These are the final conclusions of SCCR 18.
World Intellectual Property Organization
SCCR Eighteenth Session
Geneva, May 25 to 29, 2009
CONCLUSIONS OF THE SCCR
prepared by the Chair
Limitations and exceptions
Original at: https://tacd.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/TACD-IP-07-09-IP-Aspects-of-Pandemics.pdf Resolution on Intellectual Property Aspects of Pandemics DOC No. IP 07-09 DATE ISSUED: May 2009 Introduction In recent years there have been several cases of possible new pandemics of infectious diseases. This includes recently concerns about SARS,… Continue Reading
Group B has offered amendments to a proposed conclusion for the WIPO SCCR 18 meeting. The amendments are designed to eliminate any agreement to discuss a treaty for blind and reading disabled persons at the next meeting of the SCCR. The United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, the Holy See (the Vatican), the members of the European Union and other high income countries have joined in this statement. Later the EU offered an even blunter opposition to the treaty proposals. I have blogged about our disappointment in the Obama Administration on the Huffington Post here.
Several people are reporting from the WIPO SCCR 18 meeting on Twitter. Some but not all use a hash tag #sccr18, for those familiar with the twitter search system. Below are the 60 tweets I posted so far.
This morning the 62nd session World Health Assembly agreed to a resolution on public health, innovation and intellectual property that, among other things, settled outstanding issues regarding the “stakeholders” for various parts of the Global Strategy and Plan of Action. (GS/PoA). With regard to the issue of a possible medical R&D treaty, the outcome of the negotiation was something of a split decision. On the one hand, the WHA agreed that the WHO would not be a stakeholder, in terms of the specific element of the WHO Global Strategy document. Continue Reading
The WHA will take up the WHA IGWG resolution at 9AM on Friday.
When discussing the issue of excluding the WHO from discussions about a medical R&D treaty, one PhRMA lobbyist told me “this was put to bed long ago.” He was in part referring to a WHO “green room” meeting that was organized before the Obama inauguration. One negotiator said the pharmaceutical companies are pressing hard to kill the medical R&D treaty here “before the new people take over.”
I spent a few minutes today on Amazon, to check on reports that some Kindle titles now have text to speech disabled. Among the authors who are “turning off” text to speech in Kindle editions of books are President Obama, Vice President Biden, Toni Morrison, the Pope, Stephen King, Maya Angelou, Mother Teresa, Isaac Asimov, Tom Brokaw, P.D. James, Robert B. Reich, George Will and Ann Coulter, to mention a few.
KEI has a page that summarizes the minimum terms of protection for copyright and related rights in multilateral treaties. The most binding constraints are those included in the WTO TRIPS Agreement. Those constraints are as follows:
Most literary and artistic works protected by copyright under the Berne would have a minimum copyright term calculated on the basis of the life of the author plus 50 years.
In efforts to introduce the topic of innovation inducement prizes into the discussions about drug development, there are inevitably questions about the relationship between grants and prizes.
In some cases, prizes are being offered as a reform of “pull” mechanisms, and can usefully be compared to the grant of a marketing monopoly, which is the primary pull mechanism used today. In this context, a question is, should drug or vaccine developers be rewarded with monopolies or cash? And if cash, where does the money come from, and how much money is given to a particular project?