Original news and analysis on international IP policy
The powerful World Intellectual Property Organization Program and Budget Committee is meeting this week for three days of discussions on a new strategic plan, the status of its audit function in the aftermath of past financial mismanagement, the financing of new projects related to the Development Agenda, and new policies on WIPO financial reserves, languages and investments.
An analysis of practices and policies involving intellectual property, technology transfer and development shows the difficulties of achieving a positive correlation between those areas, writes Cheikh Kane.
International public health in Geneva is no longer just the province of the World Health Organization. Dozens of intergovernmental and non-governmental agencies, along with financing organisations and partnerships, have headquartered their operations in Geneva, making the mid-sized Swiss city a public health capital of the world. Many of these organisations are engaged in addressing the critical interface between public health, development and innovation, including intellectual property rights. The following is a backgrounder and guide to many of the organisations working on these issues in town.
Une analyse des pratiques et des politiques impliquant la propriété intellectuelle, le transfert de technologie et le développement démontre la difficulté à parvenir à une corrélation positive entre les différents domaines, écrit Cheikh Kane.
A recent Court of Justice of the European Union opinion in Monsanto Technology LLC v. Cefetra BV et al. may unintentionally inflict serious economic harm on the European biotechnology industry, argue industry attorneys Richard Peet, Vid Mohan-Ram, and Philippe Vlaemminck.
The importance of knowledge is increasing at a rate faster than patent offices can keep up with the demands of new inventors, reads the introduction to a proposed six-year strategic plan of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Creators and manufacturers of knowledge products are rapidly diversifying geographically, new innovation models are arising, and new demands are being placed on protected works for use in technology transfer or for shared global needs such as environmental sustainability or public health.
The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Edition features top news on international IP policymaking, the latest on who is coming and going in the international IP community, news briefs and more. The August/September edition is now available for subscribers at: http://www.ip-watch.org/user/newsletter.
Are counterfeit products first and foremost a threat to human health and safety or is provoking anxiety just a clever way for wealthy nations to create sympathy for increased protection of their intellectual property rights? In Geneva the debate is raging, but a look at a sample of coverage of this issue in the world’s news media shows it can vary greatly.
A group of policymakers and other experts met this month in Geneva to discuss counterfeit and unsafe products and wrestled with possible balanced solutions to the problem. The event was hosted by the United States mission and supported by the US Chamber of Commerce. It included US Ambassador to the UN Betty E. King, among dozens of others.
China’s government says it is acting in the best interests of its citizens. It is regulating the internet in order to protect its people from pornography and other objectionable content. Critics, however, assert that China is guilty of wide-ranging censorship, drastically limiting what mainland residents can see, hear and say online. Moreover, according to a growing chorus, this online censorship violates World Trade Organization rules.
The global AIDS community meeting in Vienna last week ended with renewed determination to fight the epidemic but underlined an urgent need for increased funding to sustain scientific advances and universal access. Some warned against an intellectual property rights enforcement push threatening global access in particular through bilateral and regional trade agreements.
A recent US court decision introduces entirely new questions about the balance between a transformative work and a copyright infringement. It also places the responsibility of balancing the public interest in freedom of expression against the interests of rights holders squarely in the hands of the court, writes Leslee Friedman.