[A2k] Snipped news from WIPO DA Meeting
Tue Apr 12 12:13:00 2005
The WIPO DA meeting Day 2 will continue until 7pm. Some NGOs might speak
today after the member states are done as well as the IGOs. The
industry is everywhere in mass. I heard many attended an NGO meeting
during lunch. I hope to receive more later on the briefing which
included TWN, CPtech, MSF, EFF, CIEL, ICTSD and others.
For those who cannot wait to find out what's going on in plenary...I
received some rough notes. It looks to me as if it's getting hotter in
These are snipped and rough notes. I found Argentina and Brazil comments
on the proposals on the table (see
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/da.html) really interesting. Diplomatic
We would like to refer to other proposals referred to in the meeting.
They show the commitment of good will to establish a proper development
agenda at WIPO. Three proposals have one common element-to limit the
scope of the DA to technical assistance. Our delegation, of course,
rejects this strategy. Our own proposal is concrete, and has policy actions.
Our paper presents concrete ways in which to achieve DA goals. We
encourage Member States to make proposals based on the other elements of
the Development Agenda.
On the US proposal, we observe that the premise that the partnership
would be based from the GFod perspective, the US focuses on
strengthening IPRs. We do NOT share the views expressed in this
document. Technical assistance should be tailor made appropriate to
The development dimension is not exhausted in the element contained in
the US proposal.
In our view, technical assistance should be based on the real needs and
interests of Members and should be managed and provided in a
transparent, neutral fashion. There should be an assessment mechanism
such as we have proposed.
To sum up, we want greater effectiveness in the application of technical
assistance. Therefore, the tools should not be based on the tools of
Developed countries, but on the needs of LDCs.
The UK proposal is based on many recommendations on the UK IPR
Commission. The Development Agenda is not limited to technical
cooperation. However, it appears that the UK only address the technical
cooperation aspect. The UK backs a mandate change for WIPO to better
address development needs. It also suggests that the PCIPD should be
the sole forum for the discussion of these issues.
Patent harmonization initiatives as supported by the UK have been
rejected in the previous SCP and the WIPO General Assembly.
Re Technology transfer - consider should be taken up in WTO. Wed don't
On Mexican proposal, discussion of UN MD. We deplore the fact that this
is a closed discussion.
In Mexico's paper, we deplore the fact that Mexico's approach is closed
in their mention of the MDGs.
It contains 2 categorical statements that IP is crucial for development.
We all know that industrialized countries have adopted patent protection
only when they achieved a certain level of development.
Another paragraph attempts to minimize our proposal to GA in September.
Also attempts to minimize purport of resolution on that proposal.
Reference to Casablanca meetings - We don't think that this is [a good
example of a meeting. This meeting was not open to all Member States.
In sub paragraph two there is no mention of the TRIPS Agreement which
imposed obligations on developing countries.
Not just developing countries affected by this - both developed and
developing country affected.
Argentina doesn't see any connection between IP and providing meaningful
employment for young people - sub-paragraph 3(8)
Argentina would like to clarify that IPRs in themselves do not achieve
stability or balance. IPRs are tools to be utilized in beneficial ways.
We do not share the view that dissemination of IP in developing
countries should just point to their benefit or opportunities. We should
not just describe benefits, but also costs. IP rights are not absolute.
Need to diffuse information about both rights of intellectual property
rightsholders, and also the rights of consumers. It is important that
training not just diffuse IP but also understanding of respect of third
party rights and also encourage protection of own rights.
We would like to make some preliminary remarks on the proposals
presented by other countries.
The most positive aspect of American and others is that we have th
engagement of three countries. It is very good to see engagement.
These proposals will be duly examined in my capital.
However, we are pleased to see certain language in each proposal, such
as the recognition that IP is not the only way to enhance development,
and that a multifaceted approach is needed.
Mexico Proposal: "There is a tendency to associate corruption and
bribery as impediments to adequate IP implementation." This seems to be
an association with these
Argument: "WIPO is not a core development agency like UNCTAD and UNDP"
This isn't disputed by GFoD, but rather we hoped to add greater depth of
analysis and expertise. This is a broadening of WIPO's perspective.
US proposal: "The GFoD proposal will create new bodies." GFod:
Development Dimension should be incorporated into *all* aspects of
WIPO's work programme including current committees. The partnership
offices seems like a matchmaking initiatives between donors and recipients.
GFoD: We do not believe that the Dev Dimension can be soley dealt by
technical cooperation. We do no make proposals on technical cooperation
in a vacuum but rather, they exist in a wider context. This
parternership proposal recognizes the need for change. Partnership
office would be novelty within organization, so perhaps is at least a
recognition of need for change within WIPO.
However, U.S outsources responsibility of funds and donors. Also, don't
see how the database will make the general thrust of WIPO's work more
US proposal: Development dimension should be incorporated into
norm-setting. This is something Brazil can agree upon.
Mexico: in beginning of that document, there is a partial and very
selective citation of development goals. In fact, the mill. agreement
is much broader, and Mexico focuses primarily on the IP-strengthening
portion of it. Argentina reminds everyone that the mill. decl. also
talks about access to medicine in LCDs.
There was no legitimacy in the Casablanca process which was referred to
by the Mexican proposal. The Casablanca process is something we would
not like to repeat.
Mexico also support some kind of valuation system for gauging compliance
with int'l IPR standards for countries that are benificiaries of
technical assistance. But we don't know how that would benefit development.
Premise in Mexican document that dev.cos don't see the benefits of IP.
Predisposition to assume that the average person in the dev.co is an
ignorant person. The goal WIPO, in that formulation, is to "enlighten"
those countries to the benefits of IP.
Mexican proposal essentially endorses current global system - or a less
flexible version thereof.
United Kingdom proposal: It appears sympathetic to the cause of
development by relying on the recommendations of the UK IPR Commission.
There are a few elements of the proposal that might merit certain comment.
Certain flexibilites can be granted to some but not all developing
countries-aspect of graduation-this is a cause of concern.
However, there are also positive references: states that Ip alone can't
guarantee that country will attain objectives. Also states that
indivudial circumstances must be taken into account when setting policy.
Where the document shows shortcomings is in the solutions section. The
solutions are very narrow, and the UK basically reverts to the same kind
of proposal put forward in the US committee: reinvigorating and
focusing the PCPID.
The UK document also defends patent law harmonization. This is not
compatible with the development agenda. As we have seen, the net effect
is a rise in the minimum amount of protection around the world. This is
not a development friendly position.
On transfer of technology, UK notes that discussion of transfer of
technology and IP should be shifted to the WTO-so far these discussions
at the WTO have not progressed further. Transfer of technology is part
of the balance that countries should strive for. This should be fully
discussed within WIPO.
Manon Anne Ress
Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC PO Box 19367,
Washington, DC 20036, USA Tel.: +1.202.387.8030, fax: +184.108.40.20676
Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva, 1 Route des Morillons, CP
2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland. Tel: +41 22 791 6727
Consumer Project on Technology in London, 24 Highbury Crescent, London,
N5 1RX, UK. Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252. Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax:
+44(0)207 354 0607