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

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.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • Congratulations upon re-election;-WHO chief.Priori... »
  • Great article. Ms. Chan may want to read our book ... »

  • 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 >


    Agreement Reached On WIPO Development Agenda, Patents; No Broadcasting Yet

    Published on 30 September 2006 @ 5:39 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By William New
    Government negotiators at the World Intellectual Property Organization General Assembly have reached tentative agreement on the future of a proposed agenda for development, and for discussing global patent harmonisation. But key hurdles remain for a proposal to convene a negotiation on a broadcasters’ rights treaty.

    “I think it is positive,” said an official from Brazil, one of the originators of the development proposal. “We got a commitment from members to actually consider the full range of proposals in a structured manner without prejudging the outcome.”

    The preliminary decision on development [see text below] was reached on 30 September in an informal session, sources said. The decision is expected to be approved by the plenary on 2 October; the 2006 assembly meets from 25 September to 3 October.

    Under the preliminary agreement, the mandate of the Provisional Committee on Proposals related to a WIPO Development Agenda (PCDA) would be extended another year, with two five-day meetings in 2007. The meetings would address all of the proposals related to development that were put forward in 2004 and 2005. The idea originated with a proposal at the 2004 assembly by 14 (now 15) Friends of Development, and by last year there were some 111 proposals ranging from improved technical assistance to substantive change of WIPO procedures and review of actions by key committees to ensure they are beneficial to developing countries.

    The proposals would be addressed in two stages. The first meeting would cover 40 proposals identified in an earlier proposal by the Kyrgyz Republic, and the second would cover the remaining 71. Officials from the United States and Brazil said afterward that the first set of proposals likely would be easier to agree. But it is understood that all proposals would be considered equally, and ways to consolidate them would be sought. “They have a chance,” the Brazilian official said of the more substantive Friends of Development proposals put in the second meeting. A change was made from a 29 September proposal by the Group B developed countries that would have made the second meeting conditional on progress in the first.

    No Patent Committee Meeting in 2007

    WIPO members have for years fought over whether and how to further harmonise global patent laws, and this year they will not have to (at least not formally). As shown in the agreed preliminary text below (which awaits approval by plenary), there would be no formal meeting in 2007 of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents, whose main task of late has been to work on harmonisation. Instead, proposals on a committee work plan may be submitted by December 2006, and the General Assembly chair will conduct consultations in the first half of 2007 before sending a recommendation to next year’s assembly, which would try to set a work plan for 2008 and 2009.

    A developed country official said the “Group B-plus” developed countries would also continue their work on harmonisation outside WIPO, with a November meeting in Tokyo and a meeting in Washington in the spring. They will continue to focus on the “reduced package” proposal they previously put forward in WIPO, focusing on four key areas in patent law.

    Broadcasting Still Up in the Air

    Under the latest proposal on broadcasting, the assembly would approve the convening of a diplomatic conference, or formal treaty negotiation, in late 2007. There would be two special sessions of the WIPO copyright committee during 2007 to address disagreements, and next year’s September assembly would hear the results of those meetings.

    Two sentences were added on 30 September to the broadcasting treaty draft decision. It states: “The Diplomatic Conference will be convened if such agreement is agreed. If no such agreement is achieved, all further discussions will be based on Document SCCR/15/2.”

    The United States had been seeking to strengthen a “safety clause” that would prevent the broadcast treaty negotiation from being held if the special sessions did not resolve larger disagreements. The US has been seen as a proponent of the treaty negotiation in the past, but has raised concern with the draft proposal since webcasting and simulcasting were dropped. It also has concerns about language tying the treaty to other international agreements on cultural diversity, and, according to a US official, also is responding to information and communications technology industry lobbying against the current draft proposal.

    One negotiator also raised the question of why the same document on which there has been contention, SCCR/15/2, would continue to be used if there were no agreement. The broadcasting issue is expected to come up on 2 October.

    William New may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.ch.

    Draft Texts:

    [on the work plan of the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents:]

    The General Assembly decides that

    (i) delegations may submit, by December 2006, proposals for the work program of the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (“SCP”) including proposals on ways forward or approaches. Proposals will be circulated in consolidated form to all Member States;
    (ii) [Editor's note: the following two paragraphs have been corrected from the original story] the Chair of the General Assembly will conduct informal consultations in the first half of 2007 for the purpose of discussing the proposals and recommending a work plan for the SCP to the General Assembly in September 2007. In this regard, the Chair will decide the form of the consultations, which shall be inclusive, and whether it is desirable to hold informal consultations in a meeting of all member States;
    (iii) the General Assembly in September 2007 will consider the results of the consultations with a view to establishing a work plan for the SCP for 2008 and 2009.

    Item 8: Report of the Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda

    The General Assembly reviewed the positive discussions during the two sessions of the Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda (PCDA) in February and June 2006, emphasized the need to continue discussions on the proposals submitted and placed in the six clusters during the IIM/PCDA process, and decided as follows:

    1. To renew the mandate of the PCDA for another period of one year.

    2. The PCDA will hold two 5-day sessions, in a manner that allows for structured in-depth discussions, on all 111 proposals made so far, during the sessions of the IIM and PCDA in 2005 and 2006 respectively, taking into account the decision of the 2005 General Assembly, on the deadline for submission of new proposals.

    3. As done during the sessions of the PCDA in 2006, WIPO will provide financing for the participation of representatives from developing countries, LDCs as well as from countries with economies in transition, to attend the meetings of the PCDA.

    4. The first session of the PCDA in 2007 will consider the proposals attached in Annex A. The second session of the PCDA in 2007 will consider the proposals as attached in Annex B.

    5. In order to facilitate the task and streamline the process for detailed examination of all proposals in an inclusive manner, the PCDA should undertake an exercise:

    (a) to narrow down the proposals, in order to ensure that there is no repetition or duplication;
    (b) to separate the proposals, which are actionable, from those which are declarations of general principles and objectives; and
    (c ) to note those proposals, which relate to existing activities in WIPO and those which do not.

    In this regard, the Chair of the General Assembly will, in consultation with Member States, produce initial working documents.

    6. The PCDA will report to the 2007 General Assembly, with recommendations for action on the agreed proposals, and on a framework for continuing to address, and where possible to move forward, on the other proposals following the 2007 General Assembly.

    7. In the interim, and without prejudice to the provision of technical assistance, the PCIPD will cease to exist.

     

    Comments

    1. FFII WIPO workgroup: Draft says:

      [...] 1, 2 [...]


    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.