[A2k] IP-Watch: Experts Debate Access to Knowledge

[Carolyn Deere]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=3D19
<http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=3D19&res=3D1024&print=3D0>
&res=3D1024&print=3D0

Experts Debate Access To Knowledge

by William New @ 10:24 pm

Intellectual property experts from a wide range of backgrounds are
finding common ground in informal proposals to ensure the right of
individuals to access knowledge, including possibly through a negotiated
treaty at the U.N. The issue has come of age in the digital era, as
intellectual property owners have sought to protect their rights in an
era when the Internet has opened new pathways to knowledge.

The access issue is a subtext in a broader discussion on development at
the U.N. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). But a WIPO
official noted this week that there is no proposal at WIPO specifically
to negotiate an access to knowledge treaty at the organization.

The informal proposals were the subject of a Feb. 3-4 meeting in Geneva
entitled, =93The WIPO Development Agenda and a Treaty on Access to
Knowledge.=94 At the meeting, 60 academics, researchers, public interest
groups and diplomats presented and discussed more than two dozen
proposals on aspects of such a treaty, organizers said. The
off-the-record meeting was organized by the  <http://www.cptech.org/>
Consumer Project on Technology (CPTech), the  <http://www.ifla.org/>
International Federation of Library Associations and the
<http://www.twnside.org.sg/> Third World Network.

According to a meeting summary
<http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2005-February/000089.html>
posted by sponsor Martin Khor of the Third World Network, the aim of the
meeting was =93to discuss the effect of intellectual property regimes on
the public=92s access to knowledge and to discuss proposals to deal with
this, including through a possible treaty on access to knowledge.=94 It
also aimed to provide inputs to the discussions on a Development Agenda
under consideration at WIPO, he said.

CP Tech director James Love said afterward that there appears to be
non-governmental support for elements of an access to knowledge treaty.

Support gelled around limitations and exceptions to patents, copyrights
and other intellectual property laws; mechanisms to address abuses of
rights, such as the control of anti-competitive practices; and
opportunities to support new modes of production of knowledge goods,
such as free and open source software, open access research archives, or
public domain scientific databases, he said.

=93Some proposals were new, such as the patent and procurement mechanisms
to protect open standards,=94 Love said. =93Others, like those concerning
open access archives for publicly funded research, are already part of
the policy landscape in some countries, including the US, but are not
part of any multilateral instrument to promote access to knowledge.=94 He
added, =93This was a very good start, but there is much work ahead.=94

Several participants framed the outcome as consensus for a =93big picture=
=94
approach to the issue, meaning to seek a full treaty, not just
amendments to existing texts. =93People want to move forward,=94 said CP
Tech=92s Manon Ress.

Another broad view from the meeting was that access to knowledge is a
basic human right, and that restrictions on access ought to be the
exception, not the other way around. The view is a reaction to efforts
to obtain exceptions to intellectual property rights for certain uses of
knowledge.

The issue of access to knowledge grew out of a proposal for a
Development Agenda currently under consideration at WIPO. The proposal,
put forward by Argentina and Brazil last fall, broadly suggests a treaty
on access to knowledge and technology but leaves the details for debate.
That debate is engendering a number of ideas from a wide range of
experts, including libraries (which are playing a leadership role),
Internet service providers (including Verizon and BellSouth), Internet
engineers, technology companies (such as IBM), academics and
non-governmental organizations.

The issue will be discussed at a meeting of the intellectual property
working group of the Trans-Atlantic Consumer Dialogue in London on May
12-13. That meeting will follow three planned WIPO meetings on the
Development Agenda, all in Geneva: the intersessional intergovernmental
meeting on April 11-13; the permanent committee on cooperation for
Development Related to Intellectual Property on April 14-15; and,
according to CP Tech, the international seminar on intellectual property
and development on May 2-3.

A question was raised at press time by some non-profit groups as to
whether limits might be set on their participation in some of the WIPO
meetings, but a reply from WIPO could not be obtained in time.

Origins Of An =93A2K=94 Treaty Proposal
The Argentina/Brazil proposal calls for a new subsidiary body within
WIPO to look at ways to ensure effective technology transfer to
developing countries, along the lines of what has been done at the World
Trade Organization and the U.N. Conference for Trade and Development
(UNCTAD). It highlights the prospect of an =93international regime=94 to
promote developing countries=92 access to publicly funded research in
developed countries. The regime could be the access to knowledge treaty,
it says.

The proposal also refers to the importance of =93access to information and
knowledge sharing =85 as essential elements in fostering innovation and
creativity in the information economy,=94 and says additional layers of
intellectual property protection in the digital environment =93would
obstruct the free flow of information and scuttle efforts to set up new
arrangements for promoting innovation and creativity.=94

The issue also was supported in the Geneva Declaration on the Future of
the World Intellectual Property Organization, signed by dozens of
academics, researchers, non-profit and business representatives and
others prior to the WIPO General Assembly last fall. The declaration
called on WIPO committees to solicit the views of member countries and
the public.

Members at the General Assembly said meetings would be convened in
conjunction with the Permanent Committee on Cooperation for Development
Related to Intellectual Property. A report will be prepared by the WIPO
secretariat by July 30 for consideration at the next General Assembly.

A Need For Change At WIPO?
At the outset of the Geneva meeting, participants described the need for
change at WIPO and goals for the meeting. Goals for the meeting were
described as reaching agreement on =93what we would like our negotiators
to do in the area of IP,=94 or beginning =93the process of becoming more
cohesive in what we and other people want=94 in the negotiations.

=93We are now confronted by copyright, patent laws that may disadvantage
developing countries,=94 one participant from a developing country
non-profit said at the meeting=92s outset.

=93The system has failed miserably in providing things such as affordable
drugs in developed and developing countries,=94 another developing country
participant said.

=93I think the IP system and WIPO in particular need to cater to
developing countries if it wants to maintain its credibility,=94 the
official said. But, he acknowledged, =93Storming the WIPO fortress is
certainly something that will not prove easy to do, and I don=92t think we
should be na=EFve about that.=94

Institutional reform is fundamental to the development agenda, the
official added. =93We=92re trying to change WIPO=92s way of thinking=94 awa=
y
from its perceived bias toward intellectual property rights holders, he
said.

Another developing country participant said that over the past 50 years
while there has been a continuous strengthening of various rights, there
have been no efforts related to the needs of consumers. There must be a
balance between the two sides, he said.

Several participants took the position that a fight between
rights-holders and consumers does not divide along =93north-south=94 lines
(i.e., rich nations and poor nations), since rich nation consumers also
pay higher prices if intellectual property is over-protected.

Philippe Aigrain, adviser for strategy and development at
<http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/grit-transversales.org> Transversales
Sciences Culture, afterward emphasized exceptions and limitations. =93We
have a challenge in front of us: we must define a minimum set of
exceptions and limitations to the abusive extension of intellectual
property, so that we can cope with some burning issues in development,=94
he said. =93We must however position these exceptions in a more general
framework, stressing the need for a new model promoting open cooperation
and free usage of knowledge.=94

Cory Doctorow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation during the meeting
made the point that free and open source software (FOSS), which is
developed communally and may be accessed and altered by anyone, is
incompatible with digital rights management. That is because for FOSS to
work, every user must have the right to examine the software programs,
but that DRM requires that users be locked out of their software and
devices so they cannot view or modify them. So far, he said, no DRM
technology has ever been licensed for use in a FOSS implementation.
Meanwhile, he said, FOSS systems =93have found enormous utility in
development efforts, as in Brazil=92s =93infocenter=94 shops.

George Willingmyre of the U.S.-based GTW Associates and others discussed
problems relating to standards. He said on the CP Tech Website that
there are problems of flawed disclosure of patents essential to practice
a standard and problems with the assurance of reasonable licensing terms
for such patents. In addition, there is =93a lack of clarity of and
diversity between the patent policies of numerous standards developers,=94
he said.

Whatever the view, proponents of an access to knowledge treaty are
likely in for an uphill climb. One meeting participant warned that
commercial interests =93are already lobbying their government
representatives to oppose any access to knowledge treaty.=94

=97=97
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. All of the news
articles and features on Intellectual Property Watch also are 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
<mailto:wnew@ip-watch.org> wnew@ip-watch.org.

Carolyn Deere
Chair, Board of Directors
Intellectual Property Watch


Personal contact information
Rue du Tir 1
Geneva 1204
Switzerland
+41-79-318-2021 (cell)
+41-22-320-2019 (landline)
carolyn.deere@bluewin.ch


--