Disclaimer: This site has been first put up 15 years ago. Since then I would probably do a couple things differently, but because I've noticed this site had been linked from news outlets, PhD theses and peer rewieved papers and because I really hate the concept of "digital dark age" I've decided to put it back up. There's no chance it can produce any harm now.
| Identifier: | 05DUBLIN365 |
|---|---|
| Wikileaks: | View 05DUBLIN365 at Wikileaks.org |
| Origin: | Embassy Dublin |
| Created: | 2005-03-24 14:23:00 |
| Classification: | UNCLASSIFIED |
| Tags: | ETRD KIPR EAID KPAO OIIP WIPO |
| Redacted: | This cable was not redacted by Wikileaks. |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS DUBLIN 000365 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ETRD, KIPR, EAID, KPAO, OIIP, WIPO SUBJECT: IRISH SUPPORTS U.S. POSITIONS FOR APRIL WIPO SESSION ON IP AND DEVELOPMENT REF: STATE 47851 1. On March 24, Post delivered reftel talking points to Jacob Rajan, Head of the Patents Section in the Intellectual Property Unit of the Department of Enterprise, Trade, and Employment (DETE). Rajan had represented Ireland at the March 21-21 Munich meetings of the Working Group of Industrialized Nations on Intellectual Property (IP) and Development. Rajan said that Ireland generally supported the U.S. submission for the April 11-13 WIPO Intersessional Intergovernmental Meeting (IIM) on IP and Development. Ireland also looked favorably upon the paper that the UK planned to submit, which, in Rajan's view, did not differ substantively from the U.S. proposal. 2. Rajan specified that Ireland opposed the Brazilian recommendation to amend the WIPO Convention to integrate development issues into all WIPO activities. Although Ireland favored constructive engagement with Brazil and like-minded countries on links between development and IP, the GOI disagreed with Brazil's proposal to establish a separate body within WIPO to address development issues. Rajan observed that WIPO's Permanent Committee for Intellectual Property and Development was an available forum to discuss such issues. He added that Ireland's views were consistent with the consensus that emerged from the Munich discussions. Since the U.S. submission expressed that consensus, the GOI did not plan to submit a paper for consideration at the IIM. Emboffs urged that Irish representatives at least participate actively in the IIM discussions. BENTON
Latest source of this page is cablebrowser-2, released 2011-10-04