The following is an Intervention by the Institute for Policy Innovation delivered at the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Inter-Sessional Intergovernmental Meeting on a Development Agenda, in Geneva Switzerland on April 13, 2005, by IPI President Tom Giovanetti.
The Institute for Policy Innovation is a civil society public policy research organization. I am happy to make a statement on behalf of IPI.
If you will forgive me for corrupting a quotation from Shakespeare, "I come not to bury WIPO, but to praise it."
I might very much like to speak on a range of IP issues, as many other groups have. However, I recognize that we are not here to debate the merits of IP, but rather to discuss the development agenda. My comments are thus directed there.
One thing that has become clear from our research is that economic growth comes through participation in markets. And, in a GLOBAL economy, economic growth comes through participation in GLOBAL markets.
But for markets to work, they require a degree of consistency and predictability in law. In a global economy, global markets require a degree of consistency and predictability in law, and in a global IP market, the same consistency and predictability in law is a prerequisite.
So, for developing nations to become fully integrated into the global marketplace, some degree of consistency and predictability in their IP regimes is necessary, and is one key piece in the development puzzle.
WIPO's core competency in promoting consistency in global IP regimes is thus critical and is ALREADY directly relevant to development.
It is true as many have stated that intellectual property rights are not ends in themselves, but are rather utilitarian instruments. However, intellectual property rights have proven to have ENORMOUS utility, and their importance should not be underestimated.
We find strange the assertion that intellectual property rights somehow disadvantage small creators and developing nations. Intellectual property rights are, after all, RIGHTS. The granting of a right to a creator in a developing nation may be the only protection he has, and gives him economic leverage. We believe this is a good and moral thing.
IPI views attempts to change the mandate of WIPO as based on a lack of appreciation for the importance of global consistency and predictability in global IP regimes. We believe that the proposals from Mexico and from the U.S. would further the critical mission of WIPO, but that the Friends of Development proposal represents a distraction from WIPO's core competency. There are, after all, already many agencies with development as a core competency.
We commend WIPO for its role in promoting development THROUGH the powerful tool of IP, and we encourage WIPO to remain committed to this goal. Thank you.