In the context of trademarks, WIPO administers the trademark registration
aspect of the Madrid Protocol and Agreement, international treaties which
allow for "one-stop shopping" for 60+ countries (the US belongs neither to
the Agreement for arcane TM-law reasons nor to the Protocol for an arcane
non-TM reason). The Protocol and Agreement offer TM owners greatly
simplified and cheaper filing and renewal services. Before you state that
WIPO and TM lawyers form one evil entity, you should know that the cost
savings come primarily at the expense of TM lawyers, who file one
application where previously they filed dozens.
So WIPO does make money but in a venture that saves money.
At 04:53 AM 2/16/99 -0004, you wrote:
>http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,32397,00.html
>
>Reuters/ CNET News.com
> February 15, 1999
>
> GENEVA--International applications for
> patents rose by 23.1 percent last year,
> led by U.S. inventors and industry,
> according to the World Intellectual
> Property Organization.
>
> The agency, an arm of the United Nations,
> said developing countries were taking
> greater advantage of its system, which
> allows an applicant to seek patent protection
> by filing a single application. The application
> has the effect of regular national filings in
> any or all of the treaty member states
> without first needing to furnish a translation
> or pay national fees.
>
> [...]
> Once an obscure bureaucratic
> organization, WIPO has been vaulted to the
> fore of high-stakes copyright issues that
> pervade Congress, the Internet, and
> international law, as well as the high-tech,
> entertainment, and other industries.
>
> WIPO said the 67,007 applications received
> last year had the effect of 2.5 million
> national applications. One of the few
> profitable U.N. agencies, it earns more than
> two-thirds of its revenues from PCT
> application fees.
>
>-------------------
>~/0,4,32085,00.html
>
> ...As promised, Rep. Howard Coble (R-North
> Carolina) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
> are once again spearheading legislation to
> protect the "brow sweat" and deep pockets
> of database creators and publishers, such
> as WestLaw or Reed Elsevier, which owns
> major periodicals, and Lexis-Nexis.
>
> "Developing, compiling, distributing, and
> maintaining commercially significant
> collections requires substantial investments
> of time, personnel, and money," Coble said
> on the House floor last month when he
> reintroduced the Collections of Information
> Antipiracy Act. "The bottom line is clear: it
> is time to consider new federal legislation to
> protect developers who place their materials
> in interstate commerce against piracy and
> unfair competition."
>
> The bill would prevent extracting all or a
> substantial part of a collection of information
> if the action would "cause harm to the actual
> or potential market" for the owner of the
> database. Violators could face a fine of up
> to $250,000 for each offense and five years
> in prison.
>
> This is Coble's third attempt to get his bill
> passed. It was scrapped last session during
> last-minute negotiations that ushered the
> Digital Millennium Copyright Act into law.
> After fierce opposition by academic and
> industry groups, a similar proposal, known
> as the _sui generis_ database treaty, also
> was rejected by delegates at the World
> Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO)
> Diplomatic Conference in December 1996.
>
>[ Text of the two Treaties are at
>http://www.wipo.org/eng/diplconf/distrib/94dc.htm
>http://www.wipo.org/eng/diplconf/distrib/95dc.htm
>
>For anyone involved in the presentation of clear records of
>controversial enactments, the ~/diplconf index page offers an
>excellent model.]
>
>--------------------------
>kerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
