[A2k] FFII statement to IIM

[Jeff Williams]

Rufus and all,

  Your following observation I and many of our members found
to be very accurate: " To us the approach of WIPO often
brings to mind the maxim that for those who possess a hammer
everything is a nail. While IP in the right circumstances can be
beneficial, conversely in the wrong ones it is undoubtedly harmful."

Rufus Pollock wrote:

> Submission of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure
> WIPO IIM 11th to 13th April 2005
>
> First, at the outset Mr Chairman we would like to congratulate you, as
> well as the distinguished Vice-Chair, on your election. We would also
> like to thank the WIPO secretariat and its member states for this
> opportunity to present our views to you today.
>
> Mr Chairman, distinguished delegates, and others, the Foundation for a
> Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) is a non-profit association
> registered in several European countries, which is dedicated to the
> spread of data processing literacy. FFII supports the development of
> public information goods based on copyright, free competition, and open
> standards. More than 500 members, 1,200 companies and 75,000 supporters
> have entrusted the FFII to act as their voice in public policy questions
> concerning exclusion rights (intellectual property) in data processing.
>
> We wish to be brief in our submission and will only emphasize a single
> point, and one already clearly raised in the submission by the Friends
> of Development to this meeting in which they stated:
>
>         "[para 37] ... Norm-setting at the international level has been
> dominated by a paradigm that regards intellectual property rights as the
> only and unequivocally beneficial instrument to promote creative
> intellectual activity. Increased scope and levels for intellectual
> property protection thus often become ends in themselves in
> international negotiations, which have failed to take into account the
> need to promote and enhance access to knowledge and the results of
> innovation ....
>
> These are views we strongly endorse. To us the approach of WIPO often
> brings to mind the maxim that for those who possess a hammer everything
> is a nail. While IP in the right circumstances can be beneficial,
> conversely in the wrong ones it is undoubtedly harmful.
>
> For our constituents this is not just an abstract possibility but a
> concrete one. A primary purpose of our organization over the last
> several years has been to protect the European software industry from
> the threat of software patents. For we believe that patents on software
> hinder rather than help innovation as well as fundamentally undermining
> the creation of the free and open standards necessary to sustain our
> information infrastructures into the 21st century. Our view is not
> simply opinion but is backed by a large body of evidence, to give one
> example among many, Deustche bank wrote in a report of June last year
> that: 'Stronger IP protection is not always better. Chances are that
> patents on software, common practice in the US and on the brink of being
> legalised in Europe, in fact stifle innovation.'
>
> Yet without any basis in either theory or fact a variety of WIPO
> documents have uncritically endorsed more and stronger IP as beneficial
> for the software industry. For example WIPO's publication 'Intellectual
> Property: A Power Tool for Economic Growth' uncompromisingly states in
> its preface: 'This publication is written from a definite perspective --
> that IP is good.' In our view this is simply not the case: IP is neither
> good nor bad but only a tool -- in some cases the benefits of IP
> outweigh the costs and in other cases they will not, how could it be
> otherwise? Such pronouncements only serve to encourage the view that,
> for WIPO, increased IP rights become ends in themselves, even when such
> rights harm the public interest, reducing access to knowledge, limiting
> innovation, obstructing competition and imposing large costs that fall
> most heavily on countries least able to bear them.
>
> We believe that a refocusing of WIPO's mission towards greater balance
> in the use of IP as well as the use of alternative methods of fostering
> creativity and innovation can only enhance the prestige of this body.
> Moreover it will also, more importantly, vastly increase the benefits
> and reduce the costs for its members of the agreements reached here.
> Thank you for your attention.
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827