foreign jurisdiction.
雖然姜黃案事實上是個成功案例，卻揭示了以外國司法制度下的法律來挑戰印度民眾認為理所當然的事物所帶出的種種問題。
The lessons leamt and problem areas as identified by the CSIR after the Turmeric experience can be summarized
thus:
CSIR在這個案件後總結出的經驗教訓和各種問題均摘述如下：
- there is a wide gap in the availability of information for patent examination purposes pertaining to TK
bases from third-world countries.
第三世界國家沒有多少有關TK的資料可以用作檢驗專利權。
This needs to be documented and put into the public domain to discourage the grant of patents based on thecenturies-old use of natural products from biodiversity-rich regions of the
world;
因此，有必要把這方面的資料加以整理，並公之於眾，務求能夠防止人們利用生物品種豐富的地區中，壹些流傳已久的天然產品用法來獲取專利權；
25although remedm are availablein the laws of developed countries such as the re-examination proceedings in
the United States, the costs for bringing a case for re-examination are many:
identifying the prior art information; translating the same; getting adequate
technical and legal expertise, etc.
[譯者按：原句句首的 "25" 似乎沒用，所以刪去。另外，"remedm"似乎是打錯字。苦思良久，估計應該是 "remedies" 才對。]
雖然發達國家的法律中有補救措施，例如美國的重審程序，但要把案件進行重審會涉及很多成本：找出過去有關該工藝的資料並加以翻譯、在相關的技術及法律層面取得足夠專業知識等。
Further, patents such as the turmeric patent did not, in reality, have any commercial consequences for a
seller or user of turmeric.
此外，像姜黃專利這類專利權對於現實中的銷售者或使用者而言，都沒有任何商業效益。
People could continue to sell oruse turmeric in whatever form, despite the patent.
他們無需這項專利權，也可以繼續銷售或使用各種形式的姜黃。
What was offensive was the veryidea an exclusive right to sell and use turmeric for the purpose of wound
healing as claimed in the patent.
惹人討厭的，是有人要把姜黃的壹種用法，即該項專利所述的療傷用法，獨攬其銷售和使用權。
The CSIR stepped in in thisinstance, more from the point of view of taking it up as a test and a trial
case;
CSIR在這種情況下介入，主要是把它作為壹項測試和壹個試行案例。