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
[p]romote measures that will help countries deal with IP related anti?competitive practices, by providing technical cooperation to developing countries, especially LDCs, at their request, in order to better understand the interface between intellectual property rights and competition policies.
The International Bureau noted that many countries do not have competition authorities; the implication of this statement would intimate that WIPO would need to do more to help countries remedy anti-competitive practices. The Secretariat noted that a meeting on the interface between “intellectual property rights and competition policies” would be held in the Republic of Korea later on this year. Pakistan inquired if WIPO would hold a similar conference in Geneva for WIPO delegates to get a better understanding of this subject. If not, the delegate of Pakistan requested WIPO to hold a conference in Geneva on competition policies and IP policy.
Michael Shapiro (United States of America) noted that the “IPR aspects of competition policy do not exist in a vacuum” but rather operate in a complex web. He cautioned the CDIP in implementing recommendation 7 in a way that would “waste WIPO’s scarce resources”. Mr. Shapiro noted that to the best of his knowledge, this was the first time competition issues had been discussed before the full committee. In order to provide context for the US intervention, he reaffirmed that the the Committee was at the beginning of an important process. He inquired, “[w]here do we begin the deliberative process, what are the questions we should be asking, what WIPO programs and activities is WIPO delivering, how are we evaluating and assessing how IPRs meet development needs, how existing WIPO programs and activities are used to promote economic growth and development”. Mr. Shapiro highlighted that the International Bureau already provided legislative and technical assistance upon request at preventing and resolving anti-competitive practices related to intellectual property.
In order to aid the discussions on competition policy and IPR, WIPO prepared an “informal note” for discussion during the informal consultations in April; yesterday the International Bureau clarified that this informal noted would be made formal and be made available as a conference document. With respect to WIPO technical assistance on this matter, the note stated:
[s]o far, WIPO has not received any specific requests for assistance on matters of competition policy and its interface with intellectual property rights. Requests have generally focused on specific points of IP law, for example, in the form of advice on a drafI IP law prepared by the member country’s authorities, as a request for a first draft IP law to serve as a basis for discussion with the country’s authorities, or in th context of assistance as regards the flexible implementation of obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.
South Africa, Brazil, Nepal, Uruguay, Thailand and China all supported Pakistan’s call for WIPO to hold a seminar in Geneva for delegates on the interface between competition policy and intellectual property.
France (on behalf of the European Communities and its 27 member states) asserted that competition policy and its relationship to IPRs was both “important and delicate”, therefore they were of the view that it was appropriate for the Committee to “clarify the matter fully and to define what the problem consists of” and to adopt a “nuanced approach so that problems that do arise can be discussed to ensure that the cart is not put in front of the horse”.