US Ambassador To The UN: Protecting Patents & Copyrights More Important Than Development
from the say-what-now? dept
The US's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Betty E. King, recently gave a press conference in Geneva to talk about a variety of issues. What caught our attention, not surprisingly, was the discussion on intellectual property issues, which seemed to raise a lot more questions than it answered. Towards the end of her talk, she basically complained about WIPO, and how various developing countries are hijacking WIPO to focus on "development," at the expense of things like patents and copyright. She says that she, and the US government, are pro development, but not if it comes at the expense of patents and copyrights.Of course, that makes no sense. The whole point of patents and copyright is supposed to be to create incentives for development. So development should always be at the core of the discussion. It's not, as King implies, that the two should be in conflict. Instead, if the two are in conflict, it suggests that there's something wrong with the way our intellectual property laws are working. What's really scary is she seems to think that more and longer patents automatically means better results:
Now long before I got here the United States has been stationing its experts around the world to help more countries be better able to apply for patents. We have our patent officers in our Embassy in Egypt as well as in other places around the world, and that has worked because we have seen an increase in the number of patent applications from a broader range of countries. That is good. However, the group in Geneva seems hell-bent on shortening these patents and creating more exceptions.The problem is that she doesn't seem to realize that those exceptions actually have been shown, time and time again, to improve overall development. Which is what she should be in favor of supporting. But, it quickly becomes clear that King is simply unfamiliar with the history of copyright or pretty much any of the details of how intellectual property works, when she makes the laughable claim that exceptions to copyright will mean we'll have no more books:
My point is if you create too many exceptions to a rule, you may as well not have the rule.
While we certainly want access to books for a lot of people around the world, I think denying the authors of these books their rights, or abrogating the rights of these authors, would mean that eventually we will never have a book.Someone should send King a study on the history of copyright in the US, including the fact that, during its developmental stage, the US refused to respect the copyrights of any foreign book... and how, despite that, Charles Dickens made a ton of money in the US by using the cheap copies of his books that were abundant to fund lavish tours of the US which were quite profitable for him. There are ways other than copyright to make money. And there are many reasons, other than copyright, to write books. It's kind of scary when an official so high up in US government policy circles doesn't seem to know that.
Later, in the questions, a reporter goes back to King's statements about WIPO, and references how ACTA was done outside of WIPO. We've actually discussed this before, pointing out that the reason the US and a few other countries went outside of WIPO was because those countries were upset that WIPO was actually listening to countries like India and Brazil, and paying attention to the actual evidence that showed you could actually create more culture and more opportunities by pushing back on copyright expansionism. The reporter asks whether or not ACTA means that WIPO is becoming irrelevant, and she responds that basically if the "Development Agenda Group" keeps pushing that darned "development" angle over intellectual property rights, then it will "kill" WIPO:
I think the people at WIPO are aware that without successful conclusions to these longstanding negotiations the people who apply for patent protection may find ways around WIPO. That is obviously the sort of existential threat to WIPO. I think the Director General understands that very clearly. But we're also in an era where you have emerging economies that want to have their voices heard. It is important to note that the Development Agenda Group is led by Egypt, Brazil, India and Indonesia -- countries that themselves have patents to protect but also have thriving businesses in generic drugs.In other words, if these countries who are concerned about economic development don't get in line and accept draconian US patent and copyright laws that will significantly curtail development in those countries, then the US will move to shut down the venue in which they negotiate such things, and focus instead on agreements like ACTA that shut them out. How nice.
...
But if we get to a system where the protections of patents are abrogated in the name of development then we certainly will kill that organization.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: betty e. king, copyright, development, patents, un, us, wipo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have always said it seems like the intent of the US is to cripple every other society by pushing things to their detriment/our advantage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Right now its "Business as usual" in washington. Businesses are trying to set themselves up in the most uncompetative way they can. Businesses are lobbying in the US for laws that make it an virtual impossibility to enter the market and compete. They are pushing for these same laws in other countries.
The huge problem with that sort of monopolistic protectionism is tiny disruptive technologies often cause them to fail in big ways. Case in point. The TechDirt article from this morning on shooting a full length film on cell phones, and mix that with YouTubes opening up longer video uploads. It makes MySpace Music look like a kids toy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
All of these corporations and organizations are so used to the "magic bullet" response, where they just take down the offender and everything is fixed, that they have no clue what to do when the offenders happen to be the populace at large.
Right now they're simply trying to suppress and restrict everyone, and scratching their heads when it fails to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm sorry to say that I believe you are correct in that assessment. What's worse, the measures taken to achieve that goal are extinguishing every last spark of innovation within the US itself, and reveal what those in power really think: that the US cannot keep up innovating at the same pace as the competition.
It's a downward spiral, actually. IP is bringing in revenue (but killing innovation), so IP is being pushed around (as a result of lack of innovation).
If you take this to its logical extreme, by outsourcing most manufacturing to places like India and China, the US may be becoming a nation of shareholders, pencil-pushers and toilet-cleaners! The complete reliance on copyrights and patents combined with an atrophic manufacturing sector makes for a disastrously precarious situation to be in -- should IP law somehow lose its legitimacy, the current system could collapse in on itself (i.e., it's another economic bubble waiting to burst!).
How to save the economy? Gradually bring back in manufacturing, while reducing reliance on patents and copyrights. There is no other way I don't think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
Seems like one's propensity to litigate (or intimidate) is directly proportional to one's (financial) capacity to do so. When Jobs and Wozniak were struggling and broke, I bet they never even dreamed of suing a competitor (not that there were many competitors back then). Even when they started to enjoy success, their MO was to create and innovate, rather then stop and look around at who might be copying them. Now? Not so much. Sure they still (arguably) create and innovate, but they clearly have a whole team of lawyer-types on the lookout for anyone who might be "stealing" one of their ideas. Case in point: Apple recently challenged the new Woolworths logo.
Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
� Friedrich Nietzsche
You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
- Harvey Dent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i agree ANYONE WHO THREATENS THE CURRENT RICH, HUGE AMOUNT OF WEALTH BY BEING A CAPITALIST WILL BE KILLED ON SIGHT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truth in the presss
Replace emerging with merging and you have the truth. Be free and wake up. Good day all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have things really improved?
I always thought Dubya was a complete tool, and he set US relations with the rest of the world back a decade. However, he didn't accomplish this on his own - he simply isn't competent enough to have done it on his own. He was backed (or led?) by a whole administration which helped make the US very unpopular with the rest of us Earth-dwellers.
Then along came the Messiah (Barack Obama, not the other one), and everyone thought, finally, the US has regained some sanity and we can be friends again. There was even a cool website saying just that.
Alas, I think we may have celebrated too soon. I believe it was Emerson who said "Who you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying." In more recent years I have often heard Christians say things like "your actions speak so loudly, I can't hear what you're saying". For all the flowery speeches Obama gave leading up to the election, and especially in his victory speech, it seems to me that not much has changed, and in fact, things are arguably worse. Mind you, I don't think we can hold Obama solely responsible. I always thought, even before he was elected, that he was being set up to fail. The level of expectation was so huge, that it was virtually impossible for him to satisfy everyone (which perhaps is an indication of his naivete). As it is, even I am surprised at how little things have improved. I guess that shows just how intractable the Washington machine is - not even the Messiah can bend it to his will.
What's the connection to the original post? If the US is going to recover its economic status and stability, I suspect one of the things it needs to do is become more competitive and re-discover some of the amazing innovation which was one of the defining characteristics of America in the early 20th century. And that won't happen if the US government and corporations collude to eliminate competition by "litigating them into oblivion". It's almost like they want to try out the tactic of "shock and awe" in the business arena. And let's face it, it's been soooo successful in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's bound to be equally successful in business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/microsoft-quietly-shuts-down-office-genuine-advantage-progr am/2798
Just because it was useless and costing more to Microsoft then doing nothing against piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents and Copyrights...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US - WIPO - ACTA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
confused yourself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: confused yourself
Patents are supposed to protect development... not protect holders from development.
Again (and this is key) the whole purpose of a patent is development. If the actual purpose of the patent is used as the guide for what should be issued, it won't be a question of too many or too few being issued... the right ones will be issued.
The only thing it seems she's figured out is that organizations that pay off our government want the patent system to protect their money and not the inventions or innovations it's supposed to. And now they want the whole world to do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Ambassador: Over-Focus On Development �Will Kill� WIPO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]