SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Advertisement


Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Occupy IP: New Economy Businesses Clash With Old

It may be too much, too late for content providers finally trying to tame the internet, and a fresh approach is needed, writes Bruce Berman.




Special Reports

Non-Communicable Diseases Issue Energises Public Health Policymakers Read More >


Latest Comments
  • This is certainly a good move, but perhaps this is... »
  • Copyrights are unique works set in a concrete mode... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    India Joins Opposition To Casablanca Patent Meeting Outcome

    Published on 10 April 2005 @ 9:11 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    India, a critical player in policy debates at the World Intellectual Property Organisation, has announced its opposition to a recommendation on global patent harmonisation backed by a select group of countries in a February consultation with WIPO Director General Kamil Idris.

    The recommendation was agreed to by all but one participant in an invite-only consultation Idris held in Casablanca, Morocco in mid-February. Some developing countries not invited to the meeting as well as invitee Brazil have since criticized the Casablanca gathering as reaching beyond WIPO’s mandate by entering into substantive discussions.

    The recommendations that emerged resembled an earlier proposal by the “trilateral” group of the European Union, Japan and the United States, rejected last year at WIPO. The Casablanca statement recommended six issues be addressed in an accelerated manner within WIPO. The first four issues — prior art, grace period, novelty, and inventive step – would be addressed in the Standing Committee on Patents (SCP). The other two issues — sufficiency of disclosure and genetic resources – would be relegated to the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC).

    “India does not support the recommendations made by the Casablanca consultations, which would have the effect of separating the issues by placing them on two different tracks,” said a developing country official familiar with India’s letter. The concern is that the issues of disclosure and genetic resources, which are important to developing countries, would be sidelined in a separate committee.

    Until India’s announcement on 5 April, there had been ambiguity over its position, since the Casablanca consultation was chaired by R.A. Mashelkar, director-general of India’s Council of Scientific and Industrial Research with a reputation as a proponent of intellectual property rights.

    “On April 5, India clarified to WIPO that there has been no change in India’s long-standing position on subjects addressed at the Casablanca meeting,” a developing country official said of a letter sent to WIPO. India also clarified to WIPO that Dr. Mashelkar participated in his individual capacity.

    India stated that in the Substantive Law Patent Treaty talks, which are taking place in the SCP, a “wholistic approach be adopted” and that all issues be tackled “within a single negotiating framework.”

    India also said it is associated with the Friends of Development position on Casablanca, issued shortly after the consultation, which was unsupportive of the outcome. The Friends of Development is a group of fourteen developing countries that co-sponsored a fall 2004 proposal for a WIPO Development Agenda which is under discussion this week in Geneva.

    India has indicated support for an elaborated proposal on the Development Agenda by the Friends of Development issued last week.

     

    Comments

    1. India, WIPO Connect On Traditional Knowledge Protection, With Or Without Patents | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] CSIR also had a run-in related to WIPO. In 2005, WIPO held an invite-only event outside Geneva intended to build support for a WIPO initiative to push patent harmonisation favoured by developed countries. CSIR Director-General R.A. Mashelkar chaired the event, and was represented by WIPO (without objection from the CSIR director) as India offering support for the WIPO initiative. The Indian government later clarified its opposition to the initiative and that Mashelkar attended on his own behalf (IPW, WIPO, 10 April 2005). [...]

    2. India, WIPO Connect On Traditional Knowledge Protection, With Or Without Patents « A2K Brasil says:

      [...] CSIR also had a run-in related to WIPO. In 2005, WIPO held an invite-only event outside Geneva intended to build support for a WIPO initiative to push patent harmonisation favoured by developed countries. CSIR Director-General R.A. Mashelkar chaired the event, and was represented by WIPO (without objection from the CSIR director) as India offering support for the WIPO initiative. The Indian government later clarified its opposition to the initiative and that Mashelkar attended on his own behalf (IPW, WIPO, 10 April 2005). [...]


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.