• Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise
    • Advertise On IP Watch
    • Editorial Calendar
  • Videos
  • Links
  • Help

Intellectual Property Watch

Original news and analysis on international IP policy

  • Copyright
  • Patents
  • Trademarks
  • Opinions
  • People News
  • Venues
    • Bilateral/Regional Negotiations
    • ITU/ICANN
    • United Nations – other
    • WHO
    • WIPO
    • WTO/TRIPS
    • Africa
    • Asia/Pacific
    • Europe
    • Latin America/Caribbean
    • North America
  • Themes
    • Access to Knowledge/ Open Innovation & Science
    • Food Security/ Agriculture/ Genetic Resources
    • Finance
    • Health & IP
    • Human Rights
    • Internet Governance/ Digital Economy/ Cyberspace
    • Lobbying
    • Technical Cooperation/ Technology Transfer
  • Health Policy Watch

ACTA A Sign Of Weakness In Multilateral System, WIPO Head Says

30/06/2010 by Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch 6 Comments

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

The plurilateral Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and other such regional negotiations are a “bad development” for multilateral agencies, the World Intellectual Property Organization director general has told Intellectual Property Watch.

Asked about this week’s ACTA negotiation in Lucerne, Switzerland (IPW, Enforcement, 26 June 2010), Gurry said it is an example of the difficulty the United Nations and the rest of the multilateral system have providing swift answers to international problems.

WIPO Director General Francis Gurry told UN journalists on 29 June that the inability to provide answers could lead to member states taking matters into their own hands to seek solutions outside of the multilateral system to the detriment of inclusiveness of the present system.

There is an increasing number of issues that can only be addressed internationally, which is bringing a challenge to the whole UN system, highlighting its inability to address them, Gurry said. Despite that “surge for international agreements, we are not seeing international agreements flowing out very easily,” he said.

If “you look across the system, in all organisations, you are not seeing agreements being concluded on a daily basis,” even if the speed with which interconnection has intensified would suggest that agreements are needed, he said. But he did not offer clear ideas on how to solve the delays.

“A number of countries feel [there is] an important area of public policy they are not able to address in a multilateral forum, and so have gone outside the multilateral framework to satisfy their desire for creating some form of ‘international’ cooperation,” Gurry told Intellectual Property Watch in an interview last week. “That’s the challenge, for us. And whether it concerns enforcement, ACTA, or any other area, that, on the whole, is a bad development for a multilateral agency, that member states start to do things outside.”

“Either the machinery works, or it doesn’t,” he said. “That I think is the real significance of ACTA.

The frustration it has caused is a consequence of practical issues not being addressed, he said, citing recent difficult discussions in the Standing Committee on Copyrights and Related Rights on increased access for visually impaired persons. “Can anyone not subscribe to that principle, as a general rule?” he asked, with visually impaired readers only obtaining access to about five percent of all published work in reasonable time.

“Can anyone stand up and say that they should not have more [access], that we should not do something about it?” It is such an obvious question, he said “but we are not getting an agreement” although the last meeting showed genuine involvement of member countries.

“This is the frustration that we are all feeling,” he said, and it leads to other ways to reach solutions.

The challenge is to “make the multilateral system relevant,” he said, giving several reasons why this is important. First, problems are often international and a real response will only come through an international solution, as opposed to a partial one. Second, the most vulnerable countries are the ones that need most the international system and international solutions are inclusive and give an opportunity to all countries to have a voice and to have a say in the solution. The third reason is public policy, Gurry said. Depending on the areas, solutions can be given by technology, or by the private sector, “which may or may not be a good thing, but it should not happen by default,” he said.

Gurry said so far this year three out of four important meetings at WIPO had been positive, the last one on copyright and related rights, brought disappointing results due to a breakdown in talks over exceptions and limitations for visually impaired readers (IPW, WIPO, 26 June 2010).

Last week’s WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights also discussed the protection of broadcasting organisations, but no advances were made on the subject either, Gurry said.

One of the problems is that technology changes very quickly, Gurry said. In this context of a “moving target,” he said, “how can we legislate?”

There is also an issue of the public domain, he said. The right of the broadcasters is not in the content, it is in the signal. For example, the producer of a film might retain the right on the film, but the broadcaster will retain the right over the particular packaging of the film. However, concerning the public domain, such as state archives, someone can take something from those archives, wrap a broadcast signal around it and package it. Some have expressed concern that “you are capturing things that are otherwise in the public domain and covering them” with IP rights. According to Gurry, this is a misrepresentation, as “nothing stops other people from going back to the archives.”

WIPO 2010-2015 Strategic Plan Floated

On 27 May, Gurry presented a medium-term strategic plan for WIPO for 2010-2015 to the member states and launched a consultative process, according to the WIPO website [PDF].

Another meeting was held on 25 June and “member states came back with various comments and suggestions, and they will now be put in writing,” said Gurry. A lot of individual comments were provided, he said.

According to WIPO, following the consultative process, a proposed strategic plan will be considered by the WIPO Program and Budget Committee in September, before submitting it to the WIPO General Assemblies.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Related

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

Creative Commons License"ACTA A Sign Of Weakness In Multilateral System, WIPO Head Says" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Filed Under: Language, Themes, Venues, Access to Knowledge/ Education, Enforcement, English, Information and Communications Technology/ Broadcasting, Innovation/ R&D, WIPO

Comments

  1. Miles Teg says

    30/06/2010 at 8:40 pm

    What Gurry says it partially true only. The success of the multilateral system is not mainly in its ability to produce agreements. It is also in its ability to safeguard rights that exist in current agreements. For instance, developing countries face enormous pressures not to use legal rights like exceptions, and compulsory licences even in cases of extreme need. Why have organisations from the WHO, WTO and WIPO failed to come to the rescue of the agreements they themselves should be safeguarding? Should countries then agree to more agreements whose legal outcome is in any event of questionable practical value?

    The fact that those who hold the majority of IPRs (particularly patents) are seeking an agreement like ACTA is indicative of the fact they want to entrench their comparative advantage – perhaps in the hopes of later multilateralising the treaty.

    To say that ACTA is a symptom of weakness in multilateralism is too simplistic. Because the rich countries prefer to club “exclusively” (and without oversight/transparency to their own constituencies) together outside the system is to miss the essential point that these countries do not mind seeking their own advantage even at the expense or of the multilateral system. Higher standards of IPR protection for many countries are simply not warranted as they do not benefit from the current system, why would they endorse a stronger system that may entrench disadvantage? Even empirically the ICC said that counterfeiting amounts to 7% of global trade. Upon closer inspection, it was confirmed that they had no statistical basis for such a figure. When they did do the study afterwards, they confirmed their guesswork. Even the 10% figure issued by WHO for medicines is not robust and is an estimate – although touted as “accurate”. And coincidently high prices for medicines has been dropped as a contributing factor to counterfeiting, which is strange given that high brand name prices increases the incentive for ‘counterfeiters’.

    The globalisation of IPR protection was to have brought diffusion and disemination of technology and productive capacity. What we have is consumption of high technology goods largely in poor countries with production concentrated in a few countries (developed and some developing).

    Perhaps Gurry should keep it simple by rather who benefits?

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. WIPO Worried About Why Countries Feel They Needed ACTA Process Outside Of WIPO | Tech Geek says:
    07/07/2010 at 5:37 am

    […] the purpose of ACTA was to get around having to include such groups. It appears that WIPO, itself, is quite concerned about what’s going on with ACTA, suggesting that he’s worried that these countries no longer believe the WIPO process works. […]

    Reply
  2. WIPO Worried About Why Countries Feel They Needed ACTA Process Outside Of WIPO | Techdirt says:
    07/07/2010 at 6:23 am

    […] the purpose of ACTA was to get around having to include such groups. It appears that WIPO, itself, is quite concerned about what's going on with ACTA, suggesting that he's worried that these countries no longer believe the WIPO process works. "A […]

    Reply
  3. WIPO Worried About Why Countries Feel They Needed ACTA Process Outside Of WIPO | It's... just a dot says:
    07/07/2010 at 6:52 am

    […] the purpose of ACTA was to get around having to include such groups. It appears that WIPO, itself, is quite concerned about what's going on with ACTA, suggesting that he's worried that these countries no longer believe the WIPO process works. "A […]

    Reply
  4. WIPO Worried About Why Countries Feel They Needed ACTA Process Outside Of WIPO | Technology News and Information for Geeks says:
    07/07/2010 at 7:02 am

    […] the purpose of ACTA was to get around having to include such groups. It appears that WIPO, itself, is quite concerned about what’s going on with ACTA, suggesting that he’s worried that these countries no longer believe the WIPO process works. […]

    Reply
  5. European Union members sign controversial anti-piracy treaty | AspenIT.co.uk | Computing & Technology News says:
    27/01/2012 at 3:41 am

    […] There has been deep concern because of the secrecy surrounding the negotiations of ACTA. It would also operate outside of existing trade bodies, the World Trade Organisation and World Intellectual Property Organisation, which have also voiced concerns. […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
My Tweets

IPW News Briefs

Saudis Seek Alternative Energy Partners Through WIPO Green Program

Chinese IP Officials Complete Study Of UK, European IP Law

Perspectives on the US

In US, No Remedies For Growing IP Infringements

US IP Law – Big Developments On The Horizon In 2019

More perspectives on the US...

Supported Series: Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities

Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities Series – Translations Now Available

The Myth Of IP Incentives For All Nations – Q&A With Carlos Correa

Read the TRIPS flexibilities series...

Paid Content

Interview With Peter Vanderheyden, CEO Of Article One Partners

More paid content...

IP Delegates in Geneva

  • IP Delegates in Geneva
  • Guide to Geneva-based Public Health and IP Organisations

All Story Categories

Other Languages

  • Français
  • Español
  • 中文
  • اللغة العربية

Archives

  • Archives
  • Monthly Reporter

Staff Access

  • Writers

Sign up for free news alerts

This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2021 · Global Policy Reporting

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.