Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 30th Jun 2012 19:34 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 524680
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by BeamishBoy
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 1st Jul 2012 15:11
in reply to "Comment by BeamishBoy"
RE: Comment by BeamishBoy
by Soulbender on Sun 1st Jul 2012 17:33
in reply to "Comment by BeamishBoy"
Surely the clearly democratic way in which such a system would work is one where the votes of individual countries are weighted in proportion to their population?
That wouldn't really work in the U.S favour, you know. US ~= 250-300 Million people, the rest of the world ~= 8 billion. but hey, maybe the U.S would love a system where China had more than 4 times the importance of the U.S with India not far behind. That's not even counting all the other nations (3rd world or otherwise) who could make a common cause and easily outnumber the U.S.




Member since:
2010-10-27
This is where things start to go wrong. The WIPO is actually one of the 17 specialised agencies of the United Nations... [meaning] every member state's vote counted equally. This meant that in matters related to IP, the world's developing nations could exert far more influence than developed nations. You know, democracy at work at the international state level.
I have little time for software patents, particularly the frivolous ones. However, why exactly do you have a problem with, say, the US being against a system where their views count for as much as, say, Cape Verde? Surely the clearly democratic way in which such a system would work is one where the votes of individual countries are weighted in proportion to their population?
Edited 2012-07-01 14:52 UTC