[DMCA-Activists] WIPO Dev Agenda: India's Statement, Free Press, EFF Info Page, More

[Seth Johnson]

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 <address@hidden>
Organization: Fellowship of the Free Software Foundation Europe
To: address@hidden

--
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
address@hidden
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 <address@hidden>
To: wsis <address@hidden>,CRIS members
<address@hidden>,address@hidden,
address@hidden,address@hidden,
address@hidden,address@hidden

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
address@hidden
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 community’s
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/)