[Ip-health] WIPO Development Agenda committee: Interface between competition policy and intellectual property

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

http://www.keionline.org/index.php?option=3Dcom_jd-wp&Itemid=3D39&p=3D127

WIPO Development Agenda committee: Interface between competition
policy and intellectual property

July 10th, 2008 by Thiru Balasubramaniam

On Wednesday (9 July 11, 2008) the WIPO Committee on Development and
Intellectual Property (CDIP) steered away from the detailed financial
and human resources discussions that characterized the first two days
of discussion to more substantive discussions on competition policy.

The morning session considered recommendation 7 of the WIPO
Development Agenda which calls upon WIPO to

     [p]romote measures that will help countries deal with IP related
anti=E2=80=91competitive practices, by providing technical cooperation to
developing countries, especially LDCs, at their request, in order to
better understand the interface between intellectual property rights
and competition policies.

The International Bureau noted that many countries do not have
competition authorities; the implication of this statement would
intimate that WIPO would need to do more to help countries remedy anti-
competitive practices. The Secretariat noted that a meeting on the
interface between =E2=80=9Cintellectual property rights and competition
policies=E2=80=9D would be held in the Republic of Korea later on this year=
.
Pakistan inquired if WIPO would hold a similar conference in Geneva
for WIPO delegates to get a better understanding of this subject. If
not, the delegate of Pakistan requested WIPO to hold a conference in
Geneva on competition policies and IP policy.

Michael Shapiro (United States of America) noted that the =E2=80=9CIPR
aspects of competition policy do not exist in a vacuum=E2=80=9D but rather
operate in a complex web. He cautioned the CDIP in implementing
recommendation 7 in a way that would =E2=80=9Cwaste WIPO=E2=80=99s scarce
resources=E2=80=9D. Mr. Shapiro noted that to the best of his knowledge, th=
is
was the first time competition issues had been discussed before the
full committee. In order to provide context for the US intervention,
he reaffirmed that the the Committee was at the beginning of an
important process. He inquired, =E2=80=9C[w]here do we begin the deliberati=
ve
process, what are the questions we should be asking, what WIPO
programs and activities is WIPO delivering, how are we evaluating and
assessing how IPRs meet development needs, how existing WIPO programs
and activities are used to promote economic growth and development=E2=80=9D=
.
Mr. Shapiro highlighted that the International Bureau already provided
legislative and technical assistance upon request at preventing and
resolving anti-competitive practices related to intellectual property.

In order to aid the discussions on competition policy and IPR, WIPO
prepared an =E2=80=9Cinformal note=E2=80=9D for discussion during the infor=
mal
consultations in April; yesterday the International Bureau clarified
that this informal noted would be made formal and be made available as
a conference document. With respect to WIPO technical assistance on
this matter, the note stated:

     [s]o far, WIPO has not received any specific requests for
assistance on matters of competition policy and its interface with
intellectual property rights. Requests have generally focused on
specific points of IP law, for example, in the form of advice on a
drafI IP law prepared by the member country=E2=80=99s authorities, as a
request for a first draft IP law to serve as a basis for discussion
with the country=E2=80=99s authorities, or in th context of assistance as
regards the flexible implementation of obligations under the TRIPS
Agreement.

South Africa, Brazil, Nepal, Uruguay, Thailand and China all supported
Pakistan=E2=80=99s call for WIPO to hold a seminar in Geneva for delegates =
on
the interface between competition policy and intellectual property.

France (on behalf of the European Communities and its 27 member
states) asserted that competition policy and its relationship to IPRs
was both =E2=80=9Cimportant and delicate=E2=80=9D, therefore they were of t=
he view
that it was appropriate for the Committee to =E2=80=9Cclarify the matter
fully and to define what the problem consists of=E2=80=9D and to adopt a
=E2=80=9Cnuanced approach so that problems that do arise can be discussed t=
o
ensure that the cart is not put in front of the horse=E2=80=9D.


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


Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)
thiru@keionline.org


Tel: +41 22 791 6727
Mobile: +41 76 508 0997