The following is the text of an intervention
(the second) delivered by the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) to
the WIPO IIM/2 on a proposed development agenda:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I should mention that my organization, the Institute for Policy Innovation, also represents civil society. Organizations which have thus far represented themselves as representing civil society, in truth, represent only a portion of civil society. They represent only that portion of civil society which they represent.
There is no single civil society perspective on intellectual property. There are civil society organizations that believe that IP is harmful, and there are civil society organizations, like my own, which believe that IP is a powerful tool for economic development. It is important the member states not be misled to believe that all of civil society shares a single perspective on IP.
But I should hasten to add that, by far, the majority opinion among economists and the legal profession is that IP protection is a critical part of the economic growth equation. It is a minority opinion that IP somehow does more harm than good.
After observing these proceedings, as well as the proceedings in April and the Seminar in May, I am most struck by the opportunity costs of this discussion.
While actions taken usually have costs, actions not taken also have costs--opportunity costs.
My great fear is the opportunity costs associated with this discussion. We are talking about something that is already part of WIPO's mission, and that WIPO is already doing--assisting development through intellectual property.
And we are in some cases talking about things that don't even exist, like a treaty on access to knowledge.
WIPO has important work to do, including norm-setting, and in assisting countries in gaining full advantage of the IP system. It is critical that WIPO find a way to deal with the issues associated with the development agenda in such a way that it does not sidetrack the entire body of WIPO. The most constructive suggestions we have heard thus far regarding a concrete means of continuing this discussion without subjecting all of WIPO to an endless series of distractions, are the proposals which involve reinvigorating the PCIPD. This will allow the discussion to continue in a body appropriate to the discussion, while not distracting WIPO from it's critical, core mission.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I should mention that my organization, the Institute for Policy Innovation, also represents civil society. Organizations which have thus far represented themselves as representing civil society, in truth, represent only a portion of civil society. They represent only that portion of civil society which they represent.
There is no single civil society perspective on intellectual property. There are civil society organizations that believe that IP is harmful, and there are civil society organizations, like my own, which believe that IP is a powerful tool for economic development. It is important the member states not be misled to believe that all of civil society shares a single perspective on IP.
But I should hasten to add that, by far, the majority opinion among economists and the legal profession is that IP protection is a critical part of the economic growth equation. It is a minority opinion that IP somehow does more harm than good.
After observing these proceedings, as well as the proceedings in April and the Seminar in May, I am most struck by the opportunity costs of this discussion.
While actions taken usually have costs, actions not taken also have costs--opportunity costs.
My great fear is the opportunity costs associated with this discussion. We are talking about something that is already part of WIPO's mission, and that WIPO is already doing--assisting development through intellectual property.
And we are in some cases talking about things that don't even exist, like a treaty on access to knowledge.
WIPO has important work to do, including norm-setting, and in assisting countries in gaining full advantage of the IP system. It is critical that WIPO find a way to deal with the issues associated with the development agenda in such a way that it does not sidetrack the entire body of WIPO. The most constructive suggestions we have heard thus far regarding a concrete means of continuing this discussion without subjecting all of WIPO to an endless series of distractions, are the proposals which involve reinvigorating the PCIPD. This will allow the discussion to continue in a body appropriate to the discussion, while not distracting WIPO from it's critical, core mission.
Thank you.