EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

09.17.11

Cablegate: In 2010, Patent Harmonisation “Not Welcomed by Developing Countries”

Posted in Africa, America, Asia, Cablegate, Law, Patents at 4:24 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Cablegate

Summary: How US diplomats view negotiations whose goal is to legitimise monopolies in countries that have no interest in these

According to the following year-old cable, specifically in ¶5, “Member States negotiated informally a compromise work program that ensured balanced and focused work for the SCP [Standing Committee on the Law of Patents]. The proposed work program included: 1. further study on technology transfer concerning the relationship of patent technology transfer and innovation; 2. work on limitations and exceptions that included the external expert study and Brazil’s work program proposal; 3. patent administration issues that included work on patent quality management and further work on dissemination of patent information that looked at digitization issues and access to complete patent information; 4. further work on client-attorney privilege to solicit Member State input on national experiences; 5. future conference on public health and food security issues; and 6. reaffirming that the non-exhaustive list of issues for possible discussion by the SCP remain open for further elaboration at the next meeting, but agreeing that Member States would refrain from adding on to the list at this session, so as to ensure that work on the existing studies could be more focused. These items were truly a compromise text, particularly for Group B, as our primary objective to discuss patent harmonization issues was not part of this list and many of the items had more of a developing country interest/slant. On day one of our conversation concerning future work, we reached agreement among Group B countries, GRULAC, Eastern European countries, Singapore, Korea, the regional coordinator of Africa, Angola.”

They are trying to convince developing countries to give up and accept a system which harms them greatly. With our emphasis on the relevant parts, ¶7 carries on by noting that “While Group B and the U.S. were disappointed that the agreement reached the day before did not satisfy all of the Africa Group and the Asia Group, we were willing to negotiate further from our compromise text. However, it became clear that the Africa Group and some Asian Group countries were not willing to move from their position. Group B in particular was willing to add on to the non exhaustive list with the inclusion of “work sharing” and the “strategic use of IP in business” as proposed by the Group of Eastern European Countries. Despite developing countries’ insistence that the non exhaustive list remain open, Indonesia and India opposed the Group B suggestion of “work sharing”, arguing that it was duplicative of work at the PCT working group and that it was patent harmonization-related and therefore not welcomed by developing countries. Further, even though Group B reminded these countries that their proposed suggestions on the list were duplicative of work occurring in the Committee on Development and IP (CDIP), Egypt’s response was that development agenda work in CDIP was a cross-cutting issue throughout the Organization, and therefore duplication was needed.”

Here is the cable in full:


VZCZCXYZ0005
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0136/01 0491710
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 181701Z FEB 10
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0238
INFO RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA
RUEHGV/USMISSION USTR GENEVA

UNCLAS GENEVA 000136 
 
SIPDIS 
STATE FOR EEB/IPC, IO/HS, OES 
COMMERCE FOR USPTO 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON [Economic Conditions], 
KIPR [Intellectual Property Rights], 
WIPO [World Intellectual Property Organization] 
SUBJECT: Fourteenth Session of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law 
of Patents 
 
¶1. The World Intellectual Property Organization's Standing 
Committee on the Law of Patents (WIPO SCP) continued to discuss 
preliminary studies requested by the SCP in June 2008 and March 
2009, and commenced a discussion on Brazil's proposal concerning 
exceptions and limitations to patent rights.  However, an impasse 
resulted at the SCP on the future work of the committee.  As a 
result, the agenda from this session will be used for the next 
meeting in October 2010.  During two days worth of negotiations on 
the future work topic, it became clear that Member States fail to 
see eye to eye on the international patent system itself, as some 
view the system to be a threat to development and oppose any global 
efforts - whether normative or cooperative technical assistance 
work -- in improving the patent system.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2. The WIPO SCP met from January 25-29, 2010.  Delegations from 103 
countries, 10 international organizations and 28 non-governmental 
organizations participated in the Committee which was chaired by 
Mr. Maximiliano Santa Cruz from Chile.  The United States 
delegation was represented by USPTO External Affairs Administrator 
Arti Rai, Charles Eloshway of USPTO, Janet Speck, Deputy Director, 
State Department and Deborah Lashley-Johnson, IP Attach???? at the 
U.S. Mission to the UN. 
 
¶3. Discussions were based on preliminary studies written by the 
International Bureau at WIPO concerning the relationship of 
standards and patents, client-attorney privilege, dissemination of 
patent information, transfer of technology, and opposition systems. 
Many delegations stated that these documents constituted a good 
basis for discussions, and requested further clarifications on 
various issues contained in the documents.  However, certain 
statements made by developing countries and NGO were worrisome, 
such as: equating work on the client-attorney disclosure problem to 
patent law harmonization work; viewing the topic of dissemination 
of patent information to include the disclosure of proprietary 
information and trade secrets; and stating that a study should 
include how the patent system hinders technology transfer. 
 
¶4. The topic of limitations and exceptions was also discussed, 
although the external experts' study was not available for this 
meeting.  A proposal in respect of exceptions and limitations to 
patent rights was submitted by the Delegation of Brazil, which 
received support by many developing countries.  The proposal has 
three phases:  discussion on national experiences on patent right 
exceptions and limitations; focus work on exceptions and 
limitations that help to address developmental concerns; and the 
development of an exceptions and limitations manual.  Other 
delegations, such as the U.S., Switzerland and other industrialized 
countries expressed concern that they had not received the document 
in advance of the meeting, and therefore had insufficient time to 
consider the proposal, and expressed a wish to consider the 
proposal at the following session in October 2010 when the external 
expert study would also be presented.  Nonetheless, the U.S. noted 
that it was interested in studying the issue more and saw strong 
intellectual property rights and enforcement to be consistent with 
proper, basic limitations and exceptions. 
 
¶5.  Gridlock, however, occurred once the committee moved onto the 
topic of future work.  Several regional coordinators and interested 
Member States negotiated informally a compromise work program that 
ensured balanced and focused work for the SCP.  The proposed work 
program included:  1. further study on technology transfer 
concerning the relationship of patent technology transfer and 
innovation; 2. work on limitations and exceptions that included the 
external expert study and Brazil's work program proposal; 3. patent 
administration issues that included work on patent quality 
management and further work on dissemination of patent information 
that looked at digitization issues and access to complete patent 
information; 4. further work on client-attorney privilege to 
solicit Member State input on national experiences; 5. future 
conference on public health and food security issues; and 6. 
reaffirming that the non-exhaustive list of issues for possible 
discussion by the SCP remain open for further elaboration at the 
next meeting, but agreeing that Member States would refrain from 
adding on to the list at this session, so as to ensure that work on 
the existing studies could be more focused.  These items were truly 
a compromise text, particularly for Group B, as our primary 
objective to discuss patent harmonization issues was not part of 
this list and many of the items had more of a developing country 
interest/slant.  On day one of our conversation concerning future 
work, we reached agreement among Group B countries, GRULAC, Eastern 
European countries, Singapore, Korea, the regional coordinator of 
Africa, Angola. 
 
¶6.  However, on day two, Angola, members of the Africa Group, such 
as Egypt and South Africa, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, 
 
 
Yemen, Iran and Indonesia, opposed the compromise text.  Their 
amendments suggested future studies on the negative impacts patents 
have on technology transfer and standards, and a new study on 
patents and public health.  There was also a proposal on the 
establishment of a technology transfer commission to focus on the 
problems of technology transfer.  Their proposal further lacked 
balance in their deletion of the only two issues offered by Group B 
in the initial compromise proposal concerning patent quality 
management and further work on client-attorney privilege.  The 
counter-proposal also included another large conference on patents 
and public policy issues as a follow up to the one held in July 
2009.  Lastly, they pushed to expand the non-exhaustive list to 
include topics such as the impact of the patent system on 
developing countries and LDCs, and the relationship of patents and 
food security. 
 
¶7. While Group B and the U.S. were disappointed that the agreement 
reached the day before did not satisfy all of the Africa Group and 
the Asia Group, we were willing to negotiate further from our 
compromise text.  However, it became clear that the Africa Group 
and some Asian Group countries were not willing to move from their 
position.  Group B in particular was willing to add on to the non 
exhaustive list with the inclusion of "work sharing" and the 
"strategic use of IP in business" as proposed by the Group of 
Eastern European Countries.  Despite developing countries' 
insistence that the non exhaustive list remain open, Indonesia and 
India opposed the Group B suggestion of "work sharing", arguing 
that it was duplicative of work at the PCT working group and that 
it was patent harmonization-related and therefore not welcomed by 
developing countries.  Further, even though Group B reminded these 
countries that their proposed suggestions on the list were 
duplicative of work occurring in the Committee on Development and 
IP (CDIP), Egypt's response was that development agenda work in 
CDIP was a cross-cutting issue throughout the Organization, and 
therefore duplication was needed. 
 
¶8. COMMENT: Group B member states expressed deep concern about the 
events that transpired at this meeting.  Several countries refused 
to negotiate from their maximalist positions, which has been a 
concern in other committees at WIPO.  The inflexibility of 
developing country positions will make reaching a compromise on any 
SCP work program impossible, particularly when this committee has 
had a history of disbanding for three years due to similar 
political impasses.  Further, it is clear that the development 
agenda is the only work these delegations are interested in at the 
expense of issues related to patent law that are important to Group 
B and their constituents.   Targeted demarches to the few countries 
that are blocking progress and preventing the SCP to function are 
being considered.  In addition, Group B will increase its 
coordination to advance its agenda on the various issues before the 
SCP, such as in the areas of technology transfer, limitation and 
exceptions, client-attorney privilege, opposition systems, and 
dissemination of patent information. END COMMENT. 
GRIFFITHS

Next, we are going to look at some EU positions on the subject.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. Guarding and Rescuing the FSF Titanic: A Free (as in Freedom) Library, and Federation of Advocates

    "This library is not just for cultural works, but also for software."



  2. Linux Foundation's Linux.com in 2019: Zero Articles (Nothing Original) and a Terrible, Rookie New Design

    Linux.com has become a curated syndicator of news (edited by one single Microsoft proponent); the site has also eliminated its traditional design in favour of something only 'hipsters' can appreciate



  3. Managing IP as Team UPC's Megaphone and Lobbying Front

    Managing IP is lying on behalf of Team UPC yet again; the site's long history promoting the UPC hasn't ended even when prospects of the UPC are slim to none



  4. No More Rights for EPO Staff?

    The oppression and the crackdown on labour rights in Europe's second-largest institution has deepened to the point where staff is paid as little as is legally possible



  5. Links 22/8/2019: GNOME 3.33.91, Systemd 243 RC2, Cockpit 201, Ubuntu Touch OTA-10, FreeIPMI 1.6.4

    Links for the day



  6. Some Patent Attorneys Dislike Techrights Not Because It's Wrong But Because Software Patents Are Wrong (and Sometimes Illegal)

    Odd rants which misuse common law and ignore alleged Fair Use (and misinterpretation of copyright law, for censorship purposes) would have people believe that we're wrong; but it's more likely that the person in question is jealous, insecure, or offended by our stance on patent scope, which is very much rooted in the law itself (and the views widely held by software developers globally)



  7. Guarding and Rescuing the FSF Titanic: Distro-libre and feature-schema

    "Every time a distro does not suit a user's purposes, and it is less work to adapt the distro on one's own than to affect the distro in any other way, a distro is born."



  8. Links 21/8/2019: Dell's XPS 13, Mesa 19.2 RC1, Librem Update

    Links for the day



  9. Links 21/8/2019: Open Source POWER, Alpine 3.10.2, Netrunner 19.08

    Links for the day



  10. Edward as a Nodder to Team UPC Kool-Aid

    Bristows LLP is at it again and it's getting pathetic, not just dishonest as usual



  11. Guest Post: António Campinos' European Patent Office Redefines Modern Slavery in the Heart of Europe in 2019

    The European Patent Office’s (EPO) President António Campinos — like his predecessor Battistelli — emulates Chinese labour practices



  12. Guarding and Rescuing the FSF Titanic: There is More Than One Iceberg Ahead

    "This strategy is not far from when Microsoft talked about "de-commoditizing protocols" in the late 90s, as part of their plans to control, dominate, and end Open Source and Free software."



  13. EPO Cannot Handle Patent Justice With a Backlog of About 10,000 Cases at the Boards of Appeal

    The EPO's long war on judges and on the law has proven to be costly; it's difficult to pretend that the EPO functions like a first-world legal framework



  14. The European Patent Office Increases Surveillance: Can't Get Food Without Being Spied on

    The infamous "War on Cash" has been 'won' at Europe's second-largest institution, where people's diet can now be monitored and indefinitely retained on the system



  15. To GNU/Linux, the Operating System, GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft) is Not the Threat. Microsoft is.

    Don't let Microsoft get away with its bogus narration; GNU/Linux is primarily under attack from Microsoft, whereas Software Freedom in general is under attack from many directions



  16. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) Has the Full Support of Techrights

    Our support for the FSF is strong enough that we want to occasionally suggest improvements; there are growing frictions designed to isolate the FSF and cause self-restraint/censorship



  17. Why We Support Phoronix (Whereas Some Others Do Not)

    Some people try to characterise Michael Larabel as the 'bad boy' of Linux even though Michael is probably the hardest working Linux journalist out there



  18. Guarding and Rescuing the FSF Titanic: The Simplest Ways that AI will Change Computing

    "AI is already used to help kill people. We should be cautious, and know that the best rules we come up with (like no doing magic outside the school grounds) won't be followed all the time."



  19. Links 20/8/2019: DragonFlyBSD Developing DSynth

    Links for the day



  20. Guarding and Rescuing the FSF Titanic: Narcissism in The Community

    "Narcissists are drawn to intelligent people. They take great pleasure in attacking, controlling and defeating intelligent people because it makes them feel smarter and more important."



  21. Breaking the Law Has Become the Norm at the European Patent Office

    The European Patent Office’s ongoing practice of destroying critics/whistleblowers and crushing unions, judges, examiners etc. — as well as threats and bribery of the media — ultimately mean a perpetual state of lawlessness that, if it prevails, will let patent trolls raid the European economy and stall innovation



  22. Links 20/8/2019: KMyMoney 5.0.6, Kdenlive 19.08

    Links for the day



  23. Guarding and Rescuing the FSF Titanic: Free Software in Education

    "If everyone learns to code, then everyone gains some understanding of how to code in other languages."



  24. Links 19/8/2019: Another Linux 5.3 RC, OpenSUSE's Richard Brown Steps Down, Slackware Creates Patreon Page, Qt 6 Initiated

    Links for the day



  25. Speaking Truth to Monopolies (or How to Write Guest Posts in Techrights)

    We need to have more articles tackling the passage of all power — especially when it comes to software — to few large monopolies that disregard human rights or actively participate in their abolishment in the digital realm



  26. Guarding and Rescuing the FSF Titanic: Free as in Speech

    "While a new breed of so-called anarchists campaign against expression that even the state allows, people are also foolishly overplaying the relevance of the state to free speech issues -- as if it's not a freedom issue when a project is increasingly thought-policed, because the thought-policing isn't on a state level."



  27. Toxic Culture at Microsoft

    Racism, intolerance, sexism and bullying are rampant at Microsoft; but Microsoft would rather deflect/divert/sidetrack to Google and so-called 'GAFA'



  28. Guarding and Rescuing the FSF Titanic: Introduction

    "The FSF isn't just threatened, it will hit a large iceberg in the future that changes it permanently."



  29. Linux Journal and Linux.com Should Have Been Kept Going

    There's apparently no good explanation for the effective shutdown of Linux Journal and Linux.com; London Trust Media Holdings (LTMH), owner of Linux Journal, saw numbers improving and the Linux Foundation, steward of Linux.com, is loaded with money



  30. 2019 Microsoft Glossary

    How Microsoft internally interprets words that it is saying to the public and to the press


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts