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
  • This is certainly a good move, but perhaps this is... »
  • Copyrights are unique works set in a concrete mode... »

  • 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 >


    Role Of WIPO On Traditional Knowledge In Question

    Published on 30 September 2009 @ 5:25 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    Failure to resolve the deadlock over traditional knowledge at the World Intellectual Property Organization would call into question the organisation’s role, some member states said this week, as the chair of the General Assemblies tabled a text in an attempt to bridge major gaps that still remain. Meanwhile, the organisation adopted a commitment to approve the availability of documents in all its languages.

    “While WIPO is in a deadlock, other organisations are moving forward,” said a delegate from Pakistan at a plenary session 28 September. “If we continue to move away from these issues here, WIPO will find itself marginalised in the international arena.”

    “We have to justify” coming to Geneva and returning home “empty-handed without anything to show” for these meetings, an African delegate told Intellectual Property Watch. They are not asking for aid, the delegate added, but for the tools to solve development issues themselves. Traditional knowledge and genetic resources are key resources for that goal, the delegate said.

    Chair’s Text Aims At Compromise

    The Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and Traditional Cultural Expressions (IGC) has an uphill battle over the next two days to reach a convergence that has eluded the committee at its last two sessions.

    General Assemblies Chair Ambassador Alberto Dumont of Argentina held an ambassador-level meeting of regional group coordinators plus one Tuesday night, at which little progress on a way forward was made, sources at WIPO told Intellectual Property Watch.

    As the WIPO General Assemblies, meeting from 22 September to 1 October, draw to a close, the chair’s text is a last-ditch effort to find a middle ground on which delegates might be able to agree. Generally the general assemblies are for signing off on recommendations from specialised committees, but the IGC’s lack of agreement at its previous two sessions has left the decision as to its continued mandate up to the Assemblies.

    The new text written by Amb. Dumont is available here [pdf].

    At bookends of the debate are a proposal by Africa to engage in text-based negotiations towards a legally-binding international instrument and a proposal by the United States to “work towards a convergence of views” though without a defined outcome and without text-based negotiations. The proposal of Africa is being supported by Group of Latin American and Caribbean States (GRULAC) as well as most of the Asian group.

    There are also mid-way proposals on the table from Europe and from Australia (IPW, WIPO, 25 September 2009).

    The chair’s text preserves the desire of the African group to undertake text-based negotiations with the objective of creating an international instrument or instruments. But it excises the term “legally-binding,” which some countries and the US in particular had shown resistance to, and which the African group and its supporters had highlighted as essential. This is likely to be the most difficult issue to bridge, said sources from both sides of the issue.

    It also includes a chapeau, which appears to be essentially derived from the European proposal, affirming that the General Assembly “respects and recognizes the wish of indigenous and local communities and member states that their” traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions and genetic resources “should not be misappropriated and misused.”

    Can WIPO “Move Forward With The Tide Of History”?

    Meanwhile, frustration at the difficulty of consensus was palpable. This was especially so among developing countries calling for a legally-binding international instrument, as Benin said it is “time for us to move forward with the tide of history.”

    “We believe our countries are being treated unfairly,” said a delegate from Burundi during the plenary session, in reference to the fact that there is as yet no international instrument to protect traditional knowledge and genetic resources. “We have value attached to artists in the Western world while” traditional knowledge “is exploited elsewhere,” he said. “The [WIPO] Secretariat is an arbiter and should intervene,” he added.

    We “want our discussions to come up with specific results,” said the delegate of Senegal on behalf of the African Group.

    Expanding the benefits of the intellectual property system in developing countries is one of the key objectives of the Development Agenda at WIPO, said a delegate of Ecuador, on behalf of GRULAC during a plenary session this week (according to an unofficial translation), adding that a decision on the IGC should reflect Development Agenda principles.

    But others questioned the legally-binding instrument as an outcome. Korea suggested in plenary that “perhaps we can prevent misappropriation without proprietisation,” and suggested looking at options to protect traditional knowledge and genetic resources within the existing system, and several developed countries said a renewed mandate for the IGC should not commit to a specific outcome.

    Should WIPO Be The Forum?

    A delegate from Canada said during the plenary that the country is “of the view that the IGC is the most appropriate forum for substantive discussion on genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions.” She added “we would be very disappointed if these no longer fell under a WIPO committee.” Canada has argued in parallel discussions at the World Trade Organization that protection of genetic resources has no place in IP and trade laws.

    Japan also said “this house is the most appropriate forum” for handling these issues during the plenary session.

    But others were not as certain. “If the very institution that is expected to… does not have the political will to complete an instrument capable of providing legal protection to [traditional knowledge, genetic resources, and folklore], maybe it’s time for us to consider some other avenues,” said Indonesia in a prepared statement And Botswana and Zimbabwe mentioned efforts through the African Regional Intellectual Property Office (ARIPO) to create a regional instrument, while Ecuador spoke of creating a national biodiversity and traditional knowledge database that would include sui generis protection measures.

    WIPO Promises Faster Translation

    One success of the General Assemblies this week was an agreement on text dealing with translation. Member states – led by Spain with the support of Chile, Costa Rica, and Uruguay – had been calling for documents to be available in all WIPO working languages sooner. The Spanish version of the budget had, for example, come out “just a few hours before the beginning of the” Programme and Budget Committee meeting, Spain said in a statement. They asked that resources be organised so that non-English language texts are available earlier.

    The agreed text on use of languages is “Upon the specific request of Member States, the Secretariat will improve the timely availability of documents in the appropriate WIPO official languages for its meetings.”

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

     

    Comments

    1. Dr. Amy Eisenberg says:

      Dear Colleagues

      It is deeply disheartening to learn of the extensive pillaging and pirating of indigenous Africa heritage because of greed and sheer disrespect. Africa’s tumultuously violent history of apartheid, racism and colonization took the lives, land and livelihoods of millions of indigenous African peoples. This must not continue. I call on the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights and the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to strongly oppose these wrongful and inhuman acts of theft and exploitation.

      United Nations agencies have a very important role to play in protecting African indigenous intellectual property and the very people who are struggling to make ends meet. Ban Ki-moon must be alerted to these terrible ongoing abuses and opportunism that is against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

      The Center for World Indigenous Studies actively denounces the pirating of African intellectual property and the violation of human rights.

      We have a universal responsibility to condemn these disrespectful and aggressive acts and must continue to work to change these injustices. Never give up hope and keep working for positive change. The truth is on our side.

      Sincerely,

      Dr. Amy Eisenberg
      Sonoma County Indian Health Project
      Center for World Indigenous Studies
      USA


    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.