Time filter

Source Type

Ramamoorthi R.,BIO Ventures for Global Health | Graef K.M.,BIO Ventures for Global Health | Krattiger A.,World Intellectual Property Organization | Dent J.C.,BIO Ventures for Global Health
Chemical Reviews | Year: 2014

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), BIO Ventures for Global Health (BVGH), and eight leading pharmaceutical companies, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi joined forces to establish the WIPO Re:Search consortium. WIPO Re:Search seeks to accelerate the development of new drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics for NTDs, malaria, and tuberculosis by connecting the resources of private industry to academic and nonprofit researchers with novel product discovery or development ideas for these diseases. Through WIPO Re:Search, researchers are exploring how natural products may lead to the development of novel tuberculosis treatments. Researchers at the National Institute of Immunology (NII) in New Delhi, India, are utilizing the GSK PKIS1 to examine the essential molecular mechanisms of M. tuberculosis cell wall synthesis. By providing nonprofit and academic researchers working on neglected diseases with the opportunity to access compounds and expertise from pharmaceutical companies, WIPO Re:Search is opening new doors and creating additional avenues for product development for diseases of poverty.

Miguelez E.,World Intellectual Property Organization | Miguelez E.,University of Barcelona | Moreno R.,University of Barcelona
Journal of Regional Science | Year: 2014

The aim of this paper is to identify the determinants of the geographical mobility of skilled individuals, such as inventors, across European regions. Among a large number of variables, we focus on the role of social proximity between inventors' communities. We use a control function approach to address the endogenous nature of networks, and zero-inflated negative binomial models to accommodate our estimations to the count nature of the dependent variable and the high number of zeros it contains. Our results highlight the importance of physical proximity, job opportunities, social networks, as well as other relational variables in mediating this phenomenon. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Simeth M.,Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne | Raffo J.D.,World Intellectual Property Organization | Raffo J.D.,University of Paris 13
Research Policy | Year: 2013

Whereas recent scholarly research has provided many insights about universities engaging in commercial activities, there is still little empirical evidence regarding the opposite phenomenon of companies disseminating scientific knowledge. Our paper aims to fill this gap and explores the motivations of firms that disclose research outcomes in a scientific format. Besides considering a dimension internal to the firm, we focus particularly on knowledge sourcing from academic institutions and the appropriability regime. We conduct an econometric analysis with firm-level data from the fourth edition of the French innovation survey (CIS) and matched scientific publications for a sample of 2512 R&D performing firms from all manufacturing sectors. This analysis provides evidence that firms are more likely to adopt academic principles if they need to access scientific knowledge that is considered important for their innovation development, whereas the mere existence of collaborative links with academic institutions is not a strong determinant. Furthermore, the results suggest that the inclination of firms to publish is sensitive to the level of knowledge spillovers in a sector and the effectiveness of legal appropriation instruments. © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

News Article | July 7, 2015
Site: www.eff.org

Last week negotiators from around the world came together as the World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) standing committee on copyright (SCCR) resumed consideration of its two current work items: the on-again, off-again broadcasters' rights treaty, and the harmonization of minimum copyright limitations and exceptions for libraries, archives, and education. EFF has opposed the former for close to a decade because it would give broadcasters new exclusive rights over any material that they broadcast, regardless of whether they own the copyright in that content, nor whether it is copyrightable at all. We support the latter, because it would clarify the rights of librarians, archivists and educators to carry out their important missions in the digital age, and as such is a natural and overdue counterpart to the WIPO Internet Treaties which similarly updated the rights of copyright owners almost two decades ago. On both counts, the week ended in a by-now familiar impasse, with no formal agreement being reached on either subject. But in the case of the broadcasting treaty, there was a sense of progress. Most member states now agree that new rights should be extended to traditional broadcasters to prohibit the unauthorized use of broadcast signals in the course of a transmission over any technological platform—including the Internet. We are concerned at the forward momentum of this ill-considered proposal in the SCCR, which would grant new privileges to an industry that is doing perfectly well without them. This would come at the cost of users and innovators who would be cut off from exploring a range of transformative activities using broadcast media including public domain material. The looming prospect of new broadcasters' rights is worrisome enough, but just as concerning is the unsympathetic reaction that libraries, archives and educators received over their pleas for an instrument that would secure their ability to function in the online environment—to give just one example, allowing libraries to lend digital copies of documents to institutions in other countries. Much of the blame for this can be laid on the European Union. Their representatives have been absolutely uncompromising against any recognition of the challenges that libraries, archives, and educators face in a world where their traditional activities now typically involve acts of digital copying, yet where the limitations and exceptions to authorize this are patchy and inconsistent. The meeting's chair had prepared a set of weak compromise recommendations that eventually most of the developed (“Group B”) states, as well as the Central European and Baltic States (“CEBS”) grudgingly accepted, which would have directed the Committee “to continue and expedite its work on the topic of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives” and “for educational, teaching and research institutions and persons with other disabilities.” For the regional groups from Latin America, Africa, and Asia, the compromise was too weak, and they pushed for stronger language that called for work towards an “international legal instrument in whatever form,” which in itself is short of a call for a treaty. In the end a further compromise between these positions and the chair's draft, “to focus work towards an effective solution to the issues that affect libraries and archives,” was inexplicably rejected by the European Union, and the meeting concluded with no recommendation whatsoever. This leaves the future of the committee's work on limitations and exceptions in the hands of the next WIPO General Assembly, which is a larger meeting of WIPO states that covers all topics, not just copyright. Having said that, there is no assurance that anything will be agreed there either, since the last General Assembly ended in a stalemate too. With little progress being made on the issues currently before the committee, delegates have been searching for new work items that might produce quicker results. During this meeting, one such new item was proposed—a resale royalty right for visual artists, which would entitle them to a cut of the proceeds of the resale of their works. But since such a right contravenes the U.S. first sale doctrine, this hardly seems a likely candidate for swift passage through the SCCR either. The new proposal is symptomatic of a false assumption of European policymakers, also evident in the broadcasting treaty proposal, as well as the link tax or “ancillary copyright” proposals. The assumption being that the solution to the economic distress of creators or creative industries is to encumber their work with additional copyright-like rights. They could not be more wrong. To the extent that markets are unable to support creators to the extent that society deems optimal, there are many other mechanisms, both public and private, available to support them, a few of which include grants, endowments, prize funds, and crowdfunding. Europe should be looking more closely at those, rather than doubling-down on exclusive rights that impede access to knowledge and culture. But until Europe is prepared to engage in a constructive and balanced manner, it is difficult to see what kind of future the Standing Committee on Copyright has. The days when it was seen as WIPO's role to promote rightsholders' interests only are long gone; the Marrakesh Treaty for the blind and visually impaired is proof of that. The developing country regional blocs won't stand by and allow Europe a free pass on its pro-rights-holder measures without any quid pro quo for users. Neither will EFF.

News Article | June 18, 2015
Site: www.ip-watch.org

The World Intellectual Property Organization has initiated a programme of reaching out to stakeholders in developed countries with “roving seminars” on WIPO services and initiatives. The programme targets potential WIPO customers, promotes local IP services and offices, and promotes intellectual property protection. Intellectual Property Watch spoke with Victor Vazquez Lopez, Head of Section for Coordination of Developed Countries at WIPO, about WIPO’s series of Roving Seminars on WIPO Services and Initiatives for developed countries. The programme began in summer of 2013 and most of the seminars are free of charge. The Idea behind the Roving Seminars Vazquez said the idea for the roving seminars came from WIPO Director General Francis Gurry. The idea behind the roving seminar is to have a one-day (or half-day) event in locations where potential users of WIPO services are found and present the whole layer of WIPO services and initiatives to them with a team of four WIPO colleagues. This face- to- face approach helps stakeholders to better understand and link to WIPO services and initiatives. While WIPO provides “very important services to the industry,” collaboration with member states frequently takes place in the form of technical cooperation with developing countries. Now, the “roving seminars” are directly addressing local stakeholders, opening up a new line of communication in developed countries that provide an important source of revenue for WIPO even as developing nations like China increasingly use WIPO services, he said. While WIPO is “reaching out to customers, the seminars are also a promotion for the local IP services, for the local IP office, and it is a promotion of intellectual property protection in general.” These “three levels have been well appreciated in the different locations.” When WIPO travels to a country it does so in collaboration with the local IP office and often in cooperation with local stakeholders. Stakeholders, as explained by Vazquez, include industry associations, licensing executives, trade associations, and other organisations relevant at the local level. After each presentation, there is a roundtable including the perspective of local stakeholders, for instance on the use of the Madrid System or the PCT. It is a “very interactive programme, very inclusive, and done in cooperation with local stakeholders,” he said. In order to develop the programme for each roving seminar, there is discussion among the local IP office, local stakeholders and WIPO. This is mediated through the local IP office, Vazquez said. The three main groups of speakers at the events include: (i) WIPO officials usually at director level, presenting on the different WIPO services and initiatives; (ii) participation from the local IP office explaining the connection between the local services and WIPO services; and (iii) interventions from local stakeholders that “present a perspective of the use of WIPO services from the country of concern.” WIPO presents on issues such as: normative development; a short introduction to WIPO; major economic studies; IP systems such as the Patent Cooperation Treaty (the international patent system); the Madrid System (the international trademark system); and the Hague System (the international design system); and the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. WIPO also discusses IP infrastructure, which Vazquez said is “increasingly relevant” as it is “important not only to establish the rights by means of registration services” but also to be able to exercise those rights in an efficient manner.” In this context, IP infrastructure enables “locating who owns what by means of databases,” he said, plus being “able to exchange information by means of platforms for exchange,” such as Digital Access Services (DAS), WIPO Green, WIPO Re:Search, and to “treat information by means of standards, technical norms, classification systems and other tools.” These main elements are to be presented to an audience composed of all types of potential users. WIPO seeks a “broad audience” including academia, companies, agents and lawyers. This is in order to “create synergies amongst different types of potential users,” he said. The events are promoted in collaboration with the local office, as they are considered to know best how to address the stakeholders in their own jurisdiction. It is also promoted by local stakeholders, as they are involved from the very beginning in the definition of the event. WIPO supports these efforts by means of social media and newsletters. According to Vazquez, the seminars have been “very well received.” Since its inception in April 2013 and until the end of May 2015, the Section for Coordination of Developed Countries has held 39 roving seminars in 21 countries. More than 3,000 stakeholders have attended these seminars, he said, and “over 90 percent of all survey respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the seminar was relevant for their professional work. More than 85 percent either agreed or strongly agreed that the seminars made it more likely that they will use/recommend the use of IP services offered by WIPO in the future.” Vazquez stated that the level of participation in the seminars varies depending on location. For instance, events in Japan and Australia have had over 200 participants, while other events may have 60 or 70 participants. The average number of participants is around 100. Location is a factor in these numbers. “The idea is to reach out to stakeholders that are not exposed to the message of WIPO,” he said, so very often WIPO will go to places that may not be frequently visited. This year so far, events have been held in Brussels, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Wellington, Auckland, Haifa, Beersheba, Turin, Helsinki and Toulouse. Upcoming events include Stuttgart, New York, Spain (Barcelona and two other locations), and Switzerland. Eimear Murphy is a researcher at IP-Watch. She is an LL.M. graduate from American University Washington College of Law in Washington, DC with a specialty in Intellectual Property and Information Policy issues.

Discover hidden collaborations