Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization

[Henk Elegeert]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/genevadeclaration.html


"
Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual
Property Organization

Humanity faces a global crisis in the governance of
knowledge, technology and culture.  The crisis is manifest
in many ways.

* Without access to essential medicines, millions suffer and
die;
* Morally repugnant inequality of access to education,
knowledge and technology undermines development and social
cohesion;
* Anticompetitive practices in the knowledge economy impose
enormous costs on consumers and retard innovation;
* Authors, artists and inventors face mounting barriers to
follow-on innovation;
* Concentrated ownership and control of knowledge,
technology, biological resources and culture harm
development, diversity and democratic institutions;
* Technological measures designed to enforce intellectual
property rights in digital environments threaten core
exceptions in copyright laws for disabled persons,
libraries, educators, authors and consumers,
and undermine privacy and freedom;
* Key mechanisms to compensate and support creative
individuals and communities are unfair to both creative
persons and consumers; * Private interests misappropriate
social and public goods, and lock up the public domain.

At the same time, there are astoundingly promising
innovations in information, medical and other essential
technologies, as well as in social movements and business
models.  We are witnessing highly successful campaigns for
access to drugs for AIDS, scientific journals, genomic
information and other databases, and hundreds of innovative
collaborative efforts to create public goods, including the
Internet, the World Wide Web, Wikipedia, the Creative
Commons, GNU Linux and other free and open software
projects, as well as distance education tools and medical
research tools.  Technologies such as Google now provide
tens of millions with powerful tools to find information.
Alternative compensation systems have been proposed to
expand access and interest in cultural works, while
providing both artists and consumers with efficient and fair
systems for compensation.  There is renewed interest in
compensatory liability rules, innovation prizes, or
competitive intermediators, as models for economic
incentives for science and technology that can facilitate
sequential follow-on innovation and avoid monopolist abuses.
  In 2001, the World Trade Organization (WTO) declared that
member countries should "promote access to medicines for all."

Humanity stands at a crossroads - a fork in our moral code
and a test of our ability to adapt and grow.   Will we
evaluate, learn and profit from the best of these new ideas
and opportunities, or will we respond to the most
unimaginative pleas to suppress all of this in favor of
intellectually weak, ideologically rigid, and sometimes
brutally unfair and inefficient policies?  Much will depend
upon the future direction of the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO), a global body setting standards that
regulate the production, distribution and use of knowledge.

A 1967 Convention sought to encourage creative activity by
establishing WIPO to promote the protection of intellectual
property.  The mission was expanded in 1974, when WIPO
became part of the United Nations, under an agreement that
asked WIPO to take "appropriate action to promote creative
intellectual activity," and facilitate the transfer of
technology to developing countries, "in order to accelerate
economic, social and cultural development."

As an intergovernmental organization, however, WIPO embraced
a culture of creating and expanding monopoly privileges,
often without regard to consequences.  The continuous
expansion of these privileges and their enforcement
mechanisms has led to grave social and economic costs, and
has hampered and threatened other important systems of
creativity and innovation.  WIPO needs to enable its members
to understand the real economic and social consequences of
excessive intellectual property protections, and the
importance of striking a balance between the public domain
and competition on the one hand, and the realm of property
rights on the other.  The mantras that "more is better" or
"that less is never good" are disingenuous and dangerous --
and have greatly compromised the standing of WIPO,
especially among experts in intellectual property policy.
WIPO must change.

We do not ask that WIPO abandon efforts to promote the
appropriate protection of intellectual property, or abandon
all efforts to harmonize or improve these laws.  But we
insist that WIPO to work from the broader framework
described in the 1974 agreement with the UN, and to take a
more balanced and realistic view of the social benefits and
costs of intellectual property rights as a tool, but not the
only tool, for supporting creativity intellectual activity.

WIPO must also express a more balanced view of the relative
benefits of harmonization and diversity, and seek to impose
global conformity only when it truly benefits all of
humanity.  A "one size fits all" approach that embraces the
highest levels of intellectual property protection for
everyone leads to unjust and burdensome outcomes for
countries that are struggling to meet the most basic needs
of their citizens.

The WIPO General Assembly has now been asked to establish a
development agenda.  The initial proposal, first put forth
by the governments of Argentina and Brazil, would profoundly
refashion the WIPO agenda toward development and new
approaches to support innovation and creativity. This is a
long overdue and much needed first step toward a new WIPO
mission and work program.  It is not perfect.  The WIPO
Convention should formally recognize the need to take into
account the "development needs of its Member States,
particularly developing countries and least-developed
countries," as has been proposed, but this does not go far
enough.  Some have argued that the WIPO should only "promote
the protection of intellectual property," and not consider,
any policies that roll back intellectual property claims or
protect and enhance the public domain.  This limiting view
stifles critical thinking.   Better expressions of the
mission can be found, including the requirement in the 1974
UN/WIPO agreement that WIPO "promote creative intellectual
activity and facilitate the transfer of technology related
to industrial property."  The functions of WIPO should not
only be to promote "efficient protection" and
"harmonization" of intellectual property laws, but to
formally embrace the notions of balance, appropriateness and
the stimulation of both competitive and collaborative models
of creative activity within national, regional and
transnational systems of innovation.

The proposal for a development agenda has created the first
real opportunity to debate the future of WIPO.  It is not
only an agenda for developing countries.  It is an agenda
for everyone, North and South. It must move forward.  All
nations and people must join and expand the debate on the
future of WIPO.

There must be a moratorium on new treaties and harmonization
of standards that expand and strengthen monopolies and
further restrict access to knowledge.  For generations WIPO
has responded primarily to the narrow concerns of powerful
publishers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, plant breeders and
other commercial interests.  Recently, WIPO has become more
open to civil society and public interest groups, and this
openness is welcome.  But WIPO must now address the
substantive concerns of these groups, such as the protection
of consumer rights and human rights.  Long-neglected
concerns of the poor, the sick, the visually impaired and
others must be given priority.

The proposed development agenda points in the right
direction.  By stopping efforts to adopt new treaties on
substantive patent law, broadcasters rights and databases,
WIPO will create space to address far more urgent needs.

The proposals for the creation of standing committees and
working groups on technology transfer and development are
welcome.  WIPO should also consider the creation of one or
more bodies to systematically address the control of
anticompetitive practices and the protection of consumer rights.

We support the call for a Treaty on Access to Knowledge and
Technology.   The Standing Committee on Patents and the
Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights should
solicit views from member countries and the public on
elements of such a treaty.

The WIPO technical assistance programs must be fundamentally
reformed. Developing countries must have the tools to
implement the WTO Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public
Health, and "use, to the full" the flexibilities in the
TRIPS to "promote access to medicines for all." WIPO must
help developing countries address the limitations and
exceptions in patent and copyright laws that are essential
for fairness, development and innovation.  If the WIPO
Secretariat cannot understand the concerns and represent the
interests of the poor, the entire technical assistance
program should be moved to an independent body that
is accountable to developing countries.

Enormous differences in bargaining power lead to unfair
outcomes between creative individuals and communities (both
modern and traditional) and the commercial entities that
sell culture and knowledge goods.  WIPO must honor and
support creative individuals and communities by
investigating the nature of relevant unfair business
practices, and promote best practice models and reforms that
protect creative individuals and communities in these
situations, consistent with norms of the relevant communities.

Delegations representing the WIPO member states and the WIPO
Secretariat have been asked to choose a future.  We want a
change of direction, new priorities, and better outcomes for
humanity.  We cannot wait for another generation.  It is
time to seize the moment and move forward.
"

"
On September 30, 2004, the WIPO General Assembly will debate
an important proposal to change the mission and work program
for WIPO. The following is a Declaration on the Future of
WIPO, for which we are currently collecting signatures. If
you are willing to sign this document, send an email to:
geneva_declaration at cptech.org
"

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********