I have been attending to WIPO meetings in the agreeable city of Geneva for a couple of years now, first about the PLT, and more recently on the SPLT and the PCT reform.

Getting a really good understanding of an international treaty is something already hard enough, now imagine a treaty that changes every 6 months!

This is what happens with draft treaties before a final version is finally adopted. You need to read tons of papers before each meeting if you want to have a good idea of what will be going on, and even then feel lucky if you do.

Sometimes you have to accept formalities like each of more than a hundred delegates rising to congratulate the chairman on his election. I have already informally (and not seriously) suggested that besides electing a chairman for each meeting, a delegation is also elected to congratulate the chairman on behalf of all others, but WIPO has to preserve its traditions.

Of course, being able to participate on such high level meetings is something very fulfilling. Very sophisticated discussions occur every now and then, and it is possible to have a grasp of how different issues are handled in different countries and to perceive new perspectives.

And not everything in those meetings is hard work. First we have the chance to meet nice chaps from FICPI, like Julian Crump, Jan Modin, John Orange (I swear there must be a rule in FICPI that every member must have a name beginning with "J" and I was told to inquire with Jean-Jacques Joly on that!), and also from WIPO and delegations.

We also end up witnessing discussions about if it is reasonable to maintain the expression "reasonable" (in "reasonable possibility"), statements to the effect that the expression "relevant" (in "relevant authority") is irrelevant, and that the passage "shall be clear" (in "shall be clear and concise") should be clarified.

Interesting enough, one delegate spent quite a time talking about ... conciseness, which actually is no more inconsistent than delegations assuming that harmonisation means bringing the rest of the world into conformity with their own law! Coming to discuss the adoption or elimination of a subparagraph, even Shakespeare is paraphrased: 2(b) or not 2(b)...

I also enjoy being able to choose among English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese and Russian to hear the statements and interventions, although I am not able to understand half of them. The real problem is when none of them helps, and still I don't understand. And in moments like this it's a relief to look at other desperate faces also trying to realise what is going on. But eventually things are clarified and discussions come to a good end. I mean, to a good pause, until the next meeting in six months.