[Lac] Declaracion para la WIPO

[Diego Saravia]

Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property 
Organization 

Humanity faces a global crisis in the governance of knowledge, technology and
culture. The crisis is manifest in many ways. 

* Without access to essential medicines, millions suffer and die; "

* Morally repugnant inequality of access to education, knowledge and
technology undermines development and social cohesion; 

* Anticompetitive practices in the knowledge economy impose enormous costs on
consumers and retard innovation; 

* Authors, artists and inventors face mounting barriers to follow-on innovation; 

* Concentrated ownership and control of knowledge, technology, biological
resources and culture harm development, diversity and democratic institutions; 

* Technological measures designed to enforce intellectual property rights in
digital environments threaten core exceptions in copyright laws for disabled
persons, libraries, educators, authors and consumers, and undermine privacy
and freedom; 

* Key mechanisms to compensate and support creative individuals and
communities are unfair to both creative persons and consumers; 

* Private interests misappropriate social and public goods, and lock up the
public domain. 

At the same time, there are astoundingly promising innovations in information,
medical and other essential technologies, as well as in social movements and
business models. We are witnessing highly successful campaigns for access to
drugs for AIDS, scientific journals, genomic information and other databases,
and hundreds of innovative collaborative efforts to create public goods,
including the Internet, the World Wide Web, Wikipedia, the Creative Commons,
GNU Linux and other free and open software projects, as well as distance
education tools and medical research tools. Technologies such as Google now
provide tens of millions with powerful tools to find information. Alternative
compensation systems have been proposed to expand access and interest in
cultural works, while providing both artists and consumers with efficient and
fair systems for compensation. There is renewed interest in compensatory
liability rules, innovation prizes, or competitive intermediators, as models
for economic incentives for science and technology that can facilitate
sequential follow-on innovation and avoid monopolist abuses. In 2001, the
World Trade Organization (WTO) declared that member countries should  promote
access to medicines for all.  

Humanity stands at a crossroads   a fork in our moral code and a test of our
ability to adapt and grow. Will we evaluate, learn and profit from the best of
these new ideas and opportunities, or will we respond to the most
unimaginative pleas to suppress all of this in favor of intellectually weak,
ideologically rigid, and sometimes brutally unfair and inefficient policies?
Much will depend upon the future direction of the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO), a global body setting standards that regulate the
production, distribution and use of knowledge. 

A 1967 Convention sought to encourage creative activity by establishing WIPO
to promote the protection of intellectual property. The mission was expanded
in 1974, when WIPO became part of the United Nations, under an agreement that
asked WIPO to take  appropriate action to promote creative intellectual
activity,  and facilitate the transfer of technology to developing countries,
 in order to accelerate economic, social and cultural development.  

As an intergovernmental organization, however, WIPO embraced a culture of
creating and expanding monopoly privileges, often without regard to
consequences. The continuous expansion of these privileges and their
enforcement mechanisms has led to grave social and economic costs, and has
hampered and threatened other important systems of creativity and innovation.
WIPO needs to enable its members to understand the real economic and social
consequences of excessive intellectual property protections, and the
importance of striking a balance between the public domain and competition on
the one hand, and the realm of property rights on the other. The mantras that
"more is better" or "that less is never good" are disingenuous and dangerous
-- and have greatly compromised the standing of WIPO, especially among experts
in intellectual property policy. WIPO must change. 

We do not ask that WIPO abandon efforts to promote the appropriate protection
of intellectual property, or abandon all efforts to harmonize or improve these
laws. But we insist that WIPO to work from the broader framework described in
the 1974 agreement with the UN, and to take a more balanced and realistic view
of the social benefits and costs of intellectual property rights as a tool,
but not the only tool, for supporting creativity intellectual activity. 

WIPO must also express a more balanced view of the relative benefits of
harmonization and diversity, and seek to impose global conformity only when it
truly benefits all of humanity. A  one size fits all  approach that embraces
the highest levels of intellectual property protection for everyone leads to
unjust and burdensome outcomes for countries that are struggling to meet the
most basic needs of their citizens. 

The WIPO General Assembly has now been asked to establish a development
agenda. The initial proposal, first put forth by the governments of Argentina
and Brazil, would profoundly refashion the WIPO agenda toward development and
new approaches to support innovation and creativity. This is a long overdue
and much needed first step toward a new WIPO mission and work program. It is
not perfect. The WIPO Convention should formally recognize the need to take
into account the  development needs of its Member States, particularly
developing countries and least-developed countries,  as has been proposed, but
this does not go far enough. Some have argued that the WIPO should only 
promote the protection of intellectual property,  and not consider, any
policies that roll back intellectual property claims or protect and enhance
the public domain. This limiting view stifles critical thinking. Better
expressions of the mission can be found, including the requirement in the 1974
UN/WIPO agreement that WIPO  promote creative intellectual activity and
facilitate the transfer of technology related to industrial property.  The
functions of WIPO should not only be to promote  efficient protection  and 
harmonization  of intellectual property laws, but to formally embrace the
notions of balance, appropriateness and the stimulation of both competitive
and collaborative models of creative activity within national, regional and
transnational systems of innovation. 

The proposal for a development agenda has created the first real opportunity
to debate the future of WIPO. It is not only an agenda for developing
countries. It is an agenda for everyone, North and South. It must move
forward. All nations and people must join and expand the debate on the future
of WIPO. 

There must be a moratorium on new treaties and harmonization of standards that
expand and strengthen monopolies and further restrict access to knowledge. For
generations WIPO has responded primarily to the narrow concerns of powerful
publishers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, plant breeders and other commercial
interests. Recently, WIPO has become more open to civil society and public
interest groups, and this openness is welcome. But WIPO must now address the
substantive concerns of these groups, such as the protection of consumer
rights and human rights. Long-neglected concerns of the poor, the sick, the
visually impaired and others must be given priority. 

The proposed development agenda points in the right direction. By stopping
efforts to adopt new treaties on substantive patent law, broadcasters rights
and databases, WIPO will create space to address far more urgent needs. 

The proposals for the creation of standing committees and working groups on
technology transfer and development are welcome. WIPO should also consider the
creation of one or more bodies to systematically address the control of
anticompetitive practices and the protection of consumer rights. 

We support the call for a Treaty on Access to Knowledge and Technology. The
Standing Committee on Patents and the Standing Committee on Copyright and
Related Rights should solicit views from member countries and the public on
elements of such a treaty. 

The WIPO technical assistance programs must be fundamentally reformed.
Developing countries must have the tools to implement the WTO Doha Declaration
on TRIPS and Public Health, and  use, to the full  the flexibilities in the
TRIPS to  promote access to medicines for all.  WIPO must help developing
countries address the limitations and exceptions in patent and copyright laws
that are essential for fairness, development and innovation. If the WIPO
Secretariat cannot understand the concerns and represent the interests of the
poor, the entire technical assistance program should be moved to an
independent body that is accountable to developing countries. 

Enormous differences in bargaining power lead to unfair outcomes between
creative individuals and communities (both modern and traditional) and the
commercial entities that sell culture and knowledge goods. WIPO must honor and
support creative individuals and communities by investigating the nature of
relevant unfair business practices, and promote best practice models and
reforms that protect creative individuals and communities in these situations,
consistent with norms of the relevant communities. 

Delegations representing the WIPO member states and the WIPO Secretariat have
been asked to choose a future. We want a change of direction, new priorities,
and better outcomes for humanity. We cannot wait for another generation. It is
time to seize the moment and move forward.
-- 
Diego Saravia 
dsa at unsa.edu.ar