CODE 18-77
Reference
'whichever is the earlier' and replacing an 'application for registration' by 'registration', albeit with some safeguard to avoid unduly lengthy or onerous registration procedures. A number of Member States seemed to support this view in a confused and unfocussed discussion.
11. On Formalities (point 14), and in particular trade secrets, Germany said that everything was open to inspection in court actions in Germany so the Treaty would have to allow that.
12.
On The Term of Protection (point 15) Germany suggested we should accept a generally applicable, minimum term of 5 years. No-one else was prepared to commit themselves on this, or on whether a shorter term should be provided only for developing countries as suggested by the Commission.
13.
On Dispute Settlement (point 16) Germany very firm that this is a matter solely for Member States. They were prepared to attempt to find a common view but ultimately it is for Member States. As before, UK alone in being sympathetic to dispute settlement, although France confessed that she did not know what her Government's line would be! Clearly UK needs to decide on whether it wants to press for Dispute Settlement (bearing in mind that this and the provision in the new WIPO draft on technical and financial assistance for developing countries will cost money) or whether it can accept what seems bound to be a more sceptical Community view.
14.
Others
On Non-Voluntary licences (points 17-22), UK indicated
General it had real problems with points 19 and 20. agreement (including UK) that in point 18 'other vital public interests' is too vague and should be dropped. Portugal and Spain indicated that they were unhappy with some of the restrictions imposed on the granting of non-voluntary licences in the Commission's document. prepared to agree to non-voluntary licensing, subject to clear, well defined limitations along lines suggested by Commission. Unfortunately it is not possible to be precise about the postions of the Member States here because time was very short and interventions had to be severely curtailed.
15. Although this meant that there was no time to discuss the Commissions paper on competence which is to be circulated by WIPO, it became clear in a private discussion with Commission officials that this had been the subject of
DG III a battle between DG III and the legal service. wanted the paper, in effect, to take the form of a list indicating which Articles of the draft Treaty were matters
The of Community competence and which were not. Commission's legal service however are fundamentally opposed to this approach as a matter of principle. The problem (recognised by DG III) then is that anything which is said in the paper is bound to be attacked by the developing countries as ammunition in their campaign to slow things
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.