[Ip-health] WIPO knife edge

[Sangeeta]

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understan=
d
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]

> The WIPO knife edge
> Latha Jishnu / New Delhi November 26, 2009, 0:28 IST
>
> For well over a decade, the chirpy sounding acronym for the WTO=B9s agree=
ment on
> intellectual property (IP) rights, TRIPS, has rolled familiarly off tongu=
es
> albeit with fear and loathing in the developing world. To the poor nation=
s of
> every classification, from the emerging economies to the least developed
> countries, TRIPS embodied all that was wrong with the global trading syst=
em
> because it placed an additional burden on their development plans. But th=
ere
> has been a marked change in perception of late.
>
> RIPS, with its innate flexibilities and the embedding of the Doha develop=
ment
> agenda, is emerging as a less malignant beast. The bigger danger lurking =
on
> the horizon, according to several groups of developing countries, is WIPO=
, or
> the World Intellectual Property Organisation, a UN body that they say is
> baring its fangs. WIPO=B9s harmonisation agenda, according to a vocal gro=
up led
> by Brazil, Argentina and Algeria among others, is replacing TRIPS as the =
new
> instrument of a restrictive world order by changing the architecture of
> knowledge-sharing and IP protection. The IP debate, in fact, has shifted =
quite
> markedly from the WTO to WIPO where director-general Francis Gurry is pus=
hing
> reforms aimed at bringing about a harmonisation process that the developi=
ng
> countries view with misgiving if not outright distrust.
>
> Recently, Gurry was in Delhi on a high-profile visit where he explained, =
in a
> series of media interviews and a keynote speech at a conference on creati=
vity
> and inventions, what WIPO was attempting to do. Gurry is an old WIPO hand=
, a
> man who has spent nearly 25 years with this specialised UN agency, and hi=
s
> major project is to reform the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) which has =
been
> signed by its 141 members. As the WIPO chief sees it, there are compellin=
g
> reasons for overhauling PCT. Primarily it is to unclog the system which i=
s
> choked with some four million applications. Then he wants to harmonise
> national search and examination procedures.
>
> Should developing countries object to such laudable goals? The general fe=
ar is
> that a reformed PCT, or PCT II, would undermine the right of individual
> governments to formulate their own IP regimes. India, for instance, has c=
ome
> under intense western pressure for a certain section in its Patent Act th=
at
> specifies what kind of drugs are not patentable, and a sizable section of
> opinion here believes PCT II will undermine such laws.
>
> WIPO officials have been insisting that harmonisation and reform of PCT a=
re
> not intended to bring about changes in substantive matters of patentabili=
ty or
> to take away the rights of sovereign governments to grant or refuse paten=
ts.
> But critics of the Gurry plan insist that the underlying idea is to intro=
duce
> a system of global patents since WIPO has, to all intents and purposes,
> accepted much of the reform agenda put forth by the US Patent and Tradema=
rk
> Office (USPTO). What that American plan envisages is an elimination of se=
arch
> and examination in the national phase, and it provides that applications =
which
> have been granted patents by two patent authorities will be automatically
> eligible for patents in all member-states.
>
> The point is IP cannot be a one-size-fits-all regime. And this clearly is
> India=B9s stance. If reiteration was needed, it came at the Delhi confere=
nce
> when Commerce Minister Anand Sharma made a sharp rebuttal to Gurry=B9s
> harmonisation theme. Sharma, whose ministry looks after patent matters th=
rough
> the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), made it clear t=
hat
> the concerns of developing countries were different from those of the
> industrialised world. =B3You were talking of balance, how to create a bal=
ance in
> this world where there is no uniformity (of processes and regulations). I=
t=B9s
> not expected to be,=B2 he stated rather bluntly. So, although India belie=
ves in
> strong IP protection and has established a huge institutional mechanism t=
o
> enforce and protect IP rights, it also has its concerns as a developing
> country.
>
>  The problem is that in WIPO India=B9s stance is not so unequivocal. At t=
imes,
> the ministry does not send officials to crucial meetings of WIPO and when=
 it
> does, there is a clear divergence of views between them and officials at
> India=B9s permanent mission to the UN. While the latter goes by India=B9s
> officially stated position, DIPP officials tend to have their own
> interpretation on issues such as PCT reforms, technology transfer for cop=
ing
> with climate change and traditional knowledge protection. In an organisat=
ion
> where senior Indian officials are present in strength =8B Gurry=B9s chef =
de
> cabinet is NN Prasad, a joint secretary in DIPP who has been sent on a
> two-year deputation =8B this has been a cause for concern, specially sinc=
e the
> divergence has alienated India from its traditional allies in this forum.
>
> The grapevine has it that a deeply concerned official at the UN mission h=
as
> written to the cabinet secretariat listing the omissions and commissions =
of
> officials representing India=B9s interests. It would seem that commerce m=
inistry
> politics rather than the challenge of difficult international negotiation=
s
> will be the undoing of the country.
> The Business Standard



--