Compte rendu ‒ Conseil des ADPIC ‒ Afficher les détails de l'intervention/la déclaration

Ambassador Choi Hyuck (Korea)
314. The representative of Brazil said that his concern about the mischaracterization of the development agenda had to do with the fact that the WIPO submission began by mentioning the Inter-sessional Intergovernmental Meeting (IIM) of June 2005, and everything that followed seemed to be related to that meeting rather than WIPO's technical cooperation activities which had not been dealt with in that meeting. Technical cooperation activities in WIPO were dealt under a different body, namely the Permanent Committee on Cooperation for Development Related to Intellectual Property (PCIPD) which had been specifically created for that purpose. The statement about advice on flexibilities needed to be backed by supporting information, documentation and evidence, which to his knowledge did not exist. The lengthy document, perhaps more than 500 pages long, had been prepared for the IIM June meeting, and contained a list of computer entries on activities throughout the world on a country by country basis with minimal information on the nature of each activity. Some of them concerned WIPO experts travelling to different developing countries for the purposes of seminars, forums or meetings; others concerned financial assistance for the purchase of computers for national patent offices and activities of that sort. This did not amount to assisting countries to use flexibilities contained in the IP system.