After two days of presentations by governments and industry the last day begins with discussion on how the ACE should proceed. Different groups take the floor to make suggestions for the next agenda.
CPTECH has taken the floor and offered a sobering message that there should be care with regards to what is considered “counterfeiting”, and warnings against DRM.
Friends of development: Enforcement should be considered in the broadest sense and in light with development goals, seeking balance of rights. Development should be in the next agenda, particularly technology transfer.
European Union: Austrian representative speaks as they are holding the EU presidency. The EU is extremely interested in acting against counterfeiting.
Canada: Supports more empirical research about the effects on piracy and counterfeiting. Must fill methodological gaps, ACE could fulfill this role.
Brazil: Costs of enforcing IP in developing countries should not surpass the benefits of IP. Biopiracy should be included in enforcement.
Australia: Supports methodological research, and welcomes further discussion on the issue of border control.
Mexico: Again supports methodology efforts on how to measure infringement and piracy. Seems like we have unanimity!
Ecuador: Supports that ACE should look into biopiracy.
United States: So-called “biopiracy” does not fall into the mandate of enforcement. This is subject for the IGC and the Council of TRIPS.
OECD: They have been studying and researching on the eocnomic impacts of piracy and counterfeiting.
IFPI: Supports only border control measures.
It seems like a deadlock in the meeting, the U.S. and the Friends of Development cannot even agree on the subjects for the next event! Are all WIPO gatherings like this? After closed-door talks trying to get everyone together, it has been decided that the next ACE meeting will be an exchange of ideas and views on coordination and cooperation on international enforcement. This seems like a very bland compromise indeed.