The UK Patent Office has made available the Communiqué from the Working Group of Industrialised Nations on Intellectual Property and Development, which met at the EPO in Munich on 21 and 22 March. The Working Group was established in February of this year and the meeting was attended by delegates from Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the European Commission, the European Patent Office, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the United States of America.

At the meeting the group backed WIPO’s work in development-related areas of IP and called for members to pay more attention to the need to efficiently meet the requirements of developing countries. Members, it said, should adopt a “demand driven” approach. Mere capacity building isn’t enough said the group. Instead, more attention should be paid to the relationship between IP and economic, social and cultural development. Existing proposals concerned the disclosure of the origin of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in patent applications were also discussed.

The outcome of these discussions sound sensible to the IPKat but, at the risk of appearing ignorant, the IPKat admits that he has never heard of this influential-sounding working group (though he thinks it might be this) and wonders whose (if anyone’s) auspicies it is under. Any information would be gratefully received.

More on IP and development here and here
IP AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING IP AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING Reviewed by Anonymous on Friday, March 25, 2005 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.