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 Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas 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.

The Politicization Of The US Patent System

The Washington Post story, How patent reform’s fraught politics have left USPTO still without a boss (July 30), is a vivid account of how patent reform has divided the US economy, preempting a possible replacement for David Kappos who stepped down 18 months ago. The division is even bigger than portrayed. Universities have lined up en masse to oppose reform, while main street businesses that merely use technology argue for reform. Reminiscent of the partisan divide that has paralyzed US politics, this struggle crosses party lines and extends well beyond the usual inter-industry debates. Framed in terms of combating patent trolls through technical legal fixes, there lurks a broader economic concern – to what extent ordinary retailers, bank, restaurants, local banks, motels, realtors, and travel agents should bear the burden of defending against patents as a cost of doing business.


Latest Comments
  • 'Business methods were generally not patentable in... »
  • Big win for humanity! It's great to see that in Ec... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    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 >

    Proponents: Slow Better Than Poor For WIPO Development Agenda

    Published on 21 March 2008 @ 10:00 am

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By William New
    World Intellectual Property Organization member states felt their way slowly this month in the first committee meeting on how to implement 45 agreed recommendations for transformation of the United Nations organisation toward a stronger development orientation. But the slow start may have been good for development, some supporters said.

    The first meeting of the new Committee on Development and Intellectual Property was held from 3-7 March. It was agreed at the conclusion that the chair would hold informal consultations before the next scheduled meeting of the committee in July.

    Participating officials asked about accomplishments during the meeting were hard-pressed for specifics as much of the week’s work was on procedure. But members from various levels of development appeared unsurprised that more substantive work was not done.

    One official from an advanced developing country said it was expected that there would be “confusion” about how to proceed. In general, developing countries take the view that the Development Agenda is a long term process of substantive reform of WIPO.

    An official from one of the 15 Friends of Development countries (who cosponsored the original 2004 proposal for a Development Agenda) said members of the group did not appear to be disappointed at the slow start, but now see a need to accelerate work.

    There has been some question of whether WIPO’s ongoing budgetary stalemate might have an impact on the Development Agenda, as funding for development-related activities was set to increase in the 2008-2009 biennium. The WIPO membership will reconvene at the highest level, the General Assembly, on 31 March, to resume discussion of the budget. They failed to agree on the budget at their annual meeting in October.

    The 45 recommendations agreed last year are in two loose categories of 19 that could be implemented immediately without additional resources and 26 that could require additional time or resources. The recommendations are lumped in five thematic clusters, and the group decided to proceed cluster by cluster, looking first at any from the 26 in each cluster, followed by any from the 19. By the end of the week, they had not finished the first cluster, just those from the 26 and some of those from the 19, for a total of six, participants said. There were no changes or decisions, they said.

    The committee was created to develop a work programme for implementation of the recommendations, monitor, assess, discuss and report on the implementation. It also will discuss IP and development generally.

    The six recommendations that were covered in the meeting were, according to the non-governmental Third World Network’s SUNS publication, to ensure WIPO: provides technical assistance that is development-oriented, and involves donor funding; displays technical assistance information on its website; has agreements with research institutions and private sector that facilitate developing country access to patent databases; helps match needs with resources; and assists member states to build IP infrastructure that is balanced with the public interest.

    According to the final chair’s summary: “The CDIP discussed adopted recommendations 2, 5, 8, 9 and 10 in the list of 26 and agreed that the proposed activities, as suitably modified following discussions, would be sent to the secretariat to assess the human and financial resource requirements, before the July 2008 session. In addition, the CDIP reviewed and commented on activities being implemented under adopted recommendation 1 in the list of 19, suggested changes and considered new activities. It was agreed that the secretariat would make the necessary modification and furnish a progress report on the adopted recommendations in the list of 19 for the July 2008 session of the committee.”

    Participants said some developed countries particularly raised questions about the costs of recommendations.

    During the meeting discussion arose on the flexibilities for developing countries enshrined in the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Questions were raised by some developing countries as to the way the flexibilities were interpreted by a WIPO official, who apparently suggested that implementing stronger protection measures than required under World Trade Organization IP rules is a flexibility (when in fact WTO rules offer flexibilities generally as an alternative in the rules).

    SUNS reported that Brazilian delegate Guilherme Patriota said afterward that the WIPO secretariat position on a couple of items including flexibilities “outrageous” and possibly a “complete subversion of the Development Agenda.”

    The chair of the CDIP is Ambassador Trevor Clarke of Barbados. Vice chairs are Muratbek Azymbakiev, the deputy permanent representative to the UN from Kyrgyzstan, and Javier Alfonso Moreno Ramos, director of the Department of Legal Coordination and International Relations in Spain’s Patents and Trademarks Office.

    Intergovernmental, Non-governmental Views

    A number of regular followers of the Development Agenda process were on hand during the meeting and some made statements.

    The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which is responsible for implementing the UN human rights programme, said intellectual property protection can promote development through investment in innovation and contribute to human rights. It noted that international instruments, such as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, recognise the right to protect moral and material interests from works, and the need to strike a balance between public and private interests.

    But OHCHR also highlighted concerns about the impact of IP protection on the right to health, food, education, benefit from scientific progress, and of indigenous peoples. The office specified its support for one of the 19 recommendations that calls for studies on the economic, social and cultural impact” of IP systems in WIPO member states. It encouraged members to consider the use of human rights impact assessments in formulating a work programme for that recommendation.

    The Library Copyright Alliance, a coalition of several library groups, and Electronic Information For Libraries (eIFL), submitted a joint statement calling for a stronger emphasis on strategies for using intellectual property “for the benefit of general education, research, preservation and access to knowledge, and the social good that results from a true balance between intellectual property protections and the public interest.”

    The groups encouraged recognition of copyright as subsidiary to social and cultural development. “Whatever considerations are put forth to advance the aims of copyright industries, an equally compelling rationale can be made for the benefits of a dynamic and free exchange of knowledge and information, which ultimately gives back to national economies by transforming the minds of individuals,” they wrote. The groups proposed additions to several recommendations, such as those related to the public domain and pro-competitive IP licensing practices, where they cited the growing “Open Access to Scholarly Communications” movement worldwide.

    A wide range of copyright industry groups issued a joint statement as the Coalition for Creativity and Development. The coalition includes more than a dozen associations representing authors and composers, collecting societies, actors, producers, musicians, music publishers, the recording industry, film and television, publishers, interactive software, video and media entertainment.

    The coalition highlighted the importance of maintaining incentives for creators, and stressed its support for carefully negotiated international copyright instruments. It specified support for recommendations on WIPO technical assistance to least-developed countries, who it suggested would create economic opportunities through effective management of copyright and related rights. The group backed a recommendation to focus technical assistance on smaller companies, but questioned recommendations to help members address anti-competitive practices and promote a “fair balance” between IP and the public interest. It is important, it said, that “current IP law is not mis-characterised as being the opposite end of the spectrum from public interest.”

    The group also questioned a recommendation to take into account different levels of development, as it said that has always been done in WIPO treaty-making. On the public domain, they said neither public domain nor strong rights should be ends in themselves, but rather WIPO should focus on identifying works in the public domain and making them more available. They also said: copyright helps to bridge the “digital divide”; WIPO has long had a link between IP and development; there should be clearer criteria for NGO acceptance in WIPO activities; WIPO’s activities should not be restricted outside Geneva; and enforcement creates opportunities.

    The International Chamber of Commerce provided a policy statement that captured a number of similar positions to the industry coalition, such as urging no duplication of efforts by WIPO and the importance of the IP system to development.

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation supported the public domain recommendations and urged steps for WIPO to help on this and on improving member states’ understanding of the benefits of open and public access policies. EFF also stressed promotion of access to knowledge, and suggested WIPO convene an Open Forum on IP-related obstacles to technology innovation. It further supported recommendations on studies of the impact of WIPO activities, and supported increased transparency in WIPO’s technical assistance, saying, for example, that WIPO offers a model copyright law that EFF said is flawed and no longer available for review on the WIPO website. It also called for WIPO’s interpretations of flexibilities from IP laws for developing countries be made public.

    Knowledge Ecology International backed a recommendation by the Friends of Development for an open forum on access to knowledge, plus discussions in other WIPO committees. KEI suggested, for example, that this week’s meeting of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights consider global norms to facilitate access to orphaned copyrighted works, cross-border services for the visually impaired or for distance learning. It also welcomed a recommendation to exchange experiences on open collaborative projects such as the Human Genome Project, and urged the holding of a forum on control of anticompetitive practices, and a survey of national systems for conducting impact and economic assessments of IP rights, possibly through the creation of an economic bureau at WIPO.

    Door Closing on Scrutiny of WIPO Proceedings

    Much of the meeting was held in informal status, an increasing practice at WIPO which participants said results in no record being produced by the secretariat on that part of the proceedings.

    An unusual arrangement was made that kept accredited non-governmental participants from reporting on what was said in the room for most of the meeting, according to committee sources. WIPO has nearly 200 accredited NGOs (a majority are industry-oriented), and they are allowed to sit in the plenary room and even make scheduled interventions during negotiations (unlike the press, who are never allowed to enter the room). A number of NGOs usually report on activities in the room, including through almost real-time blogs.

    But frequently, meetings have been moving into informal status, leaving accredited non-governmental participants outside the room. In last week’s meeting, a different kind of deal was struck that could set a precedent for WIPO meetings. When the meeting was heading into informal status on the second day, NGOs brokered a deal whereby they could stay in the room if they agreed to follow a form of Chatham House rules, meaning they might report on what was happening, but without mentioning specific nations or individuals’ names.

    William New may be reached at wnew@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.

     

     
    Your IP address is 54.196.195.194