US Ambassador To The UN Says WIPO Too Biased Against IP Holders
from the er,-what? dept
Back in 2010, Techdirt reported on a fairly remarkable comment from the US ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Betty E. King, who said at a press conference:
if we get to a system where the protections of patents are abrogated in the name of development then we certainly will kill [WIPO].
If that's not clear, she's saying that intellectual property is more important than economic development (especially in emerging countries).
Howard Knopf points out a post from Intellectual Property Watch where she was asked what her thoughts on the subject were now:
King said she is not concerned about the Development Agenda [at WIPO], but that there is still a need for greater balance for those who have IP rights.
In other words, she's not as worried, but she apparently feels that WIPO is somehow biased against patent and copyright holders. I suppose keeping out those evil Pirates out of WIPO was a step in the right direction, then....
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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 king, developing nations, economics, ip, wipo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I won't delve into patents too much: the short answer is we need a full-blown socialist perspective applied to patents, as scientific research is something everybody ought to be participants in.
But copyright is always going to lead to irony and hypocrisy as long as it forces creators to back away if what they wish to bring are derivative works. As well as insisting on being the exception to the rule that it is impossible to forbid the expression of opinions without falling into corruption, deliberate or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Actually, she's saying we (US) are NOT going to legalize stealing.
Pirates just don't get a seat at the table with producers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Actually, she's saying we (US) are NOT going to legalize stealing.
All but stating that you have no plans to concede anything, on the other hand…not so much with the reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sometimes...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not surprising
If they are willing to destroy something that important just to protect their profits, the economy of developing countries is of course going to be considered insignificant in comparison.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No, let me rephrase that, because I do pay a lot of attention to what they are saying. I've just stopped believing anything they say is:
1) Honest
2) Rational
3) Benefits society
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Actually, she's saying we (US) are NOT going to legalize stealing.
The irony being that even the actual content producers don't get a seat at the table. It's just politicians, lawyers, lobbyists, and business men.
When you argue for artists to actually have a seat at the table rather than the representatives of the corporations who do actually steal from artists, you might have some "Techdirt fanboys" agree with you for once.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 30th, 2013 @ 5:41pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Actually, she's saying we (US) are NOT going to legalize stealing.
Most of the time, it's manufacturing. When I copy some music file, I do it with my devices, my storage, my CPU time. I manufacture the copies. To say anything else is just ypocrisy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This caught my eye immediately.
Mr. Steele also testified that he believed the use of Mr. Cooper's signature on this document was authorized, because Steele introduced Cooper to the owner/controlling member of AF Holdings.
Now I do admittedly have Asperger Syndrome on the Autism Spectrum, so as such my mind, like most judges in a court room, take plain language very very seriously. The above statement implies to me that Steele simply thought that Cooper's signature was Authorized simply for just meeting a person. Since this is an accurate assessment to Steele's testimony on the matter, this all seems rather ominous to me about Steele. No lawyer in their sound mind could and should ever consider that simply introducing someone to another person as a means of authorizing the use of that person's signature. That's neither legally binding, nor will it ever be. Hats off to Mrs. King :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This caught my eye immediately.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A better world, the failure to do so means years of suffering and pain at the hands of delusional people who believe others shouldn't make what they have done, is to stop the spreading of culture and create something that is not attainable a world where 7 billion people are all original all the time.
The bundle of monopolies commonly referred to as IP laws has become an abomination that threats the lifes of every person in this earth and that is not an exaggeration.
We all will feel the effects of such monopolies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Actually, she's saying we (US) are NOT going to legalize stealing.
Removing the natural rights of everybody except for that one person is theft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Translated to property, it gets totally absurd. It's not like owning a house, but having the right to throw out anyone wanting to live in it. And since there are hundreds of other patents, held by other people, each and every one of those have the same right to throw out anyone wanting to live in that house.
Obviously, this has nothing to do with property, instead it's nothing more than an acquirable RIGHT OF SPITE.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Actually, she's saying we (US) are NOT going to legalize stealing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Well, in real property law, there is something called a negative easement, which is a right to prohibit the property owner from doing something, but not by itself a right of the easement holder to do it. It's very similar to copyrights and patents in that respect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]