[A2k] FromGeneva: Discussions at WIPO PCDA on US proposal related to counterfeiting, piracy and enforcement

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

    Thursday, February 23, 2006


      Discussions at WIPO PCDA on US proposal related to counterfeiting,
      piracy and enforcement

Thursday, 23 February 2006
Thiru Balasubramaniam

Yesterday the United States of America presented its proposal on the
elaboration of a WIPO Partnership Program. Point six of the US proposal
dealt with the effect of counterfeiting and piracy on economic development.

The US proposal called for the WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement
(ACE) to

    discuss and analyze the relationship between the rates of
    counterfeiting and piracy of intellectual property and technology
    transfer, foreign direct investment and economic growth.



The US delegate asserted that there was growing evidence that weak IP
regimes were a deterrent to inward investment, FDI and technology
transfer. The US proposal called for the WIPO Secretariat to "assist in
the collection of data on piracy rates".

Japan and Austria (on behalf of the EU) made rather anodyne remarks
supporting studying effect of counterfeiting and piracy on economic
development.

Brazil responded point by point to the US proposal. As the hour was
drawing late, Brazil continued its response this morning. Brazil noted
the American's mention of "endemic" piracy. The Brazilian delegated
noted that piracy was a global problem and not just a problem endemic to
developing countries. he noted that WIPO did not have the mandate to
address corrupt practices of government or of enforcing IP; the Advisory
Committee on Enforcement (ACE) was just an advisory body.

Brazil responded to Romania's intervention on Brazil creating a national
committee to combat piracy in 2003 and thanked Romania for recognition
that Brazil had credentials for enforcement.

At this point the Romanian Ambassador Doru Romulus Costea raised his
placard in the air and made an intervention. He noted that

    [w]hat Romania does in respect of enforcement is not in question
    here. Otherwise if we were to talk about what each and every country
    does, we would have produced a different statement and we would be
    here all day.



The Brazilian delegate responded

    [w]e have credentials to raise the adequacy of the IP to
    development. We don't feel counterfeiting and piracy belong to this.
    However, another delegation brought up Brazil's national statements
    on piracy, so I feel obliged to resume my intervention. And I feel
    it is incumbent on me to respond on Brazil's efforts to combat
    piracy. As the Romanian delegate rightly, pointed out we do believe
    the ACE is an important body provided it functions within it's terms
    of reference. The fact that we have a development agenda does NOT
    mean we favor counterfeiting and piracy. I must say that it is
    strange to hear Romania cite Brazil's efforts on enforcement in
    support of his point about enforcement. One would normally expect
    that one would cite the experience of one's own country. Since the
    Romanian delegate cares so much about enforcement, perhaps the
    delegate could submit his candidacy for the ACE.

/posted by Thiru Balasubramaniam @ 1:10 PM
<http://fromgeneva.blogspot.com/2006/02/discussions-at-wipo-pcda-on-us.html>/