Documents   |   About   |   Links   |   Contact

Add new comment

Partial Meeting Notes from Day Two of the WIPO's Development Meeting

These are snipped and rough notes. I found Argentina and Brazil comments on the proposals on the table (see http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/da.html) really interesting. Diplomatic but clear.



* 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.



SNIP



* 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.


Thiru Balasubramaniam, Gwen Hinze, Ren Bucholz,

Filed Under: Copyright/Fair Use | English

Reply


Anonymous


  • Enter two blank lines to indicate a paragraph break.
  • Otherwise, adding HTML will cause your post to be interpreted as HTML.
  • Web and email addresses will automatically converted into clickable links.
  • More information on formatting options