There is appeal to the platonic concept of the Geographical Indication of origin (GI): that certain geographical locations may, through natural conditions (climate, soil, water, etc.) and/or localised tradition and artisan know-how, become peculiarly associated with distinctive high-quality produce, and that consumers benefit from understanding and valuing these unique peculiarities from all over the world. Law reflecting this ideal would ensure only local practitioners could invoke that association to attract a premium for their products and prevent misappropriation by unconnected interlopers. In theory at least, such a system could satisfy natural justice by rewarding those who practise and preserve cultural heritage; confer legal rights consistent with more historically Western concerns to provide incentives for investment in quality; and banish deception. The collective nature of these rights, tied to places and peoples rather than individuals, and not purely proprietary in the markets-and-transfer sense,1 would find support outside Western traditions.