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.
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.
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.
Intellectual Property Watch
The World Health Organization today issued a briefing note attempting to offer a detailed explanation of its actions in relation to the 2009 H1N1 “swine” flu pandemic, amid charges that it overstated the problem to the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry and quietly changed its definition of a pandemic (IPW, WHO, 8 June 2010). The WHO briefing note is available here.
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.
16 June 2010 at 4:32 pm
the virus was platic enough to cause concerns about increasing morbidity and mortality, BUT not enough for WHO/WTO/OIE to state that it was safe to trade in pork products… if a mutation can be justification for declaring a pandemic, why not more caution on trade in pork products? After all, virus mututation can and do have surprising effects… WHO in effect stopped countries from banning such trade as unscientific… double standards or do you smell a porker?
17 June 2010 at 11:31 pm
Why “WHO spins”, and why “a briefing note attempting to offer”? Any chance that the matter is sorted out one day – or simply reported on – on the basis of facts rather than innuendo?
This, of course does not apply to the above piece only. There are just too many pieces in the media which summon the WHO, and Margaret Chan in particular, to prove their innocence and to prove an absence of ulterior motives.
Furthermore, there is a widespread tendency – to which WHO also succumbs – to only consider the potential conflicts of interest arising through ties with industry (“profit-driven industry” as the WHO puts it, as if there were another kind of industry). Yet the objectivity of an advice from experts can also be compromised by other interests.
As a tax and medical insurance payer, I am of course keen to see decisions not influenced by profit-making. As a patient, I am very much afraid of decisions reflecting cost containment considerations, or anti-corporate activism.
19 June 2010 at 10:45 am
@ Seppi, depending on your perspective, the headline is quite mild given what has occured! Balance and fair reporting should not be confused with the objectivity of ‘both sides’ when the casualty is common sense. WHO has a duty to manage conflicts of interest (or potential ones) and it has INFORMED its governing bodies that it is in charge of the policies and constantly updates its policies and manages them. That its management of conflicts on a matter of deadly consequence and costing billions is not properly handled smacks of bad management, simple. Do you want balance in coverage of the safety breaches of the BP Oil Spill – should BP be given the same amount of space to defend themselve, I think not, and neither at WHO.
That WHO has to keep coming back to defend itself should be an inference against it, not against those who report on it and can see the trajectory of the story.
WHO and Chan are not proving anything. A case has been made that the circumstances leading up to and the decision on the pandemic (as well as composition) is of poor quality (being generous here). This case is made by experts who are more ‘disinterested’ and equally qualified compared to to those WHO chose.
The issue relates to a string of actions at WHO that allowed poor decisions to be made. NO ONE IS REALLY LOOKING AT HOW WHO ALLOWED LEGALLY OWNED SAMPLES OF VIRUSES TO BE TAKEN BY WHO AND DONATED TO THE PATENT PORTFOLIOS OF PRIVATE ENTITIES CONTRARY TO WHO’S OWN GUIDANCE. IF YOUR CONCERNS ARE VALIDLY CONTEXTUALISED PERHAPS WHO WILL RESPOND TO THE THOSE ISSUES INSTEAD OF LEAVING IT UP TO MEMBER STATES TO SLUG IT OUT! To be fair, Chan has been doing a great deal to improve things at WHO without much support and poor advice. Instead of Chan coming in to defend the organisation, the ADGs and experts that bear responsibility must come forward and make their case instead of hiding behind Chan’s skirts. That Chan has to take front stage repeatedly merely confirms top level ineptitude – ask ANY corporate lawyer if she would put up a CEO as a line of defense in evidence and you will have your answer.
In other words, don’t shoot the messenger of this article….