There's an interesting group of folks at the UCLA conference on the WIPO Development Agenda this weekend. Carolyn Deere from the Global Economic Governance Programme at Oxford gave a good talk discussing "the political dynamics of IP reform in developing countries: the relevance and influence of WIPO." She's concerned with how to make the Development Agenda real, on the ground, and her methodology for the work she presented was cross national comparison of what different countries are doing.

She's found that developing countries are actuallly quite diverse in the types of IPR regimes they have, and whether or not they take advantage of exceptions they're allowed. Some countries are adopting TRIPS+ requirements but there is not uniformity. For example, developing countries have until 2015 to implement TRIPS but 14 of the 32 LDCs implemented TRIPS plus legislation even while negotiating for more time (!) They didn't have bilaterals with the US, they hadn't been 301 listed, so why did they go so far so fast?

Excerpt from ICTSD report on Hong Kong WTO Ministerial: "Peru, Kenya and India have submitted proposals for draft text on the relationship between the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Peru simply suggested intensifying discussions on prior proposals made by a group of developing countries led by India, Brazil and Peru on requiring patent applicants to disclose the origin of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, as well as provide evidence of prior informed consent and benefit-sharing. The Kenyan text would narrow down work on the TRIPS-CBD relationship to "disclosure, prior informed consent and benefit sharing relating to inventions based on biological/genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge." This work should be completed by 30 November 2006. The most strongly worded proposal, put forward by India, would require the TRIPS Council to recommend an amendment to the TRIPS Agreement making it mandatory to disclose origin and provide evidence of prior informed consent and benefit-sharing. The US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia strongly resisted these proposals."

The following is from the International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development's daily update on the Hong Kong WTO Ministerial: "To the surprise of many, Indian Commerce Minister Kamal Nath on Wednesday called for negotiations on the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity to be launched in Hong Kong. Referring to growing popular discontent in developing countries about biopiracy and the misappropriation of traditional knowledge for commercial gain, Mr Nath said India intended to raise the matter in Green Room discussions. India has long supported requiring patent-seekers to disclose the source and country of origin of any genetic resources and traditional knowledge used in the development of an invention.

OntheCommons.org is a wonderful site with a blog, essays, book reviews, reports, and more, relating to the various aspects of the commons and enclosures. One of the most recent blog posts on Monsanto's recent move to patent pigs: OnTheCommons.org | Designer Pigs - monsanto attempts to copyright PIGS. right. the whole hog. [del.icio.us copyfight feed]

Monsanto files patent for new invention: the pig - From grain.org [grain.org]