The following is the text of an intervention
delivered by the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) to the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) on Monday, June 20, during WIPO's second intersession
meeting on a proposed development agenda for WIPO. Quotations should be
attributed to either the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) or to IPI
president Tom Giovanetti:
The Institute for Policy Innovation is an 18 year old public policy research organization specializing in research and education on economic growth. It is our desire to make a positive contribution to the knowledge and economic development of all nations.
IPI was one of the 17 groups granted ad hoc accreditation for purposes of the development agenda, and we again thank all member states for their generosity in granting us ad hoc accreditation.
Our views on the proposal from the Friends of Development were outlined in our intervention during the first IIM meetings in April. I would refer interested parties to that intervention, which is contained in the revised draft report which is available today. Suffice it to say that we view the Friends of Development proposal to be, at best, a distraction from WIPO's critical mandate, and at worst, an opportunity to undermine the entire rationale of IP protection by radical anti-IP groups. If that was not clear before this afternoon, it should certainly be clear after several recent interventions.
WIPO demonstrated a commitment to development and great foresight in setting up the PCIPD. It seems obvious to us that the PCIPD is the logical locus for matters that lie directly within the core competency of that committee.
We find the proposal from Bahrain to be a constructive and balanced proposal, and we find that both the proposals from Bahrain and from the UK represent substantive means by which talk can be replaced with constructive action.
IPI would hope to see WIPO's renewed and enhanced attention to the issue of development to proceed along the lines of the Bahrain and UK proposals, as well as along the lines of the proposals from Mexico and the United States during the April IIM meeting.
I would also like to correct a misrepresentation that have been made during previous interventions. The US is not considering radical overhaul of the US patent system, as has been alleged. The US is considering several incremental improvements to the US patent law that will make an already-strong system of IP protection even stronger. But this by no means represents a reexamination of the rationale of IP protection in the United States, as has been implied.
It is our hope that deliberations at WIPO, which are already sometimes contentious, could be characterized by integrity, and remain free of misrepresentation.
Thank you.
The Institute for Policy Innovation is an 18 year old public policy research organization specializing in research and education on economic growth. It is our desire to make a positive contribution to the knowledge and economic development of all nations.
IPI was one of the 17 groups granted ad hoc accreditation for purposes of the development agenda, and we again thank all member states for their generosity in granting us ad hoc accreditation.
Our views on the proposal from the Friends of Development were outlined in our intervention during the first IIM meetings in April. I would refer interested parties to that intervention, which is contained in the revised draft report which is available today. Suffice it to say that we view the Friends of Development proposal to be, at best, a distraction from WIPO's critical mandate, and at worst, an opportunity to undermine the entire rationale of IP protection by radical anti-IP groups. If that was not clear before this afternoon, it should certainly be clear after several recent interventions.
WIPO demonstrated a commitment to development and great foresight in setting up the PCIPD. It seems obvious to us that the PCIPD is the logical locus for matters that lie directly within the core competency of that committee.
We find the proposal from Bahrain to be a constructive and balanced proposal, and we find that both the proposals from Bahrain and from the UK represent substantive means by which talk can be replaced with constructive action.
IPI would hope to see WIPO's renewed and enhanced attention to the issue of development to proceed along the lines of the Bahrain and UK proposals, as well as along the lines of the proposals from Mexico and the United States during the April IIM meeting.
I would also like to correct a misrepresentation that have been made during previous interventions. The US is not considering radical overhaul of the US patent system, as has been alleged. The US is considering several incremental improvements to the US patent law that will make an already-strong system of IP protection even stronger. But this by no means represents a reexamination of the rationale of IP protection in the United States, as has been implied.
It is our hope that deliberations at WIPO, which are already sometimes contentious, could be characterized by integrity, and remain free of misrepresentation.
Thank you.