[A2k] IP-Watch: WIPO Discusses Enforcement As Some Seek Broader Mandate, Consumer Voice

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

<SNIP>

Consumer Groups Seek Clarification on Participation

A skirmish arose during the meeting over the status of consumer
representatives in the enforcement committee. Consumer groups were
admitted to the meeting, but did not speak on panels during the week.
According to participants, a delegate from the Third World Network
questioned the lack of consumer views on the panels, and Brazil and
Argentina then requested a stronger representation of consumers and
other non-industry stakeholders in the committee.

Lead US delegate Paul Salmon spoke against the inclusion of consumer
groups on committee panels as their involvement would fall outside the
committee mandate, which is limited to governments and industry.

=93It was disappointing to witness the United States question whether the
mandate of the existing WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE)
should include the voices of consumer groups,=94 Thiru Balasubramaniam,
Geneva representative for the Consumer Project on Technology, said
afterward. =93In his intervention, the US delegate noted that the ACE
mandate only included government consultations with the private sector.
Presumably the rules that apply for big pharma, and publishers of music,
software and textbooks do not apply to consumer organizations. The
Brazilian and Argentinian calls for the inclusion of the voices of all
stakeholders on WIPO ACE panels indicated a genuine commitment for
transparency in all facets of WIPO=92s work program.=94

US: Consumer Groups, =93Biopiracy=94 Not in the Mandate?

A US official said in a brief interview afterward that the agreed-upon
mandate specifies the inclusion only of government and =93private sector=94
representatives, and that does not include consumer groups. The mandate
also does not include issues such as limitation and exceptions,
competition (raised by Argentina) or the misappropriation of traditional
knowledge and genetic resources, referred to as =93biopiracy=94 in the
meeting by concerned governments such as Brazil. Concerns about these
issues have been put forward in the proposal from 15 nations for a WIPO
Development Agenda. The US official said the term =93biopiracy=94 does not
appear in the TRIPS agreement.



----------------


      WIPO Discusses Enforcement As Some Seek Broader Mandate, Consumer
      Voice


posted by William New @ 10:36 am

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=3D307&res=3D1024_ff&print=3D0
<http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=3D307&res=3D1024_ff&print=3D0#c=
omments>

An advisory group of government and industry experts at a World
Intellectual Property Organization this week highlighted work in the
enforcement of intellectual property rights. But tensions arose over the
group=92s mandate and whose views may be presented, according to
participants.

In a closed meeting from 15-17 May
<http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=3D9964>, the WIPO
Advisory Committee on Enforcement heard from about 20 mostly government
experts, along with the music and trademark industry associations. Some
cited successful formulas for protecting IP rights, others simply
reported on their own progress in establishing anti-piracy measures.

On the final day, informal consultations were held with meeting Chairman
Henry Olsson, a special advisor to the Swedish Ministry of Justice,
where an agreement was reached on future issues to be addressed by the
group. The consultations involved Argentina, Austria (on behalf of the
European Union), Brazil, Canada, China, Lebanon, Mexico, and
Switzerland, a source said.

The options for the future, the source said, included either to continue
the existing mandate, leave it to the General Assembly to decide and
have the committee say nothing, or to agree to a compromise, which is
what they chose. The next meeting will generally address the theme of
=93coordination and cooperation,=94 participants said.

WIPO Deputy Director General Rita Hayes said the group agreed to look
further at topics raised during the week, but there was no decision on
which ones. Consultations will be held with the chair, secretariat, and
member governments to set a framework for the next meeting, which will
take place sometime after the September WIPO General Assembly, likely in
2007.

The chair=92s report to the General Assembly states:

=93As regards future work, a number of proposals were made and discussed.
These proposals included, inter alia, issues concerning continued
education and awareness raising; further discussion of some specific
issues raised in the course of the discussion under agenda item 7,
including border enforcement measures; the methodological evaluation of,
and scientifically prepared statistics on, the impact of counterfeiting
and piracy; the development dimension in relation to enforcement,
including the need to take into account the broader context of society
interests and obligations; cost/benefit aspects of enforcement,
particularly in developing countries; cost-reduction as an enforcement
strategy and its possible impact on foreign direct investment; and the
sharing of national experiences on biopiracy.=94

=93The committee agreed that the theme for the next session of the ACE
should be an exchange of views on coordination and cooperation at the
international, regional and national levels in the field of enforcement.=94

The committee was given a strict two-year mandate for 2006-2007 as an
advisory body with no negotiating. Some developing countries were on the
lookout for signs that developed country proponents of stronger
enforcement measures might try to use the advisory committee to advance
policy objectives.

This did not transpire, participants said, and a US official said
afterward that the mandate for these two years is not to address policy
issues, and said normative issues on enforcement are being debated at
the World Trade Organization. There, the European Union has put forward
a proposal in the Council on the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) for tracking members=92 compliance
with TRIPS.

Presentations Show National Efforts

Nigeria presented on its sometimes dangerous efforts to curb the flow of
counterfeit drugs, which requires fighting organised networks. The
Nigerian delegate cited China and India as sources of the counterfeits,
but the committee meeting chair censured the delegate for =93pointing
fingers,=94 sources said.

A Malaysian minister warned, =93With the rapid quickening of
globalisation, problems of piracy and counterfeiting will worsen to
unimaginable dimensions.=94 He cited technology as the reason.

The Justice Minister of Antigua and Barbuda discussed the situation in
the Caribbean, and highlighted concern about the theft of regional music
(such as reggae) and of broadcasting signals from the 2007 Cricket World
Cup to be held in the region. China, the biggest source of piracy
worldwide, presented on its =93great progress=94 in efforts to stem piracy,
highlighting the rapid rise in patent and trademark filings, and various
programmes on IP protection and public awareness.

An official from the Brazilian National Council Against Piracy detailed
anti-piracy efforts in the country, mainly focused on illegal consumer
products. But an intervention by another Brazilian official highlighted
problems arising from the intellectual property system that make it more
difficult for developing countries to fight piracy.

The official said monopolies granted through intellectual property
rights can distort markets, which contributes to incentives for piracy.
Effective antitrust legislation should accompany other anti-piracy
efforts, he said. In addition, new models for innovation should be
explored to find ways to reduce costs and increase access to products
and services =93of social relevance,=94 such as medicines, food, cultural
goods and education, he said. The official also pointed out that most
piracy-enabling technologies originate in developed countries.

Brazil also said the intellectual property system must include
mechanisms for combating =93biopiracy,=94 the misappropriation of genetic
resources, traditional knowledge and folklore. Brazil is among the
nations calling for an amendment to the TRIPS agreement to address this
concern.

=93Combating piracy, however stringent, should not lose sight of the
public interest objectives of national policies,=94 the Brazilian said.
=93The rights of holders and the public interest must be equally promoted
and supported. Flexibilities inherent in IP law should not be encroached
upon unduly in the name of enforcement.=94

Also during the week, discussion was held on a proposal from the United
States for the next meeting that WIPO discuss and analyze the
=93relationship between the rates of counterfeiting and piracy of
intellectual property and technology transfer, foreign direct investment
and economic growth.=94 It called for WIPO assistance in collecting data
on piracy rates. The proposal was similar to one put forth by the United
States at the February meeting of the Provisional Committee on Proposals
to a WIPO Development Agenda. Some developing countries raised concerns
with the proposal.

Also presenting were: Australia, Lebanon, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Serbia
and Montenegro, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, and Switzerland. Denmark
submitted a document on its experience as well.

Consumer Groups Seek Clarification on Participation

A skirmish arose during the meeting over the status of consumer
representatives in the enforcement committee. Consumer groups were
admitted to the meeting, but did not speak on panels during the week.
According to participants, a delegate from the Third World Network
questioned the lack of consumer views on the panels, and Brazil and
Argentina then requested a stronger representation of consumers and
other non-industry stakeholders in the committee.

Lead US delegate Paul Salmon spoke against the inclusion of consumer
groups on committee panels as their involvement would fall outside the
committee mandate, which is limited to governments and industry.

=93It was disappointing to witness the United States question whether the
mandate of the existing WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE)
should include the voices of consumer groups,=94 Thiru Balasubramaniam,
Geneva representative for the Consumer Project on Technology, said
afterward. =93In his intervention, the US delegate noted that the ACE
mandate only included government consultations with the private sector.
Presumably the rules that apply for big pharma, and publishers of music,
software and textbooks do not apply to consumer organizations. The
Brazilian and Argentinian calls for the inclusion of the voices of all
stakeholders on WIPO ACE panels indicated a genuine commitment for
transparency in all facets of WIPO=92s work program.=94

US: Consumer Groups, =93Biopiracy=94 Not in the Mandate?

A US official said in a brief interview afterward that the agreed-upon
mandate specifies the inclusion only of government and =93private sector=94
representatives, and that does not include consumer groups. The mandate
also does not include issues such as limitation and exceptions,
competition (raised by Argentina) or the misappropriation of traditional
knowledge and genetic resources, referred to as =93biopiracy=94 in the
meeting by concerned governments such as Brazil. Concerns about these
issues have been put forward in the proposal from 15 nations for a WIPO
Development Agenda. The US official said the term =93biopiracy=94 does not
appear in the TRIPS agreement.

Hayes said in a brief interview, =93The mandate of the committee is
clear.=94 It is to be an exchange of information, a focus on training and
education and work with other international organisations. =93This
particular meeting dealt with country experiences,=94 she said, and it
included =93a wide range of speakers.=94

For the committee meeting, WIPO prepared a document listing dozens of
activities it has conducted on education and awareness-building related
to intellectual property enforcement.