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
  • Copyrights are unique works set in a concrete mode... »
  • I deeply apprecite the initiative to combat agains... »

  • 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 >


    Patent Meeting Debates Linkages With Development; Exceptions & Limitations

    Published on 24 March 2009 @ 5:20 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    Questions on how best to link patent law and development issues led the opening discussion at this week’s World Intellectual Property Organization meeting on patent law. A WIPO study on exceptions and limitations was discussed Monday and Tuesday, with talk turning toward whether a third-party examination of the issue was needed.

    The WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) is meeting from 23 to 27 March.

    “Most appropriately,” said the delegation of Thailand in its opening statement, “the focus [of the SCP] appears to have now shifted to the more overarching goal of finding a balance between private and public interests, with a view to promoting economic as well as social, educational and cultural development for the international community as a whole.”

    Discussions should therefore be undertaken “in a manner where the public policy concerns are taken into account while discussing the patent system,” said Sri Lanka, on behalf of the Asian Group.

    Of specific concern to member states is an upcoming July conference on global issues, as well as linkages between the SCP and other WIPO committees that focus on matters of concern to developing nations.

    Connecting WIPO Committees

    The work of the SCP, said the Thai delegation, “cannot be regarded as repetitive to the work carried out by the Committee on Development and IP (CDIP)… the two committees can, and do, complement each other.”

    “The CDIP alone cannot totally move WIPO into a development-oriented direction,” the statement added, as the WIPO Development Agenda “requires the concerted work of all WIPO committees.”

    But not all delegations agreed. “Given WIPO’s limited resources,” said Germany on behalf of the ‘Group B’ developed nations, “particularly in this time of economic uncertainty, Group B believes that it is extremely important that the SCP not duplicate the work being undertaken in other WIPO Committees.”

    This reference to “duplicative work” is generally viewed as a denial of the linkage between SCP work and the work of the CDIP, as well as the work of the Intergovernmental Committee on Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Genetic Resources, sources from developing nations told Intellectual Property Watch.

    Challenges Of Global Challenges Conference

    Senegal, on behalf of the African Group expressed concern that this conference would be done in a way that went outside of its mandate as given under the previous SCP meeting last June (IPW, WIPO, 20 March 2009).

    The conference has moved from focussing on a specific set of public policy issues and their interaction with patents, said a developing country delegate. Now, it is no longer just on patents and no longer on specific issues – instead, it has turned to a very fluid and non-definable examination of “global challenges” and IP law. “We need to revert back to mandate,” added the source.

    WIPO Director General Francis Gurry said in his opening statement that he recently held consultations on aspects of the conference, and one item he is adding to the agenda is disability. He raised it in the meeting because although access to reading material by the blind and visually impaired is mainly a copyright access issue, it also has a patent-related side in technology. It also has an “important” development dimension, he said, as a significant percentage of visually impaired readers are in developing countries.

    Exceptions and Limitations

    Discussions Tuesday focussed on a WIPO secretariat report on exceptions and limitations, and whether and where further work is needed. Four reports on different patent policy issues were prepared by the secretariat for this week’s meeting. The others—on patents and standards, attorney-client privilege, and the sharing of patent information—will be discussed later this week.

    The Asian Group “feels that regional free trade agreements and bilateral free trade agreements and the provisions for exception and limitation are not covered by this preliminary study,” said a copy of their statement obtained by Intellectual Property Watch.

    Therefore, the group “proposes as the second step… to conduct a specific study on exceptions and limitations, covering all the aspects, and with the experts outside of the WIPO.” Academic institutions were suggested as a place to draw experts. The proposal was supported by several developing countries.

    Developed countries in general seemed less keen, though the only formal intervention during the meeting in opposition to the study as of press time was Switzerland, said several sources.

    Another developed country delegate not from Switzerland told Intellectual Property Watch the idea would be a “waste of time” and that the SCP should be an instrument towards a goal other than discussion.

    A delegate from the US separately said to Intellectual Property Watch that during the financial crisis, maintaining the innovation system as it is in everyone’s interests.

    A decision on whether or not to commission a further study is likely to be handled under the “future work” agenda item later this week.

    Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Intellectual Property Watch » Blog Archive » IP Private Sector Tests Relevance Of International Policy Organisations says:

      [...] Gurry’s statements, such as he made at the recent WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (IPW, WIPO, 24 March 2009), as condoning a negotiation on a treaty for the blind. Keplinger’s view is similar to one taken [...]


    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.