Opening Statement by Paul Salmon, Head of the U.S. Delegation

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

First, our delegation would like to associate with the statement that
the distinguished delegate of Italy made on behalf of Group B.

Mr. Chairman, we thank the sponsors of the various papers and proposals
before us this week for their thought-provoking contributions and would
like to provide some brief reactions to them.

With regard to the papers sponsored by Brazil, Argentina and the group
of 12 additional countries, we must agree with the distinguished
delegate of Switzerland that WIPO has incorporated development as an
integral part of its mission since joining the UN family of
organizations in 1974.

We welcomed the continued discussion of intellectual property and
development during last year's General Assembly meeting, and we again
thank the co-sponsors for this opportunity to discuss this important topic.

We strongly support WIPO's efforts to address development needs in all
of its work, whether that work is norm setting, technical assistance or
the delivery of IP services. Thus, we agree that development
considerations have been, and ought to be, integral to WIPO's mission.

However, the proposals submitted by Brazil, Argentina and other
co-sponsors concern us, because they appear to imply that WIPO has
disregarded development concerns, and that strong and balanced IP
protection is detrimental to global development goals.

We disagree with both notions. As noted by the Director General of WIPO
in his book entitled "Intellectual Property -- A Power Tool for Economic
Growth," intellectual property is an important tool in economic, social
and cultural development, and it encourages domestic innovation,
investment and technology transfer. The experience of many developing
countries here today will attest to the fact that IP has facilitated,
rather than hindered, their development.

It appears obvious to us, however, that WIPO and intellectual property
systems can contribute only a part of the solution. We must look to
other international bodies, those whose core competence is development
or trade, to address other core development issues.

As the sponsors recognize, not all countries will achieve the same
benefits from intellectual property at the same time, and IP alone
cannot bring about development. It is simply one part of the necessary
infrastructure needed to stimulate development, as noted by the delegate
of Switzerland in his remarks yesterday. The thought that less IP will
further development, however, appears to us to be as flawed as the idea
that an IP system alone can bring about development.

Furthermore, we believe that WIPO has, and continues to, address the
development dimension in all of its work.

WIPO's current vision for the millennium, as approved by its member
states, is to promote intellectual property strategies that will
facilitate the journey from developing to developed.

Developed and least developed countries have been and are increasingly
active in all aspects of WIPO's work, including norm setting.

As noted by the distinguished delegates of Colombia, WIPO treaties
include flexibilities for developing countries. The basic obligations
embodied in the treaties leave substantial room for individual policy
choices.

We are very interested to learn what lack of flexibilities exist in WIPO
treaties, or how they limit policy choices or hinder development, and we
would welcome a factual dialogue on this important question.

In treaties under negotiation in WIPO, no country is prevented from
bringing any issue or proposal to the table, as we have clearly seen in
recent negotiations.

Furthermore, WIPO devotes substantial resources to helping developing
and least developed countries implement IP frameworks that will foster
local innovation and economic growth, taking into consideration specific
circumstances, needs and objectives.

Over the past decade, WIPO's financial success has enabled it to almost
triple its budgets, including those for development cooperation
activities. WIPO thus has expanded the inclusion of a development agenda
in its work, which we vigorously support.

The United States is committed to work with all parties to reorient
programs where needed, and we believe that this can be accomplished
without amending the WIPO Convention, embarking on high level political
declarations or establishing new bodies in WIPO.

The U.S. fully supports the goal of economic, social and cultural
development and believes that WIPO must continue to play an important
role in fostering development through promoting effective use of
intellectual property systems.

We agree with the co-sponsors of the Brazil and Argentina papers that
WIPO development programs should be demand driven, and that we should
strengthen WIPO governance through greater transparency and internal
controls such as a code of conduct.

We believe equally strongly, however, that the international IP system,
including its flexibilities, indeed promotes development.

We also agree with the United Kingdom and Mexico that the existing
international framework includes sufficient flexibilities and policy
choices to meet specific and unique developing country needs. We also
believe that the idea of promoting understanding of intellectual
property on a wide scale basis within countries, as proposed by Mexico,
is an idea whose time is past due, and that WIPO and its partners should
help to achieve this objective.

The United States asserts that WIPO has made, and should continue to
make, its most important contribution to development precisely by
deepening and expanding, rather than by diluting, its intellectual
property expertise.

We also support the concept proposed by the United Kingdom and several
other countries during this session, that we can deepen our
understanding on these issues by further factual discussions in the
Permanent Committee on Cooperation for Development.

Indeed, some combination of elements from all of the proposals before us
may provide us with a way forward.

Mr. Chairman, we look forward to continuing our discussions and
enhancing our mutual understanding of these issues. Thank you.

Statement Introducing U.S. Proposal for a Partnership Program

Mr. Chairman, the United States has submitted a proposal for the
establishment of a Partnership Program in WIPO.

The U.S. proposal is not intended to answer or rebut the
Argentina/Brazil proposal, but it is premised on the recognition of the
contribution that intellectual property and WIPO make to development and
aimed at strengthening this contribution.

Our proposal is not just about technical assistance, but also about the
strategic use of the IP system, including its flexibilities, for
development.

The WIPO Partnership Program would build on WIPO's significant successes
in addressing intellectual property development needs. The Partnership
Program would bring together all stakeholders to match specific needs
with available resources, whether from WIPO, other UN agencies such as
development banks, from NGOs [non-governmental organizations], the
private sector, academia, charitable organizations, intellectual
property offices, and so on.

The U.S. proposal would help developing and least-developed countries to
partner with these institutions to achieve synergies and address
specific circumstances and needs; to strike appropriate balance in
national legislation, and to strengthen institutions such as IP offices,
inventor groups, collecting societies and so on.

Partnerships with NGOs, IGOs [intergovernmental organizations], IPOs
[intellectual property owners], the private sector, academia, industry,
charitable organizations and other institutions through the Partnership
Program would bring about synergies not seen before, without imposing a
huge burden on the WIPO International Bureau.

The Partnership Program would include two main features: a WIPO
Partnership Database and a WIPO Partnership Office.

The WIPO Partnership Office would have a partners section listing
available, partner institutions with contact information, a country and
region section where specific needs could be notified, and a success
section with descriptions and/or evaluations of successful partner matches.

The WIPO Partnership Office would have WIPO staff that aggressively seek
partners, funds and matches.

The myriad of possible matches is almost infinite. For example:

A developing country culture ministry with museum experts, charitable
organization and a regional development bank to exploit rich cultural
assets in developing and least developed countries.

A developing country copyright collecting society with NGOs having
expertise and a developed country collecting society to ensure
compensation to authors, producers and performers in developing countries.

A developing country IP office with a developed country IP office and
development funding, for automation projects, patent information
dissemination, and so forth -- so that developing countries'
institutions can enhance their access to knowledge and technology transfer.

Mr. Chairman, we believe that the proposed Partnership Program would
help to better address several needs:

There is a need for better coordination of IP-related development
assistance;

There is a need to make WIPO and other IP-related development assistance
more relevant to developing and least-developed countries.

Developing and least-developed countries, of course, are free to turn
anywhere for advice on IP strategy, whether this is WIPO, UNCTAD [United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development], NGOs, IP offices, or
elsewhere. The WIPO Partnership Program Proposal is meant to facilitate
choice, competition and synergy through partnering, to create IP systems
to meet the specific needs, circumstances and objectives of countries.

Mr. Chairman, further details are outlined in the proposal itself. We
ask that delegations consider our proposal in the spirit in which it is
made -- one of cooperation to advance the discussions relating to
intellectual property and development in WIPO.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

	Return to IP Justice's WIPO Page