회의 결과 가운데 생명특허에 관한 부분만 보내드립니다.출처는 BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest Vol. 4, Number 36입니다.인도와 아프리카정부그룹를 비롯한 제3세계 국가대표들은WTO/TRIPs가 전통적 지식의 보호, 생물다양성 보존, 파종하고 종자를 보관할 농부의 권리, 생명공학에 따른 이익의 분배, 생명체 특허 부여에 따른 윤리적 문제 등에 대해서 고려해야 한다고 주장했답니다.제3세계 생명체를 이용한 특허의 경우 이익을 분배하는 문제에 대해서미국은 생명체를 이용하는 초기 단계에서의 이익 분배는 가능하지만발명이 완성된 이후 단계에서의 이익 분배는 타당하지 않다는 입장을표명했다네요.또, 인도는 발명을 완성하는 데 필요한 출발물질 (생명체 또는 그의 일부)의 출처를 특허 출원에 명시하자는주장이 제기되었답니다. 이건 지난번 모임에서 재깍님께서제안하신 내용과도 일치하네요. 재깍님은 거의 인도 사람 다 되었나봅니다.다른 내용은 아래 원문을 읽어보십시오.WTO LOGJAMMED OVER TRIPSWTO Members continue to wrangle over the contentious issues of Article 27.3(b) (patenting or sui generis protection for plant varieties) and review of implementation of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). The issue of Geographical Indications has also become a topic of concern to many countries. Meeting on 21-22 September, WTO Members discussed these and a wide range of other issues on the TRIPs agenda. While delegates moved beyond procedural talks to more in-depth debates, little consensus is emerging on most of the agenda items.On the Article 27.3(b) review, discussion went into considerably greater depth than previously, with new papers from India, the African Group (proposed by Mauritius), and the US. India and the African Group – – supported by a number of developing country Members including Brazil — are pushing to have the TRIPs Council take into account issues such as biodiversity, traditional knowledge, benefit sharing, farmers rights to resow and share seeds, and the ethics of patenting of life forms.For its part, the US focused more on technical discussions and argued that if there is to be any benefit-sharing then this should be at the initial stage of exploring biological materials, rather than after new inventions have been made.Developing country delegates and a number of non-governmental groups want the WTO to engage in a substantive debate on this topic, as they are concerned that the TRIPs agreement lacks measures to protect traditional knowledge and biodiversity and needs to be altered. Many — principally those in the G-15 and G-77 — have asked for harmonisation between the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and TRIPs, which the US is resisting strongly. The African Group is asking to take references to life forms (including plants) out of the Agreement altogether, while India is pushing to have language inserted that would require disclosure of the source of genetic material on any patent applications. The US and other developed countries, on the other hand, prefer to keep the article as is and discuss only technical or procedural aspects. One developing country representative pointed out that regardless of the US position, “there is in effect a substantive debate going on anyways.”Dialogue also took place around the review of the implementation of the TRIPs Agreement as mandated under Article 71.1. Both India and Australia presented papers, with India focusing on ‘confidence-building’ aspects of the review. India called for the review to focus on Articles 7 and 8 which deal with objectives (creation and technology transfer for socio-economic welfare) and principles (that governments can take vital health and other social issues into account, and can prevent abuse of IP protection), arguing that there should be an assessment of the social, economic and welfare impacts of the Agreement. There was little agreement among Members about how to structure the review, and the process will continue.첨부 파일과거 URLhttp://www.ipleft.or.kr/bbs/view.php?board=ipleft_5&id=73