WIPO Dev Agenda: India's Statement, Free Press, EFF Info Page, More
Seth Johnson <[email protected]> Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:01:48 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.dmca-activists,gmane.org.aful.patents |
|---|---|
| Organization | Real Measures |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Many fabulous statements were made at this meeting. With great restraint I have chosen to attach India's groundbreaking statement, the press release by Free Press, and EFF's information page on the WIPO Development Agenda: > http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2005-April/000241.html > http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2005-April/000235.html > http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/dev_agenda/ . . . in addition to these, attached below, see the Access to Knowledge list archive for April 2005 for a more complete record: http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2005-April/date.html I also select the following links for those who wish to read further: Electronic Frontier Foundation: http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2005-April/000226.html Free Software Foundation Europe: http://fsfeurope.org/projects/wipo/statement-20050413.en.html Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure: http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2005-April/000227.html European Digital Rights: http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2005-April/000250.html Consumers International/TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue: http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2005-April/000230.html Union for the Public Domain: http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2005-April/000233.html Civil Society Coalition: http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2005-April/000219.html Center for Technology and Society: http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2005-April/000221.html Seth --- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [A2k] India's Statement at WIPO Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:55:08 +0200 From: Karsten Gerloff <[email protected]> Organization: Fellowship of the Free Software Foundation Europe To: [email protected] -- Hi all, here's India's statement at the WIPO IIM/1. Since it is extremely clearly phrased in summing up the Friends of Development proposal, it made quite a splash on Tuesday. Best regards Karsten Statement by India at the Inter-Sessional Intergovernmental Meeting on a Development Agenda For WIPO, April 11-13, 2005 Mr. Chairman, Let me congratulate you on your election to Chair this very important meeting. This is, indeed, a special day for the organization. It is the first time that a Development Agenda has been taken up for consideration in WIPO. We have high expectations that the outcome of this session of the IIM and its subsequent sessions will lead to mainnstreaming the development dimension into all areas of WIPO's work and activities. We are confident that under your able guidance, we will be able to achieve agreement on the realisation of this very important objective - an objective shared by all member states of WIPO, developed or developing. You can count on our delegation's full support in reaching this goal. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the Group of Friends of Development for introducing the proposal for a Development Agenda, first during the General Assemblies meeting in Semptember 2004 and now on a further elaboration of the issues in the Document WO/GA/31/14. We fully support the porposal, in particular, the establishment of a WIPO Evaluation and Research Office (WERO). We note that the issues discussed in their proposal are not exhaustive. They, however, cover the most important areas relating to WIPO's mandate and governance, norm setting, technical cooperation and transfer of technology. The Elaboration of Issues paper of the Group constitutes an excellent starting point for establishing a "development agenda" in WIPO. This would strengthen the organisation and ensure that its governance structure is more inclusive, transparent, and democratic, and, most important, that it is truly a member-driven organisation. As pointed out in the two documents presented by the Group of Friends of Development, we agree that much more needs to be done in WIPO to reach the effective results that meet the challenges of development. "Development", in WIPO's terminology means increasing a developing country's capacity to provide protection to the owners of intellectual property rights. This is quite a the opposite of what developing countries understand when they refer to the 'development dimension'. The document presented by the Group of Friends of Development corrects this misconception - that development dimension means technical assistance. The real "development" imperative is ensuring that the interest of Intellectual Property owners is not secured at the expense of the users of IP, of consumers at large, and of public policy in general. The proposal therefore seeks to incorporate int international IP law and practice, what developing countries have been demanding since TRIPS was forced on them in 1994. The primary rationale for Intellectual Property protection is, first and foremost, to promote societal development by encouraging technological innovation. The legal monopoly granted to IP owners is an exceptional departure from the general principle of competitive markets as the best guarantee for securing the interest of society. The rationale for the exception is not that extraction of monopoly profits by the innovator is, of and in itself, good for society and so needs to be promoted. Rather, that properly controlled, such a monopoly, by providing an incentive for innovation, might produce sufficient benefits for society to compensate for the immediate loss to consumers as a result of the existence of a monopoly market instead of a competitive market. Monopoly rights, then, granted to IP holders is a special incentive that needs to be carefully calibrated by each country, in the light of its own circumstances, taking into account the overall costs and benefits of such protection. Should the rationale for a monopoly be absent, as in the case of cross-border rights involving developed and developing countries, the only justification for the grant of a monopoly is a contractual obligation, such as the TRIPS agreement, and nothing more. In such a situation it makes little sense for one party, especially the weaker party, to agree to assume greater obligations than he is contractually bound to accept. This, in short, is what the developed countries have sought to do so far in the context of WIPO. The message of the Development Agenda is clear: no longer are developing countries prepared to accept this approach, or continuation of the status quo. Even in a developed country, where the monopoly profits of the domestic IP rights holders are recycled through the economy and so benefit the public in varying degrees, there is continuing debate on the equity and fairness of such protection, with some even questioning its claimed social benefits. Given the total absence of any mandatory cross-border resource transfers or welfare payments, and the absence of any significant domestic recycling of the monopoly profits of foreign IP rights holders, the case for strong IP protection in developing countries is without any economic basis. Harmonization of IP laws across countries with asymmetric distribution of IP assets is, clearly, intended to serve the interest of rent seekers in developed countries rather than that of the public in developing countries. Neither intellectual property protection, nor the harmonization of intellectual property laws leading to higher protection standards in all countries irrespective of their level of development, can be an end in itself. For developing countries to benefit from providing IP protection to rights holders based in developed countries, there has to be some obligation on the part of developed countries to transfer and disseminate technologies to developing countries. Even though the intended beneficiary of IP protection is the public at large, the immediate beneficiaries are the IP rights holders, the vast majority if whom are in developed countries. Absent an obligation on technology transfer, asymmetric IP rent flows would become a permanent feature, and the benefits of IP protection would forever elude consumers in developing countries. As pointed out in the proposal by the Group of Friends of Development, technology transfer should be a fundamental objective of the global intellectual property system. WIPO is recognised as a specialised agency with the responsibility for taking appropriate measures for undertaking this and we expect the "development agenda" to address this issue. Technical assistance should be primarily directed towards impact assessment and enabling the developing countries, including LDCs to utilize the space within the prevailing arrangements in multilateral IP treaties and conventions. The current emphasis of Technical Assistance on implementation and enforcement issues is misplaced. IP Law enforcement is embedded in the framework of all law enforcement in the individual countries. It is unrealistic, and even undesirable to expect that the enforcement of IP laws will be privileged over the enforcement of other laws in the country. Society faces a considerable challenge to effectively protect, and resolve disputes over, physical property. To expect that the police, the lawyers and the courts should dedicate a sizable part of society's enforcement resources for protecting intangible intellectual property, is unrealistic. Therefore, WIPO's current focus of Technical Assistance should be shifted to other areas such as development impact assessment. This would, inter alia, inspire civil society and others to play a supportive role, if the impact is seen to be favourable to the community. In conclusion, it is important that developed countries and WIPO acknowledge that IP protection is an important policy instrument for developing countries, one that needs to be used carefully. While the claimed benefits of strong IP protection for developing countries are a matter of debate - and nearly always in the distant future - such protection invariably entails substatial real an immediate costs for these countries. In formulating its IP policy, therefore, each country needs to have sufficient flexibility so that the cost of IP protection does not outweigh the benefits. It is clearly in the interest of developing countries that WIPO recognizes this and formulates its work program accordingly - including its 'technical assistance' - and not limit its activities, as it currently does, to the blind promotion of increasingly higher levels of IP protection. This is where WIPO, as a specialized UN agency, can make a major impact - by truly incorporating the development dimension into its mission - in letter and in spirit, so that it is appropriately reflected in all its instruments. Certainly it will result in a revitalisation of WIPO as an organisation sensitive to integrating the development concerns of developing countries into all areas of its work. -- Join the Fellowship and protect your Freedom! <www.fsfe.org> Weblog: <www.fsfe.org/Members/gerloff/blog/> === _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list [email protected] http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k --- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: <incom> U.S. ignores public interest at World Intellectual Property Organization Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:23:31 -0400 From: Sasha Costanza-Chock <[email protected]> To: wsis <[email protected]>,CRIS members <[email protected]>,[email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected],[email protected] April 14, 2005 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Frannie Wellings, (202) 265-1490, x 21 Russ Newman, (413) 585-1533, x 12 U.S. ignores public interest at World Intellectual Property Organization Free Press supports demand for a more balanced international system of copyright, patents and trademarks WASHINGTON  Free Press, the nonpartisan media reform group, today endorsed a series of proposed reforms to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a U.N. organization whose mission is to "promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world." The Development Agenda reforms would transform the nature of the organization and make it more accountable to public interest concerns. "The World Intellectual Property Organization has been a tool of industry for too long," said Sasha Costanza-Chock, global policy coordinator of Free Press. "The Development Agenda proposal would reform WIPO so that the needs of people in both developing and developed countries would come before the profit margins of Big Media." WIPO is responsible for administration of 23 international treaties on copyright, patents and other forms of "intellectual property rights." The Development Agenda proposal, written by Brazil and Argentina, backed by 12 other developing countries, and supported by hundreds of public interest organizations and scientists, would prioritize development concerns within all WIPO work. Currently, WIPO pushes developing country governments to adopt strict, U.S.-style copyright, patent and trademark laws, which focus on protecting corporations. The U.S. delegation to WIPO, headed by Paul Salmon of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, is opposing the move to reform WIPO. "The Development Agenda proposal is an attempt to ensure the rights of all to have access to knowledge," Costanza-Chock said. "The U.S. government should be supporting the free flow of information, not protecting the monopoly control of information by multinational corporations. It's clear to anyone who isn't on the industry payroll that the current global system of patents and copyrights is wildly out of balance, tilted in the extreme to protect the monopoly rights of big corporations over the rights of the public." Free Press and the Consumer Project on Technology have teamed up to provide blow-by-blow coverage of events, blogging from inside the WIPO negotiations. Daily reports and more information on WIPO are available at www.mediatrademonitor.org. ### Free Press (www.freepress.net) is a national, nonpartisan organization that seeks to increase informed public participation in media policy and to promote a more competitive, public interest-oriented media system. Free Press was founded by University of Illinois professor, media scholar and author Robert W. McChesney. ### _______________________________________________ incom-l mailing list [email protected] http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/incom-l --- > http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/dev_agenda/ The WIPO Development Agenda and Why You Should Care About It In October 2004, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) took the historic step of agreeing to consider the impact of its decisions on developing nations  including assessing the impact of intellectual property law and policy on technological innovation, access to knowledge, and even human health. What's at stake is much more significant than the harmony or disharmony of IP regulations. WIPO decisions affect everything from the availability and price of AIDS drugs, to the patterns of international development, to the communications architecture of the Internet. As part of the agreement, WIPO is holding meetings in April (http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=7522) to discuss the "Development Agenda" (http://www.wipo.org/documents/en/document/govbody/wo_gb_ga/pdf/wo_ga_31_11.pdf [PDF]), endorsed by hundreds of individuals and public-interest non-governmental organizations (NGOs) including EFF and the Consumer Project on Technology (CPTech) through the Geneva Declaration on the Future of WIPO (http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/futureofwipo.html). This is an extraordinary breakthrough. The Development Agenda gives WIPO the opportunity to move beyond the narrow view that any and all IP protection is beneficial, and choose instead to act strategically to spur economic growth, foster innovation, and help humanity. But here's the problem: many of the groups that are most highly qualified to advise WIPO about these issues may not be allowed to participate. Despite the fact that ad-hoc observers are regularly admitted to WIPO meetings, the WIPO International Bureau is currently limiting participation to only those NGOs with "permanent observer" status. As you can see by looking at the chart below, that would make the discussions shamefully unbalanced. (http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/dev_agenda/wipo_dev_agenda.gif [Balance in the WIPO Development Agenda?]) These meetings are far too important to let them become a mere charade. Development issues are the international communityÂs most daunting challenge. Despite international agreement to ensure the transfer of technology to developing countries (recognized in Articles 7 and 8 of the TRIPS Agreement), a significant knowledge gap and digital divide continue to separate the wealthy nations from the poor. It's time that WIPO decision-making reflected a balance between the public interest and rightsholders' interests. It's also time that WIPO recognized the sovereign rights of its 182 member nations to implement intellectual property laws that accord with their national domestic priorities and level of economic development. And it's time that WIPO moves beyond the pursuit of heightened intellectual property protection as an end in itself. EFF is accredited as a WIPO permanent observer and will be attending the Development Agenda meetings. We will report on the proceedings and attempt to represent the viewpoints of the public-interest groups wrongly excluded from the process. Documents from WIPO DA Meeting * EFF statement to the WIPO Permanent Committee on Cooperation on Development Related to Intellectual Property (http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/dev_agenda/PCIPD_intervention.pdf [PDF, 48K]) * EFF Briefing Paper for WIPO delegates on Technological Protection Measures (http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/dev_agenda/EFF_WIPO_briefing_041205.pdf [PDF, 208K]) * EFF Statement to the Intergovernmental Inter-sessional meeting on the Proposal to establish a Development Agenda, April 11-13, 2005 (http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/dev_agenda/eff_intervention_041305.pdf [PDF, 84K]) Communications with WIPO on Accreditation * EFF letter to WIPO on NGO participation (http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/dev_agenda/wipo_da_ltr.pdf [PDF, 292K]) February 22, 2005 * WIPO letter to EFF on NGO participation (http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/dev_agenda/WIPO_022505fax.pdf [PDF, 104K]) February 24, 2005 * EFF letter to WIPO on NGO participation (http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/dev_agenda/wipo_letter_030105.pdf [PDF, 180K]) (misdated February 22, 2005) March 1, 2005 * Excerpt from email from Edward Kwakwa, General Counsel, WIPO International Bureau, to Gwen Hinze (http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/dev_agenda/20050302_email.php) March 2, 2005 Press Releases * EFF press release: WIPO Shutting Out Public Interest Organizations (http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_03.php#003401), March 7, 2005 Also available: Spanish Translation of EFF's press release (http://www.derechosdigitales.org/ong/ver_noticias.php?id_articulo=20) * WIPO press release: Member States Agree to Further Examine Proposal on Development (http://www.wipo.int/edocs/prdocs/en/2004/wipo_pr_2004_396.html), October 4, 2004 Other Documents and Links * Open Letter to WIPO on Transparency, Participation, Balance and Access, signed by over 800 individuals and organizations from 56 countries (http://www.cic.unb.br/docentes/pedro/trabs/wipo-stats.html) * EFF request to WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights to undertake a study of the impact of technological protection measures on developing nations, and statement on Broadcasting Treaty (http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/20041113_TPM_SCCR.pdf [PDF, 56K]) November 13, 2004 * Brazil and Argentina's Development Agenda proposal (http://www.wipo.org/documents/en/document/govbody/wo_gb_ga/pdf/wo_ga_31_11.pdf) * Development Agenda Meetings Information (http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=7522) * The Geneva Declaration on the Future of WIPO (http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/futureofwipo.html) * More about EFF's involvement in WIPO (http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/)