[A2k] [Ip-health] WTO TRIPS Council: Intervention of India on Article 66.2

Seth Johnson seth.p.johnson at gmail.com
Mon Oct 14 08:04:21 PDT 2013


On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Baker, Brook <b.baker at neu.edu> wrote:
> The technology transfer discussed in Article 66.2 involves a soft-law directive to rich countries to adopt measures that promote transfer of know-how, technology, and technological production to developing countries.  This obligation has been honored in the breach.


And the US just needs to wait for enough of a framework to fall in
place, whereupon they will readily set up incentives for transfer to
developing countries -- notably via privatizing publicly-funded
research.

India should not doubt that that will eventually occur, but rather
should work on making sure the concept of tech transfer gets recast
specifically.  We don't want to transfer the US experience since 1980
(passage of Bayh-Dole) to the world at large, without reasserting the
mission of the university in the proper terms.

Below are a couple of relevant resolutions related to the ITU's work
on the "World Summit for the Information Society" (WSIS).

The resolutions for e-gov applications and mobile communications both
fill out the purposes of the WTDC resolution on ICT Applications, and
both reference WTDC resolution 15 on tech transfer, as well as the
2010 Plenipotentiary resolution 64, also on tech transfer.

WTDC 54: Information and communication technology applications:
> http://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/wtdc/wtdc_54/

WTDC 72: More effective utilization of mobile communication services:
> http://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/wtdc/wtdc_72/

WTDC 74: More effective adoption of e-government services:
> http://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/wtdc/wtdc_74/

WTDC 15: Applied research and transfer of technology:
> http://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/wtdc/wtdc_15/

PP 64: Non-discriminatory access to modern
telecommunication/information and communication technology facilities,
services and applications, including applied research and transfer of
technology, on mutually agreed terms:
> http://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/plenipotentiary/pp_64/

Perhaps more tenuous, but worth noting:

PP 169: Admission of academia, universities and their associated
research establishments to participate in the work of the three
Sectors of the Union
> http://internetdistinction.com/wsisimpacts/wsis/plenipotentiary/pp_169/


Seth




> I think the technology transfer that Seth is concerned about is the transfer and commercialization of university and government sponsored research/innovation to commercial entities, especially without any reservation of rights and provisions that ensure affordable access to resulting innovations.
>
> Brook
> Professor Brook K. Baker
> Health GAP (Global Access Project) &
> Northeastern U. School of Law, Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy
> Honorary Research Fellow, Faculty of Law, Univ. of KwaZulu Natal, SA
> 400 Huntington Ave.
> Boston, MA 02115 USA
> (w) 617-373-3217
> (c) 617-259-0760
> (f) 617-373-5056
> b.baker at neu.edu
> ________________________________________
> From: Ip-health [ip-health-bounces at lists.keionline.org] on behalf of Seth Johnson [seth.p.johnson at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 9:45 AM
> To: Thiru Balasubramaniam
> Cc: a2k discuss list; Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> Subject: Re: [Ip-health] [A2k] WTO TRIPS Council: Intervention of India on      Article 66.2
>
> I suspect that I'm right, and India and other developing countries
> should be leery of rationalizing this approach to things.
>
> I think it's time for the A2K folks to take a new look at things with
> reference to the World Summit for the Information Society, and how
> telecom policy is developing.  You may be seeing more from me on this
> soon.
>
>
> Seth
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Thiru and list:
>>
>> Is this "technology transfer" like that for research at
>> publicly-funded institutions?
>>
>> I'm seeing similar language in ITU resolutions -- plus signs that the
>> idea is like the Bayh-Dole getup.
>>
>> If so, isn't it important for some countries to withstand the notion
>> of privatizing publicly funded research?  We're seeing a lot of bad
>> consequences of the erosion of the notion of "public fruits" that
>> derives from Bayh-Dole in the US.
>>
>>
>> Seth
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Thiru Balasubramaniam
>> <thiru at keionline.org> wrote:
>>> http://keionline.org/node/1807
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> A2k mailing list
>>> A2k at lists.keionline.org
>>> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org




More information about the A2k mailing list