the perspective of copyright, (iv) The self-evaluation exercises are qualitative trademarks and patents. and go beyond simply indicating the status of project implementation. An Evaluation Report of the project was presented to the ninth session of the Committee (CDIP/9/7) and available at: New tools and guidelines No actual new or guidelines were developed under the project to increase access to subject matter that has fallen into the public domain or to preserve knowledge that has fallen into the public domain. Poor sequencing and lack of time appear to be the key reasons for this outcome. (x) IP and Competition Policy DA_7_23_32_01 Recommendations 7, 23, 32 – BRIEF DESCRIPTION MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS AND OUTPUTS MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS BY EVALUATORS In order to promote a better The following studies were finalized and discussed at the No recommendations regarding the direction or scope understanding of the interface CDIP: of the project’s future work. The following conclusions between intellectual property were proposed: and competition policy, 1. Interaction of Agencies Dealing with Intellectual Property particularly in developing and Competition Law (CDPI/8/INF/4); Project design countries and countries with economies in transition, WIPO 2. Interface Between Exhaustion of Intellectual Rights and The implementation period needed to be longer would undertake a series of Competition Law (CDPI/8/INF/5); (probably three 3 years). In addition, one of the studies that would analyze project’s objectives, namely “promoting recent practices, legal 3. An Analysis of the Economic/Legal Literature on the licensing practices” may have been too developments, jurisprudence Effects of IP Rights as a Barrier to Entry (CDPI/8/INF/6 Corr.); ambitious and, most importantly, was not easily and legal remedies available in and measurable. selected countries and regions, with a focus on issues relating 4. Study on the Anti-Competitive Enforcement of Project management to IP licensing. In addition, a Intellectual Property Rights: Sham Litigation series of subregional seminars (document CDIP/9/INF/6).
the perspective of copyright, trademarks and patents. An Evaluation Report of the project was presented to the ninth session of the Committee (CDIP/9/7) and available at: (iv) The self-evaluation exercises are qualitative and go beyond simply indicating the status of project implementation. New tools and guidelines No actual new or guidelines were developed under the project to increase access to subject matter that has fallen into the public domain or to preserve knowledge that has fallen into the public domain. Poor sequencing and lack of time appear to be the key reasons for this outcome. (x) IP and Competition Policy DA_7_23_32_01 – Recommendations 7, 23, 32 BRIEF DESCRIPTION MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS AND OUTPUTS MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS BY EVALUATORS In order to promote a better understanding of the interface between intellectual property and competition policy, particularly in developing countries and countries with economies in transition, WIPO would undertake a series of studies that would analyze recent practices, legal developments, jurisprudence and legal remedies available in selected countries and regions, with a focus on issues relating to IP licensing. In addition, a series of subregional seminars The following studies were finalized and discussed at the CDIP: 1. Interaction of Agencies Dealing with Intellectual Property and Competition Law (CDPI/8/INF/4); 2. Interface Between Exhaustion of Intellectual Rights and Competition Law (CDPI/8/INF/5); 3. An Analysis of the Economic/Legal Literature on the Effects of IP Rights as a Barrier to Entry (CDPI/8/INF/6 Corr.); and 4. Study on the Anti-Competitive Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: Sham Litigation (document CDIP/9/INF/6). No recommendations regarding the direction or scope of the project’s future work. The following conclusions were proposed: Project design The implementation period needed to be longer (probably three 3 years). In addition, one of the project’s objectives, namely “promoting licensing practices” may have been too ambitious and, most importantly, was not easily measurable. Project management
cdip_17_2.docx