[d@DCC] Geneva Declaration on the Future of WIPO

[Samuel Trosow]

Here is something that I hope will interest members of this list. For 
more background info about the declarationn, and how to add your name 
(or your organization's) as a supporter, see 
http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/genevadeclaration.html

I think this will be an important document. The transition of WIPO from 
a UN agency broadly concerned with the advancement of science and 
knowledge to a body narrowly pushing an agenda of unchecked proprietary 
expansion is indeed the source of many of the problems we are facing in 
IP policy today. It is because of the alleged imperative of meeting WIPO 
obligations that led to the thoughtless passage of the DMCA in the US 
with little Congressional debate or understanding about how detrimental 
it would really be. And now the same pressures are being reproduced here 
in Canada. Within WIPO, the US and the EU continue to press for a new 
database treaty that would presumably have the same effect.

I've always felt that the ideal coalition that we need in order to 
effectively address our IP concerns must ultimately be on an 
international level. And we have such an opportunity here. The 
declaration gives us all the chance, here in North America, to show 
solidarity with the goals of some of the developing countries. Having 
signators from NGOs and individuals here in Canada seems especially 
crucial at this time.

Samuel Trosow
University of Western Ontario

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.




-
For (un)subscription information and posting guidelines please see
http://digital-copyright.ca/forum.shtml