[Ecommerce] Re: [Ip-health] WIPO Press Release on Casablanca meeting

[James Love]

Thiru Balasubramaniam wrote:
> http://www.wipo.int/edocs/prdocs/en/2005/wipo_upd_2005_241.html
>      *Statement Adopted at the End of Informal Consultations
>      in Casablanca on February 16, 2005*
>
> 3. There was broad agreement that the objectives of the future work
> program of the SCP should be to address issues with a view to improving
> the quality of granted patents, thus avoiding unwarranted encroachments
> on the public domain, and to reducing unnecessary duplication of work
> among Patent Offices, which should produce benefits by making the patent
> system more accessible and cost-effective.


    This paragraph, by itself, sounds good.  However, many important
mechanisms to address poor patent quality are not discussed or included
in the Casablanca statement, and one wonders (a) is there is a plan to
deal with poor patent quality, and (b), is harmonization of the items if
paragraph 4 the best or even effective measures for doing this?

    Many of us note the plethora of anticompetitive practices, limited
resources for patent examination, the high costs and delays associated
with patent litigation, the deplorable lack of transparency of patant
status on medicines in developing countries, and the practical problems
in managing policy decisions regarding both patentable subject matter
and novelity standards.

    The working assumption on patent quality should be that the current
system is a disaster, it is harming consumers, and it is driven by a
practical issues and economics.

     If WIPO embraces the Trilateral agenda on the SPLT, the result
could be "more unwarranted encroachments on the public domain," if the
underlying causes of poor patent quality are not examined.  This will be
a particular problem for developing countries who have fewer resources,
not only for patent examinations, but also to resolve post grant
disputes.  The idea that front-end patent examinations with good
standards will save the day is increditably foolish, in our opinion.  Do
the math on the number of patents that are being filed every year.
Also, there are good reasons for developing countries to reject the
lower novelity standards that exist in the US, given the massive (and
well documented) evidence of anticompetitive uses of patents in the
areas of software and medicines, for example.


> 4. In order to achieve these objectives, the meeting agreed that the
> following six issues should be addressed in an accelerated manner within
> WIPO with a view to progressive development and codification of
> international intellectual property law: prior art, grace period,
> novelty, inventive step, sufficiency of disclosure and genetic
> resources. These issues should be addressed in parallel, accelerated
> processes, the first four issues (prior art, grace period, novelty and
> inventive step) in the SCP and the other two issues (sufficiency of
> disclosure and genetic resources) in the Intergovernmental Committee on
> Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and
> Folklore (IGC). Each of the SCP and the IGC should agree on a timetable
> and report progress on the development of their discussions of the
> issues to the other.
>

    On the proceedural issues, I note that the Casablanca statement
allows the US/EU/JP issues to go first in the SPLT, I assumed before the
SPLT gets around to addressing any issues of interest to the poor, such
as Doha flexiabilities, or the control of anticompetitive practices, or
emerging issues, such as problems facing standards organizations.   I'll
let other speculate for now on how effective the IGC will be in solving
the later points, or why they should not be addressed in the relevant
standing committee for patents.  Or, if it makes sense for developing
countries to negotiate substantive patent harmonization even before they
gain experience with the post TRIPS problems.


> 5. The meeting underlined the importance of the continued active pursuit
> of discussions and work within WIPO on issues related to development and
> intellectual property so that a robust, effective and actionable WIPO
> Development Agenda could emerge.
>
> 6. The meeting recommended to the Director General of WIPO
>
>    (a) to call on Member States for proposals on the International
>    Development Agenda for discussion at the April 2005 session of the
>    Intersessional Intergovernmental Meeting (IIM),
>
>    (b) to convene the next session of the SCP in May 2005 to consider
>    and endorse the objectives and work program set out above,
>
>    (c) to convene the next session of the IGC in June 2005 to consider
>    and endorse the objectives and work program set out above, and
>
>    (d) to transmit the decisions of the above meetings to the General
>    Assembly in September 2005 for its consideration, including a time
>    frame for the conclusion of these issues within WIPO.
>
> 7. The meeting expressed its warm thanks and gratitude to the
> authorities of the Kingdom of Morocco for hosting the consultations.
>
> The delegate of Brazil did not associate himself with the foregoing text.

   I have been told by at least one other country listed in the WIPO
statement that it has not endorsed the WIPO text either.


--
James Love, Director, CPTech, http://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

Mobile +1.202.361.3040
james.love@cptech.org