[A2k] NOTES FROM DAY 2 OF THE THIRD WIPO IIM ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGENDA
Thiru Balasubramaniam
thiru@cptech.org
Fri Jul 22 10:44:04 2005
NOTES FROM DAY 2 OF THE THIRD WIPO IIM ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGENDA
July 21, 2005
Cory Doctorow, cory at eff.org, Electronic Frontier Foundation [CD]
Thiru Balasubramaniam, thiru at cptech.org, Consumer Project on
Technology [TB]
Teresa Hackett, Electronic Information for Libraries [TH]
[NOTE: This is not an official transcript. Any errors and ommissions are
regretted.]
-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-
Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law)
The person or persons who have associated their work with this document
(the "Dedicator") hereby dedicate the entire copyright in the work of
authorship identified below (the "Work") to the public domain.
Dedicator makes this dedication for the benefit of the public at large
and to the detriment of Dedicator's heirs and successors. Dedicator
intends this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in
perpetuity of all present and future rights under copyright law, whether
vested or contingent, in the Work. Dedicator understands that such
relinquishment of all rights includes the relinquishment of all rights
to enforce (by lawsuit or otherwise) those copyrights in the Work.
Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the Work
may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified,
built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any purpose, commercial
or non-commercial, and in any way, including by methods that have not
yet been invented or conceived.
-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-
Chairman:
Today we will continue to discuss the proposals.
Floor will be yielded to IGOs and NGOs, and this afternoon we can move
to discussion of proposals.
There's a new proposal today from the USA
[[CD: it says, "Ignore everything about development, bury these
negotiations in the moribund development committee, and take no action"]]
[TB: Recommendation #3 of the US proposal states, "The General Assembly
reaffirms that the mandate of the PCIPD is sufficiently broad to
consider fully the proposals made. Moreover, the PCIPD should be
reinvigorated so that, in line with the frequency of meetings of most
other WIPO bodies, the PCIPD should meet up to two times each year to
discuss issues relating to intellectual property and development.
African group is out of the room finishing their proposals, we're
starting anyway.
--
Secretariat:
At the June session, we promised to provide info on development
activities carried out in recent years; we've produced a document called
"Information on WIPO's Development Activities Jan 2000 - June 2005."
Discusses the major shift of priorities in these activities. These days
we help developing nations to create and profit from IP and to create
copyright laws in harmony with TRIPS. We do this at the behest of these
states.
Annex 1 of the document provides info on meetings held in the developing
nations.
Annex 2 is info on meetings organized at WIPO HQ in Geneva.
[[missed more due to tech difficulties]]
--
Brazil introduces the Access to Knowledge (A2K) treaty:
We want to address IP and tech-transfer. In addition to the proposals in
this list there are a number of other proposal on tech-transfer and
WIPO. Document IIM/1/4 contains 13 additional proposals on tech
transfer. We request that all 13 of these be included in this listing of
action-oriented proposals. which we have been working on the basis of
since the second IIM.
The transfer of technology should be an objective of intellectual
property. This has been enshrined in several international treaties.
There is a widespread concern that the international community has
failed in coming up with solutions to the problems faced by developing
countries and LDCs in accessing technology. It is often stated by some
that the adoption of new norms, in particular higher norms of IP, will
necessarily and automatically lead to increased transfer of technology.
However, with the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement and so called
"minimum standards of protection", these assertions are unfounded. There
has been widespread concern that the new norms of protection enshrined
may actually be hindering rather than facilitating the transfer of
technology to developing countries.
Governments choose to enforce their IPRs in a manner that prevent
countries from adapting new technologies to their specific circumstances
or needs. Our concerns are not limited to the TRIPs agreement. They are
exacerbated by other fora with TRIPs-plus components which are
promulgated by certain Members of this organization.
We think that it is time to go beyond this dogmatic approach and really
look at this question of IP and technology transfer.
In this regard our documents seek to contribute to this debate.
An elaboration on a treaty on A2K can constitute an important element of
facilitating transfer of technology if undertaken by this organization.
We have also put forward a number of other proposals as set out in
p26-28 of The GFoD proposal, Doc IIM/1/4 e.g.
* undertaking by developed countries to provide fiscal benefits to
transfer technologies to less developed regions
* to provide tax advantages for R&D performed at home as well as abroad,
* incentives to train science graduates from dev countries with a view
to using their knowledge in their country of origin.
* establishment of a special fee on patent applications earmarked for
developing countries
* Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement to be expanded to benefit all
developing countries.
This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of proposals. We are very
much aware of the complexity of these issues.
It is important to address this issue for the sake of the credibility of
the IP system. We are interested in listening to Member States' reaction
to our proposals and how these ideas could be put into practice and
improved.
--
UK:
On behalf of the EU and its Member States, I have comments on items 2 and 3=
.
Item 2 (proposal to establish a committee on tech transfer): EU notes
that the WIPO/UN agreement says that WIPO should work on tech transfer.
This also involves UNCTAD and other UN agencies. The EU agrees that WIPO
should play its role as far as technology transfer is concerned.
Question is how this might happen within existing WIPO structures.
Item 3: (A2K). This is wide-ranging and therefore it appears that it may
go beyond WIPO's competence. WIPO will have a role to play in the
debate. A proposal has already been made at the SCCR to debate
exceptions and limitations. There are cross-cutting IP issues that could
be discussed there.
[CD: This is a coded message meaning, "Let's stop having meetings about
the development agenda, let's not establish a dedicated group for this
stuff -- let's just move this stuff over to existing committees,
particularly the moribund, underfunded advisory Development Committee]
[TB: The UK is referring to the Chilean proposal on limitations and
exceptions submitted to the SCCR]
--
Korea:
My delegation agrees with Items 1 and 6 of the GFoD proposal. The
renewal of the IIM process is necessary to address the issues.
We also agree with the participation of civil society organisations.
With regard to a code of conduct for WIPO, we support the proposal of
the US particularly to establish a partnership database and partnership
office.
We support tech assistance activities with developing and
least-developed countries and look forward to doing more of this.
As Benin said, assistance from developed countries helps developing
countries to take full advantage of IP. It would be good if we went on
doing this sort of thing.
I would like to ask the Sec what changes have there been over the last
years in funding for tech assistance. If this has been decreased, we
would like this to be increased.
SMEs are important to tech assistance activities.
--
South Africa:
We associate ourselves fully with the Moroccan submission on behalf of
the African Group and the proposal by Brazil on behalf of the GFoD.
It has been recognised that science and technology today is the main
source of development. This constitutes one of the key elements in the
achievement of the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
The TRIPS Agreement recognizes that the transfer and dissemination of
technology should be one of the global goals of the IP system.
Most literature on science and technology points to the transfer from
developed to developing countries.
The evidence has pointed to the contrary.
We want to underscore the failure of this system: patent and
copyright--holders exercise their monopolies in a manner that runs
contrary to transfer of technology.
The present system is contributing to the present imbalance between
developed and developing countries.
WIPO should look at adopting principles that would promote the transfer
of science and technology.
These principles are summarized nicely in the Group of Friends of
Development proposal.
--
Bangladesh:
Regarding proposal 2 (committee on tech transfer): Good proposal, should
be pursued. WIPO has an obligation under its UN agreement. This should
be actively pursued -- we need instruments that create technology
transfer. Having gone through the African proposal, we see that it's in
harmony with the Friends of Development and complements it. It calls on
the creation of a new body for tech-transfer policy and strategy. WIPO
needs to address this.
Regarding the third proposal (Access to Knowledge -- A2K -- treaty), we
believe this should be actively pursued. We need to do more on this
front. In the African Group paper, Having access to knowledge and
technology is quite important for LDCs.
--
Japan:
Re item 2 (standing committee on tech transfer): WIPO has already taken
notice of tech transfer. The existing activities in WIPO are working on
tech transfer. There's the PCIPD [[CD: moribund, toothless advisory
committee]].
The mandate of the PCIPD is broad enough to discuss technology transfer.
Item 3 (A2K) We are not against the idea of discussing a Treaty on
Access to Knowledge and Technology in the context of intellectual
property. We should first identify the issues. We believe that it is
premature to consider the possibility of the elaboration of a Treaty on
Access to Knowledge and Technology.
--
Argentina:
Given the statements that have been made, we agree with delegations who
have noted that WIPO is obligated to promote technology transfer. One of
the reasons for international IP -- one of the objectives of TRIPS --
was to increase transfer of technology.
In parallel with these proposals listed by Brazil,
Obviously tech transfer is an issue which befalls all the UN agencies
including WIPO. This should be not only in a committee. I find it
strange to hear some countries stating this body is not a competent body
to deal with this issue.
There's no body more competent to deal with this.
--
Chile:
Regarding A2K Treaty: An interesting proposal and it should be explored.
Some say these issues are being dealt with in committees (e.g.
limitations and exceptions in the SCCR). It's not engraved in stone that
this stuff needs to be in this committee or that.
There are issues that cover several areas of IP e.g. some cover patents
and some cover copyright.
Many of these issues are cross-cutting -- not just copyright or patents
or trademarks -- some countries (like Chile) have created exhaustion of
rights across the board. In others it's different. Competition is
another area that cuts across all areas of WIPO's remit.
The Internet and IP is regulated by different countries in different
ways. There is the misuse of contractual licenses that are difficult to
negotiate. Then there are issues such as the protection of the public
domain. What happens to copyrighted works that have fallen into the
public domain, how do users know which works are in the public domain
and which are subject to copyright protection?
--
USA:
Standing committee on tech transfer: We disagree with the idea of
creating a new committee, because we are poor and because we're usually
frugal. This can all be addressed within the framework of WIPO's
existing committees. For example, the standing committee on IT could
work on patents. Over 7MM US patents -- the vast bulk of which are in
the public domain -- are fully available and can serve as a template for
societal improvement.
As noted by the UK during the April session of the PCIPD, tech transfer
is discussed there all the time and we could keep on doing so there.
[[CD: Translation, "Remember WIPO's gigantic misappropriation of funds
scandal? Wow, that was really bad. Also: why can't we just toss all this
stuff to the toothless, unfunded, moribund development committee? Then
it would be safely buried for two more years until they meet again."]]
With regard to proposal 3 on a treaty on Access to Knowledge. We also
cannot support this proposal. We strongly believe that intellectual
property has proven to be the strongest driver of development. As the
Friends of Development say in their proposal - quote about the role of
IP in building storehouses of knowledge. We remain concerned that this
proposal could impede rather than enhance IP especially in the context
in which it is presented.
--
Russia:
New committee on tech transfer: We're not in favor of this. It would be
expensive. Let's just adapt existing mechanisms to this need. Let's
adopt the UK's proposal to strengthen the PCIPD. It would be advisable
to concentrate all issues related to development.
[[CD: Translation, "What the US says is fine by us"]]
--
Canada:
Technological dissemination is important. Let's complement -- but not
duplicate -- work at UNCTAD and the WTO.
We should put all this stuff in the PCIPD and aggregate it there to be
more efficient.
--
Colombia:
Regarding Access to Knowledge Treaty: We firmly support this. It makes
commitments on A2K as binding as possible. Promotion of access by
developing nations could be financed by public institutions in developed
nations. There should be clear measures to facilitate tech transfer.
Tech spreading should go hand-in-hand with effective mechanisms to
generate the capacity to absorb technology. In a globalized world, we
can't consider development without access to knowledge.
The initiative proposed by the GFriends of Development is the starting
point.
Regarding the creation of a new standing committee on tech transfer:
Before we do so, we should consider the need for such a committee and
ensure that there is no duplication of effort. At this point, I think
the proposal needs more study to determine its suitability. At this
point it is premature to consider establishing this committee.
--
Brazil:
Regarding PCIPD: I've gone to one of these meetings and discovered that
what it does is discuss technical assistance, no more no less, and in a
very narrow frame of mind. It has no budget, can't adapt funding to
developing countries' needs. This was surprising, because I thought that
technical assistance would be considered in light of the budgetary
process. The PCIPD has very little influence within the organization. It
promotes a general discussion and it's inconsequential to the budget. It
has a limited and narrow focus. It has no influence on the budget. I
don't see how the PCIPD can discuss something of the magnitude of tech
transfer or the development dimension of IP.
It is completely inappropriate to recommend these issues to a body like
the PCIPD. The PCIPD could improve, but it should first improve its
ability to execute its mandate of discussing tech assistance before we
try to improve it to do anything else.
A2K agreement is a major issue for the future of the IP system in
developing and developed countries. We follow discussions in Brazil from
academics around the world on current issues e.g. patents being granted
under terms that "undo" information that is supposed to be in the public
domain.
This undermines basic science -- which is not supposed to occur in the
patent system. Much of the basic science work is funded with public
money through universities. The consensus has always been that academic
activity should be available for the benefit of humankind. It is with
great concern that we view a trend that such information becomes subject
to patent claims and are removed from the public domain to the private
sector and are no longer accessible to students and teachers worldwide.
With some new legislation in the US and other developed nations there
are incentives for publicly funded institutions to transfer their
inventions to the private sector. This increases the privatization of
university/academic activity.
This will not stimulate innovation worldwide. By removing the knowledge
available, you will have less innovation, less competition and stronger
monopolies. A treaty on access to knowledge will counter this trend, to
ensure this information remains publicly available to nurture education
and science around the world. These issues have been looked at by UNESCO
and WIPO cannot avoid this wide-ranging problem. In fact, we think that
a treaty on access to knowledge is the real power tool for innovation
and development.
[[CD: BRRRRRRRAAAAAAZZZZZIIIIILLLLLL!]]
--
Canada:
Regarding the PCIPD's ineffectualness as raised by Brazil. You're
frustrated with that body and so are we. It is too narrowly focused. It
is not as effective as it should be. That's why we should do more with it.
Brazil says that the PCIPD has no mandate to discuss budget issues -- do
other committees? Is that solely the budget committee? We could expand
its mandate to include the budgetary.
--
Morocco:
We've just submitted the African's group's latest proposal. We request
the Secretariat to include this document in the official proceedings and
to deliver it to all the delegates. We also want some time to have
interregional discussions with other groups who've asked for such.
--
Coffee break
--
India:
We support proposals 2 and 3 (standing committee on tech transfer and
access to knowledge).
There's no doubt that developing countries and LDCs have contributed to
human knowledge, and those contributions are increasing. For historical
reasons, these inventions are not credited or not available to them
because of patents and the expense of technical journals.
Knowledge -- specifically for prior-art determinations -- is important,
and the absence of this knowledge is particularly problematic for
scientists in developing nations who seek patents.
--
USA:
Responding to Brazil. The PCIPD has been "not the most vigorous
committee in the past" but back in 1999 they once had a substantive
discussion. Its mandate isn't limited to technical assistance [[CD: Even
though that is all it has ever done.] We ask the plenary Assembly to
confirm that the PCIPD's mandate covers this.
We totally reject the characterization of US law as encouraging publicly
funded research to be patented. We do encourage the transfer of publicly
funded research to the private sector, and this has generated $30BB in
funding. Without these incentives, publicly funded research used to sit
on the shelf, unused.
[[CD: This is pretty implausible]]
We hear that Brazil has adopted a law modeled on the US law. What's that
all about?
The PCIPD would be a great place to discuss this stuff.
--
Honduras:
A standing committee would give us an appropriate place to talk about
development issues, such as technical issues of how to access patent
databases, etc.
The proposal of the African Group is crucially important. We should
continue a constructive debate of this issue e.g a continuation of the
IIM meetings after the next General Assembly.
--
Brazil:
I've heard the US delegate "totally reject" things four times this
morning -- it seems they "totally reject" discussions of development,
and anything that may bring about changes in this organisation that may
benefit developing countries. I hope that this is not the case.
I'm not expert on the Bayh-Dole Act [Link to
<http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/bd/>], but my understanding is that it
promotes transferring publicly funded research from universities to US
entrepreneurs. The degree to which science ifsfunded in the US isn't
comparable to the funding of science in any developing country. This is
an indirect subsidy of domestic entrepreneurs and has to do with the WTO
subsidy agreement. I am trying to deal here with the consequences on the
public domain.
Brazil has legislation on innovation that is not comparable to the
Bayh-Dole Act at all, though it touches on these issues, by giving
university researches the ability to become entrepreneurs themselves.
The idea of universities as incubators is referred to dimly.
Countries have different mechanisms to protect their national
entrepreneurial activities.
What is of concern is that these mechanisms are working against the
public domain.
There's a world trend to go this way -- that's why we need to take
countermeasures now.
We cannot just accept that this is a reality; we need to protect the
public domain. It's the basis upon which countries have been able to
provide education to their people, especially developing countries.
There is still an issue of relevance here to the Access to Knowledge
agreement.
--
USA:
Let me assure Brazil that the USA has expressed its willingness to
discuss development issues and we fully support development goals. We
disagree with the premises on which the Friends of Development proposals
are based. WIPO already considers development in all its activities. IP
doesn't act against development. Many countries in this room have used
IP to promote development though, e.g., aircraft.
We disagree with the notion that WIPO has not addressed development issues.
--
The NGOs Speak:
--
Medecins Sans Frontiers
Speaking on behalf of our access to medicines campaign, which works in
80+ countries all over the world. In our work we are confronted with the
real-world consequences of IP regimes on medicines. Gave some numbers.
We have been able to scale up this treatment because of access to
generic medicines.
We are confronted with a second wave of drug-price crises -- newer AIDS
medicines are 12X more expensive than the WHO-recommended meds. We can
no longer rely on generics for this, thanks to TRIPS.
Medicines and diagnostics are often not available due to an absence of
investment in them.
We believe that WIPO should play a more active role in addressing this
access to medicines crisis and to engage more effectively in the debate
on how to stimulate effective R&D
--
International Federation of Rights Reproduction Organizations
I wish to comment on the African Group proposals (i), (iii), (iv) and
how to achieve concrete developments for countries in Africa or on other
continents.
IFRRO has worked with WIPO on a number of initiatives and has recently
participated in such an initiative in Cameroon. We need to cultivate the
strategic importance of books and to implement a national book policy.
The issues include reducing VAT on books; establishing support for RROs;
promotion of the use of books and reading in education; support for a
library infrastructure and funding; support for libraries as IT access
points; support for local writers and publishers. Outside funding as
mentioned in the African Group proposal already exists in development
cooperation funds. IFRRO has good experience of this and invites the
meeting to consider if WIPO is interested in participating in a pilot
study in this field. This would undertake research to find out where the
real obstacles are to development and to propose concrete ideas.
--
International Federation of Film Producers' Associations
We're affected by brain-drain in our industry. These discussions have
been very theoretical. For example, the material on the public domain
and so forth. Copyright stimulates creativity.
We should be coming up with concrete answers to concrete questions.
Increase cooperation between dynamic developing countries with the
savoir-faire of the developed countries.
Last night we showed a South African film called Red Dust. It was
greatly appreciated. Apart from its aesthetic merits, that film is a
good example of the informal and formal cooperation between South Africa
and Europe. It was a project carried by the creativity of the local
producer, who partnered with the BBC. There are many such examples.
This cooperation offers developing countries -- extraordinary reservoirs
of narrative -- to find the means to go beyond local audiences.
The discussions here ignore the power of this type of cooperation and
weaken structures that exist for the protection of IP.
I want a harmonized approach to international IP norms. In order to have
a creative vision such as that in Red Dust, producers need a global
context. In today's world, films have to be sold in many countries.
Without harmony, these systems will collapse and creative works from the
developing world can't be expressed and can't create income for
developing nations.
It's a virtuous circle.
Africa is quite right to worry about brain-drain. Our partners in the
music industry and publishing industry are making concrete proposals.
The political approach isn't to challenge the need for a minimum of IP
protection.
--
IFPI:
Substantive issues of A2K, etc are important and valuable.
These goals are woven into the copyright fabric.
We live in a time of unparalleled access to entertainment and
information of all varieties. Updates to copyright law should enhance
the accessibility of these works to all parts of the world.
International copyright treaties also provide flexibility to countries
to adopt exceptions and limitations that fit their own legal and
cultural traditions.
We have considerable room for local diversity. We have sufficient
harmonization to move forward without a one size fits all straight jacket.
Development issues have always been a part of WIPO's work. They should
continue to be an important part. The capability exists to do so. We
urge that all of us not divert too much limited time to debates over
process -- where and how decisions are to be made. Instead we want to
achieve results as quickly and effectively as possible.
We note the Bahraini and Moroccan proposals that acknowledge the value
of IP. We want actual, real-world projects that can achieve results
soon. We want to help creators and innovators in the developing world to
realize the value of their creations.
We can provide information and expertise-for example, we would be happy
to come under the aegis of WIPO and speak to governments on how the
record industry uses IP. We would like to move beyond theoretical
discussions.
--
EFF:
STATEMENT OF THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION ON THE PROPOSAL FOR WIPO
TO ESTABLISH A DEVELOPMENT AGENDA
Third Inter-Sessional Intergovernmental Meeting, July 20-22, 2005
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present my organization's
views to this important meeting.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is an international civil society
non-profit organization, with members worldwide, dedicated to protecting
civil liberties, freedom of expression and the public interest in the
digital environment.
EFF believes that the issues being discussed at these meetings are
crucial to the future of IP as a tool for fostering economic and social
development in developing nations.
The 1974 Agreement with the United Nations requires WIPO to facilitate
the transfer of technology to developing countries to accelerate social,
economic and cultural development. This broader perspective should
inform WIPO's norm-setting activity and delivery technical assistance to
developing countries.
EFF supports the thoughtful proposal of the Group of Friends of
Development. In particular, we support the proposals for:
- independent, evidence-based Development Impact Assessments for
existing and new WIPO norm-setting activities;
- the creation of an independent evaluation and research office that
would undertake such assessments and evaluate the effectiveness of
WIPO=92s work and report directly to the General Assembly, and
- the adoption of guidelines for provision of impartial, balanced and
individualized technical assistance.
WIPO=92s technical assistance to developing countries should not simply
foster the creation of intellectual property laws as an end in
themselves. Instead, this assistance should:
(a) Reflect the traditional balance between the public interest and
rightsholders' interests in IPR systems; and
(b) Recognize the sovereign right of Member States to implement IP
regimes that accord with their national domestic priorities and level of
economic development; and
(c) take account of existing public interest flexibilities in
international instruments, and preserve policy space for countries=92
existing national copyright law exceptions and limitations. Technical
assistance should include the creation of new exceptions appropriate to
the specific development needs of each Member State.
In practice, overbroad legal protection for TPMs overrides exceptions
and limitations in national law. It is especially important that WIPO's
technical assistance helps Member States to preserve their existing
exceptions and limitations in the context of TPM protection.
Countries can benefit economically by implementing WIPO treaties that
provide economic incentives for creativity and investment.
Just as important, though, is the careful calibration of IP laws so that
they benefit all members of society. EFF strongly supports the proposal
for a treaty to protect Access to Knowledge. Access to Knowledge is
essential for development, as is the proposal for exceptions for
education, libraries and archives and the disabled, put forward by the
honorable delegate from Chile at the last meeting of the Standing
Committee on Copyright and Related Rights.
EFF also supports the proposals for increased NGO participation and
transparency about WIPO=92s role in creation of new norms. Consultation
and discussion with a wide range of stakeholders, including NGOs with
particular expertise on relevant issues, is the most effective and
appropriate way to create new intellectual property norms that serve the
interests of all members of society and all Member States.
We join in the concerns raised by various Member States about the recent
trend to hold limited participation regional meetings on the creation of
new treaties, such as those recently held on the proposed Broadcasting
Treaty in place of the regular summer meeting of the Standing Committee
on Copyright and Related Rights at WIPO=92s Geneva premises that is open
to all accredited NGOs.
Finally, as Member States consider this meeting=92s report to the WIPO
General Assembly, EFF respectfully recommends the creation of
appropriate mechanisms to permit ongoing substantive discussions of the
proposals identified by the Chair at the last meeting. Given the
cross-cutting nature of the proposals, at a minimum this requires that
discussions take place within a plenary level committee that is securely
funded for the duration of the work program, and is unambiguously
empowered to consider and implement the full range of proposals under
discussion. In light of the significant concerns expressed about the
mandate and future of the Permanent Committee on Co-operation for
Development Related to Intellectual Property, EFF believes that it is
not appropriate to transfer these important discussions to that forum.
We believe that these proposals will strengthen WIPO=92s institutional
capacity to meet the needs of its developing country members.
Thank you for your consideration.
Cory Doctorow
European Affairs Coordinator
--
International Federation of Pharma Manufacturers
We're a civil society public interest NGO, because we make life-saving
drugs.
[[CD: Also: Chocolate won't melt in my mouth]].
Ministry of Commerce for India: IP will be the differentiator in a
global economy driven by information. We're committed to delivering
world-class IP services to the world.
There's an inherent contradiction between promoting tech transfer and
focusing on limitations and exceptions. Pharma engages in tech transfer
all the time. We conduct trials in developing countries and build
factories there. We develop vaccines for tropical diseases.
We can't do this without IP, because our knowledge is very valuable. IP
is the most effective and sustainable way to create tech transfer.
Weaken your IP and you will chase away pharma companies who won't engage
in tech transfer any longer.
An undue focus on flexibilities is unhealthy for developing nations.
Under unrestricted parallel trade, pharma is bought up in poor countries
and exported to rich ones. [[CD: Yeah, like in Canada. Riiiight.]] If
you do this, investors will look for more welcoming markets into which
they can transfer their technologies.
We're distributing interactive CD ROMs explaining our R&D process as
well as documents examining the relationships between IP and health.
--
3D Trade Human Rights and Equitable Economy
We like the development agenda, the Friends of Development proposal and
the African proposal. WIPO norm-setting and IP policy making needs to be
consistent with international human rights treaties, e.g., convention on
rights of the child, etc.
WIPO activities should be coherent with development and human rights
org, such as --- [[CD: I had to leave off here to discuss PCIPD with a
delegate from the UK]]
--
International Policy Network:
--
Union for the Public Domain:
--
International Chamber of Commerce:
IP should not be seen as an issue which divides developed and developing
countries and is a tool for growth. Many developing countries recognise
this and are using IP as a tool for development.
For example, in Brazil 80% of annual patent applications are made by
local businesses. Another recent innovation in Brazil is the law which
facilitates linkages between firms and researchers.
Useful lessons can be learnt from countries that have taken a holistic
approach. In 1960s, Korea was a poor country and today is a highly
industrialised country achieved thanks to a systematic development
policy including the development of national IP laws. Gave examples also
from China and Singapore.
ICC believes the main question to be addressed is how to translate
existing IP systems into concrete benefits for their people. We should
focus on practical measures on how WIPO can help best do this. ICC offer
to undertake research into how IP can be used to help developing
countries benefit from the IP system.
--
Business Software Alliance:
BSA is a non profit organisation representing the interests of the
software industry. We promote policies in the public interest. IP
stimulates development through creativity, innovation and investment. IP
can and does play an important role in fostering creativity, etc in
developing countries.
BSA notes that WIPO's agenda has always included development aspects.
Technical assistance has always been carried out at the request of
Member States, on implementation that best responds to country's needs
as well as obligations.
It's in the interests of all for WIPO to go on doing what it does now.
No need to take any new action.
We do not see any need to revise the WIPO convention or to revise WIPOs
activities. Rather we respectfully urge WIPO Member States to provide
the WIPO Secretariat with the means to carry out its technical
assistance activities, improve the quality of WIPO's activities.
We like the US/UK proposals. The PCIPD is the appropriate forum to
discuss these matters.
--
FSF Europe:
STATEMENT BY THE
UNITED NATIONS WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY (WSIS)
PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS AND TRADEMARKS (PCT)
WORKING GROUP OF CIVIL SOCIETY
AT THE THIRD
INTER-SESSIONAL, INTER-GOVERNMENTAL
MEETING ON A
DEVELOPMENT AGENDA FOR WIPO
(Geneva, 20-22 July 2005)
The WSIS Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks Working Group of Civil
Society participated in the World Summit on the Information Society in
its first and second phase, addressing many issues of knowledge
control, software and the internet.
During the first summit in Geneva, we witnessed how the member states
of the United Nations formally agreed that knowledge dissemination and
sharing are fundamental building blocks of a knowledge society.
Quoting article 42 of the Declaration of Principles:
``Intellectual Property protection is important to encourage
innovation and creativity in the Information Society; similarly, the
wide dissemination, diffusion, and sharing of knowledge is important
to encourage innovation and creativity. Facilitating meaningful
participation by all in intellectual property issues and knowledge
sharing through full awareness and capacity building is a fundamental
part of an inclusive Information Society.''
It is in this spirit that we see the Development Agenda proposed by
the Friends of Development: patents, copyrights and trademarks are
designed to limit access and knowledge sharing. If applied wisely and
with measure, they can foster creativity and innovation. If applied
carelessly, they can kill both along with their potential benefit for
society: progress. This holds true for any nation in this world, rich
or poor, north or south.
The Friends of Development propose within their Development Agenda to
apply benchmarks to WIPO's policies and treaties in order to maximise
their benefit for all of humankind, including, but not limited to, the
developing nations.
The PCT Working Group strongly supports the proposal made by the
Friends of Development for a Development Agenda, from which we expect
positive consequences for the implementation of the WSIS plan of
action.
Furthermore, we wish to share some of the points that were important
for the debate during the World Summit on the Information Society and
that we feel will add substance to the Development Agenda proposal.
As the global civil society represented at the WSIS stated in its
essential principles of 14. November 2003: ``Human knowledge,
including the knowledge of all peoples and communities, also those who
are remote and excluded, is the heritage of all humankind and the
reservoir from which new knowledge is created.''
In the past years, we have witnessed an ongoing expansion of the
duration of copyright, and thus the timespan during which that
reservoir remains subject to limited access. At the same time, the
barriers to access have been raised by means of anti-circumvention
policies and approaches to put violations under criminal law.
In the information society, knowledge is circulating and outdated
faster, not slower: to adapt to that fact, the duration of copyright
should be shortened considerably. For this we would also like to focus
your attention on the WSIS Declaration of Principles, article 26:
``A rich public domain is an essential element for the growth of the
Information Society, creating multiple benefits such as an educated
public, new jobs, innovation, business opportunities, and the
advancement of sciences.''
The internet has not only paved the way for the knowledge age, it also
represents the latest seminal innovative step of humankind. It was
made at a time when the barriers to access were much lower. A
comparable breakthrough might be made impossible by these increased
barriers: we should reconsider these barriers to make sure we do not
disable the next breakthrough; this in particular refers to the
anti-circumvention provisions and approaches at criminalising
copyright violations, but is not limited to them.
Patents are another area in need of review that we identified
throughout the WSIS: they can be an excellent tool to promote
innovation, but their effects differ between areas.
Scientific studies for instance show that software is an area in which
patents are harmful: they stifle innovation and pose a significant
threat to competition; evidence for this has been collected by several
renowned institutions, including the [3]Massachussetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), the [4]Boston University School of Law, [5]Price
Waterhouse Coopers, [6]US Federal Trade Commission and [7]Deutsche
Bank Research.
Similar effects may exist in other areas and can serve to undermine
the patent system overall. We therefore encourage the Member States to
start a dialog with the goal of establishing clear and binding ruleset
to limit the scope of the patent system. These should take into
account the full diversity of areas and ensure the stability and
functioning of the patent system as a tool for innovation.
Given the scope and significance of these issues, only few of them can
be adequately dealt with on committee level. Mainstreaming the
development dimension into all of WIPO's activities requires the
continuation of the overarching IIM process.
We sincerely hope that progress, wisdom, courage and global vision
shall prevail in this necessary debate.
Statement by Mr. Georg C.F. Greve <greve@fsfeurope.org>
Free Software Foundation Europe, President
UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
* Civil Society Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks (PCT) Working Group,
Co-Coordinator
* First phase Civil Society representative, German Governmental
Delegation
* European Caucus, Coordinator
--
IPJustice
Over 119 public-interest NGOs have signed onto a statement supporting
the Friends of Development proposal.
* We support amending WIPO Convention to include language supporting
development.
* We support the A2K treaty. We oppose TPMs -- a clear demarcation of
user-rights is necessary.
* Weigh costs and benefits of IP rights; balance monopoly rights against
competition, etc
* IP rights are not ends of themselves -- promote public goals in IP policy
* One-size-fits-all IP doesn't foster development; expansion favors
wealthy countries, nations should be free to develop their own policies
* Flexibilities and limitations (competition policy, compulsories, etc)
are critical.
These exceptions demonstrate that limiting IP rights often encourage
innovation.
* WIPO should be member-driven and transparent and embrace
public-interest NGOs. Reps from public-interest-groups (e.g.
non-industry groups) should be including in technical assistance programs.
* Reverse the current trend of outlawing the circumvention of TPMs
* Reduce the term of copyright or at least reverse the trend of
continuously extending the term
* Reverse the trend of criminalizing non-commercial IP violations
* Eliminate monopolies on life forms, software patents, etc
--
Civil Society Coalition:
25 organisations working in 12 countries on issues such as public
health, agriculture, free software, TK, folklore.
The original dev agenda proposal noted that a treaty on A2K is an
effective tool
--
Chair: (4:20PM)
We're all tired. Let's take a break. We'll get back to NGOs tomorrow.
--
Bahrain:
Our proposal is good and widely supported by the Arab countries.
--
UK on behalf of the EU:
We're having a meeting during the break in Room B.
--
Chair:
Time for the adoption of the draft IIM Report to the General Assembly.
This is a vital agenda item. Discussions until now have been fruitful
and we are better aware of the remaining difficulties in order to have a
consensus. We are subject to certain constraints. We must inform the
General Assembly of our discussions. There are various possibilities
since the mandate is very open and not very precise or explicit.
I would like to thank the delegations of Brazil and the US for their
tangible proposals~
--
Brazil:
I would like to present the document you referred to on behalf of the
GFoD (lists 14 countries).
The first element of this proposal is an extension of this IIM process
to consider all proposals that have been submitted to establish a WIPO
Development Agenda. We think the issue needs to mature. We are aware of
a proposal submitted by the African Group. For us it is essential that
this process continue.
The second element would be a Declaration re-affirming WIPO's mandate
under the UN Agreement on the elements that deal with development.
The third element would be to recommend to WIPO to establish a WERO. We
would like this to be operationalized by the end of 2006.
The fourth element concerns principles and guidelines on norm-setting.
The fifth element is the adoption of principles and guidelines on
technical assistance as proposed in the annex of the Decision.
The sixth element is the recommendation for a process to improve the
participation of civil society and public interest organisations.
--
USA
We propose that the report to the GA -- if it should include
recommentations, you needn't make any recommendations to the GA - should
be that:
* The GA notes the examination of proposals contained in the IIM
documents, and the divergent views expressed thereon during the IIM
sessions of April, June and July 2005
We were surprised by the proposal by the GFoD yesterday which appears to
suggest the adoption of a report to the GA that only includes proposals
by the GFoD.
* The GA decides to refer all proposals to the PCIPD
* The GA reaffirms that the mandate of the PCIPD is sufficiently broad
to consider fully the proposals made. The PCIPD should be reinvigorated
so that in line with the frequency of meetings of most other WIPO
bodies, the PICPD should meet up to two times a year.
Rule of law, lack of corruption and stable macroeconomics are all
important to development. TRIPS provides a framework for a necessary and
useful tool for development, but it's not a guarantee of development.
WIPO should continue to promote development.
The PCIPD -- which could meet twice in 2006 -- would be far superior to
the IIM process. The IIMs don't lead to a full discussion of all
proposals. The PCIPD has a budget and staff and can do more than the IIMs.
--
Iran:
The IIM provided us a good exchange of views. The initiation of these
proposals was started at the General Assembly. The determination of the
GA was that the PCIPD was not competent to handle their development
concerns and therefore mandated the IIM to discuss the Development
Agenda proposals.
All the proposals that have been presented have positive points, so we
need more discussion. Why change the mandate of PCIPD? It has its own
work to do.
We need to present a clear picture to the General Assembly of what we
have discussed over the last three sessions of the IIM. The suggestions
we tabled in the draft decision does not mean that other proposals
cannot be considered in the future. The proposal regarding the WIPO
mandate does not imply that it must be changed, it just reaffirms the
mandate. We recognize the work done by WIPO on technical assistance.
WIPO is a member driven organization. We have put forward the
suggestions to make the organization more effective.
--
Morocco:
On behalf of the African Group we will submit a draft decision tomorrow.
There will be an informal meeting tomorrow at 10.30 between the GFoD and
the African Group.
--
Brazil:
I would like to address two issues.
1) Mandate of the PCIPD
At the fourth session of PCIPD, Mr. Edward Kwakwa, the WIPO General
Counsel from the International Bureau of WIPO said that: "The decision
which was taken by the WIPO conference in 1998 was entirely silent on
the question of the PCIPD's mandate." PCIPD has no mandate. Addressing
issues of mandate in the PCIPD is inappropriate.
2) Regarding the Group of Friends of Development proposal for the report
to the GA -- the USA says that it only has elements that originate with
the Friends of Development document.
It is important to note that we put forth this proposals for
negotiations with other Members. We are open to considering taking on
board issues that may be of relevance to other Members.
There is agreement that the outcome of this meeting is to put forward
recommendations to the GA. Our proposal is not an exhaustive list.
--
Senegal:
I want to stress that the African Group is examining a draft decision;
our silence isn't lack of interest. We reserve our right to return to
the issue tomorrow. Any final recommendation today should include the
possibility for the African Group to submit its proposal tomorrow
--
United States: In response to two points made by Brazil
1) Regarding the PCIPD's mandate: it's true that they adopted the
general rules of procedure with no mandate, which could be clarified by
the counsel. The General Counsel agreed that since there was no mandate,
they were competent to take up any question that could by considered by
WIPO.
2) With regard to the proposal on a decision put forward by the GFoD, we
are surprised by the five paragraphs that call for immediate action from
the General Assembly. One of these recommendations calls for the
immediate establishment of the WERO despite reservations expressed at
the 3rd IIM by some delegations.
We are surprised by these draft recommendations and some delegations may
construe this as insulting.
--
Argentina:
Our delegation does not believe that the centre of the Development
Agenda is within the mandate of the PCIPD. In fact, this was discussed
at the meeting of the PCIPD. This should not become the centre of our
debate. Apart from this, any decision adopted here or at the GA should
recognise explicitly the cross-cutting nature of the DA issues.
On the last statement by the US, we have tried to reflect those
proposals that seem to be the least complex. The list is not exhaustive
and doesn't rule out more complex issues. It is an exaggeration to say
the proposal is insulting and we find these terms difficult to swallow
as we are all participating in good faith.
As we have been saying throughout this process, we are open to
consideration of other issues ripe enough to have a decision taken on
them if that means progress. This draft decision is not a closed decision.
We do not see that much effort has been taken by the US to consider the
other proposals. We should not lose sight of the cross-cutting nature of
these issues.
--
Chile:
I am awaiting instructions from my capital on the two proposals and will
report tomorrow.
Paragraph 1 seems to be a good one (GFoD proposal). We would like to
have three more 3 day IIMs. We too would like to make new proposals at
future meetings e.g. we would like to make a proposal on the public domain.
--
United Kingdom (speaking on behalf of the EU and its 25 Member States):
We acknowledge that further work is still needed to achieve a positive
outcome -- we thank the US and Brazil for their contributions. With a
view to reaching a consensus that allows discussions to continue, we
suggest that:
1. This IIM recommends to the GA a renewal of the IIM process until July
2006
2. This further IIM process be financed by any funding set aside in the
2006-2007 budget for the PCIPD. A subset of proposals from the IIM
should be considered. It should be kept to a limited number including:
i. Those that are ripe for harvest -- on which provisional agreement can
be rapidly reached
ii. Those issues that need to considered first should include:
4/6/9/10/11/13/14/16/17/18/20/21 from the Chair's list from IIM 2
[[CD: This does not include the A2K Treaty proposal - item 3]]
[[TB: Have the UK abandoned the PCIPD idea?]]
The other items would be on an open list.
3. The 2006 GA should consider the report of this renewed IIM process
--
Nigeria:
We have a stake in WIPO and a genuine interest in the establishment of a
Development Agenda. We are therefore rather perplexed at the trends of
the discussions today. We strongly urge that the debate is steered back
to substantive issues as outlined in various proposals before the IIM.
We therefore at this stage cannot see our progress derailed on the
location of the appropriate body to house this discussion. We should not
be premature in splitting hairs on issues such as whether the discussion
should continue in the PCIPD or another forum.
We welcome the UK proposal to consider issues that are ripe for harvest
and put into the granary.
--
Colombia:
Our delegation would like to thank the delegation of Brazil (FOD), US,
and the UK proposal for giving a conciliatory position to incorporate
elements of both positions. We need to give the GA a message of
continuity. We need to enter a consensus building stage. Broadening the
IIM mandate for another year is useful.
We share the spirit of paragraph 2 (affirming WIPO's mandate) but we
would need to discuss mechanisms to adopt this recommendation.
--
Japan:
There is a large difference of opinion between members, therefore the
report to the GA should be neutral. Paragraphs 2-6 pose a difficulty for
us because we have not reached a consensus and it is therefore
premature. The question is where to discuss development issues. We
understand that IIM is an ad hoc body to report to the GA in 2005. It is
not a permanent body so it is difficult for us to renew the IIM process.
As the US delegate said, the mandate of the PCIPD is broad enough to
include the Development Agenda.
--
Russian Federation
We agree that these discussions should continue. Which framework shall
we use? We've made our views clear.
Regarding proposals to the GA: we believe that the discussions that have
taken place here have been very important, but they are only
preliminary. We don't have sufficient consensus to allow us to submit
recommendations for tangible measures to the GA.
We can continue our work on the basis of the current proposals.
-- END OF DAY 2 --