Fwd: [Open-wipo] Debate over WIPO future

[Joost van Baal <joostvb@xxxxxxx>]

Er gebeurt iets binnen WIPO...

Groeten,

Joost



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Open-wipo] Debate over WIPO future
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:44:58 -0400
From: James Love <james.love@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: open-wipo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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@xxxxxxxxxx.

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

The following is the text of the English version of the Declaration.

   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@xxxxxxxxxx
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 200036
voice +1.202.387.8030 | fax +1.202.234.5176