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
  • So this is how we mankind will become extinct? No ... »
  • 'Business methods were generally not patentable in... »

  • 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 >

    WIPO Work Likely To Continue On Traditional Knowledge, But How?

    Published on 30 June 2009 @ 11:16 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    An intergovernmental committee considering ways to protect kinds of knowledge that predate – and may not fit into – the current intellectual property system picked up this week after a chaotic round of negotiations failed to make any progress at the last meeting. Meanwhile, some indigenous groups, in whose traditions rest much of this knowledge, continue a push for stronger representation at the committee.

    This week, the World Intellectual Property Organization Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) must also decide whether and how it will ask for a renewed mandate to continue negotiations that have gone on since 2001. This would be the forth extension of the group’s mandate. The IGC meeting from 29 June to 3 July.

    There is “apparently a consensus on renewal of the mandate,” the committee’s chair, Rigoberto Gauto Vielman of Paraguay, told Intellectual Property Watch. The committee will “likely continue work, but how” is the remaining question, he added.

    A proposal submitted by the African Group [pdf] is the basis for discussions on ways forward starting Tuesday afternoon, Gauto told Intellectual Property Watch.

    Discussion on this proposal, which includes the potential of continuing meeting between official committee sessions, and on future work in general, is expected to consume much of the rest of the meeting this week, according to several sources.

    In parallel, the Indigenous Peoples Caucus is continuing a push for stronger representation at the meeting. Concerns that the group – which is a coalition of indigenous observers to the IGC – not be treated as a non-governmental organisation were raised at the last meeting (IPW, Traditional Knowledge, 23 October 2008).

    Indigenous people are not stakeholders in the way that civil society groups are, explained Albert Deterville of the indigenous Bethechilokono people of Saint Lucia, who chairs the Indigenous Peoples Caucus, to Intellectual Property Watch. Nor do they all have the same views, said several sources: indigenous communities come from a wide variety of circumstances, and have different needs.

    “If we are saying we are the owners of our genetic resources, if we are saying we are the owners of our traditional knowledge,” then “we are not stakeholders, we are rights holders,” he said. As such, he said, “we should insist on being treated as equal partners in this negotiation.”

    If states are to make decisions that affect indigenous people then there should be a mechanism for consulting indigenous people, added Deterville. “For me, as an indigenous leader, I want to sit with the government of my country and negotiate the terms of use of our resources. From the beginning, [this] must be a collaborative effort.”

    But progress is being made, he said, as the Caucus was given a nameplate from which to speak during the negotiations. Governments and accredited NGOs use these plates to call for the floor to speak during meetings. The caucus does not yet have their own space in the room – they are still using the space afforded to individually accredited indigenous observers – but is hoping to have it this week, he added.

    Future Work Decisions Key

    The two-year mandate of the IGC expires this year, and this week’s meeting must make a recommendation for continuation to the September General Assembly if it is to go on.

    The African Group proposal calls for text-based negotiations during 2010 and 2011 on intellectual property, genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. It also requests that by 2011, there is a text proposal for an international, legally-binding instrument or instruments on the issues. In a proposed work programme for the committee, the proposal also asks for the approval and scheduling of intersessional work between the official IGC meetings.

    Issues arising during the discussions on Tuesday day included what terms of reference there might be for intersessional meetings, and who might be involved. Indigenous groups are also calling for access to these meetings if they occur, and support in order to attend.

    Also to be resolved are budget concerns, in particular over intersessional work, and substantive concerns over whether an international legally binding instrument is an appropriate solution. The US in particular said that it is looking to understand what the detailed work programme will entail, and would like the secretariat to estimate costs.

    Debates over future work, and in particular on intersessional work, are part of what stalled the last IGC meeting on 13-17 October 2008 (IPW, Traditional Knowledge, 18 October 2008). A last minute proposal by the chair – which many felt did not take into account developing country concerns – caused confusion in the October negotiations, and eventually resulted in a declaration of “no agreement” on the last day of the scheduled meeting.

    In an informal note [pdf] circulated by Gauto on informal consultations since the last meeting, he again stated a list of issues and options for future work. These include options for the end point of the IGC negotiations, which include “(i) a binding international instrument or instruments; (ii) authoritative or persuasive interpretations or elaborations of existing legal instruments; (iii) a non-binding normative international instrument or instruments; (iv) a high-level political resolution, declaration or decision; (v) strengthened international coordination through guidelines or model laws; and, (vi) coordination of national legislative developments.”

    But most governments this week started off optimistically, with many expressing hope that concrete progress towards positive results can be made.

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

     

    Comments

    1. Intellectual Property Watch » Blog Archive » WIPO Work Likely To … | Distressed Marketplace says:

      [...] here to see the original: Intellectual Property Watch » Blog Archive » WIPO Work Likely To … Categories : AREA Property Partners, News, Real Estate [...]

    2. Meeting review: WIPO IGC-14 « Traditional Knowledge Bulletin says:

      [...] on indigenous and local community experiences … Read the IP Watch reports on the meeting of 30 June, 3 July, and 6 June 2009 … Watch a video interview with Terry Williams of the Tulalip Tribes [...]


    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 54.196.218.113