UPDATE - Declaration on Patent Protection by MPI Now Online

Blogmeister Jeremy reported yesterday that the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition was about to issue a Declaration on Patent Protection.  Hearty Katpat to Kat Emeritus and ongoing Katfriend Matthias Lamping for alerting the IPKat to it.

The text is now posted on the MPI website at http://www.ip.mpg.de/en/pub/news/patentdeclaration.cfm.

You can sign the Declaration as a Supporter by emailing Matthias Lamping as indicated at the above link.  The list of supporters will be indicated here.
UPDATE - Declaration on Patent Protection by MPI Now Online UPDATE - Declaration on Patent Protection by MPI Now Online Reviewed by Darren Smyth on Tuesday, April 15, 2014 Rating: 5


  1. Fascinating, a document that is about helping states to take full advantage of provisions to maintain a proper balance between patent rights and protecting their populations, i.e. identifying the loopholes in TRIPS. I'm not sure the TRIPS legislators would be pleased. It shows though that many states don't have the expertise to interpret international law, or perhaps are too afraid to take full advantage of all that they are legally entitled to do.

  2. One could spend hours picking ones way through this document cataloging the non-sequiturs and statements of the blindingly obvious. It would not be worth the effort required to actually review it. This appears on first reading an utterly worthless piece of writing - I don't intend giving it a second chance.

  3. @Anon (Wednesday, 16 April 2014 09:40:00) Definitely, some experts have been saying this for years, but this piece of research is not meant FYI (i.e. people like you in developed countries without the unfair adverse effects of IPRs). Rather, this seems to have been subtly directed at (FYI: governments, legislators, NGOs (e.g. MSF) in developing countries).

    Because you know TRIPS (in and out) doesn't mean others are clued up! Sometimes, certain obvious things need to be given some force!

    WIPO and other interested parties would be much pleased with this research.

  4. @Anon (Thursday, 17 April 2014 13:30:00 BST)

    Your point is well made, but unfortunately I don't give it much value. While ordinary folk in developing countries may not know much of IPRs, their leaders can be very sophisticated when they choose - why should we be concerned if they elect to ignore IPR-related issues?
    On a more pedantic note, I would not go so far as to describe the collection of (random?) words in the declaration as deserving the description "research".


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.