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

Chris Redd reddchris40 at gmail.com
Tue Oct 15 00:54:47 PDT 2013


Hi All,

Does anyone know if there is an equivalent to the Bayh-Dole act in the UK
or EU?

Since B-D there has been a rise in university Tech-transfer globally (or at
least definitely in Europe), and I would like to know how that was
prompted. It may be that the B-D is the only legislation, and its effects
have occurred through normative changes which are then pushed heavily in
other countries.

Sincerely,

Christopher Redd
UAEM | European Board Member | Exeter co-ordinator
Web: http://www.uaem-europe.org/
Mobile: +447759840956
Email: reddchris40 at gmail.com | christopher.redd at students.pcmd.ac.uk




On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 8:10 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
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Ip-health mailing list