2020-01-15
77
United Kingdom contribution to the Annex of the Report of the Assemblies
The United Kingdom welcomed the proposed MTSP document which was presented at the September 2010 PBC session, and was ready to adopt this proposed version as it stood. There were further elements that we would have welcomed, and these are listed below.
Patents
In regard to the current language (p19, para vii), "The PCT system should contribute to sufficient disclosure of knowledge that would enable the transfer and dissemination of technology to all Member States", we prefer the wording from p20 (“The PCT system should contribute to sufficient disclosure of knowledge that would enable the transfer and dissemination of technology to all Member States in a user-friendly manner and in accordance with national conditions.”) given that sufficiency is a substantive patent law issue which is determined by national law - the PCT is not intended to harmonize points of substantive patent law.
Copyright
In reference to others’ comments on the references to internet and copyright, we feel that the effect of the internet is so profound that it must be discussed in WIPO, otherwise we will ignore a major driver and forming system on copyright. Whilst 'the internet' as an holistic concept may be more correctly discussed elsewhere it should still be referenced in WIPO.
Economic work
We would prefer to include further text in Strategic Goal V under Strategies, perhaps as a separate point: “ix. The development of an agreed approach to define the knowledge economy, through intangible investment in line with national offices and intergovernmental organizations concerned with IP ”): given that a lot of the MPST is based around the notion of a knowledge economy, it seems odd not to define it, so we need a macro framework to measure the 'knowledge economy'. We think it makes sense for WIPO (and its economists and analysts) to work within the intangible assets framework. This would allow us to count the investment countries make into IP and be able to link this to the IPRs that are used. Having that type of macro picture - or indeed any complementary macro picture - would tie the knowledge economy debate to national accounts and the global growth agenda. Without it, we cannot provide an overall picture of how IP and IPRs input into the economy.
The general request for linking the economists’ network and building of the evidence base with the communications interface has not been reflected (Strategic Goal VIII): we suggest amending Strategic Goal VIII, to extend the sentence at the end of para (ii) Honest Broker to read “ and facilitating the meeting of IP economists ”.
Development
In Strategic Goal III we would amend the indicators to read:
· ‘Increased number of developing countries, LDCs and transition economies with balanced policy/legislative frameworks and nationally appropriate IP and innovation strategies.’
and
· ‘Increased number of developing countries, LDCs and transition economies with strong and responsive IP and IP-related institutions with the capacity to manage and use IP effectively for development.’
Mission statement
We would prefer to keep the current word ‘effective’ instead of a proposed change to ‘accessible’ in the mission statement. This already implies any new method must remain effective, and does not call into question the effectiveness of the current system.
