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
  • So this is how we mankind will become extinct? No ... »
  • 'Business methods were generally not patentable in... »

  • 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 >

    At WTO, LDC Fight For Extension Of TRIPS Transition Continues

    Published on 24 May 2013 @ 11:52 am

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    Over the past week or so, least-developed country (LDC) members of the World Trade Organization have held their own in a closed room with the world’s biggest economies as they worked out details of a request by the LDCs to extend the deadline by which they must enforce WTO intellectual property rules.

    At issue is the built-in transition time for LDCs under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Currently, the transition is due to expire on 1 July 2013 (and 2016 for pharmaceutical products).

    LDCs had previously extended the period in 2005, and most consider themselves to still not be ready. Therefore, they requested another extension, only this time they proposed that it be in place until a member is no longer classified as an LDC.

    The issue was the subject of intensive consultations with the chair of the WTO Council on TRIPS, Panama Amb. Alfredo Suescum, over the past two weeks in a small room upstairs, which happens to be near the WTO IP Division. Consultations are expected to continue in the lead-up to the next meeting of the Council on TRIPs, on 11-12 June. Any decisions taken in the smaller consultations are subject to full consensus of the membership.

    The going has been rough for the LDCs as their developing country colleagues were not allowed to participate, according to sources, and developed countries were not looking favourably upon details of the request. At one point in the week, an LDC negotiator leaving the room after hours of talks, said with weary pride that they had not given in yet.

    TRIPS Art. 66.1 makes clear that LDCs will get an extension. It states: “In view of the special needs and requirements of least-developed country Members, their economic, financial and administrative constraints, and their need for flexibility to create a viable technological base, such Members shall not be required to apply the provisions of this Agreement, other than Articles 3, 4 and 5, for a period of 10 years from the date of application as defined under paragraph 1 of Article 65. The Council for TRIPS shall, upon duly motivated request by a least-developed country Member, accord extensions of this period.”

    “Given the language of Article 66.1, we had thought it would be an easy decision based on the duly motivated request from LDCs. However, what we thought to be an easy process has not been so easy,” a representative of Nepal, speaking on behalf of LDCs, said in prepared remarks for a 22 May informal TRIPS Council meeting, open to any member.

    It has been generally accepted for months that an extension would be agreed by all; it only remained to resolve details such as for how long. Developed countries have suggested 5 years, according to sources.

    LDCs want it to apply for as long as a country remains an LDC, and they want it not to restrict them from making changes to previously adopted measures should they see fit. But developed countries, such as those of the European Union, feel that an expiration deadline would be more of an incentive for them to keep working toward TRIPS enforcement, and that there should not be any “rollback” permitted of existing measures, as was the case in the 2005 extension.

    In its remarks to the 22 May meeting, Nepal said that the situation of LDCs has not changed significantly since the 2005 extension, particularly in meeting Art. 66.1. It said the requested extension is “reasonable, predictable and practical,” and that maximum flexibility is needed during the transition period. It also said a short-term timeframe would not help, as previous short-term deadlines have “clearly been insufficient to develop suitable conditions to benefit from IP systems.”

    Nepal on behalf of the LDCs criticised the rollback proposal, saying that “even in 2005 almost all LDCs delegations who intervened expressed displeasure about the no roll back.” It added, “Negotiators of the TRIPS Agreement never intended for such a clause to be applicable to LDCs,” and if had it would have been mentioned expressly. It also said a rollback is “antithetical” to the spirit of Art. 66.1 as it would “narrow the policy space of LDCs.”

    However, LDCs have suggested a compromise on rollback to include a clarification that “such a provision will not undermine the flexibility LDCs have been provided under TRIPS.” But this has been met with resistance, the delegate said.

    At the 22 May informal TRIPS Council meeting, a squadron of larger developing countries showed support to the LDCs.

    According to one source, Nepal for the LDC group, Morocco on behalf of the African Group, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, China, Brazil, Bolivia, Mexico, India, Cuba and South Africa spoke in favour of the LDCs’ proposal.

    India in prepared remarks at the 22 May consultation supported the LDC request, repeated its view from the March TRIPS Council meeting that “any artificial deadline would not help in creating a sound and viable technological base and that the decision to extend the transition period should not be circumscribed by any conditionalities like a ‘no roll back clause’ or TRIPS implementation.”

    Developed countries, meanwhile, chose not to speak at the 22 May meeting, according to sources, except Norway, which suggested members show flexibility, the source said.

    LDCs are given significant flexibility under TRIPS. South Africa, meanwhile, suggested that Australia’s tobacco plain packaging rule represents a roll-back, which led Australia to say no, it doesn’t, as they contend in the active WTO dispute case that the measure is in full compliant with TRIPS, the source said.

    In a third area of discussion, it must be decided whether provisions for enhanced technical cooperation will be put in place again this time. This is a way of helping LDCs implement TRIPS, but it may not be continued this time.

    In sum, Nepal on behalf of LDCs said, “Let us not send a message that it can be so difficult for WTO members to make a decision in favour of the most marginalized group of countries – a decision based on the precise language of Article 66.1.”

    Groundswell of NGO Support

    A large number of non-governmental groups from around the world rose in support of the LDCs in recent weeks.

    A sharply worded letter was sent by two NGO groups on 20 May directly to TRIPS Council Chair Suescum, expressing “outrage” at the “manner in which informal consultations are being conducted on the issue.”

    “We find the current process to be unfair and prejudicial to the interests of the LDCs, the poorest and most vulnerable segment of the international community.” They called it “outrageous” that, according to them, developing countries were prevented from participating in the consultations.

    “Clearly the consultations have been designed so that the outcome will fail the LDCs,” the letter said. They also called it “unconscionable” that the chair was enabling the imposition of conditions on LDCs. The letter was signed by the “Our World Is Not For Sale” network and LDC Watch.

    Also on 20 May, Electronic Information For Libraries (EIFL) sent a letter [pdf] of concern to Suescum.

    A February letter [pdf] was signed by nearly 400 NGOs from every corner of the world, stating that Art. 66.1 “obliges the TRIPS Council to approve without conditions the duly motivated request submitted by the LDCs.”

    “LDCs face ongoing resource and human constraints, widening technological gaps, and weak innovative capacities,” the letter said. “Overcoming these problems takes contextually specific strategies, policy flexibility, greater financial resources, but it also takes time – decades not years.”

    “Failure by the TRIPS Council to grant LDCs an extension would be disastrous for LDC Members and their citizens,” particularly because they would be required to enforce all aspects of TRIPS immediately, especially painful before they have managed to grow their own local inventors, authors and creators to “leverage a domestic intellectual property system to their advantage.”

    They went further to say that LDCs have been “misguided” into complying with the TRIPS agreement rather than taking steps in their best interest, which might include using flexibilities to TRIPS.

    William New may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. At WTO, LDC Fight For Extension Of TRIPS Transition Continues ... - English m7asbh says:

      [...] Continue reading here: At WTO, LDC Fight For Extension Of TRIPS Transition Continues … [...]

    2. At WTO, LDC Fight For Extension Of TRIPS Transition Continues | Don't trade our lives away says:

      [...] Source: IP Watch [...]

    3. LDCs Obtain New Waiver On IP Obligations At WTO, Take It As A Limited Victory | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] However, the delegate said he wanted to “point out our systemic concern about the process adopted in reaching this decision which was negotiated between a small group of countries, to the exclusion of the larger membership.” During the closed-door informal negotiations, LDC representatives faced off with developed countries but no larger developing countries were in the negotiations until it was brought before other members for comment (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 24 May 2013). [...]


    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 54.197.188.35