blog

So far, not too much has been happening - at least in the visible part of the meeting. During lunch break, there was a panel discussion with several Civil Society experts: Jamie Love of CPTech, Martin Khor Kok Peng of the Third World Network and Ellen Thoen of Medicines Sans Frontieres.

All three of them emphasized the importance of access to knowledge in different fields. Their statements were rich in constructive suggestions on the points which a Development Agenda for WIPO would have to take into consideration. Ellen Thoen pointed to the advantages of new licensing models for pharmaceuticals, which permit the fabrication of generic medication in and for developing countries. For AIDS treatment in Africa, such a model has resulted in the yearly cost of treatment per person dropping from US$10.000 to US$250.

Neither the clear language nor the convincing arguments, though, succeeded in convincing the blockheads of the rights-holding industry, who only see new forms of handling patents, copyrights and trademarks as a threat to their business models - instead of taking on the challenge of reforming their companies so as to remain (or become again) competitive for the future.

Otherwise, the afternoon was spent with the remaining statements of individual countries. Many Civil Society delegates, meanwhile, were busy drafting their statements, which they can hope to hold tonight or tomorrow. I would prefer tomorrow; this afternoon, people are just falling asleep at their desks, even though the diplomatic dribble has gotten markedly more exciting as everyone realised not only how different the positions are, but how important the decisions taken now will be in the future.

Now, the intergovernmental organisations are making their statements. Some of them join the many developing countries in openly demanding a reform of WIPO. Chances are that the idea cannot be simply dropped anymore. The fuss is raised, and something will happen. Whatever there was in the way of old consensus, it can be considered broken now.

Just in case you were wondering what the place looked like, I took a picture of the building:

As I was walking towards the building this morning, I overheard someone saying: "All built with artist's blood." Well, sure depends on one's point of view...

This Tuesday morning, the situation is rather tense. The extreme positions are held by India on the side of the Friends of Development, and by the USA on the side of those who want to avoid reform. Each side has its helpers. While India simply expresses most clearly the views of the Friends of Development group, the US have mobilised interesting friends such as Sudan to perpetuate their views.

The US show themselves "concerned" with the proposal of the Friends of Development. They accuse the group of wanting to dilute the "intellectual property" system and WIPO's work. In their view, the strict enforcement of patents, copyrights and trademarks is a precondition for development and growth.

India contests this view. It calls for a mainstreaming of development aspects into WIPO's work. Being very clear in tone, the Indian statement described "intellectual property" as a tool for development, not an end in itself. It called the demand for stricter enforcement of patents, copyrights and trademark regulation "unrealistic", as developing countries are grappling with far more severe problems.

Personally, I find it cynical to demand of a developing country that it dedicate scarce resources to the persecution of violations of eg. copyright, while the same country does not have the means to provide its population with a dignified standard of living (dignified not as in "DSL connections for everyone" but rather as in "not starving or dying of easily curable diseases").

This demand - which WIPO has been obedient to so far - turns international and national agencies, which in theory are obliged to pursue public interest, into mere agents of the rights-holding industry's whishes.

Oh, by the way: Why am I putting "intellectual property" in quotes? Because I agree with Richard Stallman in that the term is imprecise to the point of being harmful. You can find Richard's reasoning right here. The distinctions he elaborates on are substantial to avoiding being labelled as "anti-IP" by conservative groups.