(Note: This week’s techbyte reproduces, in part, IPI President Tom Giovanetti’s recent “intervention” (i.e., statement) at the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) Geneva meeting on the development agenda. At issue is that several countries’ and NGOs’ argument that intellectual property hurts developing countries.)
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on behalf of the members of the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI), a public interest NGO (non-governmental organization). Our participation in these meetings is a direct outgrowth of our program of research and advocacy on the means of fostering high levels of economic growth. As per the instructions of the chair, I will limit my comments to the matters directly at hand.
Compatibility with Other International Agreements
Regarding the suggestion that WIPO's mission should be compatible with and support the objectives and provisions of other international instruments, there hasn't actually been much discussion of this proposal. We would assert that promoting intellectual property ownership is already compatible with several important international agreements. I would like to quote from a few of those:
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 27: "Everyone has the right to the protection and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary, or artistic production of which he is the author."
This article clearly asserts that the right to intellectual property protection is a human right.
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action
Part One, Paragraph 10: "While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights."
Remember, the right to the ownership of one's discoveries and creations is a human right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Universal Declaration on the Human Genome
Article 14: "States should take appropriate measures to foster intellectual and material conditions favorable to freedom in the conduct of research."
These references to other international instruments and agreements make it clear that WIPO's mission of promoting intellectual property ownership is fully compatible with other international agreements.
Friends of Development Proposal
With regard to the proposal of the Friends of Development, in the previous April and June IIMs, we have already made it clear that, in our view, the Friends of Development proposal represents extending WIPO's mission into areas outside of its core competency – areas that are already within the core competency of other UN organizations. We fear that this proposal would distract WIPO from its important mission and weaken WIPO's effectiveness. Additionally, we have observed that much of the rhetoric used to justify this proposal has represented a broadside attack on the very concept of IP. Much of this rhetoric has been inaccurate and devoid of any sound economic rationale.
But to oppose a restructuring of WIPO's mandate, to oppose the creation of new offices, to oppose the expansion of WIPO's efforts into areas already serviced by other UN organizations is not to oppose development. Surely, everyone in this room is in favor of development. Many of the nations represented in this room are making extraordinary efforts to facilitate development. As important as intellectual property is, it is not nearly so important as other factors, such a rule of law, an independent judiciary, protection of real property, and participation in markets. . . .