Debate on "World Patent" at WIPO
Seth Johnson <[email protected]> Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:35:22 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.dmca-activists,gmane.org.aful.patents |
|---|---|
| Organization | Real Measures |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Random-bits] News from the WIPO General Assembly - Debate on "world patent" Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 12:57:14 -0400 From: James Love <[email protected]> To: [email protected] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Short note on WIPO Policy Advisory Commission report Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:01:53 +0200 From: Thiru Balasubramaniam <[email protected]> During the presentation of the report of the WIPO Policy Advisory Commission report in the afternoon session of the WIPO General Assembly today, a discussion of a "global patent" came up. Paragraph 31 of WO/GA/31/1 states: 31. "On the issue of the global patent system, many recognized the value of such a laudable goal, and encouraged WIPO to strive towards it. Members confirmed that it commonly remained difficult and expensive for inventors to obtain patents in the worldÂs biggest markets, a state of affairs which led to prejudice against the system in both developed and developing countries. One member noted that the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) did permit multinational patent offices, and that a number of these existed around the world. It would therefore not be out of the question, and was at the very least worthy of discussion, that WIPO itself could (upon the necessary vote of the governing bodies) create an international patent examining office; WIPO might not necessarily examine the patents itself, it could serve as an umbrella while passing on the applications to other examination centers, but it could ultimately issue the patent. Inventors would be attracted by the concept of a global patent, especially if it were under the umbrella of an organization that was considered independent and trustworthy, as WIPO was, and the issues of passing up sovereignty would be less burdensome to countries concerned by that issue. Furthermore this would create another source of income for the Organization, which could be put towards other development activities." ----- Switzerland: The representative from Switzerland noted that future thought on a Âworld patent is important but is not appropriate for WIPOÂs work now. He stressed that the harmonization of patent laws is a pre-requisite. India: The representative from India noted his government's concern that the PAC (Para 31, WO/GA/31/1) was considering the establishment of a Âglobal patent. The Indian delegate mentioned a recent TACD meeting on the "Future of WIPO" in Geneva and noted that there were many authoritative experts present at this meeting whose voice should be represented at the WIPO Policy Advisory Commission. The representative from India requested that the DG of WIPO may wish to consider the inclusion of eminent academic experts in the PAC who made presentations at the TACD "Future of WIPO" meeting. The representative from India noted that the PAC should include a wider range of opinions rather than being limited to industry and government figures. ----- Thiru Balasubramaniam Geneva Representative CPTech -- James Love | Consumer Project on Technology http://www.cptech.org | mailto:[email protected] P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036 voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176 _______________________________________________ Random-bits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/random-bits