knowledge base. In short, many private companies and public-sector universities are making discoveries that can be channeled by IRRI and others to achieve spectacular gains for the benefit of the poor.

Substantial improvement in agricultural productivity is essential for achieving sustainable food security and reducing chronic rural poverty in many developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Modern biotechnology, along with other important tools, can help solve some of the basic productivity problems that plague the millions of small-scale and subsistence farmers who are the backbone of African agriculture. However, important components of the biotechnology tool kit--gene traits, plant transformation tools, and genetically improved germplasm--have been patented in the United States and elsewhere by companies that have little economic incentive to develop and disseminate the technology to meet the needs of these farmers. This article analyzes how US patent policy affects the development and dissemination of biotechnology to improve agriculture and food security in Africa and makes the case for policy change. The authors show how patent policy is but one example of U.S. policies and government programs that affect food security and poverty reduction in developing countries that deserve scrutiny and how the United Nations\' Millennium Development Goals aim to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, recognizing the importance of developing country agriculture in achieving that objective. They discuss how the United States has embraced these goals, but describe also how many policies of the United States are not fully aligned with the goals or with the critical need to improve developing country agriculture, including U.S. policies concerning agricultural subsidies, trade barriers, development assistance, and food aid.

In "Supplemental Forms of Intellectual Property Protection for Plants" Professor Janis argues that a new hierarchy of intellectual property protection for plant innovation is emerging. He discusses how utility patent protection is poised to become the dominant intellectual property mechanism for plants in the US and perhaps elsewhere, and how plant breeder\'s rights systems continue to garner a dedicated following, especially in developing countries as a means for complying with international intellectual property treaty obligations. Professor Janis then argues that while utility patent and plant breeder\'s rights regimes have come to occupy the first tier of the intellectual property hierarchy for plants, other forms of intellectual property protection remain important, albeit in a supplemental role, and in this article surveys supplemental intellectual property strategies for plants in three areas: trade secrets (Section II); trademarks and unfair competition (Section III); and post-sale license restrictions (Section IV).

Gene splicing techniques have enabled the creation of many types of sexually reproducing plants with commercially attractive characteristics: increased nutritional value, resistance to drought and pests, herbicide resistance, and medicinal properties, and many other valuable attributes. In many quarters, such transgenic alterations to plant varieties have been controversial. But even more controversial has been the application of recombinant DNA technology to restrict the use of beneficial plant varieties. These genetic use restriction technologies, or GURTs, curtail the saving of seed from year to year by rendering the progeny of proprietary seed sterile. Although the deployment of this technology has for the moment been restrained by adverse publicity, continued research and continued commercial interest into its application suggests that it is a question of when, not whether, the technology will be deployed. Professor Burk examines the doctrinal issues undergirding an analysis of GURTs deployment.

Professor Schuh explores whether the emergence of intellectual property rights is an impediment to the mission of land grant universities. He reviews the concept of a land grant university and its mission, discusses the evolution of land grant universities over time, and then discusses the impact of intellectual property on the future of the land grant universities.

In "Toward Facilitating Access to Patented Research Tools," Ms. Thai discusses the scope and propriety of the experimental use exemption in relation to biotechnology research at universities.

Mr. Gratz proposes an alternative compensation system for peer-to-peer file-sharing activity on the Internet. Licensing under the current regime makes legitimate peer-to-peer distribution of commercial recordings very difficult. A number of law professors have proposed alternative compensation systems, each designed to vindicate different interests and achieve different goals. Mr. Gratz presents an alternative compensation system that is simultaneously technically feasible, economically sound, and does not require modifications to international agreements to which the United States is a party.

Ms. Kleiss reviews the history of Pacific salmon hatcheries and argues that they have not compensated for over-fishing and habitat destruction, their intended function.

Mr. Gratz reviews recent developments in the regulation of Internet-based telephone services.