[A2k] IP-Watch: Non-Profits, Industry offer views on WIPO DA

[Manon Ress]

14/4/2005
Non-Profits, Industry Offer Views On WIPO Development Agenda
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=3D44&res=3D1024_ff&print=3D0
by William New @ 4:25 pm

Non-governmental organisations from across the spectrum were elbow to
elbow with members of the World Intellectual Property Organisation
(WIPO) this week as they wrestled with a proposal for an agenda to
increase attention to the needs of developing countries.

Private and non-profit sector representatives generally lined up on
either side of debate between developed and developing countries
undertaken in an inter-sessional intergovernmental meeting (IIM) this
week. WIPO members decided late Wednesday to hold two more sessions of
the IIM, one from 20 to 22 June, and the other in July. The IIM was
mandated by the WIPO General Assembly last fall to address a proposal by
Argentina and Brazil for a more development-friendly focus throughout
WIPO=92s activities.

That proposal, co-sponsored by twelve other nations (collectively called
the Friends of Development), was the subject of discussion in the
three-day IIM ending Wednesday along with proposals from Mexico, the
United Kingdom and the United States.

A wide range of civil society groups have joined developing countries in
pushing for reform of WIPO=92s treatment of development issues. A number
of them are among seventeen groups who were given =93ad hoc=94 accreditatio=
n
status to attend the IIMs. It is unclear whether additional groups would
be allowed to attend at this point, officials said.

Industry representatives, meanwhile, generally support the notion in the
U.S. proposal that no fundamental transformation of WIPO is necessary.
The U.K. proposal referred at length to the need to improve the
situation for developing countries, but also makes that recommendation.
The proposal is =93informed=94 by the developing country perspective, as on=
e
official put it.

One industry representative called the Friends of Development proposal a
=93distraction,=94 and industry groups generally appeared interested in
preventing the Friends of Development proposal from gaining too much
traction within WIPO.

The International Chamber of Commerce echoed the view of rights-holders
and the U.S. proposal in arguing that WIPO already has a development
agenda, should be focused on protection, and that improvements in the
system could address concerns. The ICC also called for development
issues to be placed under the existing Permanent Committee on
Cooperation for Development Related to Intellectual Property (PCIPD).
That committee will hold its next meeting on Thursday and Friday, but it
remains to be seen how it will address development.

=93Adequate protection of intellectual property rights is a necessary
pre-condition for development as a tool to promote innovation,
creativity, cultural diversity and technological development,=94 said
Daphne Yong-d=92Herve, a senior policy manager at ICC. =93But additional
measures =96 such as tax, investment, trade and competition policy,
production incentives and a well-functioning and =96funded IP office =96 ar=
e
essential to make use of the full potential of such rights.=94

=93Governments need to establish in their own countries the appropriate
infrastructure to process and make use of intellectual property rights,=94
she added. =93Otherwise, nothing practical will result from these
discussions.=94

A joint position was put forward by the Coalition for Creative
Development, a group of 18 intellectual property rights owners and
others in the =93creative sector=94 cutting across all types of media,
including music, software, television, film, actors, journalists and
authors. The group said it seeks to help boost the creative industries
in developing countries and urged WIPO to include them in its economic
development activities, including through training and technical assistance=
.

The Business Software Alliance, a member of the coalition, also issued
its own statement outlining =93principles for software innovation.=94 The
group encouraged governments to ensure that publicly funded research is
available to all, to promote neutral standards, and to maintain strong
intellectual property protection.

The British Copyright Council also stressed the importance of helping
developing countries establish their own creative industries. The
council called for more research into the economic contribution of the
creative industry in developing countries. It also said that developing
countries must comply with international standards of protection and
enforcement, and added that new technologies such as digitisation will
present new opportunities for developing countries to distribute their
creative work.

The International Publishers Association also generally promoted the
tenets of the U.S. proposal. And a group of international academics and
civil society groups issued a letter urging WIPO not to be =93diverted
from its mission to promote sound IP laws by a so-called =91development
agenda=92.=94 Signers of the letter include former U.S. Patent and Trademar=
k
Office official Bruce Lehman and Jim DeLong of the Center for Science in
Public Policy.

Innovation For All?

On the other side of the debate, a number of groups from different
regions called for the expansion of the benefits of innovation to
developing countries. Some placed emphasis on free and open source
software and open standards, a concept mentioned in the Friends of
Development proposal.

Groups supporting this included the Free Software Alliance, Free
Software Foundation Europe, and the Foundation for a Free Information
Infrastructure. Pedro de Paranagua, representing the Centre for
Technology and Society at the Getulio Vargas Foundation School of Law in
Rio de Janeiro, added a voice to the call for free software, as well as
for a treaty ensuring access to knowledge.

A variety of civil society groups agreed with the principle that WIPO=92s
activities need fundamental reform in order for the organisation to
adequately advance a development agenda.

Groups such as the Civil Society Coalition (CSC), the Trans-Atlantic
Consumer Dialogue and Consumers International presented an extensive
range of proposals and ideas on specific aspects of development,
including access to affordable medicines, education, consumer rights,
access to knowledge and other issues.

The CSC specified the need for countries to adopt legislation and use
limitations and exceptions to the rights of patents, trademarks or other
types of intellectual property that are necessary to promote access to
medicine. It called for the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents to review
the organisation=92s policies on implementation of the Doha Declaration on
TRIPS and Public Health, as well as the control of anticompetitive
practices, before it proceeds with harmonisation of patent laws.

James Love of the Consumer Project on Technology (CP Tech) argued for an
access to knowledge treaty which he said could help boost innovation in
developing countries. =93There=92s a lot of smart people in developing
countries and they want to participate in the IP system,=94 he said in a
civil society panel alongside the meeting.

Love also said policy-makers should focus on patent quality instead of
harmonising patents, as the systems in the United States and the
European Union, likely to be the model for harmonisation, are in need of
improvement. He also highlighted a bill in the U.S. Congress, H.R. 417,
that he said would create a multi-billion dollar medical innovation
prize fund intended to =93break the link=94 between paying for research and
development by charging high prices on drugs.

Tom Giovanetti, president of the Institute for Policy Innovation, noted
at the panel discussion that there were groups in the civil society with
different views. He countered Love=92s assertion that his view is not
anti-intellectual property, referring to the groups on the panel,
including CP Tech, M=E9decins sans Fronti=E8res, and the Third World
Network, as the =93IP sceptical community.=94

Giovanetti also said an impression is being created that action is
=93desperately needed=94 to change the situation, but that in fact changes
being sought already are legal. He argued that the burden of proof lies
with those proposing new methods.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation targeted concerns about
rightsholders=92 use of technological protection measures for copyrighted
works. EFF argued that overly broad anticircumvention laws have been
ineffective and have harmed consumers, research, freedom of expression,
competition and innovation. For developing countries, the dangers are
even greater, EFF said, since the countries may not have existing legal
institutions and processes to rein in the anticircumvention laws.

Library groups such as the International Federation of Library
Associations and Institutions and Electronic Information For Libraries,
or eIFL.NET, pointed to problems caused for users by increasingly
restrictive copyright protections. The library groups support a new
Development Agenda within WIPO as a way to take into account varying
development levels when it comes to intellectual property protection.

Ellen =91t Hoen of M=E9dicins sans Fronti=E8res (MSF) urged WIPO to take a
role in ensuring that the benefits of innovation are =93not only for the
wealthy.=94 The result of a patent-driven research and development
mechanism has been that, =93Today pharmaceutical innovation is skewed
toward areas that promise a profitable return,=94 she said.

Another concern for MSF is to preserve flexibilities for developing
countries in meeting the terms of international treaties. She charged
that WIPO is working through its Substantive Patent Law Treaty talks to
=93close off=94 flexibilities that are available under the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property (TRIPS) and the declaration on intellectual property and public
health that emerged at the launch of the Doha Round of negotiations at
the WTO.

=93What we fear is the birth of a TRIPS 2,=94 before we examine the effects
of the first TRIPS (which went into effect in 1995), said =91t Hoen. She
also criticized WIPO=92s =93one size fits all=94 effort to harmonise nation=
s=92
patent laws, saying it =93may negate=94 governments=92 abilities to address
their own public health needs.

A representative from the Third World Network (TWN) criticized the
implementation of TRIPS as harmful to developing countries, causing high
prices and limiting the availability of essential goods. She suggested
that WIPO should rethink its support for the expansion of intellectual
property rights.

=93It appears that WIPO is taking on a maximalist agenda of the more
rights the better,=94 the TWN representative said.

TWN called for a review of existing WIPO treaties to determine whether
they benefit developing countries. It also suggested an analysis of the
impact of TRIPS, consideration of new treaties such as one promoting
=93access to knowledge,=94 improvements in technical assistance, and make
WIPO more member-driven and inclusive (specifically attacking a recent
consultation by WIPO Director General Kamil Idris with selected members
in Casablanca, Morocco).

European Digital Rights also stressed the need to assess developmental
impact of the setting of rules (=93norms=94) for intellectual property.

Eric Noehrenberg of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers and Associations said the future of intellectual property
and development lies with implementing TRIPS. He cautioned against
=93nostalgia for the days before 1995 [when TRIPS went into effect],=94
adding, =93Those days are gone.=94

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. All of the news
articles and features on Intellectual Property Watch are also subject to
a Creative Commons License which makes them available for widescale,
free, non-commercial reproduction and translation.
William New, the author of this post, may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.org.

--
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org,
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC PO Box 19367,
Washington, DC 20036, USA Tel.:  +1.202.387.8030, fax: +1.202.234.5176

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