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

Seth Johnson seth.p.johnson at gmail.com
Tue Oct 15 03:18:56 PDT 2013


On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Suerie Moon <suerie_moon at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> A couple quick responses to Seth's message and the subsequent discussion:
>
> 1. The term "technology transfer" has been used in very different ways,
> among them to refer to the practice of university out-licensing of IP to
> firms (through university "Technology Transfer Offices (TTO) or Technology
> Licensing Offices (TLO)), and the broader transfer of information, skills,
> IP rights, and/or know-how from one party to another. Defining it precisely
> has proven difficult at the international level where significant debates on
> tech transfer have been taking place at least since the 1960s. There is a
> useful brief overview here:
>
> http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/119340/
>
> Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest • Volume 15 • Number 40 • 23rd November
> 2011
>
> Commentary | Fifty Years Later, the IP, Technology Transfer, and Development
> Debate Lives On
>
> by Ahmed Abdel Latif and Pedro Roffe


Thanks Suerie. Correcting your link -- I think you mean:
http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/119324/

Another overview:
http://ictsd.org/i/publications/136292/

The 1961 Resolution triggered by Brazil: "The role of patents in the
transfer of technology to under-developed countries:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/167/66/IMG/NR016766.pdf?OpenElement

My curiosity is piqued regarding exactly what Brazil proposed.  So
patents were then stressed at that time.

Also interesting:

Intellectual Property and Computer Software:
A Battle of Competing Use and Access Visions for Countries of the South
http://www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/docs/CS_Story.pdf


Article 66.2 of TRIPS:

‘[D]eveloped country Members shall provide incentives to enterprises
and institutions in their territories for the purpose of promoting and
encouraging technology transfer to least-developed country Members in
order to enable them to create a sound and viable technological base’


Seth


> 2. While I agree with Brook's overall response, it is important to note that
> TRIPS 66.2 should not be considered "soft law," but rather, as legally
> binding as any other part of TRIPS. The fact that there has been almost no
> political attention paid to implementation or enforcement of 66.2, probably
> has much more to do with power dynamics than with the binding nature of
> the obligation.
>
> Carlos Correa has written about it here:
> Correa, C. M. (2007).Intellectual Property in LDCs: Strategies for Enhancing
> Technology Transfer and Dissemination.
> UNCTAD: The Least Developed Countries Report 2007, Background Paper No.4.
> United Nations Conference onTrade and Development. New York and Geneva:
> United Nations. Available;
> http://unctad.org/sections/ldc_dir/docs/ldcr2007_Correa_en.pdf
>
> and I have done two studies looking at how well developed countries have
> fulfilled their 66.2 obligations, available here:
> Moon, S. (2009). Does TRIPS Art. 66.2 Encourage Technology Transfer to LDCs?
> An Analysis of Country Submissions to
> the TRIPS Council (1999-2007). Policy Brief No.2. UNCTAD- ICTSD Project on
> IPRs and Sustainable Development.Geneva: UNCTAD-ICTSD. Available;
> http://ictsd.org/downloads/2009/03/final-suerie-moon-version.pdf
>
> Moon, S. (2011).Meaningful Technology Transfer to the LDCs: A Proposal for
> monitoring mechanism for TRIPS Art 66.2.  Policy Brief No.9. UNCTAD- ICTSD
> Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development.Geneva: UNCTAD-ICTSD. Available:
> http://ictsd.org/downloads/2011/05/technology-transfer-to-the-ldcs.pdf
>
> Best wishes,
> -Suerie Moon
>
>
> On Monday, October 14, 2013 10:52 AM, Michael H Davis <m.davis at csuohio.edu>
> wrote:
> There are, in my opinion, two things that are desperately needed to ward off
> the very worst of IP consequences (all of it is bad but some are worse than
> others). First, repeal TRIPS. Second, repeal Bayh-Dole. The notion,
> according to you, that they are expanding internationally is too
> discouraging to ponder. Bayh Dole was truly a fraud on the public. Now it is
> becoming a fraud on the world.
>
> Mickey Davis
>
> Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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