‘WIPO has failed in its development mission’

A two-day workshop organised by the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) preceded the WIPO General Assembly and provided an impetus for the launching of the initiative for a development agenda within WIPO. We publish below a report on the workshop, which held extensive discussions on WIPO’s current mission, its activities and its future.

Sangeeta Shashikant

THE month of September 2004 was a turning point for the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). During this period various events took place which reaffirmed intellectual property protection as not an end in itself but rather a tool for promoting innovation and development. Sometimes, it may not even be a suitable tool at all. This hopefully will change the way WIPO promotes its intellectual property agenda.

As each event unfolded, it became crystal clear that leading academics, scientists, economists, lawyers, information technology experts, and public interest groups from developed and developing countries alike were dissatisfied with the ‘maximalist rights culture’ adopted by WIPO in pursuing its mandate. They want to see intellectual property play a positive role, amongst others, in ‘promoting creative intellectual activity and...facilitating the transfer of technology related to industrial property to the developing countries in order to accelerate economic, social and cultural development’, as mandated in Article 1 of the Agreement between the United Nations and WIPO.

There was an historic proposal by Brazil and Argentina to establish a ‘development agenda’ within WIPO. This proposal received outstanding support from many developing countries during the WIPO General Assembly, which convened from 27 September to 5 October. After difficult negotiations, the proposal, which was also co-sponsored by Bolivia, Egypt, Peru, Tanzania, Dominican Republic, South Africa, Iran, Kenya, Venezuela, Ecuador, Cuba and Sierra Leone, was welcomed by the Assembly. An NGO statement signed by over 25 organisations supported the initiative and urged developing countries and other development-oriented NGOs to endorse the proposal as it provided ‘an unparalleled opportunity.... to put on WIPO’s agenda the issue of development’.1

Prior to the General Assembly, the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) held a workshop on ‘The Future of WIPO’ on 13-14 September. This served as an impetus to the launching of the ‘Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organisation’, in support of the ‘development agenda’.  The Declaration was signed by 500 eminent persons comprising scientists, economists, legal and IT experts, consumer advocates and health activists, including Nobel laureates such as Sir John Sulston (Nobel Prize winner for Physiology, 2002), Burton Richter (Nobel laureate for Physics, 1976) and Medecins sans Frontieres (Nobel Peace Prize winner), many of whom were also present for the workshop.

WIPO and its mission

WIPO was created in 1970 to replace the Bureaux Internationaux Reunis pour la Protection de la Propriete Intellectuelle (BIRPI), the secretariat to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works at that time. This was partly an attempt to ensure that other organisations such as the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) did not deal with the subject of IP.2   WIPO’s primary objective is the promotion of the protection of intellectual property throughout the world.3 To carry out its main objective Article 4 of the WIPO Convention prescribes functions, which include:

‘...promote the development of measures designed to facilitate the efficient protection of intellectual property throughout the world and to harmonise national legislation in this field’;

‘...encourage the conclusion of international agreements designed to promote the protection of intellectual property’.

In 1974, an agreement was signed between the United Nations and WIPO (UN-WIPO Agreement) recognising the latter as a ‘specialised agency of the UN’, responsible for ‘taking appropriate action in accordance with its basic instrument, treaties and agreements administered by it, inter alia, for promoting creative intellectual activity and for facilitating the transfer of technology related to industrial property to the developing countries in order to accelerate economic, social and cultural development, subject to the competence and responsibilities of the United Nations and its organs, particularly the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, as well as of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and of other agencies within the United Nations system’.

In a paper written by Sisule Musungu and Graham Dutfield, the authors trace the idea of WIPO becoming a specialised agency of the UN to the 1967 Stockholm Conference which approved the WIPO Convention.4 Thus it is valid to say that WIPO’s activities were always bound by the broader development objectives of the UN.

A book titled Intellectual Property - A Power Tool for Economic Growth written by Dr Kamil Idris, Director-General of WIPO, gives an inkling of how WIPO sees itself as having fulfilled its mandate and what it envisions its future to be. The title itself suggests that the organisation is absolutely devoted to the creation of an IP culture which it assumes leads to more research and development and knowledge creation, which are drivers of economic growth. The organisation believes that ‘an absence of an IP culture results in a stagnant or receding economy and a reduction in creativity and inventiveness.’5 The Overview of the book also states that ‘IP can only thrive in a culture in which its importance is fully understood and accepted and in which it is protected by laws that are vigorously enforced.’ Thus ‘WIPO’s mission will continue to be to work for robust IP protection and enforcement to ensure its continuing vitality.’ 

The activities that are being undertaken by WIPO are pushing for the adoption of standards with the strongest protection of IP, new treaties which grant more rights to IP holders and harmonisation of IP standards. Thus reference to ‘IP culture’ means adopting the ‘maximalist rights culture’. James Boyle, Professor of Law at Duke Law School and also a participant of the Geneva workshop, rightly pointed out in his paper titled ‘A Manifesto on WIPO and the Future of Intellectual Property’ that ‘Intellectual property policy is in the sway of a maximalist “rights culture” which leads debates astray.’ He believes that as ‘intellectual property protection has expanded exponentially in breadth, scope and term over the last 30 years, the fundamental principle of balance between the public domain and the realm of property seems to have been lost’. He also states that the assumption that promotion of IP standards will inevitably promote innovation is ‘categorically false’. So is the notion ‘the more rights the better’. In fact ‘the maximalist agenda is not good policy even for the developed world’.

During the workshop, many participants were of the view that WIPO has thus far failed to fulfil its development mission as stated in the WIPO Convention and in the UN-WIPO Agreement.

Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law at the Stanford Law School, also said that the IP system at present is influenced by a ‘maximalist rights culture’, which essentially means the promotion of certain specific interests.  This does not effectively promote IP as a system and instead burdens creativity. He indicated that the IP system is too influenced by lawyers. The system should filter works that need IP protection and works that don’t need to be regulated. He also said the ‘all rights reserved’ and ‘no rights reserved’ were important for creativity to flourish as ‘creativity builds on the past’.

Nobel laureate Sir John Sulston of Britain, founding director of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, called the WIPO dossier ‘dodgy’ and equated it to Tony Blair’s dossier on the war on Iraq.

There was general dissatisfaction among the participants with the way WIPO has been advancing an IP agenda which promotes the adoption of strongest IP protection and which places utmost importance on the harmonisation of national legislation to incorporate these strict IP rules based on developed countries’ standards.

James Love, Director of the US-based Consumer Project on Technology, said that WIPO was obsessed with stringent enforcement measures, while very little attention was devoted to how IP could be used to encourage innovation.

Many participants were also of the view that WIPO in its quest to create an IP culture had failed to balance correctly the interests of society and the interests of the private sector, which is WIPO’s main source of revenue.

WIPO’s technical assistance to developing countries was also severely criticised. Martin Khor, Director of Third World Network, said that WIPO has not addressed the needs of developing countries. A clear example of this failure is the technical assistance provided to Cambodia. He cited a report by Medecins sans Frontieres which stated that WIPO did not inform Cambodia of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health and the exemption for least developed countries such as Cambodia from granting patents for pharmaceutical products until 2016. He also stressed that WIPO in giving technical assistance should explain to developing countries the choices they have, both good and bad. It should focus on the concerns of these countries rather than only emphasise their obligations under TRIPS and other international IP treaties. WIPO should also advise developing countries against undertaking TRIPS-plus provisions found in bilateral free trade agreements with developed countries, he continued. 

Dr Graham Dutfield of Queen Mary University in Britain agreed that intellectual property should not be part of any bilateral free trade agreements.

David Vivas, Programme Manager of Intellectual Property, Technology and Services at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), said that the type of IP protection given in a country has to depend amongst others on the industrial structure, human capital and technological absorption capacity. He also said that there were concerns that during technical assistance, IP is seen as a solution and in isolation of development goals. The benefits of IP are over-emphasised and focus is on implementing global IP obligations, he added.

Other participants also shared his concern over WIPO’s assumption of ‘one size fits all’. WIPO’s programmes and activities fail to take into account the fact that countries are at different stages of development and may require different doses of IP to promote their national goals. There is also no analysis undertaken of the costs to society in implementing inappropriate IP rules and regulations.  The need for development-oriented technical assistance was emphasised.

Sisule Musungu of the South Centre said that WIPO doesn’t appear to act according to its UN mandate but according to its original mission to only foster IP.

The highly distinguished personalities from developed and developing countries who got together during the workshop in discussing the failures of contemporary IP law, were in agreement that WIPO, as a specialised agency of the UN that is entrusted with the responsibility for maintaining the correct balance in the global IP system, is heading in the wrong direction. Thus there is an urgent need for WIPO to reassess its current programmes and activities in light of its mandate under the UN-WIPO Agreement. 

WIPO patent agenda

The Director-General of WIPO presented to the General Assembly in 2001 a memorandum titled the ‘Agenda for Development of the International Patent System’.6   The idea of the initiative was to begin consultations with a view to preparing a ‘strategic blueprint for the future evolution of the international patent system’.7

The memorandum described the current way of dealing with patent applications as costly, burdensome, time-consuming and complex. Thus the idea is to create a system which is ‘more user-friendly, cost-effective and secure’.8 There are strong objections to this controversial initiative, from both developing countries and concerned NGOs. The Commission on Intellectual Property Rights has also criticised the Patent Agenda and warned against such a move. This international commission was set up by the UK government in 2001, and its acclaimed report was released in 2002 (www.iprcommission.org).

The WIPO Patent Agenda will be built on three main pillars. First is the Patent Law Treaty, which seeks to simplify and streamline procedures for national and regional patent applications. Second is the reform of the Patent Cooperation Treaty system.  Third is the ongoing negotiations on the draft Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT), which aims at creating uniform substantive patent law standards on prior art, novelty, utility and inventiveness etc. In short the international patent system is geared towards the development and harmonisation of patent law, which inevitably will mean TRIPS-plus standards being imposed on countries and the elimination of flexibilities currently available under TRIPS.

On the whole, the WIPO Patent Agenda seems to be designed to benefit the industries, which are the users of the patent system. This does not come as a surprise since WIPO’s predominant source of revenue is the private sector from the developed countries, in particular from the United States, Japan and Europe. According to the latest WIPO Annual Report, about 86% of the organisation’s total income in 2002 came from fees paid by private sector users of its global protection services, as well as from fees related to arbitration and mediation services. Only about 7% came from contributions from member states.

Meanwhile, in the US the standards for granting patents have been lowered over the years and many patents are being granted, for example, for business methods, software, living materials and life forms without regard for the core principle of IP that no proprietorship can be attached to ideas, facts and discoveries. Under the draft SPLT, there is pressure from developed countries, in particular from the US, Japan and Europe, to harmonise the requirements of patentability along the lines of their own rules, to eliminate the current flexibility under TRIPS which allows each country to define what an invention is.

Participants at the Geneva workshop made strong statements against the development and harmonisation of patent law that is currently being undertaken at WIPO.

A well-known academic from Duke University in the US, Professor Jerome Reichman, vehemently said that the proposed new WIPO treaties would export a ‘dysfunctional IP system’ from the US to the rest of the world. He said there was no valid reason for any developing country to participate in a standard-setting exercise which would be bad for them and also bad for the US and the EU.  He asked, ‘How can any good come out of it and why should the developing countries accept it?’

In response, Phillipe Baechtold, head of the Patent Law Section of the Industrial Property Division at WIPO, said that it was up to developing countries whether they want to participate since WIPO is a member-driven organisation.

Many critics and insiders are of the view, however, that WIPO is an organisation which is secretariat-driven. From the way it conducts its activities, there is little doubt that it has its own agenda and serves more the interests of advocates of strong IP protection.

Professor Reichman called Baechtold’s response ‘disingenuous’. He also called for a moratorium on the standard-setting exercise and the harmonisation process.

President of the Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman, said that patents that are granted for software benefit only a few who are given the opportunity to sue while the rest are threatened with potential suits. He added, ‘There are negative effects for software developers and computer users.’

Dr Dutfield from Britain called the harmonisation process immoral and the ‘last insult to developing countries’. He said that Japan would not have developed if it had these IP laws, and the big companies of Europe could not have taken off had they been disallowed from copying technology. ‘In the past the IP system allowed countries to catch up as it differentiated among countries, but now the harmonisation process will block developing countries from catching up,’ he emphasised.

Health organisation Medecins sans Frontieres, another Nobel laureate, showed substantial data which proved that patents were the cause of the high prices of pharmaceutical products. This in turn denied millions of people in the developing countries access to essential medicines. Patent holders from developed countries hold 97% of patents, thus the patent system primarily benefits the rich countries.

Nobel laureate Sir John Sulston spoke strongly against the present practice of patenting genes as it is an abuse of the patent system since gene sequences are discoveries and not inventions. He added that ‘We need ways to tame the market and conduct research in ways that are not purely market-driven.’ He spoke of his team’s determination to outpace the corporate initiative of Celera of the US which had tried to map the human genome and then claim exclusive rights over the data. The genome sequence generated by the public Human Genome Project has been deposited into GenBank, a public database freely accessible by anyone with a connection to the Internet. Information in the public domain is accessible to users who otherwise would be priced out of the market. Thus disseminating information in the public domain encourages widespread use of information, minimises transaction costs, and makes R&D cheaper and faster.

It is clear that many leading experts from the developed countries are opposed to further development and harmonisation of patent laws as they do not see any benefit arising from it for the developed or developing countries. Worse, these moves can inhibit and retard creativity and innovation. They strongly support the need for countries, in particular developing countries, to retain policy space in the design of their IP policies. ‘Flexibilities’ are imperative to developing countries to enable them to pursue their own national socio-economic goals.

WIPO and the information society

There are many activities taking place in WIPO related to the ‘information society’. Among the most important are the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), known together as the ‘WIPO Internet Treaties’. These treaties are also part of the WIPO Digital Agenda, which was announced in September 1999 by the Director-General of WIPO at the WIPO International Conference on Electronic Commerce and Intellectual Property.

The Digital Agenda is aimed at, amongst others, broadening the participation of developing countries in accessing intellectual property information and participation in global policy formulation, and promoting the adjustment of the international intellectual property regulatory framework to facilitate electronic commerce. The Digital Agenda activities also include encouraging member states to sign on to the 1996 ‘Internet Treaties’ and developing international intellectual property norms in the digital environment, where appropriate.

The ‘Internet Treaties’ are the result of a Diplomatic Conference on Certain Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Questions, proposed by the US and held in December 1996. [A Diplomatic Conference launches negotiations.] The text of these treaties draws upon studies submitted by national governments, in particular the US, European Community and Japan. Of these two treaties, WCT has been very strongly criticised as it goes beyond what is required under TRIPS and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Some critics have suggested that this treaty was a way of ensuring that US copyright standards, which face strong opposition even in the US itself, become international standards which would thus have to be implemented worldwide.9

Many participants at the workshop were concerned that higher copyright standards were preventing access to information and hampering R&D in developed and developing countries.

This was amply proven by data from Dr Sothi Rachagan, director of Consumers International Asia Pacific, who said that a study of copyright laws in five Asian countries revealed that the IP system is making educational materials inaccessible to the poor as it raises the cost and prevents copying. He also said that a one-size-fits-all system is unsuitable to treat countries which are at different stages of development.

Jukka Liedes of Finland’s Education and Culture Ministry, responsible for library policy, information society policy and intellectual property, said that consumers today were constrained by copyright terms and access to information had become difficult.

Volker Grassmuck of Humboldt University Berlin said that the digital revolution had made information, editing and copying available to many. However there was now a ‘digital counter-revolution’ through restrictions placed on computer users, for instance on what they are allowed to download. Copyright laws mainly benefit the major industry owners and not the authors or musicians, while consumers and small producers pay the price.

One of the founders and current Managing Editor of First Monday, the peer-reviewed journal of the Internet, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh, said that property is static and innovation is dynamic. Protecting creativity is a balance between protecting existing creations and enabling future creations. He added that ‘Newton stood upon the shoulders of giants.’ Thus, if ‘you stand on others’ shoulders, people must be able to stand on yours’. He urged WIPO to be open and explore alternative systems which promote creativity.

Yochai Benkler, a leading scholar of the information revolution and a Professor of Law at Yale Law School, said that strong IP rules act as a regressive tool and emphasised that most information is generally produced through non-market mechanisms. He pointed to the success of open collaborative models such as the Creative Commons, Apache, and GNU Linux and encouraged WIPO to look at how it can encourage the use of such models especially since WIPO’s website www.wipo.int was also using the GNU Linux operating system. It was pertinent to foster innovation on alternative models or else much potential will be lost in developed and developing countries, he said.

Three other important issues being discussed at WIPO are the protection of audiovisual works, broadcasting organisations, and the possible introduction of international protection of non-original databases, which currently do not qualify for protection under copyright law.

On the protection of audiovisual works, a Diplomatic Conference was launched in December 2000 where it was expected that a WIPO Audiovisual Treaty would be adopted. However, due to disagreements on the text between member states, such a treaty has yet to come about. For the moment, negotiations will continue and the matter is expected to remain on the General Assembly agenda of 2005.

Protection of broadcasters’ rights and non-original databases are matters which are controversial and subject to much debate. On the first issue, negotiations are taking place on the possibility of a treaty that would vest in broadcasting organisations, including cable-casters, and web-casters, ownership over material transmitted by wireless means for a certain period of protection although they were not involved in its creation or it may already be in the public domain.

The second issue, non-original databases, was a subject matter of the 1996 Diplomatic Conference. However, due to the intense opposition against the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Databases, initially proposed by the EC and US, it was not adopted. The EC has adopted a harmonised sui generis protection for databases. In the US two bills are currently under consideration in the Congress and these bills have provoked significant domestic controversy. The protection of non-original databases remains a topic of discussion at the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights.

Even at the workshop, the protection of broadcasters’ rights and non-original databases created a feeling of disgust amongst some participants. James Boyle said that there was no reputable argument for having a broadcasting treaty. Sir John Sulston brought up the Human Genome Project as a case study for not having protection of databases. He advocated that scientific data should be placed in public databases which researchers can freely use. Many other participants shared the same view.

WIPO, genetic resources and traditional knowledge

The inappropriateness of current IP regimes in the field of genetic resources and traditional knowledge was another topic of debate. The workshop looked into the developments and links between the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), TRIPS Agreement and WIPO’s Intergovernmental Committee on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC). The WIPO Secretariat has produced numerous papers and reports (including a technical study for the CBD Parties at the latter’s request).

Chee Yoke Ling of Third World Network traced the history of the unfortunate abdication of IP-related issues to WIPO by governments that are Parties to the CBD. The CBD is a legal framework with three objectives: the conservation of biodiversity; the sustainable use of genetic resources; and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from that use. The CBD also recognises the role and contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities, through their traditional knowledge and continuing innovations, customs and practices, to biodiversity conservation and its sustainable use.

The CBD envisaged a regime for benefit-sharing outside the current IP system. At the same time, the TRIPS Agreement was also in a heated stage of negotiations, with the US leading the offensive on extending patents to plants, animals and micro-organisms. Thus, Chee pointed out, the CBD requires Parties to ensure that any IPR implementation supports the CBD objectives. The CBD also entered into force before TRIPS.

However, moves by the Africa Group to initiate a working group to examine the relationship, and potential conflict, between the CBD and TRIPS were thwarted by developed countries. While this issue was taken up in the WTO review of TRIPS Article 27.3(b) that deals with patents on life forms, further work on the IP aspects of the CBD was relegated to WIPO.

Unfortunately, WIPO’s work on protection of traditional knowledge and genetic resources has veered from the sui generis option favoured by developing countries to options within the current IP system. Chee called on WIPO member states to take ownership of the discussions on this topic, and not leave it to the Secretariat to continue taking the lead. She stressed the importance of national governments coordinating and consolidating their positions that link the CBD, TRIPS and FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. This included positions such as: no patents on life forms (as advocated by the Africa Group in the TRIPS Council and in WIPO); disclosure requirements as additional criteria for patentability if patents are to be allowed (country of origin, prior informed consent and evidence of benefit-sharing); sui generis systems for access and benefit-sharing outside the patent system but which include the disclosure requirements; sui generis systems for protection of traditional knowledge.

Maria Julia Oliva of the Centre for International Environmental Law focused on the request from the seventh meeting of the CBD Conference of the Parties (COP7) in February, asking WIPO to work on a number of things including the preparation of draft provisions for disclosure requirements in the access and benefit-sharing work of the CBD. Some developing countries did not want the IGC to deal with this, preferring the WIPO general membership to be directly responsible. She argued that disclosure is important as a first step in establishing misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge; to fill the gaps in the patent system; and to ensure CBD compliance outside the patent system.

Oliva also called for a mandatory system (a move rejected by developed countries) and underlined the necessity for several bodies to deal effectively with disclosure, including the TRIPS Council. She warned that the US is using the IGC to delay developments in this area, and while it is a forum for discussion it is in danger of detracting from work that needs to be done in decision-making bodies. She added that while technical studies done by the Secretariat may be useful, these cannot be at the political cost of negotiations and decision-making in the proper fora.

Tony Taubman from the WIPO Secretariat was quick to assure the workshop that there was no intention to pre-empt which body should respond to the request of the CBD COP7. It so happened that the Secretariat received the request two days before the IGC’s last meeting and they wanted to bring the matter to the attention of governments.

At the WIPO General Assembly that took place two weeks later, a decision was adopted whereby member states would submit proposals for the Secretariat to compile and a one-day discussion would take place in May 2005. Meanwhile, there are concerns that the principles and options provided by WIPO in their studies are still inappropriate and may well detract from work on sui generis options for genetic resources and traditional knowledge.

Future of WIPO

The ‘development agenda’ proposal by Brazil and Argentina to incorporate the development dimension in all of WIPO’s activities was received enthusiastically by most participants at the workshop.

Sisule Musungu said that until the mission of WIPO and the mindset of the Secretariat are changed, governments cannot expect much of that organisation. He pointed out that governments have not taken sufficient responsibility at WIPO.  Most of the work including treaty drafting is left to the Secretariat.  He urged governments and civil society organisations to play a more active role in WIPO.

Martin Khor said that WIPO as part of the UN should be a ‘guardian of public interest in striking a balance between private rights and public interests’. It should not simply be promoting IP.

If we are to have a global IP system that truly promotes innovation, international development and human well-being, WIPO needs to be the custodian of balance between public and private interests as well as between the realm of property and public domain. It has to be neutral, transparent, and participatory as well as open to alternative models. WIPO must be seen as the solution rather than as a problem in the global system.

Many participants endorsed a change to WIPO’s mandate in Article 3 of the WIPO Convention so that it reflects the actual role it should be playing, that is as stated in the UN-WIPO Agreement. [Recently some participants have even called for a change in the name of the organisation to the ‘World Intellectual Wealth Organisation’.] With this change they hope that WIPO in the future will embrace the development objectives of the UN, and will cooperate and coordinate with the UN General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council and other agencies to achieve those objectives and as such be a more effective and useful organisation within the framework of the United Nations.                                         

Sangeeta Shashikant is a researcher with Third World Network.

Endnotes

1    See NGO Statement Supporting the Establishment of a Development Agenda for the World Intellectual Property Organisation at http://www.ciel.org/Tae/WIPO_NGOstatement_27Sept04.html

2    Musungu, S. & Dutfield, G., ‘Multilateral agreements and a TRIPS-plus world: The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)’, QUNO and QIAP 2003

3    Article 3, WIPO Convention 1967 (amended 1979)

4    See note 2

5    Overview of Intellectual Property  - A Power Tool for Economic Growth, Dr Kamil Idris, June 2003

6    ‘Agenda for Development of the International Patent System’, Memorandum of the Director-General, Doc. A/36/14 dated 6 August 2001

7    Dr. K. Idris, Director-General of WIPO, Intellectual Property - A Power Tool for Economic Growth, June 2003

8    See note 5

9    See note 2