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

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.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • Congratulations upon re-election;-WHO chief.Priori... »
  • Great article. Ms. Chan may want to read our book ... »

  • 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 >


    Compromise UN Protocol Treaty Against Biopiracy Adopted In Japan

    Published on 29 October 2010 @ 10:10 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    With a standing ovation in the early hours of the morning of Saturday, in Nagoya, Japan, an international instrument aimed at preventing misappropriation of genetic resources was adopted by members of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. The protocol is also intended to ensure that benefits accrued from the use of those genetic resources are shared equitably with the provider country.

    Along with the protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilisation on access and benefit sharing, over 40 decisions were adopted, and among them a decision on the strategic plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) for the years 2011-2020, as well as a decision on resource mobilisation strategy.

    The 10th Conference of the Parties (COP 10) the 1992 CBD met from 18-29 October.

    The Access and Benefit Sharing Protocol, nicknamed the “Nagoya Protocol,” was dubbed by the president of COP 10, Environment Minister Ryu Matsumoto of Japan, to be the “long cherished dream of the parties.” The draft text itself had been discussed for months in an effort to reach agreement, through late yesterday (IPW, Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech, 27 October 2010).

    This morning, a new clean text was presented to the COP plenary session, after Matsumoto, the co-chairs of the working group negotiating the text, and regional representatives had convened once more. The text from the morning of 29 October is available here.

    During the plenary, some countries remarked that the protocol was not strong enough. Venezuela said that eight years ago the country wanted a strong agreement to prevent piracy with efficient tools but, the delegate said, the ABS protocol has suffered many changes since the first draft and the country was now very concerned about nature being turned into merchandise.

    Cuba said they did not agree with the document, but would not stand in the way of its adoption. Namibia’s delegate said that looking at the expectations, the protocol “was not the best document” but “we can live with it” as a starting point. She referred in particular to Article 25 which states that the parties should undertake a review of the protocol four years after the entry into force of the instrument and “thereafter at intervals determined by” the COP.

    Bolivia said that the protocol did not fully include the opinion of state parties and asked that the country position of disagreement with the text be recorded.

    The World Wildlife Fund issued a statement today welcoming the adoption of a new ten year biodiversity rescue plan, and said “the Nagoya protocol is an historic achievement, ensuring that the often immense value of genetic resources is more equitably shared.”

    However, WWF said developed countries “were unable to mobilise an immediate injection of major new funding” but still managed to “reach agreement on a plan to identify the necessary funding by 2012 to implement” the rescue plan.

    Lila Feisee, vice president for global intellectual property policy of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, said that BIO “has significant concerns that some of the language of the text would result in retroactive application of the protocol. Retroactive application of the protocol would have a chilling effect on current and future R&D activity on genetic materials and would have the opposite effect of that desired by the CBD.”

    Matsumoto and Ahmed Djoghlaf, the CBD executive secretary, hailed it a victory. The adoption of the Nagoya Protocol is important both for users and providers, said Matsumoto. “It will further enhance the welfare of all mankind.”

    Japan will serve as chair until the next COP, in 2012, in India, Matsumoto said.

    Djoghlaf said that COP 10 was record breaking with a record of more than 18,000 participants, including 122 ministers and 120 parliamentarians, and record pledges for financial support.

    The ETC Group, at a press conference today, also acclaimed the decision of COP 10 on a moratorium on geo-engineering, which it called the “large scale manipulation of the planet,” like ocean fertilisation with particles to provoke a plankton bloom supposed to absorb carbon dioxide. With the moratorium, no geo-engineering will take place until a clear understanding of the impacts on the environment and health is evaluated, they said. This is a proof of what the multilateral system can achieve, they said.

    Catherine Saez may be reached at csaez@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. P*law*lotic » Blog's archive » Mondays in Latin America: Brazil edition says:

      [...] Find more information about the protocol at Biodiversity International and Intellectual Property Watch. [...]

    2. Innovation Law Blog » Blog Archive » UN Treaty against Biopiracy adopted in Japan says:

      [...] reported by IP-Watch (http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/10/29/compromise-un-protocol-treaty-against-biopiracy-adopted-in...), in Nagoya Japan, members of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity adopted an [...]

    3. Long Week Ahead For WIPO Experts Considering Treaty On IP And Genetic Resources | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] whose aim is to prevent unlawful appropriation of genetic resources, was adopted on 29 October (IPW, Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech, 29 October 2010). It includes languages on prior informed consent of indigenous and local communities (Article 6). [...]

    4. Long Week Ahead For WIPO Experts Considering Treaty On IP And Genetic Resources | Conservation Commons says:

      [...] whose aim is to prevent unlawful appropriation of genetic resources, was adopted on 29 October (IPW, Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech, 29 October 2010 [10]). It includes languages on prior informed consent of indigenous and local communities (Article [...]

    5. Twelve More Nations, EU, Sign Nagoya Protocol | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity was completed in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010 (IPW, Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech, 29 October 2010), and will take effect 90 days after the fiftieth country ratifies it. After a CBD member signs the [...]


    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.