[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[fwd] [Random-bits] Debate over WIPO future -- what you can do (from: james.love@cptech.org)



fyi

----- Forwarded message from James Love <james.love@cptech.org> -----

From: James Love <james.love@cptech.org>
To: random-bits@lists.essential.org
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:33:09 -0400
Subject: [Random-bits] Debate over WIPO future -- what you can do
List-Id: Odds and ends,
	selected by Jamie Love <random-bits.lists.essential.org>
Message: 1

A battle has erupted within the World Intellectual Property Organization 
 (WIPO) over the most fundamental questions of its mission.  A number 
of developing countries, lead by Argentina and Brazil, have tabled a 
proposal for a "development agenda," which involves stopping work on new 
treaties that hike intellectual property protections, and redirecting 
the agency to a range of initiatives more responsive to development and 
concerns of WIPO critics.  Officially, this is debated on September 30, 
2004.  Below is a copy of a Declaration on the Future of WIPO, which 
discusses the problems with WIPO, the proposal for a development agenda, 
and other reforms at WIPO.   We are seeking additional signatures for 
this Declaration.  To sign, send an email note to

mailto:geneva_declaration@cptech.org.

You can read about the debate in WIPO on the development agenda, see the 
signatures of persons who have already signed the Declaration, and 
review relevant WIPO documents here:

http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/genevadeclaration.html

This debate is not a small thing.  Industry groups, governments 
representing right-owners, and several persons on the WIPO Secretariat 
are now very active in opposing the Argentina/Brazil proposals.  There 
is much that people can do, starting with contacting your own government 
to find out where they stand the "Development Agenda" for WIPO, and 
share information on us and other groups working on this issue.  We also 
need help getting more signatures for the Declaration on the Future of 
WIPO.  The following is the text of the English version of the 
Declaration we are seeking signatures.

  Jamie Love

------------------

Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property 
Organization

Humanity faces a global crisis in the governance of knowledge, 
technology and culture.  The crisis is manifest in many ways.

* Without access to essential medicines, millions suffer and die;
* Morally repugnant inequality of access to education, knowledge and 
technology undermines development and social cohesion;
* Anticompetitive practices in the knowledge economy impose enormous 
costs on consumers and retard innovation;
* Authors, artists and inventors face mounting barriers to follow-on 
innovation;
* Concentrated ownership and control of knowledge, technology, 
biological resources and culture harm development, diversity and 
democratic institutions;
* Technological measures designed to enforce intellectual property 
rights in digital environments threaten core exceptions in copyright 
laws for disabled persons, libraries, educators, authors and consumers, 
and undermine privacy and freedom;
* Key mechanisms to compensate and support creative individuals and 
communities are unfair to both creative persons and consumers;
* Private interests misappropriate social and public goods, and lock up 
the public domain.

At the same time, there are astoundingly promising innovations in 
information, medical and other essential technologies, as well as in 
social movements and business models.  We are witnessing highly 
successful campaigns for access to drugs for AIDS, scientific journals, 
genomic information and other databases, and hundreds of innovative 
collaborative efforts to create public goods, including the Internet, 
the World Wide Web, Wikipedia, the Creative Commons, GNU Linux and other 
free and open software projects, as well as distance education tools and 
medical research tools.  Technologies such as Google now provide tens of 
millions with powerful tools to find information.  Alternative 
compensation systems have been proposed to expand access and interest in 
cultural works, while providing both artists and consumers with 
efficient and fair systems for compensation.  There is renewed interest 
in compensatory liability rules, innovation prizes, or competitive 
intermediators, as models for economic incentives for science and 
technology that can facilitate sequential follow-on innovation and avoid 
monopolist abuses.  In 2001, the World Trade Organization (WTO) declared 
that member countries should "promote access to medicines for all."

Humanity stands at a crossroads - a fork in our moral code and a test of 
our ability to adapt and grow.   Will we evaluate, learn and profit from 
the best of these new ideas and opportunities, or will we respond to the 
most unimaginative pleas to suppress all of this in favor of 
intellectually weak, ideologically rigid, and sometimes brutally unfair 
and inefficient policies?  Much will depend upon the future direction of 
the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a global body 
setting standards that regulate the production, distribution and use of 
knowledge.

A 1967 Convention sought to encourage creative activity by establishing 
WIPO to promote the protection of intellectual property.  The mission 
was expanded in 1974, when WIPO became part of the United Nations, under 
an agreement that asked WIPO to take "appropriate action to promote 
creative intellectual activity," and facilitate the transfer of 
technology to developing countries, "in order to accelerate economic, 
social and cultural development."

As an intergovernmental organization, however, WIPO embraced a culture 
of creating and expanding monopoly privileges, often without regard to 
consequences.  The continuous expansion of these privileges and their 
enforcement mechanisms has led to grave social and economic costs, and 
has hampered and threatened other important systems of creativity and 
innovation.  WIPO needs to enable its members to understand the real 
economic and social consequences of excessive intellectual property 
protections, and the importance of striking a balance between the public 
domain and competition on the one hand, and the realm of property rights 
on the other.  The mantras that "more is better" or "that less is never 
good" are disingenuous and dangerous -- and have greatly compromised the 
standing of WIPO, especially among experts in intellectual property 
policy.  WIPO must change.

We do not ask that WIPO abandon efforts to promote the appropriate 
protection of intellectual property, or abandon all efforts to harmonize 
or improve these laws.  But we insist that WIPO to work from the broader 
framework described in the 1974 agreement with the UN, and to take a 
more balanced and realistic view of the social benefits and costs of 
intellectual property rights as a tool, but not the only tool, for 
supporting creativity intellectual activity.

WIPO must also express a more balanced view of the relative benefits of 
harmonization and diversity, and seek to impose global conformity only 
when it truly benefits all of humanity.  A "one size fits all" approach 
that embraces the highest levels of intellectual property protection for 
everyone leads to unjust and burdensome outcomes for countries that are 
struggling to meet the most basic needs of their citizens.

The WIPO General Assembly has now been asked to establish a development 
agenda.  The initial proposal, first put forth by the governments of 
Argentina and Brazil, would profoundly refashion the WIPO agenda toward 
development and new approaches to support innovation and creativity. 
This is a long overdue and much needed first step toward a new WIPO 
mission and work program.  It is not perfect.  The WIPO Convention 
should formally recognize the need to take into account the "development 
needs of its Member States, particularly developing countries and 
least-developed countries," as has been proposed, but this does not go 
far enough.  Some have argued that the WIPO should only "promote the 
protection of intellectual property," and not consider, any policies 
that roll back intellectual property claims or protect and enhance the 
public domain.  This limiting view stifles critical thinking.   Better 
expressions of the mission can be found, including the requirement in 
the 1974 UN/WIPO agreement that WIPO "promote creative intellectual 
activity and facilitate the transfer of technology related to industrial 
property."  The functions of WIPO should not only be to promote 
"efficient protection" and "harmonization" of intellectual property 
laws, but to formally embrace the notions of balance, appropriateness 
and the stimulation of both competitive and collaborative models of 
creative activity within national, regional and transnational systems of 
innovation.

The proposal for a development agenda has created the first real 
opportunity to debate the future of WIPO.  It is not only an agenda for 
developing countries.  It is an agenda for everyone, North and South. 
It must move forward.  All nations and people must join and expand the 
debate on the future of WIPO.

There must be a moratorium on new treaties and harmonization of 
standards that expand and strengthen monopolies and further restrict 
access to knowledge.  For generations WIPO has responded primarily to 
the narrow concerns of powerful publishers, pharmaceutical 
manufacturers, plant breeders and other commercial interests.  Recently, 
WIPO has become more open to civil society and public interest groups, 
and this openness is welcome.  But WIPO must now address the substantive 
concerns of these groups, such as the protection of consumer rights and 
human rights.  Long-neglected concerns of the poor, the sick, the 
visually impaired and others must be given priority.

The proposed development agenda points in the right direction.  By 
stopping efforts to adopt new treaties on substantive patent law, 
broadcasters rights and databases, WIPO will create space to address far 
more urgent needs.

The proposals for the creation of standing committees and working groups 
on technology transfer and development are welcome.  WIPO should also 
consider the creation of one or more bodies to systematically address 
the control of anticompetitive practices and the protection of consumer 
rights.

We support the call for a Treaty on Access to Knowledge and Technology. 
 The Standing Committee on Patents and the Standing Committee on 
Copyright and Related Rights should solicit views from member countries 
and the public on elements of such a treaty.

The WIPO technical assistance programs must be fundamentally reformed. 
Developing countries must have the tools to implement the WTO Doha 
Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, and "use, to the full" the 
flexibilities in the TRIPS to "promote access to medicines for all." 
WIPO must help developing countries address the limitations and 
exceptions in patent and copyright laws that are essential for fairness, 
development and innovation.  If the WIPO Secretariat cannot understand 
the concerns and represent the interests of the poor, the entire 
technical assistance program should be moved to an independent body that 
is accountable to developing countries.

Enormous differences in bargaining power lead to unfair outcomes between 
creative individuals and communities (both modern and traditional) and 
the commercial entities that sell culture and knowledge goods.  WIPO 
must honor and support creative individuals and communities by 
investigating the nature of relevant unfair business practices, and 
promote best practice models and reforms that protect creative 
individuals and communities in these situations, consistent with norms 
of the relevant communities.

Delegations representing the WIPO member states and the WIPO Secretariat 
have been asked to choose a future.  We want a change of direction, new 
priorities, and better outcomes for humanity.  We cannot wait for 
another generation.  It is time to seize the moment and move forward.









-- 
James Love | Consumer Project on Technology
http://www.cptech.org | mailto:james.love@cptech.org
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036
voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176



----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at <http://log.does-not-exist.org/>.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: debate-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: debate-help@lists.fitug.de