wipo

October 27, 2008. Patents and Standards at WIPO and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

At KEI Washington, DC offices

Patents and Standards at WIPO and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

AGENDA

PARTICIPANTS

DOCUMENTS

WIPO enriched by in-depth discussions of the public domain

The penultimate day of the WIPO development committee held in-depth discussions on recommendation 20 of the Development Agenda which states:

To promote norm-setting activities related to IP that support a robust public domain in WIPO’s Member States, including the possibility of preparing guidelines which could assist interested Member States in identifying subject matters that have fallen into the public domain within their respective jurisdictions.

WIPO Development Agenda committee: Interface between competition policy and intellectual property

On Wednesday (9 July 11, 2008) the WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) steered away from the detailed financial and human resources discussions that characterized the first two days of discussion to more substantive discussions on competition policy.

The morning session considered recommendation 7 of the WIPO Development Agenda which calls upon WIPO to

Development Agenda discussions focus on costing of consultants and business analysts

The second session of the the WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) is meeting this week in Geneva (July 7-11, 2008). The first meeting of this development committee (March 2008) examined Cluster A (Technical Assistance and Capacity Building) of the 45 approved Development Agenda recommendations.

WIPO patent committee embarks on positive agenda

After a hiatus of three years, the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) met for its 12th session on June 23, 2008 to June 27, 2008. Given the collapse of the talks to initiate a Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT) to harmonize patent law with respect to prior art, novelty, inventive step and grace period, even the most prescient of WIPO watchers were at a loss in prognosticating the outcome of the WIPO SCP.

Chilean official takes helm of WIPO patent committee

At 10:52 AM today, the United States of America (on behalf of Group B, the “rich country” group of WIPO) nominated Maximiliano Santa Cruz of Chile to be chair of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP). Singapore, on behalf of the Asian Group, seconded the nomination of Mr Santa Cruz and proposed candidates from China and Romania as Vice-Chairs. Brazil registered its support for this complement of candidates.

Of Limitations, Exceptions and Verse (WIPO copyright committee)

Following the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) which for much of its existence has endeavored to unsuccessfully hammer out a Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations has provided a window into the human condition replete with incidents of humor, frustration and hope.

83 countries determine the fate of WIPO (ie-who will be the new DG)?

The WIPO Coordination Committee will meet in extraordinary session on May 13-14, 2008, to “nominate a person for appointment by the General Assembly as WIPO Director General. The nominations received from WIPO Member States in response to the Circular C.N. 2833 are now available.”

…and the kitchen sink? (WIPO)

Since nobody really wants to work on the casters treaty (no matter what they say) today we’re talking about what should be on the table, the work program for the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights at WIPO.

To push back the excellent proposal on limitations and exceptions made by Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and Nicaragua yesterday the EU is proposing to add:

Draft Conclusions of the WIPO copyright committee (March 2008)

This text was handed at around 11 AM on Wednesday morning. Apologies for any typos. This was typed by 3 different people from the hard copy distributed by the International Bureau.

—————-

STANDING COMMITTEE ON COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS

Sixteenth Session, March 10 to 12, 2008-03-12

DRAFT CONCLUSIONS

Protection of audiovisual performances

Syndicate content