[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] On "Intellectual Property Rights" (IPRs)

[Marc Steinlin]

Dear all,

I understand very well the idea behind it and I can support your matter 
(also with regard to Free Software / Open Source). Yet, it also touches 
the issue of protecting traditional knowledge, especially from 
indigenous peoples. And here we strongly favour the creation of a new, 
sui-generis instrument to protect their knowledge (and therefore a new 
instrument of whatever you call it - intellectual property right, 
monopoly or whatever).

The world has stolen their land, their resources, their culture, 
everything, without ever considering their opinion or needs. Thereby we 
have brought them to the verge of disappearance. Now the world also 
tries to steal their traditional knowledge. They have the right to fully 
dispose over their own knowledge, which they have produced often over 
hundreds and thousands of years. And not action may be taken without 
their free prior and informed consent. Therefore their traditional 
knowledge is NOT public domain, unless these peoples freely decide so. 
And to achive these standards, we still have a long and stony road to go...

Please take this very fundamental aspect under consideration, too.

Regards,
-marc

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Incomindios Switzerland
Marc Steinlin
Zürich, Switzerland

stonelli at gmx.net
http://www.incomindios.ch


Georg C. F. Greve wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>sorry for crossposting, I'll keep this short.
>
>We all know of the problems with the terminology of "intellectual
>property rights" (IPRs), which not only mix very different areas of
>law, preventing qualified discussion, it also carries a strong
>ideology.
>
>We have therefore deliberately avoided the terminology for our civil
>society working group, which is called "Patents, Copyrights and
>Trademarks" (PCT) working group for exactly those reasons.
>
>However, as different as these instruments are, they do have one thing
>in common. 
>
>They all are legally implemented by and it is their function to
>generate limited monopolies.
>
>Therefore I think the terms
>
> "Limited Intellectual Monopolies" (LIM)
> "Intellectual Monopolies" (IM)
>
>would offer adequate replacements for
>
> "Intellectual Property Rights" (IPR)
> "Intellectual Property" (IP)
>
>and would like to offer this as an alternative to other people in
>civil society who are looking for a terminology that does not carry an
>ideology contradicting our values and goals.
>
>Regards,
>Georg
>
>  
>