[Ecommerce] Blogging WIPO's Development Agenda, Day 2 of the IIM

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

Blogging WIPO's Development Agenda, Day 2

For 30 years, WIPO has worked primarily to expand the scope of
intellectual property around the globe.  Whether it's bringing patents
to countries where there previously were none, or expanding the
entitlements of copyright holders in developed countries, WIPO has
always started from the premise that more IP is better for everyone.
That is changing, as countries around the world -- even across the
"north-south" divide of developed and developing nations -- are becoming
wary of over-protecting intellectual work.  Free speech, open source
software, affordable medicine, plant patents, and other important
IP-affected aspects of life are being visibly impacted by runaway legal
regimes, and the world is beginning to take notice.

At WIPO, the most concrete expression of this concern has come from the
14-country "Group of Friends of Development", which submitted a
fantastic proposal to this meeting on the need for IP-policy that
fosters the development of countries, not just the development of IP
regimes.  For example:

"While intellectual property protection may in particular circumstances
promote creativity and innovation, it is neither the only way nor
necessarily the most efficient or appropriate means for doing so at all
times and in all sectors of the economy. Similarly, it is highly
questionable that upward harmonization of intellectual property laws,
leading to more stringent standards of protection in all countries,
irrespective of their levels of development, should be pursued as an end
in itself. WIPO must, as a matter of course, examine and address all
features of existing intellectual property rights, including the
economic and social costs that IP protection may impose on developing
and least developed countries, as well as on consumers of knowledge and
technology in both the North and the South."


We'll have more on how this is going over tomorrow, when the last of the
civil society groups speak and the official meeting proceedings are
published.
=-=-=-=-=-

12 April, 2005

Notes by:

Thiru Balasubramaniam, thiru at cptech.org, Consumer Project on Technology
[TB]

Gwen Hinze, gwen at eff.org, Electronic Frontier Foundation [GH]

Ren Bucholz, ren at eff.org, Electronic Frontier Foundation [RB]

[NOTE: This is not an official transcript.  Any errors and ommissions
are regretted.]

-=-=-=-=-
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.
-=-=-=-=-

* Niger:
Niger: After independence, many developing countries introduced
pro-development policies.  IMF, World Bank polices, etc.  WIPO has
provided considerable technical assistance to developing countries. They
have raised public consciousness on IP.  Research initiatives in
universities and SMEs.  Despite WIPO's involvement, the contribution of
IP in these countries is small.  In particular:
    - involvement of WIPO is piecemeal
    - also, never taken into account
    - lack of resources allocated by ocuntries
    - absence of any IPR dev policy at all

What then can we expect WIPO to play in this context
    - coordinating activities & cooperation
    - working with other UN agencies on development

* Islamic Republic of Iran:
WIPO shouldn't be limited to promoting IP, but instead views A2K as
vital piece of WIPO's responsibility.  WIPO should encourage a balanced
approach to IP.  This organization should be more development oriented.
Iran appreciates WIPO's technical assistance and seminars.  However,
such contributions should be more in harmony with the requirements of
the int'l development community.  WIPO should incorporate development
issues in all committees.

* Jordan:
WIPO has helped many LDCs, especially Arab countries, protect & promote IP.

We hope that any extension of th WIPO's work would be thoroughly
interrogated to see how it would work, how it might be financed, and how
it would work with other UN initiatives.

The establishment of a database will help LDCs find sources of assistance.

We would like to praise the development agenda of this organization
characterized by different approaches.  We approve of WIPO's work with
NGOs and public interest groups.

* Peru:
We would like to thank Jamaica for its intervention on behalf of GRULAC
and we associate ourself with its statement.

And also thank Brazil & Argentina for their comprehensive contribution

Peru co-sponsored proposal for a development agenda last year because we
see IP not as a goal in itself, but as a way to improve society.

In this report the Sec General compared development to human rights.
Curiously, there was no mention of IP in this report.  There is mention
of access to medicines and making use of new technologies.

How do we make WIPO's goals compatible with our more important goals of
development and fostering innovation.

Recently, National IP office of Peru published document that contains a
list of IP interests in the Peruvian context (commissioned for FTA
proceeding).  It was apprarent that the breadth of Peru's IP-affected
industries demand a more nuanced approach to IP and development.

The importance of this session and upcoming sessions is that we must see
how WIPO can help countries that national IP system that go well beyond
just protecting IP; in fact this could even subordinate development
goals.  How do we make IP serve deveopment goals as elaborated in the
GFOD proposal.  We welcome NGOs and civil society in this meeting.  We
would like to give IP a different focus.

* Colombia:
This proceeding shouldn't take away from WIPO's inter-governmental role...

In our view, WIPO and its member states have helped a great deal with IP
and development.  However, the needs of LDCs continue to grow, and we
need tro create new models of tech transfer, innovation, and absorption.

The indiscrimnate way that the proposals treat IP obscures the differing
strengths of each country in regard to these issues.  LDCs goods compete
in an unbalanced way with the products of developed countries. (ask to
hear more about this)

* Australia:
There is no need to create a new forum for these Dev. issues. Instead,
we need to examine the longterm goals of WIPO, and ensure taht WIPO's
remains relevant to member countries needs.

Endorses partnership program, and points to Australia's own work in the
Pacific Rim & Asia.  Encourages harmonization & prioritization of goals

* India:
Congratulates GFoD for introducing and elaborating on the development
agenda. In particular, support creation of research & review office.

Development in WIPO terms means an increase in capacity to protect IP.
This is very different from our view, and our proposal fixes this
misconception.  Proposal fixes this after TRIPS was forced on developing
countries in 1994.  IP is a legal monopoly, but extracting value for
innovator isn't only goal.  Monopoly rights are special incentive that
needs to be carefully callibrated by each country.

In bilateral agreements, the power impalance and TRIPS forces LDCs to
fold.  No longer are developing countries willing to play this role and
have this forced on them.  The case for strong IP in devcos is without
economic basis.  Instead, these monopolies are rent-seeking arrangements.

[RB: totally fantastic - clear, unflinching - MUST get a copy of this]

IP law enforcement is embedded in all legal systems in LDCs - it is
improper and misguided to imagine that IP-enforcement will trump
prosecution of other crimes.  Therefore technical assistance is
something that should be de-prioritized in favor of impact analysis.

WIPO should not limit itself to the blind expansion of IP protections.
Expanding its scope will revitalize WIPO.

* Romania:
In favor of an assesment of WIPO's current initiatives for development.
We support proposals of monitoring impacts of technical assistance in
LDCs.  Promoting wider participation by NGOs/IGOs is a valuable idea
that deserves to be implemented.  Would like to give a more
institutional power to perm. committee.

Focus on GFoD: The burden should be on members to propose solutions.
However, resources are scanty

* Spain:
Spain is actively committed to working with WIPO to have effective
mechanism for  building a development agenda.  In this regard, have set
up a fund to help iber-american dev. activities.  Would also like to set
up a stable framework for bilateral agreements.

* Mozambique:
As an LDC, would like to voice its support for GFoD.  Would like to see
more consolidation of existing WIPO efforts.

+_+_+_+
COFFEE BREAK
+_+_+_+

* Venezuela:
WIPO should maintain a more balanced position, so the norms established
take into account the relationships between countries (social, economic,
etc.).  Priority should be given to the ability of people to benefit
from the scientific progress of IP. Helping small-medium companies and
encouraging developing nations to foster tech transfer.  Wants to move
development dimension to central pillar of WIPO's work.  This is the
purpose of GFoD

* Russian Federation:
Wishes the chair luck in the difficult situation, particularly with the
large number of views being expressed.  Shouldn't forget how these
recommendations affect IP system and WIPO in particular. Believes that
WIPO is working successfully, and particularly in benefitting
development of systems in ind. countries.

Work at WIPO should be broadened, but should respect monetary
limitations of WIPO.  In re to other entities, we should be wary of
creating new bodies to work in development space.  Instead, should work
on existing entities.

* Sudan:
Differences in education, development & technology lead to challenging
task for this body.  Wants to reiterate that the US proposal is promising.

* USA:
[RB: only country to not congratulate chair] Associates itself with the
proposal of Italy & group.  Concerned by GFoD - strong & balanced IP
helps facilitate development & tech transfer.  In regard to GFoD - agree
with Switzerland: already do dev work.

The thought that less IP will foster development, however, is as flawed
as the notion that IP alone can do so.  WIPO framework & treaties don't
hinder development or flexibility.  *Welcomes any factual dialogue about
this claim.

Would like transparency & code of conduct.  However, believes that
stronger IP does help development.

* Norway:

* Kenya:
The justification of IP is that it promotes creativity, production of
wealth, reduction of poverty.  Therein lies the need for a development
agenda.

UK Statement: very welcome
US Statement: the proposal of a database is promising, but must pay
attention to the technical restrictions of countries in Africa & dangers
of bureaucracy

* Senegal:
On US proposal, it should be viewed in light of the digital divide.
Efforts to close such divide should be supported.

* Sri Lanka:

* Paraguay:
Endorses GRULAC statement  & thanks GFoD.

* France:
Endorses Italy & Group B, Luxembourg & EU.  Interested in strengthening
existing bodies.

* Turkey:

* Japan:
Welcomes U.S. proposal, says that WIPO doesn't do this alone

* El Salvador:

* Cuba:
Nations must enjoy flexibility in rights-adoption.


WIPO is the principal authority in giving technical assistance to
developing countries; It needed to broaden this perspective.

Furthermore, need to assign appropriate resources for developing
countries.  haven't adjusted yet to the high costs of taking on strong
IP regimes.

Fully supports GRULAC & GFoD statements.

* Singapore:
Assoicates self with Asian group & ASEAN statements.  Well-being of
country is dependent on IP, but that condition is not sufficient.  No
need to change WIPO convention, nor to expand duties or agencies.  US
proposal a positive step.


* Bahrain:
Asks US to clarify the mechanism it call for in its paper.

* Argentina:
We would like to refer to other proposals referred to in the meeting.
They show the commitment of good will to establish a proper development
agenda at WIPO.  Three proposals have one common element-to limit the
scope of the DA to technical assistance.  Our delegation, of course,
rejects this strategy. Our own proposal is concrete, and has policy
actions.

Our paper presents concrete ways in which to achieve DA goals.  We
encourage Member States to make proposals based on the other elements of
the Development Agenda.

On the US proposal, we observe that the premise that the partnership
would be based from the GFod perspective, the US focuses on
strengthening IPRs.  We do NOT share the views expressed in this
document.  Technical assistance should be tailor made appropriate to
development needs.

The development dimension is not exhausted in the element contained in
the US proposal.

In our view, technical assistance should be based on the real needs and
interests of Members and should be managed and provided in a
transparent, neutral fashion.  There should be an assessment mechanism
such as we have proposed.

To sum up, we want greater effectiveness in the application of technical
assistance.  Therefore, the tools should not be based on the tools of
Developed countries, but on the needs of LDCs.

The UK proposal is based on many recommendations on the UK IPR
Commission.  The Development Agenda is not limited to technical
cooperation.  However, it appears that the UK only address the technical
cooperation aspect.  The UK backs a mandate change for WIPO to better
address development needs.  It also suggests that the PCIPD should be
the sole forum for the discussion of these issues.

Patent harmonization initiatives as supported by the UK have been
rejected in the previous SCP and the WIPO General Assembly.
Re Technology transfer - consider should be taken up in WTO. Wed don't
agree.

On Mexican proposal, discussion of UN MD. We deplore the fact that this
is a closed discussion.
In Mexico's paper, we deplore the fact that Mexico's approach is closed
in their mention of the MDGs.

It contains 2 categorical statements that IP is crucial for development.

We all know that industrialized countries have adopted patent protection
only when they achieved a certain level of development.

Another paragraph attempts to minimize our proposal to GA in September.
Also attempts to minimize purport of resolution on that proposal.

Reference to Casablanca meetings - We don't think that this is [a good
example of a meeting.  This meeting was not open to all Member States.

In sub paragraph two there is no mention of the TRIPS Agreement which
imposed obligations on developing countries.

Not just developing countries affected by this - both developed and
developing country affected.

Argentina doesn't see any connection between IP and providing meaningful
employment for young people - sub-paragraph 3(8)


Argentina would like to clarify that IPRs in themselves do not achieve
stability or balance.  IPRs are tools to be utilized in beneficial ways.

 We do not share the view that dissemination of IP in developing
countries should just point to their benefit or opportunities. We should
not just describe benefits, but also costs. IP rights are not absolute.
Need to diffuse information about both rights of intellectual property
rightsholders, and also the rights of consumers. It is important that
training not just diffuse IP but also understanding of respect of third
party rights and also encourage protection of own rights.

* Indonesia:  We would like to associate ourself with the statement of
Singapore on behalf of ASEAN.  WIPO has been instrumental in developing
IP system in Indonesia and using the PCT system.


We appreciate WIPO's technical assistance. Many things need to be done
to encourge domestic competition, technology transfer.

Important to remember that  IP by itself not sufficient for development.
[..]

* Sweden:
Associates itself with statement of B Group and fully supports statement
of Luxemborg on behalf ofEU

As for GFoD - Sweden shares their concerns that more dev. focus is needed.

* Brazil:


We would like to make some preliminary remarks on the proposals
presented by other countries.

The most positive aspect of American and others is that we have th
engagement of three countries.  It is very good to see engagement. These
proposals will be duly examined in my capital.

However, we are pleased to see certain language in each proposal, such
as the recognition that IP is not the only way to enhance development,
and that a multifaceted approach is needed.

Mexico Proposal: "There is a tendency to associate corruption and
bribery as impediments to adequate IP implementation."  This seems to be
an association with these

Argument: "WIPO is not a core development agency like UNCTAD and UNDP"
This isn't disputed by GFoD, but rather we hoped to add greater depth of
analysis and expertise. This is a broadening of WIPO's perspective.

US proposal:  "The GFoD proposal will create new bodies."  GFod:
Development Dimension should be incorporated into *all* aspects of
WIPO's work programme including current committees.  The partnership
offices seems like a matchmaking initiatives between donors and recipients.

GFoD: We do not believe that the Dev Dimension can be soley dealt by
technical cooperation.  We do no make proposals on technical cooperation
in a vacuum but rather, they exist in a wider context. This
parternership proposal recognizes the need for change.
Partnership office would be novelty within organization, so perhaps is
at least a recognition of need for change within WIPO.

However, U.S outsources responsibility of funds and donors.  Also, don't
see how the database will make the general thrust of WIPO's work more
development-oriented.

US proposal: Development dimension should be incorporated into
norm-setting.  This is something Brazil can agree upon.

Mexico: in beginning of that document, there is a partial and very
selective citation of development goals.  In fact, the mill. agreement
is much broader, and Mexico focuses primarily on the IP-strengthening
portion of it.  Argentina reminds everyone that the mill. decl. also
talks about access to medicine in LCDs.

There was no legitimacy in the Casablanca process which was referred to
by the Mexican proposal.  The Casablanca process is something we would
not like to repeat.

Mexico also support some kind of valuation system for gauging compliance
with int'l IPR standards for countries that are benificiaries of
technical assistance.  But we don't know how that would benefit
development.

Premise in Mexican document that dev.cos don't see the benefits of IP.
Predisposition to assume that the average person in the dev.co is an
ignorant person.  The goal WIPO, in that formulation, is to "enlighten"
those countries to the benefits of IP.

Mexican proposal essentially endorses current global system - or a less
flexible version thereof.

United Kingdom proposal: It appears sympathetic to the cause of
development by relying on the recommendations of the UK IPR Commission.
There are a few elements of the proposal that might merit certain comment.

Certain flexibilites can be granted to some but not all developing
countries-aspect of graduation-this is a cause of concern.

However, there are also positive references:  states that Ip alone can't
guarantee that country will attain objectives.  Also states that
indivudial circumstances must be taken into account when setting policy.

Where the document shows shortcomings is in the solutions section. The
solutions are very narrow, and the UK basically reverts to the same kind
of proposal put forward in the US committee: reinvigorating and focusing
the PCPID.

The UK document also defends patent law harmonization.  This is not
compatible with the development agenda. As we have seen, the net effect
is a rise in the minimum amount of protection around the world.  This is
not a development friendly position.

On transfer of technology, UK notes that discussion of transfer of
technology and IP should be shifted to the WTO-so far these discussions
at the WTO have not progressed further. Transfer of technology is part
of the balance that countries should strive for. This should be fully
discussed within WIPO.

Coffee:

IGOs

* African Union:
NEPAD - new economic partnership for economic development

Awards for best african inventors, which has spurred dynamism for IP
culture.

* Russian Patent Organization:

* UNCTAD:
First, jointly with ICSTD,
    a. have been working to understand the implications of stronger IP
    b. assisting countries in implementation & adoption
    c. highlight flexibilities in TRIPs
Second, working on open source and bridging digital divide
Third, Oct. 2004 seminar on bridging digital divide.
Fourth, implementing mandate from Sao Paolo by examining policies that
are aimed at improving tech transfer, enforcement of IP, protecting
genetic resources, etc.

* WHO:
Resolution: time-limited body to make proposals on IP & public health
encourage that bilats take into account the agts for public health in TRIPs
Doha declarations - important to the goals of public health & health

1. accessible & transparent info on patent status of medicines.
2. basic look at patentability of medicines
3.

* ACP - African Caribbean & Pacific States:
Harbors majority of LDCs, & therefore welcomes GFoD proposals

As others note, it is vital to show respect for the needs, expectations
& limitations of LDCs

* League of Arab States:
Welcomes assistance from WIPO to examine existing laws and plan new ones
to expand IP in arab states.  Has strengthened its relationship with WIPO.

* European Patent Office:
30 member states, is principal patent-granting arm of EU.  While dev.
has only recently been introduced into IP agenda, they are convinced
that their own countries have already been active here.

* electronic information for libraries:
Theresa Hackett - libraries foster a market for information - even
entertainment goods
Need objective impact assessments of policies on libraries

* International Chamber of Commerce:
small & large businesses worldwide.  ICC believes that protection is a
necessary condition for development, but must be bolstered by others

* International Federation of Pharmeceuticals Manufacturers:
Shouldn't think of this as a north-south debate - people in the south
benefit well from IP as well

Focus on India: many Indian companies have already called for more
protections

Should focus on adjusting patent system, not reducing their protection.

* IFPI:
Reps 1,500 musical producers in 78 countries around the world.  Even in
small countries.

Copyright is awesome all over the world, for asrtists of every size.

* International Federation of Filmmakers Associations:
industry comprised of small and medium companies, and they rely on
strong IP to survive.  They are really the friends of development.

Crisis in Argentina, film in A/V industry.  Major economic crisis. in
2004, 74 movies were released.  Had to strengthen protections to spur
protections for creators.