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.

Advertisement


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.

WHO Should Have The Evidence? Ben Goldacre Refutes WHO Director’s Claim

“Bad Science” adversary and journalist, Dr Ben Goldacre, this week challenged WHO Director of Ethics and Social Determinants of Health, Dr Rüdiger Krech, on his understanding of published evidence.





Latest Comments
  • As it happens, I own and create "intellectual prop... »
  • So long term planning of the UN Development Decade... »

  • 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 Committee On Development Agenda Suspended, Discussions Bogged Down

    Published on 7 May 2011 @ 1:18 am

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    The World Intellectual Property Organization committee in charge of overseeing the implementation of the organisation’s cornerstone Development Agenda, ended abruptly when the session was suspended after a strong disagreement over a development project.

    On Friday night, 6 May, delegates were furiously working their phones to try to find some agreement on a project on South-South cooperation. They had already struggled all week on a number of other projects implementing the 45 recommendations of the 2007 Development Agenda, and on modalities of a coordination mechanism setting standard procedures for reporting and which WIPO committees should report to the General Assembly.

    The WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) met from 2-6 May. Delegates had set out the week with hopes of addressing several projects and the tricky coordination mechanism (IPW, WIPO, 4 May 2011).

    The project [pdf] entitled “Enhancing South/South cooperation on intellectual property and development among developing countries and least developed countries” (LDCs) was originally submitted by Egypt at the last session of the CDIP, from 22-26 November 2010, and was presented at this week’s session by the African Group.

    According to the document presented by the African Group, the project “aims to achieve tangible results in the following areas in developing countries and the LDCs:” promoting development-oriented IP technical and legal assistance, IP institutional capacity building, domestic innovation capacity building, facilitating access and dissemination of knowledge and technology, and the use of IP flexibilities, plus understanding the link between IP and competition policies.

    Closed Meetings Trigger Opposition

    It is the programme of work of the project that brought discontent. In the project, two inter-regional meetings were planned among developing countries and LDCs, and two annual conferences with the full WIPO membership. According to sources, the two inter-regional meetings would have been closed meetings only allowing members from developing countries and LDCs and that was challenged, in particular by developed countries.

    Some concessions were made so that only the first inter-regional meeting would have been closed and the second one would be open to developed countries but only with an observer status, with one conference open to the whole WIPO membership, according to sources. Some developed countries argued that no meeting should be restricted to only some members as some developing countries purported the opposite opinion, saying that a closed meeting would constitute the first step of South-South collaboration, sources said.

    No consensus seemed reachable and Egypt asked for a vote to adopt the project, backed by India and South Africa. Matters got only worse when a developed country member asked for a secret ballot vote, which gave way to a discussion on the WIPO rules of procedures and the difficulty to organise a secret ballot vote this late into the evening and the meeting, sources said.

    Egypt finally asked for a suspension of the meeting, backed by India, according to a source. The vice-chair of the meeting, Garikai Kashitiku, first secretary of the permanent mission of Zimbabwe, suspended the meeting.

    According to some developing country sources, the suspension of the meeting is allowing the project on South/South cooperation to survive the dissentions as a vote might have ruled it out.

    Earlier in the last evening, the vice-chair circulated the draft report of the meeting [pdf], which was never discussed, sources said.

    Coordination Mechanism on Hold

    One other area of disagreement is the coordination mechanism, which was not an agenda item and has been discussed exclusively in informal meetings this week, without much progress, although a developed country source told Intellectual Property Watch on 4 May that some progress had been made on modalities. India provided a draft text [pdf] on the last day on modalities of the coordination, monitoring, assessing and reporting mechanism for the development agenda. It was unclear at press time if delegates had discussed the draft text.

    In this draft proposal, India proposed that all WIPO committees and bodies report annually to the General Assembly about the manner in which Development Agenda recommendations are being mainstreamed in their work, and how they are contributing to the implementation of the 45 recommendation of the Development Agenda.

    India also proposed that the session of the committee/body immediately preceding the session of the General Assembly contains a standing agenda item titled “Implementation of the Development Agenda.”

    Development Projects in Limbo

    With the suspension of the session, the delegates will have to start where they left off, Kashitiku told Intellectual Property Watch.

    Most projects discussed this week could not be approved by the committee, with the exception of a project on intellectual property and the informal economy [pdf].

    A project on “brain drain” was approved but with a list of considerations from member states to modify it [pdf].

    A project on patent-related rights and the public domain was not adopted, nor a project on patent-related flexibilities in the multilateral legal framework and their legislative implementation at the national level. A scoping study on copyright and related rights and the public domain was discussed, and India asked that work be taken further on the study’s recommendation.

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

     

    Comments

    1. WIPO Development Committee Kicks Off With Compromise | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] of the project meant to bolster collaboration between developing and least developed countries (IPW, WIPO, 7 May 2011). In particular, developed countries objected to a proposition in the original project, submitted [...]


    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 107.21.186.38