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 >


    Development Agenda Implementation Discussed Before WIPO Assemblies

    Published on 18 September 2007 @ 5:09 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Paul Garwood
    More technical assistance to developing countries, closer collaboration between UN agencies and overhauling the World Intellectual Property Organization were among calls made during a conference of leading players in the intellectual property community held Monday.

    The conference, entitled “The Reform of WIPO: Implementing the Development Agenda,” was the second such event. The previous took place on the eve of the 2004 WIPO General Assemblies at which the Development Agenda proposal was first raised by Argentina and Brazil. At that time, a group of leading academics and public interest groups published the Geneva Declaration on the Future of WIPO which raised concern that public interest be considered alongside rising IP protection and gathered hundreds of signatures, including from Nobel Prize laureates and other dignitaries.

    Again, the latest conference, organised by the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue, was held days before the WIPO General Assemblies address proposals by member states for a Development Agenda, in a bid to influence the debate by countries participating in the UN meeting.

    The assembly, which will focus on far-reaching measures to overhaul WIPO, comes at a time when the UN body is fending off criticisms over management and calls to better serve developing countries so they can benefit from intellectual property provisions and flexibilities, particularly in access to medicines and knowledge.

    “We are going through times of change in WIPO and we should keep pushing the interests of all stakeholders (so) the debate can be transformed into something concrete,” Guilherme Patriota, a counsellor from Brazil’s mission to the UN, told the conference. “There has been an unbalance that needs to be addressed.”

    The Provisional Committee on Proposals for a WIPO Development Agenda (PCDA) this year recommended 45 proposals for the General Assemblies to endorse. The recommendations, which follow repeated calls by nongovernmental organisations and others for WIPO to broaden its mandate, take into account public concerns with ownership of technologies and knowledge and the impact of these areas on poor and wealthy countries.

    Among the PCDA proposals are about a dozen it believes WIPO can implement immediately, including providing development-oriented, demand-driven technical assistance, particularly in least developed countries, and increasing financial assistance to make it happen.

    “There will be specific aspects that require immediate implementation,” Argentine Ambassador to the UN, Alberto Dumont, told Intellectual Property Watch on the sidelines of the conference. “I see this most in the areas of technical assistance and to have a system where there is better exchange of information between the various UN programmes. There also must be more transparency within WIPO.”

    Carolyn Deere, director of the Global Trade Governance Project at the University of Oxford (and Intellectual Property Watch founder), proposed wide-ranging structural reforms within WIPO to give more powers to member states. Deere also suggested removing the WIPO secretariat’s control over the organisation’s coffers and placing it under a newly created executive board comprising countries.

    “For an organisation as large as WIPO, it is very difficult for any member state to exercise oversight of the organisation,” Deere said.

    On fees that WIPO charges for patents, Brazil’s Patriota told Intellectual Property Watch that the General Assemblies should reject efforts by the United States and Japan to reduce charges that companies pay WIPO for patent applications, saying it could turn the UN body’s budget surplus into a deficit and, in turn, impact on services the organisation can provide to developing countries.

    Boosting capacity within WIPO to design programmes that meet country specific needs is vital, speakers said during the conference, as is increasing technical assistance inside countries to help them benefit from intellectual property, including for health.

    “We must establish the needs of a particular country,” said Ron Marchant, ex-chief executive of the United Kingdom Patent Office. “We can’t make clones of intellectual property (for every country to use). WIPO needs to then create programmes and projects, and the lack of skills of WIPO call[s] for this kind of work (to be done) through a mixture of external and internal (professionals).”

    Sangeeta Shashikant, researcher for the Third World Network nongovernmental organisation, said countries needed legislative assistance to help draft laws that can be applied to local conditions.

    “Countries are at different levels of development so (the same rules concerning) intellectual property cannot be applied to all,” Shashikant told the conference.

    On access to medicines, Pascale Boulet of Médecins Sans Frontières said WIPO should offer more technical support to help countries use the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). TRIPS allows countries, particularly in the developing world, to make drugs to safeguard public health in national emergencies or for non-commercial purposes.

    “WIPO should provide advice that has a pro-health perspective rather than an IP protection focus,” Boulet told the conference.

    Michelle Childs, London representative and head of European affairs for Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), urged WIPO to adopt concrete measures to help guide the organisation’s work.

    Childs supported a recent proposal made by Chile to WIPO’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights that called for exceptions and limitations in copyright to be made in the fields of education, libraries and for people with disabilities. KEI calls for a global minimum set of limitations and exceptions for these three areas.

    “Users and consumers are not a homogenous group,” Childs said. “There are obviously differences in consumers between developed and developing countries, but there are also differences amongst consumers, and consumers with a disability are an example.”

    Paul Garwood may be reached at pgarwood@ip-watch.ch.

     


    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.