In an article by Catherine Saez on Intellectual Property Watch WTO/WIPO Colloquium Aimed At IP Teachers, teachers of intellectual property from developing countries have been invited to attend a two-week colloquium jointly organised by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) from 30 June to 10 July.

I wonder if the WTO/WIPO Colloquium will also attempt to dispel the myths of Intellectual Property Rights, or will these myths continue to be taught as doctrinal truths to university professors of law, management and economy from developing countries?

The fifth edition of this event offers 20 places for applicants from developing countries and countries with economies in transition, the costs related to their participation being covered by the organisers.

The expanded and currently expanding interpretation and implementation of Intellectual Property is a modern concept which is not accepted or recognized worldwide. The concept is globally promoted and pushed by one country - the US - through its power and influence in institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)and the WTO's Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs).

Developing countries and countries with economies in transition are of special interest to WTO/WIPO because these countries are richest in terms of biological diversity, mineral, other natural resources, and cultural resources. Within the framework of the WTO/WIPO, industrialized countries can push for access to markets and direct Intellectual Property Rights enforcement in developing countries under the various myths of the economic benefits of such systems for the developing world.

The main objective of the colloquium, according to the organisers, is to give lawyers, economists or other university teachers working in the field of IP the opportunity to update their knowledge of the activities and instruments of WIPO and the WTO and to provide a forum for an exchange of information, in particular on teaching methodologies. The main focus will be on recent developments and on policy issues under debate in the two organisations.

It appears that those working outside the Intellectual Property framework, who are most likely to question the conceptual framework and global relevance of Intellectual Property itself, are not included in this colloquium. So the true objectives of such an event is to give the converted the tools by which to convert others, and the methodologies of countering the arguments being made by those who oppose the Intellectual Property regime in their own countries.

Also, by making the colloquium focus on recent developments and policy issues under debate in WIPO and WTO, the context for the sessions is clearly only within the domain of the Intellectual Property regime, a regime that is NOT recognized worldwide and yet is being imposed worldwide by bodies such as the WTO and WIPO.

Participants are required to work as university teachers, be in possession of an advanced degree and teaching IP law or in international law/economics/management with a specialisation in IP and, have an excellent knowledge of English.

Developing countries and countries with economies in transition often have very traditional values and the notion of hierarchy is very important. If one is able to capture the minds of their teachers and intellectuals, then those under them will be under one's control too. The colloquium requirements satisfy the imperialist-embedded need for security of prestige and at the same time filter in those who would be most predisposed to the (internationalist) mind-set of the Intellectual Property regime.

“WIPO and WTO officials present different aspects and other speakers such as TRIPS negotiators and representatives of various organizations give their perspective. The participants are exposed to different view points and it gives richness to the process” he said. A 2007 participant, Dr Ida Madieha from Malaysia, said she found that the choice of participants was a contributing factor to the success of the workshop because “most of the participants have had long experience of teaching and researching on IP law in their countries.”

How can there be much genuine difference in viewpoints when the speakers are WIPO and WTO officials, TRIPS negotiators and representatives?

Assessments from previous participants allowed the organisers to tailor the event. As a result, interactivity has been emphasised, including mock exercises, such as WTO dispute settlement exercises in the upcoming session.

Through practical exercises, the WTO domain will be embedded more into the minds and hearts of the intellectuals of the developing world. The WTO dispute settlement exercises will introduce colloquium participants to the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) and its institutional structure.

Thus, people are acquainted with an instrument of settling disputes arising from the violation of trade rules, the breaking of WTO agreements or the failure to live up to agreed obligations; that is, the DSB is a powerful mechanism that reinforces the implementation of WTO agreements. The more cases are brought to the DSB, the more the WTO increases the strength of its belief system.

The decision procedure used within the DSB also makes it certain that a recommendation in a dispute will be accepted. Through 'reverse consensus' or 'consensus against', the process requires that the recommendations of the Dispute Panel (as amended by the Appellate Body of the WTO) should be adopted "unless" there is a consensus of the members against adoption. This has never happened, and cannot logically happen because the nation 'winning' under the Panel's ruling is a member of this reverse consensus.

The WTO is a body created largely under pressure of the US trade Representative (USTR) that developing countries accept the inclusion of Intellectual Property Rights into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) system through TRIPS because the US feels short-changed by mostly poor countries with weak Intellectual Property regimes. Through the WTO, the USTR continues to pressure other countries into expanding and strictly enforcing their Intellectual Property agenda (see for example the USTR's 2008 Trade Agenda and its 2008 National Trade Estimate Report (NTE) outlining plans to pursue ever-stronger IP protection with its trading partners, large and small), and at the same time making it difficult for WTO member countries to propose exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights that will be formally recognized without the bullying of the USTR (see for example the Chilean proposal on exceptions and limitations, which is cosponsored by Brazil, Nicaragua and Uruguay, which ran into resistance from key developed countries, especially the European Union while the US requires “evidence-based” analysis to show the need for more work on exceptions and limitations).

Thus, it becomes more clear how dangerous the DSB is when Intellectual Property disputes are brought before it because it reinforces the metaphor of physical property to non-rivalrous goods, confuses "rights" with "market control", propagates the myths of technology transfer, investment and innovation within a strong IPR system, and distills all of these into the global social consciousness.

With the proposal (and resistance) for exceptions and limitations, and the continuing disputes between the US and China on the latter's Intellectual Property violations, it it clear that Intellectual Property as globally accepted and acceptable is a myth, a lie, that must be constantly challenged.

“Despite having been teaching intellectual property for more than 10 years and researching on various aspects of it, I found that I have learned a lot” Madieha said.

Surely, the goal of the colloquium is "learning", the one-way transmission of information, and not the more conscientious process of education, where information is criticized, analyzed and contextualized.

What can be done?

The Dispute Panel and Appellate Body of the WTO could be interesting areas of study for the analysis of consensus-building and decision-making within the WTO. Possibilities of engagement within these structures could be further exploited.

The proposal on exceptions and limitations is an important step forward, and could perhaps be supplemented by the contextualization of Intellectual Property Rights within the realm of Human Rights and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The USTR was apparently disturbed by the attribution of creativity (fundamental to human existence) to exceptions and limitations, because the US policy is to assert that a strict Intellectual property regime is crucial to creativity and innovation.

Thus, the proposal on exceptions and limitations is also an important step forward in exposing the contradictions within the Intellectual Property regime. This could likewise enable a way towards dispelling Intellectual Property by placing it within the context of Indigenous Knowledge, where Intellectual Property protection of Indigenous Knowledge cannot take place because Intellectual Property is fundamentally monopolistic and time-based whereas Indigenous Knowledge is inalienable and collectively held in trust.

The international legal context, which is alien and harmful to indigenous peoples and to the knowledge and socio-economic systems of many developing countries, should therefore be subjected to scrutiny rather than propagated through the indoctrination of intellectuals in the developing world. Will it be possible to do this within the WTO/WIPO colloquium?

Resources:

WTO Dispute Settlement Body http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO_Dispute_Settlement_Body
WTO Dispute Settlement http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm
UNDERSTANDING THE WTO: SETTLING DISPUTES. A unique contribution http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/disp1_e.htm
WTO/WIPO Colloquium Aimed At IP Teachers http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=993
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_Aspects_of_Intel...
Doha Declaration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Declaration
USTR Plans Another Year Of Elevating IP Protection With Trading Partners http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=994
Industry Losing Faith In WIPO; Debates US WTO Cases Against China http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=979
New Proposal At WIPO For Exceptions and Limitations Agreement; US Unconvinced http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=954
Indigenous Groups Express Concerns On IP Protection Of Their Knowledge http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=945

See also: Intellectual Property Rights and Biodiversity: The Economic Myths. Global Trade and Biodiversity in Conflict Issue no. 3, October 1998. GAIA/GRAIN.

“Tragedy of the Commons”: Intellectual Property Rights in the Information Age. The Threat to Civil Liberties and Innovation Posed by Expanding Copyrights.

And Some myths about intellectual property