William New's biased little IP
Watch journal mentions
IPI's intervention at WIPO's IIM/3,
as well as the little incident where I confronted the person who accused
me of misreading Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I participated in an interesting conversation with Mr. New on Friday, in which he was gently confronted with the distinct IP skeptic bias in his journal. He pled a sincere desire to be unbiased and balanced in his coverage. We'll see. I'm not holding my breath. Anyone who has been reading IP Watch throughout the development agenda debate understands it has been little more than a mouthpiece for the IP skeptic community.
I'd like to think that New is sincere in his pledge to be balanced. But his coverage of day three of the IIM/3 is not a good omen, however:
The wording of that paragraph is lifted directly out of my intervention at WIPO IIM/3. Yet, rather than attributing it accurately either to IPI or to a "pro-IP civil society group," the author attributes it to "industry and producer advocates."
This is bias, albeit subtle. The implication is straight out of CPTech--there are those who have been bought and paid for by industry, and there is the noble, humanitarian "public interest civil society" faction, which recognizes all the dangers of IP protection. Because IPI is pro-IP, IPI can't be a member of civil society, and rather an "industry advocate."
The bias in New's journal is obvious in the very title. There is something ominous about IP, and you've got to keep watch on it.
And for those who think I'm being hard on IP Watch, I happen to think that documenting what is going on within this debate is important, including the inside ballgame.
I participated in an interesting conversation with Mr. New on Friday, in which he was gently confronted with the distinct IP skeptic bias in his journal. He pled a sincere desire to be unbiased and balanced in his coverage. We'll see. I'm not holding my breath. Anyone who has been reading IP Watch throughout the development agenda debate understands it has been little more than a mouthpiece for the IP skeptic community.
I'd like to think that New is sincere in his pledge to be balanced. But his coverage of day three of the IIM/3 is not a good omen, however:
Industry and producer advocates argued that the Friends of Development proposal extends WIPO’s mission into areas outside its core competency, and into areas that are already within the core competency of other U.N. agencies. These representatives opposed a restructuring of WIPO’s mandate and the creation of new WIPO offices and committees, and asserted the right to intellectual property protection as a human right.
The wording of that paragraph is lifted directly out of my intervention at WIPO IIM/3. Yet, rather than attributing it accurately either to IPI or to a "pro-IP civil society group," the author attributes it to "industry and producer advocates."
This is bias, albeit subtle. The implication is straight out of CPTech--there are those who have been bought and paid for by industry, and there is the noble, humanitarian "public interest civil society" faction, which recognizes all the dangers of IP protection. Because IPI is pro-IP, IPI can't be a member of civil society, and rather an "industry advocate."
The bias in New's journal is obvious in the very title. There is something ominous about IP, and you've got to keep watch on it.
And for those who think I'm being hard on IP Watch, I happen to think that documenting what is going on within this debate is important, including the inside ballgame.