Public Policy Forum Disinvites Knopf from IP Symposium

Howard Knopf reveals that the Public Policy Forum, which is hosting a symposium next week on intellectual property in Ottawa (I am on a panel), has disinvited him.  Knopf suggests that the move comes as a result of "strong pressure was brought to bear on PPF" and that "PPF capitulated." 


  1. any word on the ‘reason’ they gave?

  2. How embarassing
    Now I wonder how many others were not invited or left out?

    This has significantly reduced the credibility of PPF in my mind and I will make sure to take anything that comes out of PPF with a grain of salt… even if it is in “my favour”.

    Their “mission statement” is a sham or an outright exercise is deceit if what I am reading is correct.
    They only want you to think that the process is open and keeping Canadian interests balanced with external pressures. Not so, I’m losing hope in Canada’s direction.

  3. E-mail to PPF
    My E-mail to the PPF ( on this:

    I just wanted to voice my utter disbelief and disgust that Mr. Knopf has been uninvited to speak on at the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REFORM: INNOVATION AND THE ECONOMY program. How can you have a public discussion on IP Reform when the voices such as Mr. Knopfs are not being represented? Too many organizations are caving into copyright lobbyists (who have been proven to falsify data to represent their interests), and to see a Canadian lead Public Policy Forum on such a hot topic like this uninvited a KEY and respected speaker as Mr. Knopf due to outside lobby efforts is appalling.

    I hope you understand that this move by the Public Policy Forum will ultimately determine the credibility of this organization. In order to have a fair and just IP reform we must hear from all sides. By uninviting Mr. Knopf you have sent a strong and very clear message to the public and politicians on the credibility of what will come out of this program. Mr. Knopf views represent the majority campaigning against strong IP reform. He in all fairness should be allowed to speak. If your other speakers have a problem with the views Mr. Knopf represents and threatened to cancel out of the program, then it goes to show you just how much credibility those speakers have, and the proof behind their motives is seriously flawed. That must be presented to such a public forum as this.

  4. Simple Question
    I have a rather simple question. Why is an outside body being given a spot in proceedings that are clearly none of their concern? This is Canada’s issue, not the US’s. Stay out of my country’s government and our laws or risk everyone else meddling in your’s.

  5. US Players At The Table?
    Unbelievable that a noted copyright scholar is “un-invited” while US corporate and political interests are almost at the head of the table. AGAIN!

    This is NOT the public hearings that over 50,000 Canadians demanded from this MINORITY government. The fact the US corporate and political interests are ONCE AGAIN getting further say in a strictly Canadian policy issue is absolutely disgusting… to say the very least.

  6. Pier Luc D says:

    Email to PPF
    I also sent an email to PPF ( Here’s an excerpt(in French):

    À qui de droit,

    Je vous écrit pour exprimer l’extrême déception quand à la décision d’annuler l’invitation de Mr Knopf au symposium sur la propriété intellectuelle. Cette dernière frasque montre bien que le gouvernement actuel accorde plus d’importance aux lobbys américains qu’à l’opinion de la population lorsqu’il vient le temps de parler de propriétés intellectuelles. Cette façon d’agir est totalement contraire à tout principe démocratique surtout vis-à-vis le mandat du forum sur les politiques publiques qui se doit de débattre et d’avoir une opinion balancée. Ceci est sufffisant pour me convaincre de m’impliquer plus activement lors de la prochaine campagne électorale pour barrer la route aux conservateurs au Québec en utilisant tous les tribunes à ma disposition en espérant que le changement de gouvernement entraine le changement de direction du forum. Dans l’immédiat, je compte communiquer avec mon député pour “faire entendre ma voix” et demander qu’il surveille de plus près les agissements du forums.

    Veuillez communiquer avec moi pour m’expliquer votre version des faits sur les agissements du FPP.


  7. My email to the PPF:

    It has come to my attention that certain individuals have been excluded from your impending forum on IP reform. I just wanted to remind you of a few things:

    From YOUR website regarding intent of Intellectual Property Reform: \”…consider all perspectives on the issue of intellectual property rights…\”.
    Furthermore, from YOUR website regarding the PPF\’s purpose: \”The Public Policy Forum was founded in 1987 to provide a neutral venue where the private sector and the public sector could meet to learn from one another.

    From those quotes I find it incredibly dishonest and unethical for the panel to uninvite Mr. Knopf. If the purpose of the panel was to provide a NEUTRAL venue for ALL perspectives, then surely Mr. Knopf\’s reputation would earn him a seat at the conference. How can you possibly call the panel neutral when third parties are uninvited? What happened at the PPF in the days leading up to the uninvite? It disgusts me to think that the panel believes such action would provide an opportunity for the public and private sectors to learn from each other. If only private industry is allowed to attend, who is going to learn? What will they learn???

    By uninviting individuals with considerable knowledge on the subject of IP it significantly undermines the credibility of your organization. I am calling on the PPF to reverse its decision and allow Howard Knopf an opportunity to attend.

  8. Knopf
    Perhaps Michael can present Howard Knopf’s paper on his behalf.

    It’s pretty disgusting (yet not surprising) that they disinvited Mr.Knopf. The presentation is way too honest about disparities in copyright law between Canada and USA and certainly contrary to what the attending commercial interests want.

    This is what you get from a conservative government.

  9. Jason K & Scott D,

    Do you mind if others use the text of your e-mails? I would like to complain to PPF (& my MP) as well.

  10. my letter
    Dear PPF,

    Given the stated objectives of the PPF [1], I’m very disappointed in your recent decision to exclude Howard Knopf from the symposium during which he was scheduled to speak [2]. As a software developer, IP laws are near and dear to me, and I had considered attending the upcoming symposium. Given the news that the symposium will not be a neutral ground for debate, but rather a press junket for American interests, I’m glad that I was unable to make the time to attend. Please consider the loss of credibility that comes with censoring debate.

    Democracy thrives on debate and discussion, and I mourn the missed opportunity that is your symposium.

    I’m looking forward to hearing from you on this matter. If I have been mislead about what has happened I would appreciate any clarifications.

    Thank you,

    [1]: “The Public Policy Forum’s mission is to strive for excellence in government – to serve as a neutral, independent forum for open dialogue on public policy, and to encourage reform in public sector management. Four key factors have distinguished the PPF as a unique organization on the Canadian landscape.” ([ link ]) [emphasis mine]

    [2]: [ link ]

  11. I am on a panel
    Micheal writes

    >> I am on a panel

    Well, you appear to be on the panel _for now_… until they find someone friendlier from the US copyright lobby to replace you.

  12. steelmans1980 says:

    Public IP
    You can have your own fully routed public ip on your own machine wherver you are connecting from, even behind restrictive firewalls with HTTP access only. Public IP Service

  13. until they find
    friendlier from the US copyright lobby to replace you.