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
  • “We want everybody to agree on the science telling... »
  • So this is how we mankind will become extinct? No ... »

  • 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 >

    Study: UN Development Needs Reform; US, Indian Ambassadors Agree

    Published on 16 November 2012 @ 2:48 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    A study compiling the results of two surveys on the need for reform of United Nations development activities was presented this week in the presence of US and Indian ambassadors who agreed on needed improvements, though with a North and South perspective.

    The United Nations Office in Geneva (UNOG) Library organised a talk on 14 November in the context of a study released by the Future of the United Nations Development System (FUNDS) project, which is one of the ongoing activities at the US-based Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies co-editor of the study with the World Federation of United Nations Associations.

    Invited to the talk on 14 November were US Ambassador Betty King and Indian Ambassador Dilip Sinha, as well as one of the authors of the study, Stephen Browne, and UNOG Director General Kassym-Jomart Tokayev.

    The study [pdf] entitled Making Change Happen: Enhancing the UN’s Contributions to Development was undertaken as the 2015 deadline of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is approaching.

    The study analyses and summarises the results of two “global perception surveys” conducted by FUNDS in 2010 and 2012 with over 3,200 respondents from around the world.

    Tokayev said the United Nations is at a crossroads when it comes to the future UN development system. Although the MDGs have brought “remarkable achievements,” the work is unfinished and challenges such as food insecurity, unstable markets and price volatility, and climate change, have to be addressed through a system that is both responsible, dynamic and tailored to address the needs.

    Browne, presenting the findings of the study, said the development activities in the UN absorb about 60 percent of permanent staff. With 14 UN specialised agencies in charge of developing norms and standards, 5 regional commissions and 3 commissions under the UN secretariat, the UN is a large family. Browne said the study found three main challenges: organisational lack of cohesion, the declining relevance of the UN development system, and vested interests.

    Among the issues faced by the UN development system are its institutional structure and its funding mechanism, with agencies competing with each other from the same donors, he said. The UN Development System (UNDS, as referenced in the study) ineffectiveness is illustrated by the growing number of alternatives such as large international non-governmental organisations, private foundations, regional unions, and corporate programmes, and a number of those alternatives “are perceived to be more approachable, responsive and cost effective than the UN,” according to the study.

    Change is deemed necessary by all surveyed, said Browne. The UNDS has to take lessons from the evidence, Browne said, and maybe agree to pool funding, which would “be revolutionary” but would “create cohesion almost overnight.”

    Vested Interests in Funding Not So Bad, US Ambassador Says

    The US government, King said, believes that the UN is both indispensable and imperfect. There is no question that the UN is in need of structural reforms, she said. The multiplicity of the members of the UN family is hindering consistent decision-making and effectiveness of the programmes, she added.

    The study, she said, focused on the downside of non-traditional funding sources and the fact that member states are earmarking their contribution to UN agencies. But this is a reaction brought by frustrated donors who felt they did not have control and very little leverage when all the money was pooled together, according to King.

    A lot of donors decided to earmark and point out activities they wanted to fund. Governments face tighter scrutiny, and “people are going to demand better data on money being spent and results,” she said, adding that “ought to be seen as good.”

    She took the example of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as the world’s most successful donor. What Gates has done with his money has shown donor countries to get better results. “Now that the cat is out of the bag, there is no going back,” she said. “All donors are inclined to do this,” she added.

    Multilateral actors such as the GAVI Alliance were able to harness innovation and private sector resources and apply them to programmes, she said. They have met the donor expectations and the needs of programmes at the same time. “We can’t argue with the success of that,” she said, adding that 45 percent of the WHO funding came from non-state sources.

    Focus on Delivery Efficiency, Cost Reduction, Says India

    Sinha said India has been on the forefront of the demand for UN reform. The UN needs to keep pace with the changing world, he said. India does a lot of work bilaterally, and uses the UN as well, but countries often feel that bilateral delivery is more efficient and cost effective, he said. “UN agencies have to look at delivery costs,” he added.

    Efficiency in delivery is the most important factor that the UN has to keep in mind, Sinha said, and salaries and travel expenses should not monopolise the budget. Any organisation involved in the field of development should keep its headquarters costs as low as possible, he said, as money should be in the field. In the UN budget it is very difficult to find out that information, he said.

    Sinha also said that projects today are less oriented towards infrastructure and this is hindering development as, for example, internet can only spread “when you have the infrastructure.” Food security also needs infrastructure in the form of irrigation facilities, he said. The multiplicity of UN agencies does not represent a problem if they do not overlap, and work towards a more efficient delivery system, he said.

    However, many difficulties emerge from the lack of consensus among member states and the lack of clear direction, he said. Better coordination between countries and UN agencies is key to improving the delivery of the system, he said.

    WIPO Average Score in Perception of Relevance

    The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is holding the 10th session of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) from 12-16 November (IPW, WIPO, 15 November 2012).

    According to the study which ranked the UNDS organisations’ relevance for today’s problems, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization were top of the list, while WIPO ranked 17th out of 31 organisations.

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

     


    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 54.167.242.224