RSS
Twitter
Is WIPO Taking An Evidence-Based Approach To IP Enforcement?
from the finally dept
While the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is often seen as being inherently in favor of stronger intellectual property rights, every so often, the organization shows itself open to more reasonable approaches. A few years back, for example, it questioned the evidence on patents, and had trouble finding any real evidence that stronger patents resulted in greater innovation. Now, via Slashdot, we hear about a discussion at WIPO concerning "enforcement" issues where a number of papers were presented that pushed back on excessive pro-IP positions. These included a paper by WIPO Chief Economist, Carsten Fink, which calls out many of the previous studies on "losses" due to counterfeiting and piracy, and notes how misguided many of them are. While I think Fink uses some outdated and since disproved economic theory in his paper, overall it's nice to see at least some acknowledgment of moving more towards evidence based policy setting, rather than the maximalist's default "more is better" position.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
not everyone buys big content's rhetoric. if you actually read bilski's opinion from yesterday, you'd know that breyer clearly understands that there's a trade-off in intellectual property and at some point, the line shouldn't be crossed.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Evidence? That sounds more like science than what normally passes for discussions about intellectual property.
Bald-faced hysteria. I've got a case of the vapors just thinking about it!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Self-Serving
This is ridiculous. WIPO will only ever accept (and doctor/spin) evidence about IP which favors stronger enforcement. Why? Because this is how their purpose is justified and their very existence is protected this way.
Saying otherwise would be like saying Lions are more "open" to vegetarian diets than they once were.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment