[Ip-health] IP-Watch: US Advises Developing Country FTA Partners Not To Follow WHO IP Plan

[Jeff Williams]

Michael and all,

  This seems like a lot of spin in order to justify some CYA on the
part of the US and back spin regarding GATT and the WTO.

michael.davis@law.csuohio.edu wrote:

> It is interesting that the US considers IP outside the competence of the
> WHO when there was never any doubt that IP was outside the competence of
> GATT and the WTO.
>
> MD
>
> > http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=3D485&res=3D1024_ff&print=3D=
0
> >
> > 11/12/2006
> >
> > US Advises Developing Country FTA Partners Not To Follow WHO IP Plan
> >
> > By Tove Iren S. Gerhardsen
> >
> > The United States has busily negotiated bilateral free trade agreements
> > with a variety of developing countries in recent years, and now appears
> > to be using these to influence those countries=92 positions in
> > multilateral bodies such as the World Health Organization (WHO).
> >
> > Developing countries that have free trade agreements (FTAs) with the
> > United States received an email in the form of a =93d=E9marche=94 from =
the US
> > government before the 4-8 December meeting of the WHO Intergovernmental
> > Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property
> > Rights. The demarche said that it had become apparent that the WHO was
> > trying to go beyond its competency and address intellectual property
> > rights and trade, which could have impact on the scope and effect of
> > FTAs, according to a government source.
> >
> > This, the email said, and the proposed global framework described in
> > World Health Assembly resolution WHA59.24 from May this year, could
> > potentially harm the patent system. The United States was therefore
> > proposing a more =93pragmatic=94 solution, as it appeared the WHO tried=
 to
> > go beyond its technical expertise, the source said.
> >
> > The working group was mandated by the resolution, which states that it
> > should come up with: =93a global strategy and plan of action in order t=
o
> > provide a medium-term framework based on the recommendations of the
> > commission=94 aiming at =93inter alia, securing an enhanced and sustain=
able
> > basis for needs-driven, essential health research and development
> > relevant to diseases that disproportionately affect developing
> > countries.=94
> >
> > This refers to the WHO Commission on Intellectual Property Rights,
> > Innovation and Public Health (CIPIH), which published with its
> > recommendations in April.
> >
> > The US email also noted that these issues should be discussed at the
> > World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Intellectual Property
> > Organization (WIPO), the source said.
> >
> > A demarche is used for direct high-level government-to-government
> > communication. It is common practice for embassies to contact relevant
> > countries before meetings to lay out their view and ask for support,
> > and for this meeting, the United States wanted to ensure that the
> > meeting would not undermine the IP regime, according to a developed
> > country official.
> >
> > Signing a free trade agreement with the United States usually carries
> > intellectual property-related terms that exceed those of international
> > rules like the 11-year-old WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
> > Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
> >
> > A Peruvian official told a side meeting at a WIPO meeting last week
> > that the country somewhat hastily broke from its Andean region partners
> > and signed a deal with the United States last year because it was on
> > the verge of a presidential election. In the agreement, Peru agreed to
> > terms beyond the TRIPS agreement, and once the agreement takes effect,
> > it will have to check with the United States before agreeing to terms
> > in multilateral negotiations at international organisations. The Peru
> > agreement is expected to come before the US Congress this year for
> > ratification, but may already have legal effect in Peru, he said.
> >
> > WHO and IP
> >
> > On 7 December at the WHO meeting, Brazil also talked about WHO=92s
> > mandate in relation to IP, but instead of arguing that it should stay
> > out if it, Brazil said that WHO should do its own work based on its
> > =93own mandate from its own decision-making body,=94 with access to hea=
lth
> > as the main objective.
> >
> > Brazil said that the intergovernmental working group should avoid
> > =93trying to import mandates from other United Nations agencies,=94 add=
ing
> > that WHO should analyse intellectual property as it relates to health
> > concerns, and =93take a health perspective on IP=94 as the objective sh=
ould
> > be =93access to health.=94
> >
> > The Brazilian delegate said WIPO dealt with the protection of IP per
> > se, and the WTO with liberalisation of trade.
> >
> > Brazil particularly took issue with references to counterfeiting, and
> > said the CIPIH had not really dealt with this issue, which was now
> > pushed at the WTO as well as WIPO.
> >
> > One developed country official told Intellectual Property Watch that
> > the intervention of Brazil was =93bizarre,=94 and that the suggestion t=
hat
> > counterfeit medicines is not a public health issue was a =93farce.=94 A=
lso,
> > the source said, issues such as patent pools belong in WIPO, and had
> > nothing to do with WHO.
> >
> > Other countries, including Canada and Norway, suggested that the plan
> > and strategy of action should state that no work here will duplicate
> > work in other organisations, but other countries took issue with this,
> > including the United States, Australia and Japan.
> >
> > =93Work here should take into account work [in other organisations],=94=
 the
> > United States said, which also noted that the World Health Assembly had
> > not endorsed, but welcomed the CIPIH report.
> >
> > ------------
> > Thiru Balasubramaniam
> > Geneva Representative
> > CPTech
> > voice +41.22.791.6727
> > fax +41.22.723.2988
> > mobile +41 76 508 0997
> > thiru@cptech.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ip-health mailing list
> > Ip-health@lists.essential.org
> > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
> >
>
> Mickey Davis
> _________________________________
> Prof. Michael H. Davis
> Professor of Law
> Cleveland State Univ. College of Law
> 1801 Euclid Ave.
> Cleveland, OH 44115-2214
> (mailing address: 2121 Euclid Ave. LB 234)
> 216-687-2228
> _____________________________________________________________
> Patent Attorney Admitted to Practice Before the US Patent and Trademark
> Office Reg.No. 45,863
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827