Franklin Pierce Law Center Concord, April 11, 2008. IP Owners at WIPO – Current Situation and Trends WIPO Secretariat. 1. The Agenda for Development. Argentina and Brazil proposed to WIPO General Assembly of 2004 the establishment of a “Development Agenda for WIPO” (WO/GA/31/11 1 )
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
IP Owners at WIPO – Current Situation and Trends
1 This proposal was later expanded (document IIM/1/4, of April 6, 2005, submitted by a group of 14 countries self-designated as “Group of Friends of Development”: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Iran, Kenia, Peru, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania and Venezuela.
This basic proposal was developed around four major clusters
2nd cluster: The development dimension and the transfer of technology
4th cluster: Promoting ‘development oriented’ technical cooperation and assistance
1. To establish a “Provisional Committee on proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda” (PCDA) which should complete the discussions initiated in the IIM and report to the General Assembly, in 2006
2. To discontinue the PCIPD.
The PCDA discussed proposals submitted by Morocco on behalf of the African Group (a very broad proposal), by Chile (a proposal with suggestions of some concrete studies), by Colombia (on the establishment of databases for patent searches), by the US (on the partnership), and by the Group of 14 (suggesting a list of concrete outcomes for the PCDA).
Discussion on 111 proposals (the “Manalo document”), which were arranged under 6 clusters
The group of 14 submitted a proposal of a final resolution but it was rejected
The group of central Asian countries, led by Kyrgysztan, submitted a proposal on a consensual agenda of discussions, but it was also rejected
(a) Technical assistance and capacity building (14);
(b) Norm-setting, flexibilities, public policy and public domain (9);
(d) Assessment, evaluation and impact studies (6);
(e) Institutional matters including mandate and governance (6);
(f) other issues (enforcement) (1).
The CDIP had its first session in February 2008; five recommendations of Cluster A were discussed. Now, the Chair is holding informal consultations to examine how the work should move forward.
*Word of caution: If I could foresee the future I would win the lottery every week
. It was proposed by countries that do not use technology related-IP intensively
. It was proposed by IP policy takers, not by IP policy makers
. It was proposed by countries that, in 1994, exchanged IP-related concessions for trade-related concessions (IP as a tool for primarily obtaining market access)
. Therefore, without the active engagement of developed countries in matters of substance, the Agenda for Development lacks content
. Negotiating processes in WIPO will wait for developments in the CDIP, while the CDIP devotes most of its attention to matters other than norm-setting
. In the meantime, bilateral processes will continue; at some point, in the context of the CDIP, a number of developing countries could eventually seek a moratorium in those bilateral processes but that would be seen as an interference in the rights of sovereign countries
. Sometime in the future, negotiations will be held in another multilateral forum, as it happened in 1986
* Those negotiations will naturally be built upon the outcomes of those bilateral processes.