[A2k] M.Geist on WIPO and the DA in the Toronto Star

[Manon Ress]

Michael Geist
April 2005

Appeared in the Toronto Star, April 25, 2005
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/resc/html_bkup/april252005.html

WE CAN HELP BRIDGE THE DIGITAL DIVIDE

Earlier this month, the World Intellectual Property Organization hosted
groundbreaking discussions in Geneva. The U.N. agency, which for years
has been associated with ever-increasing intellectual property
protections for the developed world, held talks about initiating a new
intellectual property development agenda that holds the potential to
shift some of its focus to the needs of the developing world.

Although the precise issues to be addressed within the agenda are yet to
be determined, a key element is the creation of an Access to Knowledge
Treaty.  It could include provisions on access to medicines and globally
funded research, open access to scholarly research, as well as
exceptions to patent and copyright laws that serve the interests of the
developing world.

The agenda, which was initially proposed last summer by Brazil and
Argentina, has quickly gained momentum.  The most tangible result so far
is the emergence of the Friends of Development coalition, comprised of
14 countries including Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, the Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Iran, Kenya, Peru, Sierra Leone, South Africa,
Tanzania and Venezuela.  The coalition=92s support for the development
agenda at the Geneva meeting remained steadfast against U.S. opposition,
as these countries made it clear that global intellectual property rules
must do a better job of meeting the interests of both the developed and
developing world.

While the attendees agreed to resume the development agenda dialogue in
the coming months, the IP digital divide should not be underestimated.
Countries from both the developed and developing world may be discussing
intellectual property but they do so from perspectives that at times
appear to be polar opposites.

The United States stands at one end of the spectrum with its vision of
an intellectual property development program premised on =93technical
assistance=94 including the creation of stronger intellectual property
administration and enforcement.  Ignoring the fact that most developed
countries were slow to adopt strong IP protection during their
developmental phase, it disputes the notion that intellectual property
rules have become one-sided.  Instead it maintains that stronger IP laws
will lead to developmental benefits for all countries, regardless of
their economic status.

India eloquently presented the perspective from the developing world. It
argued that the current emphasis of technical assistance on
implementation and enforcement issues is misplaced, emphasizing that the
focus should instead be placed on assessing the impact of intellectual
property rules on the developing world.

Moreover, India noted the developing world=92s need for access to
knowledge, commenting that =93neither intellectual property protection,
nor the harmonization of intellectual property laws leading to higher
protection standards in all countries irrespective of their level of
development, can be an end in itself. For developing countries to
benefit from providing IP protection to rights holders based in
developed countries, there has to be some obligation on the part of
developed countries to transfer and disseminate technologies to
developing countries.=94

Although the recent meeting marks an important step forward, the
emphasis on access is likely to continue face significant opposition.
In the weeks leading up to the meeting, WIPO indicated that many
non-profit groups representing developing world interests would be
excluded on the grounds that they were not =93WIPO accredited.=94 That
position threatened to create a peculiar dynamic in which developed
world delegates would greatly outnumber representatives from the
developing world at a meeting designed to address developing world
concerns (WIPO ultimately acquiesced on this issue).  Furthermore, while
WIPO slowly considers development concerns, developed world initiatives,
including a new Broadcasting Treaty and efforts to harmonize patent
rules, move full steam ahead.

The intellectual property digital divide is evident beyond the halls of
the United Nations. Last week I attended a conference on Internet and
intellectual property law issues in Beijing, China. The U.S. was
represented by an embassy official who emphasized both the need for
stronger criminal penalties for intellectual property infringement and
the creation of policing institutions to address these issues. The
official vigorously exhibited his disagreement when a Hong Kong law
professor questioned the U.S. position, outlining many of the same
concerns as those expressed weeks earlier in Geneva.

Moving beyond these hardened positions will require countries from both
the developed and developing world to step up to bridge the divide.  In
many respects, Canada is ideally suited to break from the developed
world pack to assume a leadership position.  The federal government has
set development assistance as a priority, committing significant new
funding towards aid programs.  The developing world needs more than just
dollars, however.  Canadian political support for the developing world=92s
perspective on intellectual property needs would carry long-term
benefits that would extend well after the current round of aid funding
is exhausted.

Moreover, Canada=92s own intellectual property position is closer to the
developing world that most might think.  Despite the fact that Canada is
a signatory to virtually all major intellectual property treaties, it
remains a net importer of copyrighted work and ranks toward the bottom
of G8 nations for pharmaceutical research and development.  Our
experience illustrates that intellectual property laws are important,
but serve as only a small part of an overall policy designed to foster
innovation, creativity, and economic growth.

As the developing world strives to identify effective growth policies,
the WIPO development agenda has the potential to play an important role
in altering the current intellectual property debate.  For it to
succeed, countries such as Canada must also become =93friends of developmen=
t=94.



Michael Geist is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce
Law at the University of Ottawa. He can be reached by email at
mgeist@uottawa.ca and is on-line at www.michaelgeist.ca.

--
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