[Ecommerce] IP-Watch: U.S., Brazil Duel On WIPO Development Agenda

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=3D81&res=3D1024_ff&print=3D0

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


    21/7/2005


      U.S., Brazil Duel On WIPO Development Agenda


Filed under:

    * English <http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?cat=3D1>
    * WIPO <http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?cat=3D13>

by William New @ 1:27 pm

At the start of day two of a meeting on reform of the U.N. World
Intellectual Property Organisation <http://www.wipo.int> toward
developing country concerns, the United States put a political stake in
the ground, calling for the meeting to recommend moving development
issues to an existing technical committee.

The U.S. proposal is in marked contrast to a proposal put forward on day
one by Brazil on behalf of 14 countries referred to as the Friends of
Development, which called for more meetings at the same high level, with
their sweeping reform proposal as the central focus.

The two governments went head-to-head repeatedly during the second
morning, getting to the heart of their differences over how to ensure
development concerns are fully addressed at WIPO. They also sparred on
whether WIPO should negotiate a treaty ensuring public access to knowledge.

Meanwhile, sponsors of various proposals under discussion at this week=92s
meeting are busy behind the scenes working to bring their proposals
closer together. The African Group announced in the morning that it
would have a number of new proposals later in the day. Participants said
the European Union is working to prepare a set of proposals drawn from
all of the others listed by the meeting chair that could be discussed in
a continuation of the current meeting next year.

The EU proposal would have the effect of dividing the Group B of
industrialised countries, as the United States and Japan would be
isolated in their continued insistence on moving development issues into
a specific technical committee, sources said.

Last fall, the Friends of Development group co-sponsored a proposal for
fundamental reform of WIPO to infuse a development dimension throughout
its activities, something they argue has been missing from the body long
associated with the protection of intellectual property rights worldwide.

The Friends of Development proposal was introduced at the 2004 WIPO
General Assembly, which mandated that an Intersessional
Intergovernmental Meeting (IIM)
<http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=3D8487> discuss
the proposal and make a recommendation by the end of July for the 2005
General Assembly. The current 20-22 July IIM is the third and final
three-day meeting since April.

The U.S. suggestion to move development issues to the Permanent
Committee on Cooperation for Development (PCIPD)
<http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=3D7524> reflects a
proposal put forward at the April IIM by the United Kingdom. Canada
proposed at the last meeting of the PCIPD =96 which followed immediately
after the April IIM =96 that the body be reorganised to address broader
concepts. The United Kingdom took over the presidency of the European
Union on 1 July, and now speaks for the EU in the meeting.

Brazil, India and others have argued repeatedly that the fundamental
changes they are calling for must reach beyond the PCIPD into a range of
committees and procedures at WIPO.

The U.S. draft IIM recommendation states in its entirety:

=93If any decision of the IIM to the WIPO General Assembly is to be
included in the Report of the IIM to the WIPO General Assembly, the
decision of the IIM should read as follows:

=91The IIM recommends that the following decision be adopted by the
General Assembly:

1. The General Assembly notes the examination of proposals contained in
documents IIM/1/=85, IIM/2/=85 and IIM/3/=85, and the divergent views
expressed thereon during the IIM session of April, June and July 2005;

2. The General Assembly decides to refer all of the above proposals, as
well as any other proposals received from Member States, to the PCIPD;

3. 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 of other WIPO bodies, the PCIPD should meet up to two
times each year to discuss issues relating to intellectual property and
development.=92=94

The dispute between the United States and Brazil shows the underlying
disagreement in philosophies regarding the usefulness of intellectual
property rights in promoting innovation and development.

A Brazilian delegate said that higher standards of intellectual property
protection have not delivered benefits to developing countries, and that
there has been widespread concern that new norms of protection may
actually be inhibiting rather than facilitating transfer of technology.

Companies may use their govt-granted monopoly rights to block countries
from adapting these technologies to their own needs or to prevent
competition, he added. These problems are exacerbated in environments
where rules go beyond those agreed to in the 1994 World Trade
Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS). =93The intellectual property system should be made to deliver on
those objectives=94 to promote development, he said.

=93I think the U.S. totally rejects anything that changes this
organization=92s modus operandi that helps developing countries,=94 a
Brazilian delegate charged. =93I hope I am not correct.=94

The U.S. delegate assured Brazil that his government has expressed a
=93willingness to discuss=94 development issues and fully supports U.N.
efforts. But he said the United States disagrees with the premises upon
which Friends of Development proposal is based =96 that WIPO has not dealt
with development issues, and that intellectual property rights have not
been positive for innovation.

U.S. Rejects Access To Knowledge Treaty Proposal

Another area of contention between the United States and Brazil was a
proposal put forward by Brazil for WIPO to negotiate an =93access to
knowledge=94 treaty. Brazil said there is a problem of the appropriation
of publicly funded =93basic science=94 and research by private companies
which has the effect of removing the knowledge from the public domain.

Brazil=92s delegate cited =93worrisome=94 legislation in the United States
that encourages the transfer of more research from universities to
private sector, which he said would lead to more monopolies and less
innovation.

The access to knowledge treaty, sometimes referred to as the A2K treaty,
would ensure this information remains public, feeding science and
research, Brazil said. WIPO must address this problem, he said, adding,
=93We believe an access to knowledge treaty is the real power tool that
WIPO should pursue.=94

The United States said it cannot support the proposal, and that it
=93strongly disagrees=94 with the principles underlying it and views it as
=93unnecessary.=94 Intellectual property has been a strong driver of
innovation rather than an impediment, the U.S. said.

The European Union could be the wild-card in the debate, as the United
Kingdom=92s statement did not reject the access to knowledge treaty
proposal, and said WIPO has a role in the debate.

Also Thursday, the United States and a number of other governments
disagreed with a Friends of Development proposal to add a new WIPO
standing committee on technology transfer, citing long-standing work in
this area and WIPO=92s limited resources. Brazil countered that it is
=93completely inappropriate=94 to move technology transfer and other
development issues to such a committee.

The Brazilian delegate said the PCIPD could be reworked, but that it
=93does not even do what it=92s supposed to do,=94 which is technical assis=
tance.

Finally, on Thursday the WIPO secretariat circulated a 300-page document
of information on the organisation=92s development cooperation activities
from January 2000 to June 2005.

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

/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/>. All of the news
articles and features on Intellectual Property Watch are also subject to
a Creative Commons License
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/> which makes them
available for widescale, free, non-commercial reproduction and translation.=
/

/William New, the author of this post, may be reached at
wnew@ip-watch.org <mailto:wnew@ip-watch.org>./

/You can subscribe for automatic notifications of these stories, via the
RSS feed <http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-rss2.php> or via the e-mail
alerts <http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/subscribe.php>. Subscribers can
choose the frequency of notifications as well as particular topics of
greatest interest to them./

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

/http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php/81/