Centre for Internet and Society

Screening of Pixel Pirate II: Attack of the Astro Elvis Video Clone

pranesh — 2011-04-05T04:41:30Z

Artists Soda_Jerk will lead discussions after the screening of their narrative remix video Pixel Pirate II, a film that questions the current state of intellectual property laws (and is composed only of samples).

Soda_Jerk (Dan & Dominique Angeloro) are two Sydney-based artists working collaboratively in the areas of video, photomedia and installation. They work exclusively with found material, recombining fragments of film footage, audio samples and vintage image culture to create new works.

Their hour-long narrative remix video "Pixel Pirate II: Attack of the Astro Elvis Video Clone" (2002-06) is a critique of intellectual property law that is constructed from samples pirated from over 300 film and music sources. Think of it as a sci-fi/ biblical epic/ romance/ action movie that stars Elvis Presley, Moses, the Hulk, Michael Jackson, Jesus, Batman and the Ghostbusters. Since its 2006 launch at the Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney it has screened internationally in the Czech Republic, Germany, Scotland, the Netherlands, Mexico and India. Soda_Jerk will discuss the process and cultural context of their video remix practice and screen 'Pixel Pirate II' along with other excerpts from their work.

For more information about Soda_Jerk, and about Pixel Pirate II, please visit: http://www.sodajerk.com.au and http://www.pixelpirate2.com.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/screening-of-pixel-pirate-ii-attack-of-the-astro-elvis-video-clone

Screening of Partners in Crime

pranesh — 2011-09-07T11:03:46Z

Vikalp@Smriti Nandan along with Centre for Internet and Society invite you to a screening of 'Partners in Crime' by Paromita Vohra on Friday, September 9, 2011, followed by a discussion with the director.

“Come along for a rollicking trip through the grey worlds of copyright, art, and the market in a story about love, money and crime”

Vikalp@Smriti Nandan along with Centre for Internet and Society invite you to the screening of

PARTNERS IN CRIME

Directed by Paromita Vohra
Duration: 94 minutes

@ 6.30pm on Friday, September 9, 2011
@ Smriti Nandan Cultural Centre, 15/3 Palace Road (at the end of the lane opposite NGMA / Maruti temple)
For more details – 9845766808 / 9916158217

The Director will be present at the screening.

Please note that non-members of Smriti Nandan are encouraged to pay Rs. 49/- or above towards the Auditorium.

Watch the trailer and read reviews.

Synopsis

Who owns a song – the person who made it or the person who paid for it? Is piracy organized crime or class struggle? Are alternative artists who want to hold rights over their art and go it alone in the market, visionaries or nutcases? Is the fine line between plagiarism and inspiration a cop-out or a whole other way of looking at the fluid nature of authorship? When more than three fourths of those with an
internet connection download all sorts of material for free, are they living out a brand new cultural freedom – or are they criminals? Full of wicked irony, great music and thorny questions Partners in
Crime explores the grey horizons of copyright and culture in times when technology is changing the contours of the market. Metal heads who market their own music, folklorists who turn tribal aphorisms into short stories, music archivists who hoard and share everything they can get their hands on, anti-piracy fanatics who think piracy funds terrorism, a smooth talking DVD street salesman who outlines the efficiency of the illegal market, media moguls, lobbyists, “monetizers”, downloaders, uploaders, the biggest hit song of 2010 and the small time nautanki singer whose song it was inspired by – these places and people throng the world’s bazaar in which the film is set. Partners in Crime takes you through a story about art, crime, love and money to check if the times, they may be a-changing after all.

Featuring

Vijay Dandetha, Thermal and a Quarter, Lawrence Liang, Demonic Resurrection, Pete Lockett, itwofs.com, Scribe, Rampat Harami & Rani Bala, Ram Sampath, Juma Khan, Irfan of Dil Ne Phir Yaad Kiya, FM Gold, CDrack.in and many others.

About the Director

Paromita Vohra is a documentary filmmaker and writer based in Mumbai whose films explore issues of politics, feminism, culture and desire. Some of her celebrated films are ‘Morality TV and the Loving Jehad: A Thrilling Tale’, 'Q2P', 'Un-limited Girls', 'Where’s Sandra?', ‘Cosmopolis: Two Tales of a City’ and 'A Woman’s Place'. She is also scriptwriter of 'Khamosh Pani' (directed by Sabiha Sumar) which won the Golden Leopard at the Locarno Film Festival in 2003; 'A Few Things I Know About Her' (directed by Anjali Panjabi) which won the Silver Conch at the MIFF 2002; and 'Skin Deep' (directed by Reena Mohan). Her prose writing has been carried in various anthologies including Electric Feather: The Tranquebar Book of Indian Erotica, Recess: The Penguin Book of Schooldays and Bombay Meri Jaan, among others. She writes a weekly column in Sunday Mid-day. She is currently working on a book about love in contemporary India. Partners in Crime is her latest film. To find out more about her work you can visit www.parodevi.com

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/partners-in-crime

Screening of 'Steal this Film' (TV Cut)

pranesh — 2011-04-05T04:44:27Z

A screening of a new edit combining Steal this Film and Steal this Film II, which hasn't been released or screened before. The screening will be followed by a discussion with the director, Jamie King. The Centre for Internet and Society and Pedestrian Pictures

cordially invite you to a screening of
Steal this Film (TV Cut) by Jamie King

Film:
Steal This Film (TV Cut)
A new edit combining Steal This Film and Steal This Film II, which hasn't been previously released or screened.

Date and Time:
Saturday, November 8, 2007
17:30 - 19:00 hrs.

Venue:
Nani Cinematheque (CFD)
5th Floor, Sona Towers
71 Millers Road
Bangalore

Map:
http://bit.ly/nani-map

(For directions to the venue call, CIS on +91 80 4092 6283.)

More about the film:
'Steal this Film' is a documentary series (available for free download online) about the culture of piracy and issues
surrounding intellectual property, and the cultural and economic implications of the Internet.

It has been selected for screening at Sheffield International Documentary Film Festival, South By Southwest (SXSW) festival in
Austin, Texas, the Singapore International Film Festival, and the International Documentary Film Festival in Amsterdam.

Links:
http://www.stealthisfilm.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_This_Film
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/29/steal-this-film-part.html

More about the director:
Jamie King is a film maker, writer and activist working enthusiastically in the area of new media, post-IP culture and social
organisation. A former editor of Mute Magazine, lobbyist at the UN, journalist at ITN News, and consultant for Channel 4 Television, Jamie is now focused on radical approaches to sharing, exchange and co-operation indicated by network technologies across a variety of media.

Co-organiser of the 2003 WSIS? We Seize! counter-UN summit, Jamie continues to be involved in highlighting the importance of information politics in the social movements. STEAL THIS FILM I and II, documentaries exploring the uncertain future of intellectual property, have been downloaded over 4 million times via BitTorrent and featured at numerous international film festivals.

Add to Google Calendar:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/screening-of-steal-this-film-tv-cut

RTI Applications on Blocking of Websites

pranesh — 2012-12-21T06:34:27Z

In recent weeks, an increasing number of incidents have come to light on government-ordered blocking of websites. In one case involving Zone-H.org, it is clear who has ordered the block (a Delhi district court judge, as an interim order), even though the block itself is open to constitutional challenge. In all others cases, including the TypePad case, it is unclear who has ordered the block and why. We at CIS have sent in two right to information requests to find out.

While under the law (i.e., s.69A of the Information Technology Act), the Department of Information Technology (DIT) has the power to order blocks (via the 'Designated Officer'), in some cases it has been noted that the ISPs have noted that the order to block access to the websites have come from the Department of Telecom (DoT). Due to this, we have sent in RTI applications to both the DIT and the DoT.

RTI Application to Department of Information Technology

Shri B.B.Bahl,
Joint Director and PIO (RTI)
Office of PIO (RTI)
Room No 1016, Electronics Niketan
Department of Information Technology (DIT)
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
6, CGO Complex, New Delhi

Dear Sir,

Subject: Information on Website Blocking Requested under the Right to Information Act, 2005

1. Full Name of the Applicant:
Pranesh Prakash

2. Address of the Applicant:
E-mail Address:
pranesh[at]cis-india.org

Mailing Address:
Centre for Internet and Society
194, 2-C Cross,
Domlur Stage II,
Bangalore – 560071

3. Details of the information required:

It has come to our attention that Airtel Broadband Services (“Airtel”) has recently blocked access to a blog host called TypePad (http://www.typepad.com) (“TypePad”) for all its users across the country. In this regard, we request information on the following queries under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:

Did the Department order Airtel to block TypePad under s.69A of the Information Technology Act (“IT Act”), 2000 read with the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (“Rules”) or any other law for the time being in force? If so, please provide a copy of such order or orders. If not, what action, if at all, has been taken by the Department against Airtel for blocking of websites in contravention of s.69A of the IT Act?
Has the Department ever ordered a block under s.69A of the IT Act? If so, what was the information that was ordered to be blocked?
How many requests for blocking of information has the Designated Officer received, and how many of those requests have been accepted and how many rejected? How many of those requests were for emergency blocking under Rule 9 of the Rules?
Please provide use the present composition of the Committee for Examination of Requests constituted under Rule 7 of the Rules.
Please provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Committee for Examination of Requests under Rule 8(4) of the Rules, and copies of their recommendations.
Please provide us the present composition of the Review Committee constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
Please provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Review Committee under Rule 14 of the Rules, and copies of all orders issued by the Review Committee.

4. Years to which the above requests pertain:
2008-2011

5. Designation and Address of the PIO from whom the information is required:

To the best of my belief, the details sought for fall within your authority. Further, as provided under section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act (“RTI Act”), in case this application does not fall within your authority, I request you to transfer the same in the designated time (5 days) to the concerned authority and inform me of the same immediately.

To the best of my knowledge the information sought does not fall within the restrictions contained in section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, and any provision protecting such information in any other law for the time being in force is inapplicable due to section 22 of the RTI Act.

Please provide me this information in electronic form, via the e-mail address provided above.

This to certify that I, Pranesh Prakash, am a citizen of India.

A fee of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten Only) has been made out in the form of a demand draft drawn in favour of “Pay and Accounts Officer, Department of Information Technology” payable at New Delhi.

Date: Monday, February 28, 2011
Place: Bengaluru, Karnataka

(Pranesh Prakash)

RTI Application to Department of Telecom

Shri Subodh Saxena
Central Public Information Officer (RTI)
Director (DS-II)
Room No 1006, Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Telecommunications (DoT)
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi — 110001

Dear Sir,

Subject: Information on Website Blocking Requested under the Right to Information Act, 2005

1. Full Name of the Applicant:
Pranesh Prakash

2. Address of the Applicant:
E-mail Address:
pranesh[at]cis-india.org

Mailing Address:
Centre for Internet and Society
194, 2-C Cross,
Domlur Stage II,
Bangalore – 560071

3. Details of the information required:

It has come to our attention that Airtel Broadband Services (“Airtel”) has recently blocked access to a blog host called TypePad (http://www.typepad.com) (“TypePad”) for all its users across the country. Airtel subscribers trying to access this website receive a message noting “This site has been blocked as per request by Department of Telecom”. In this regard, we request information on the following queries under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:

Does the Department have powers to require an Internet Service Provider to block a website? If so, please provide a citation of the statute under which power is granted to the Department, as well as the the safeguards prescribed to be in accordance with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Did the Department order Airtel to block TypePad or any blog hosted by TypePad? If so, please provide a copy of such order or orders. If not, what action, if at all, has been taken by the Department against Airtel for blocking of websites?
Has the Department ever ordered the blocking of any website? If so, please provide a list of addresses of all the websites that have been ordered to be blocked.
Please provide use the present composition of the Committee constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
Please provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Committee constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, and copies of all their recommendations.

4. Years to which the above requests pertain:
2005-2011

5. Designation and Address of the PIO from whom the information is required:
Shri Subodh Saxena
Central Public Information Officer (RTI)
Director (DS-II)
Room No 1006, Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Telecommunications (DoT)
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi — 110001

Please provide me this information in electronic form, via the e-mail address provided above.

This to certify that I, Pranesh Prakash, am a citizen of India.

A fee of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten Only) has been made out in the form of a demand draft drawn in favour of “Pay and Accounts Officer (HQ), Department of Telecom” payable at New Delhi.

Date: Monday, February 28, 2011
Place: Bengaluru, Karnataka

(Pranesh Prakash)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rtis-on-website-blocking

RTI Application to Visvesvaraya Technological University

pranesh — 2011-08-18T05:01:46Z

The Centre for Internet and Society filed an RTI application to Visvesvaraya Technological University asking it to provide details about its curriculum design, and its tie-ups with various software vendors.

The grip software vendors have over courses in technology (at both the school and the university levels) is a matter for concern. Due to what can be termed institutional inertia, educational institutions often don't realise that alternatives exist in the form of FLOSS (Free/Libre/Open Source software), as proprietary software is entrenched in the system (and is sometimes the market leader in that tech sector). To further tighten their grip, software vendors enter into commercial deals with governments and universities in attempts to penetrate the crucial education sector. This often results in students being taught courses on how to use particular (usually proprietary) software instead of being taught standard technologies. In turn, this denies them the opportunity to learn the concepts behind the software effectively, and ties them to the particular software that they were taught. For software vendors, getting their products into the curricula is very important because the supply of students trained in particular software also affects the demand for that software.

Students should be taught technologies first and foremost, and these technologies should be taught via the vehicle of both free and proprietary software (this is much easier if the technology itself is an open technology). That would allow students the opportunity to understand different implementations of the same technology and make an informed decision as to what they wish to use. It would also offer them more opportunities and choices in their future careers. The importance of FLOSS in the education sector is highlighted in a guide brought out by the United Nations Development Programme's International Open Source Network.

Against this backdrop, when news reports appeared in the Hindu (19 November 2008) and the Deccan Herald (20 November 2008) about a curriculum tie-up between Microsoft and Visvesvaraya Technological University, we filed a Right to Information application to get more details about it. The response stated that this matter was still under discussion and no agreement had been signed.

To read the application, click here; to read the response, click here. You can download a scanned copy of the response here.

-----

This entry was originally posted on 30 March 2009 and was updated on 3 April 2009.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/rti-application-on-microsoft-vtu-deal

Route to Tagore Hall, CCMG, JMI.

pranesh — 2008-10-13T12:18:45Z

A map detailing the location of CCMG and Tagore House, Jamia Millia Islamia.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/content-access/map.jpg

Robert Horowitz

pranesh — 2010-01-13T07:04:34Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/home-images/RH.jpg

Response to TRAI Consultation Paper on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-Top (OTT) Services

pranesh — 2015-05-09T11:27:15Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) sent a joint response to the TRAI Consultation Paper on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-top (OTT) Services with scholars from Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. The response was sent on March 27, 2015.

Executive Summary

The principle objective of net neutrality is that “all the Internet traffic has to be treated equally without any discrimination”; but this has had different interpretations over varied contexts. While the discourse in India has often treated net neutrality as a singular policy construct, we break down net neutrality to its various components. We then individually contextualise each component to the unique characteristics of the Indian telecommunications industry such as dependence on wireless internet access, the fragmented and non-contiguous distribution of spectrum, high competition between TEL-SPs and low digital literacy. The evolving nature of markets and networks are also considered while taking into account various public policy perspectives.

In this submission, we also argue for the need to introduce reasonable regulatory parity between functionally equivalent communications services provided by OTT-SPs and TEL-SPs. We compare the regulations for OTT-SPs under the Information Technology Act 2000 (as amended) with the regulations for TEL-SPs under the Telegraph Act 1885 (as amended), the license agreements (UL, UASL, ISP-L) and TRAI Regulations. Based on an analysis of the current laws and regulations, we suggest how TRAI needs to intervene to create this regulatory parity (for example in areas such as privacy, spam/UCC, interception etc.).

Through the above analysis, we recommend an overall regulatory framework that should be adopted by the Government. The framework takes a nuanced approach to various components of net neutrality, contextualised to India, and also attempts to bring reasonable regulatory parity. Instead of compartmentalising TEL-SPs and OTT-SPs as two distinct actors, the recommended framework considers a two-layered approach which recognises that there is an overlap between TEL-SPs and OTT-SPs. The first layer comprises of network and infrastructure (collectively called the network layer) and the second layer comprises of services and applications (collectively called the service layer).

The framework further divides the service layer into “Non-IP Services”, “Specialised Services” and “Internet Based Services”. The concept of “Specialised Services”, which is borrowed from the European Union, refers to traditional services that have migrated to an IP architecture such as facilities-based VoIP calls to PSTN and IPTV, and are either logically distinct from the Internet or have special needs which the “best efforts” delivery of the general Internet cannot satisfy. This concept helps in applying different evaluation criteria to functionally equivalent “Non-IP Services”, “Specialised Services” and “Internet Based Services”. In the framework, “Specialised Services” are also recognised as an exception to net neutrality. The concept of “Specialised Services” also helps to create an incentive for continued investment in underlying infrastructure by TEL-SPs.

This framework has helped us to bring a more balanced approach from the perspective of both TEL-SPs and OTT-SPs, while also taking into account technological convergence. It has also helped us to bring a more nuanced approach to various issues comprising net neutrality such as zero rating, paid prioritisation etc. We have considered best practices from different international regimes and the pros and cons during implementation in order to determine the exceptions and boundaries of net neutrality that should be adopted in India.

Download the full text of the Response

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/joint-response-to-trai-consultation-paper-on-regulatory-framework-for-over-the-top-services

Response to RTI on Decisions of the Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee

pranesh — 2013-01-09T15:26:26Z

The Department of Electronics & Information Technology, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology responded to a right to information (RTI) application filed by Saket Bisani on behalf of the Centre for Internet & Society on July 13, 2012 through notification No. 14(110)/2012-ESD, dated October 3, 2010.

No. 14(110)/2012-ESD
M/o Communiciations & Information Technology
Department of Electronics & Information Technology
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex
New Delhi-110003

Dated:3.10.2012

Subject: RTI application received from Shri Saket Biswani

With reference to your RTI application dated 13.7.12 requesting for the following information.

Question

a) Please provide me a list of the dates of each meeting of the CRAC held from October 18, 2000 till July 13, 2012?

b) Please provide me copies of the minutes of every meeting held by the Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee from October 18, 2000 till July 13, 2012.

c) Provide me the list of all policy decisions that the CRAC has advised the Central Government on under section 88(3) (a) of the Information Technology.

d) Provide me a list of all policy decisions that the CRAC has advised the Central Government on under section 88(3)(a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The information as received from the custodian of the information is placed below:

Answer

a) The meetings of CRAC were held on 6^th March, 2001 and 17-18 March, 2001.

b) Minutes of these two meetings of CRAC are attached.

c) No such advice was given by CRAC to DeitY under section 88(3)(a).

d) Information is attached.

(A.K. Kaushik)
Additional Director & CPIO
(E-Security & Cyber Laws)

To: Shri Saket Bisani
No. 194, 2^nd 'C' Cross,
Domlur 2^nd Stage
Bangalore-560 071

Minutes of the First Meeting of the Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee (CRAC) held on March 6, 2001, at Electronics Niketan, under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Minister* (IT) Shri Pramod Mahajan.

(List of Participants enclosed as Annexure-A)

The chairman welcomed the participants to the First Meeting of the Committee. In his opening remarks he hoped that the Committee would play a constructive role in the implementation of the Information Technology Act.
While introducing the Agenda (circulated ahead of the meeting), Controller of Certifying Authorities (CCA) made a short presentation on proposed "Regulation.; under section 89 of the IT Act" consisting of 18 proposed Regulations, Smart Card as token carrying Keys, and various suggested Amendments to the IT ACT 2000.
During the ensuing discussions, participants sought some time to study and collate associated inputs from their respective colleagues/specialists before offering any concrete suggestions/recommendations. Chairman agreed to the suggestions and postponed the meeting to 11:00 AM on the March 17, 2001 at the same venue. Based on the recommendation of Secretary (IT), members were requested to forward their inputs, if any, through e-mail within a weeks time to the following:

For Regulations wider section 89 of IT Act	For amendments to IT Act 2000
Shri K.N. Gupta (CCA) Room No. 4006, Electronics Niketan 6 CGO Complex New Delhi 110003 e-mail:kgupta@mit.gov.in Tele: 436 3073 Fax: 439 5982	Shri A.B. Saha (Member Secretary) Room No. 2055, Electronics Niketan 6 CGO Complex New Delhi 110003 e-mail:saha@mit.gov.in Tele: 436 0958 Fax: 436 2924

Meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.

Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee (CRAC) held on 17-18 March, 2001 at Electronics Niketan, New Delhi under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Minister (IT), Shri Pramod Mahajan.

(List of Participants enclosed as Annexure-A)

The chairman welcomed the participants to the second meeting of the Committee to consider further the draft regulations proposed by the Controller of Certifying Authority (CCA). ' " ~
During the ensuing discussions, following general recommendations/decisions were arrived at governing the overall formulation of the regulations that are necessary to bring about infrastructure facilitating activities envisaged under the IT Act 2000:

a) Any regulation to be framed by the Controller draws its authority only from Section 89(2) of the Act. Moreover, such regulations should complement the Rules already framed under the Section 87 of the Act.

b) To keep pace with the changing technology and standards, CCA may publicly notify/modify necessary specifications of technology, standards and procedures at regular interval (say, January of every year). Moreover, to adhere to the "principles of minimal governance", if any particular necessity emerges for inclusion of newer manifestations of any existing standard/technology/procedure, Controller should respond within ninety (90) days after receiving any specific request in writing, failing which it will deemed to have obtained his concurrence.

c) The commercial practices/interests may form the essential pedestal for the certification process. Aspects of cross-certification may preferably be left to the purview of the concerned market forces. However, the necessary interoperability will essentially be "market-driven" and not "authority-driven". This will also ensure that formulated rules and regulations stay in tune with market realities.

d) Strict adherence to open standards should be ensured to avoid emergence of monopoly of any kind.

e) Considering cost sensitiveness of the requisite digital signature certificate, families of technologies varying in convenience, reliability, availability, robustness, etc. may be allowed to inter-operate. However, CCA may undertake public awareness campaign to promote desirable best practices from time to time.

f) The minimal regulations facilitating activities envisaged in the Act is desirable. Some of the proposed provisions can also be ensured in the form of "terms & conditions" governing the operations of Certifying Authorities.

g) Emergence of guidelines governing smooth functioning may be better left to publications brought out by industry associations, public-minded professionals etc. Formulating rules and regulations in these regards should be minimal.

3. After framing the draft compilation of the requisite regulations in accordance with the conventional legal form in terms of content as well as structure with the assistance of the Ministry of Law, the regulations may be brought to the Ministry of Information Technology for approval.

4 The Committee considered the 18 regulations proposed in Agenda Item No.1 and the statement reproduced below contains the decision taken against each proposal.

SI	Item	Conclusions
1	Regulation 1 Standardising on two key-pairs for PKI in the country. Key-pair generation for subscribers by CAs.	Regulation not required. Encryption Key pair not part of the IT Act. Already covered under Rule 3, 4 & 5 of notified CA Rules. Subscriber should be at liberty to bring his key pair that CA may verify before acceptance. (Section 40 of the Act)
2	Regulation 2 Encryption key-pair of subscribers to be maintained by CAs in a database and made available to enforcement and law agencies under directions of the Controller.	Regulation not required. IT Act is silent regarding encryption.
3	Regulation 3 Disclosure Record of CA.	Disclosure may be done every six months. Necessary format for disclosure may be notified from time to time. (Para 2(f) above)
4	Regulation 4 Encryption Key Pair of CA to be made available to the Controller.	Regulation not required in accordance to conclusions against 1 & 2 above.
5	Regulation 5 Cross-Certification with foreign CAs.	As per recommendation 2(c) above.
6	Regulation 6 Terms and Conditions subject to which license shall be issued by the Controller to the prospective CAs.	Can be merged with regulation 11. As per the recommendation mentioned in 2(c) above.
7	Regulation 7 Standards that may be considered for different activities associated with the CAs functions including standardization of contents of the Certificates to be issued by CAs and standardization of the Certificate Revocation List.	As per the recommendation 2(b) above.
8	Regulation 8 Information to be made publicly available by a CA on its website. Notice of suspension or revocation of license.	CA must harness all form of networks and other practical media, and not only Internet, for disclosure to its subscriber and other interested parties.
9	Regulation 9 Standardisation of Certificate Practice Statement.	Agreed.
10	Regulation 10 Compromise of subscribers Digital Signature Key-Pair	Agreed.
11	Regulation 11 Description of classes of Certificates.	Shall be merged with regulation 6 above. In addition to 3 classes of certificates as identified by international bodies, the regulation should be open to additional classes of certificates, if required.
12	Regulation 12 Cross-Certification of CAs.	It should be market-driven. (Recommendation 2(c) above).
13	Regulation 13 Incorporation of Controllers Public Key Certificate as the "root” in all web browsers in the country.	Regulation not required. Need for integrating Controller's root key in the browsers may not be feasible.
14	Regulation 14 Minimum key length for CAs and subscribers.	Agreed for the provision of 1024 bits for subscriber/end-user and 2048 bits for CAs key pair.
15	Regulation 15 Audit of applicants to include manpower audit as well. Liability of CAs towards subscribers on account of their negligence.	Regulation not required. Audit provision has already been covered under Rule 31 of CA rules notified by MIT.
16	Regulation 16 Storage of Key-Pairs of CAs. Distribution of Key-Pairs / Certificates of subscribers by CAs.	Not to be regulated. Recommendation 2(e) above shall be followed.
17	Regulation 17 Documents to be submitted to the Controller along with the application for obtaining license to operate as CA.	Already covered under rule 10 of CA rules notified by MIT. Any additional information can be sought through the recourse of public notices from time to time.
18	Regulation 18 Upon acceptance of PKC by a subscriber, the PKC shall be published by the CA as required under the IT Act for access by the subscribers and relying parties. The CA will ensure the transmission of PKC and CRLs to the National Repository to be maintained by the Controller.	Agreed.

Meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.

Annexure - A

First sitting of the second meeting of the “Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee” held on 17th March 2001 to consider adjourned agenda of the first meeting held on 6ft March 2001

List of Participants

Sh Pramod Mahajan, Minister, Information Technology - Chairman
Sh.S.C Jain , Secretary, Legislative Department
Sh Vinay Kohli, Secretary, Ministry of Information Technology
Sh. N. Parameswaran, DDG(LR), Department of Telecommunications
Dr. Jaimini Bhagwati, Ministry of Finance
Maj.Gen. M. G. Datar, Addl.D.G, IT, Army HQ, Ministry of Defence
Sh Mukesh Mittal, Dy Secy, Ministry of Home Affairs
Sh T A Khan, Sr. Dir, NIC, Ministry of Commerce
Sh. K.R Ganapathy,CGM-IC,RBI

10. Sh.S.R-Mittal,Adviser,DIT, Reserve Bank of India

11. Sh Dewang Mehta, President, NASSCOM

12. Sh Amitabh Singhal, President, Internet Service Providers Association

13. Sh LN Behra, DIG, Director, Central Bureau of Investigation

14. Sh K N Gupta, Controller of Certifying Authority

15. Sh. Qamar Ahmed. Addl.C.P/Crime, DG Police by rotation from the States

16. Prof. R S Sirohi. I1T Delhi, Director, IIT Delhi

17. Sh.Sanjay Dhawan, ExecDirector,KPMG, Representing CII

18. Sh. M.A.J.Jeyaseelan, Secretary, FICCI

19. Sh. Subimal Bhattacharjee, Vice President ARGUS, Representing ASSOCHAM

20. Sh A B Saha, Senior Director, Ministry of IT - Member Convener

First sitting of the second meeting of the “Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee” held on 18th March 2001 to consider adjourned agenda of the first meeting held on 6ft March 2001

List of Participants

Sh Pramod Mahajan, Minister, Information Technology - Chairman
Sh.N.L. Meenu, Jt. Secretary, Legislative Department
Sh Vinay Kohli, Secretary, Ministry of Information Technology
Sh. N. Parameswaran, DDG(LR), Department of Telecommunications
Dr. Jaimoni Bhagwati, Ministry of Finance
Maj.Gen. M G Datar, Ministry of Defence
Sh Mukesh Mittal, Dy Secy, Ministry of Home Affairs
Sh T A Khan, Sr. Dir, NIC, Ministry of Commerce
Sh. K.R Ganapathy,CGM-IC,RBI

10. Sh Dewang Mehta, President, NASSCOM

11. Sh Amitabh Singhal, President, Internet Service Providers Association

12. Sh LN Behra, DIG, Director, Central Bureau of Investigation

13. Sh K N Gupta, Controller of Certifying Authority

14. Sh. Dinesh Bhatt, Dy. Police Commissioner, Delhi

15. Prof. R S Sirohi. I1T Delhi, Director, IIT Delhi

16. Sh.Sanjay Dhawan, ExecDirector,KPMG, Representing CII

17. Sh. M.A.J.Jeyaseelan, Secretary, FICCI

18. Sh. Subimal Bhattacharjee, Vice President ARGUS, Representing ASSOCHAM

19. Sh A B Saha, Senior Director, Ministry of IT - Member Convener

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/deity-response-to-rti-on-decisions-of-crac

Response of Free Software Foundation of India

pranesh — 2008-09-21T14:40:57Z

The FSFI's draft response to the Patent Office

This is with reference to the Draft Patents Manual on which your office has invited comments. On behalf of Free Software Foundation of India (http://www.gnu.org.in/) I hereby submit our response and comments pertaining to the relevant sections that refer to computer programs.

Computer programs (software) is not patentable as per the Clause 3(k) of the Indian Patent Act. This point is clearly stated in the manual. However, the section 4 of the Draft Manual makes an attempt to inform the inventors and potential Patent applicants that while software per se is not patentable, software in combination with hardware can be patented. The draft appears to make a room for this possibility. This is important to recollect that an amendment to this effect was suggested in the Presidential Ordinance tabled in the parliament in December 2005, and the house rejected this amendment. Therefore, what the policy of the land rejected cannot be enabled through instructions in a manual, subverting the legal framework already laid. In what follows we demonstrate how the draft manual is enabling this possibility.

4.11.2 does not preclude a computer program embedded in a ROM as what constitutes a computer program. According to 4.11.2 a computer program "may be expressed in various forms e.g., a series of verbal statements, a flowchart, an algorithm, or other coded form and maybe presented in a form suitable for direct entry into a particular computer, or may require transcription into a different format (computer language). It may merely be written on paper or recorded on some machine readable medium such as magnetic tape or disc or optically scanned record, or it maybe permanently recorded in a control store forming part of a computer. " (4.11.2)

It is very important to state that computer program can be encoded in various kinds of digital media including those that are invented as well as those that may in future be invented. E.g. ROM, EPROM or BIOS are also embedded memories where computer programs can be embedded. Mere inclusion of data or computer programs in such chips on the board are also not patentable. Such chips are often present on the board of a digital device should therefore be explicitly mentioned in the manual as one of the forms in which a computer programs can be encoded and hence excluded from patentable invention.

Since such a statement is absent in the draft manual, we suggest, it must be explicitly included in 4.11.2. A sample statement that we propose can be as follows:

A computer program may be encoded or stored in the form of an electronic chip or read only memory (ROM) or in component that can be embedded as a part of an electronic circuit. Since this is a mere extension of a recordable surface of code over which any digitized data can be stored including a computer program, mere inclusion of a software or data in such electronic chip or ROM will not be considered as a hardware innovation, therefore not allowed.

4.11.3 again indicates that "The source/pseudo/object codes may be incorporated in the description optionally." When the law clearly states that source code (a computer program), pseudo code (an algorithm) or not patentable, how can an invention be described in that form. 4.11.3 should be removed completely since hardware or process patents are not covered under 3(k). This point opens up a room for patenting software in combination with hardware or process patents. This should be forbidden, unless the law says that software can be patented in combination with hardware and processes. Since the law does not say so, this makes no sense to tell an inventor to provide code.

4.11.4 is a clarification on what constitutes a prior art, which done elsewhere in the document. Specifically mentioning this under this section gives a clear indication that it is about patenting hardware. But, the objective of the section is not to clarify what is patentable. Hardware inventions are already covered under technical inventions and do not need a separate mention under the chapter whose objective is to tell what is not patentable.

4.11.5 mentions that there can be three kinds of computer inventions. Once computer programs are separated out, what remains in the computer is innovations pertaining to electronics and communication. Therefore, talking about them in this context only opens up a room for people to think that patenting software in combination with hardware is possible. First: method or procedure in the context of a computer is nothing but a program which is not patentable. Second: inventing an apparatus or a system is patentable and therefore should not be included in this section. Including in this section only helps inventors to interpret that apparatus or a system in combination with software is patentable.

The following statement from 4.11.6 clearly brings out what the draft manual is trying to achieve: "Technical applicability of the software claimed as a process or method claim, is required to be defined in relation with the particular hardware components. Thus, the "software per se" is differentiated from the software having its technical application in the industry is about "technical applicability of the software claimed as a method or a process claim."

This is an attempt to explain what can be the meaning of "per se" in the clause 3(k). It relegates software to be a mere expression, for an expression does not have any technical application, except that a human interpreter trained in coding can read and understand. Therefore, what this draft is informing the community is clear. Since, all software can have technical application, so when we file for patents we have spell out the intended application of the software, and there is a novelty in applying the software patents can be granted. So, here the innovation is to think of a novel application even if the software per se is not novel. This is where the absurdity of the elaboration comes from.

The implication is that if a software, let us say an email client, in combination with a special gadget, say some USB pendrive, which in turn can be combined with say a bluetooth communication device, etc., can be claimed for a patent since no such innovation is a prior art. This is absurd, since here each of the three are performing independently of each other and mere combination is not an innovation. This is a mere exploration of making what is possible. One may say that the output of one device becomes an input for the other device. The innovation consists in linking these two devices as one. But this idea of linking input output devices is known art as old as human culture.

This way the domain of patentable art increases by several folds. We understand that the wealth of Patent's office enhances as well as a section of the industry due to this. This should not be the objective of the patent's office. The office should on hte other hand exclude such mere combinations as an art of the possible and clearly state in this section that such a combination art is not patentable. This will encourage more innovators so that very large smaller workshops across the country belonging to small and medium scale industries and young entrepreneurs can perform these combinations and come up with innovations without becoming a victim of the big patent hungry corporations.

The other danger is that big corporations will hire people explore all the logical possibilities of these combinations and claim patents on all of them. This should be prevented, if the patent office is really interested in encouraging a large number of individuals to enjoy the benefits of science and technology. If people at large do not participate in such combination art, science and technology will not percolate to people at large. People should have the right to implement ideas, and should not be living in a world where there will always be threat that some company will kill him for their innovations.

Another major problem of this section consists in relegating software per se has no technical use just because it has not been combined with any device so far.

The terms "software claimed as a process" and "software claimed as a method", (Cf. 4.11.5 and 4.11.6) are not clearly defined in the law. Therefore such terms cannot be brought in the manual. 4.11.9 is a very serious threat to a innovating society. A draft manual has no right to bring in such a blatant back door entry of a rejected statement by the house of the country. This kind of amendment was attempted in 2005 through a presidential ordinance, and Parliament rejected it. The patent's office has no right to bring it back without first making an amendment.

FSF India, as well as the whole world reacted strongly to this amendment. Since the draft manual makes an attempt to reintroduce this possibility by explicitly stating that software in combination with hardware (embedded systems) (Cf.4.11.9) is patentable, it is important to reiterate the arguments, which are as follows:

Any software can be embedded into a hardware by using either flash or ROM or some some rule set embedded in the circuit. E.g., a large number of mathematical, graphic and audio manipulations which were at one time performed by software are all currently available as embedded solutions within the integrated boards. Each such integration should not be considered patentable.

All hardware that does symbolic manipulations can also be simulated in a software. E.g., if a computer does not have a direct 3D rendering as a part of a VGA card, such computer can perform 3D rendering by using a software library.

This clearly indicates that the entire domain of symbolic and datamanipulation must be kept completely out of the domain of patentability. That is clearly the wisdom of 3(k) where all the innovations that happen in the domain of mathematics, algorithms, computer programs are kept out of the domain of patentability.

The most important ontological issue here is that there does not exist any software that can be made to work independently of any hardware. Some active media, either hardware or wetware (a living human or intelligent being), is required for performing the symbolic manipulation (executing instructions). Therefore, all software--since all software works only in combination with some hardware--is patentable.

Allowing software in combination with hardware multiplies the domain of what is patentable by several folds. The demonstration of this very simple. Software A in combination with hardware A, hardware B, hardware C etc. are all independently patentable for each of the combination is an innovation. The popular demand from the big industry players who wanted this kind of amendment all over the world is therefore clear. What they want is to increase somehow the domain of patentable innovations, so that they can continue to twist the arms of small time innovators.

We therefore request that these sections that explicitly encourage innovators to claim "software in combination with hardware" be not only be removed, but explicitly inform the community that they are not patentable. This will encourage innovators to work out the art of the possible and a healthy competitive world will result in this domain since no fear exists among the innovators and even small time innovators could venture. The objective of the patent's office should be not to enhance the domain of patentability, but to limit, since in this case it is very clear that such a provision restricts the participation of community at large to participate in the innovation.

In this section 4.11, which is a guide to 3(k), it should be clearly mentioned that "A mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms are not patentable" because as such such methods are already protected under the copyright act. Therefore the desirable interpretation of 3(k) should be, computer programs per se are not allowed under patents act and are only allowed under copyright since a computer program per se is nothing but an expression, and expressions are protected under copyright and expressions are not innovations and so not patentable.

Combining an expression (mathematical or computer programs or algorithms) with different variety of hardware is an art of the possible and therefore such a combination art is not considered an innovation. All industries small or big should be encouraged to participate in combining them innovately without any fear of stepping on a land mine.

Free(dom) software (popularly known as free and open source software coming out from GNU, Gnome, KDE, Apache, Mozilla, freeBSD, RedHat, Ubuntu, and such projects) is increasingly getting embedded in several embedded (hardware) devices and their usage is increasing by several folds every day. Our community is concerned about the recurring enthusiasm our Patent's office has in finding a way to make software related innovations and bring them to allowable category. On behalf of FSF India, a representative of a global community of free software community, requests the office to redo the elaborations of 3(k). FSF India can enthusiastically help in re-drafting this portion if the office gives us a chance. As an important stakeholder of a very large free software community globally, neglecting our serious objections will not help the industry and community at large to take the full benifit of free software.

Considering that the ICT revolution took place without allowing software patents, there is no need for expanding the domain of patentable innovations.

Even if other countries made such provisions, India as world's largest democracy should not create an atmosphere of anti-innovation. As a country with large human resource, we have a bigger challenge of harnessing more creativity among the country, and that will happen by bringing each and every citizen under creative participation and not by bringing each and every thing under allowable patents category. India should lead the rest of the world by clearly stating in the manual that computer programs are not patentable in India by any other way and are per se protected only under copyright.

The practical advantage of not allowing software patents in India will enable Indians to work with those ideas that are otherwise patented elsewhere.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/response-of-free-software-foundation-of-india

Response by the Centre for Internet and Society to the Draft Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration

pranesh — 2015-11-29T06:35:12Z

This proposal was made to the Global Multistakeholder Community on August 9, 2015. The proposal was drafted by Pranesh Prakash and Jyoti Panday. The research assistance was provided by Padmini Baruah, Vidushi Marda, and inputs from Sunil Abraham.

For more than a year now, the customers and operational communities performing key internet functions related to domain names, numbers and protocols have been negotiating the transfer of IANA stewardship. India has dual interests in the ICANN IANA Transition negotiations: safeguarding independence, security and stability of the DNS for development, and promoting an effective transition agreement that internationalizes the IANA Functions Operator (IFO). Last month the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) set in motion a public review of its combined assessment of the proposals submitted by the names, numbers and protocols communities. In parallel to the transition of the NTIA oversight, the community has also been developing mechanisms to strengthen the accountability of ICANN and has devised two workstreams that consider both long term and short term issues. This 2 is our response to the consolidated ICG proposal which considers the proposals for the transition of the NTIA oversight over the IFO.

Click to download the submission.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/response-by-the-centre-for-internet-and-society-to-the-draft-proposal-to-transition-the-stewardship-of-the-internet-assigned-numbers-authority-iana-functions-from-the-u-s-commerce-department2019s-national-telecommunications-and-information-administration

Response by Knowledge Commons

pranesh — 2008-09-30T15:07:50Z

Arguments on why section 4.11 of the Patents Manual needs to be modified.

1. A patent is a state granted monopoly on an invention. As with any other monopoly, a patent must be treated with great discretion, especially since this particular monopoly is bestowed by the state itself. The original intent of the patent system was to encourage disclosure by the inventor, in exchange for exclusive rights to the invention. This ensured that inventors did not take their inventions to the grave and that society could build on existing knowledge rather than re-invent the wheel. As with any other policy instrument, we need to examine whether patents meet their intended objectives.

2. In this context, the degree of patent protection in India should be seen with the following in mind:

The desirable form of IPR protection is very much a function of development. Currently, the developed economies feel they should protect their IPR and restrict their dissemination. But these same countries have historically had much more lax IPR regimes that have allowed imitation to promote more rapid industrialization. For example, the US actively encouraged copying of European innovation in the 19th century and even “nationalised” wireless patents - claiming national interest. Even late 20th century rapid developers such as Japan and South Korea benefited greatly from relatively lax patent regimes. So there is a strong case for providing less IPR protection in the development phase, especially in those areas where domestic innovation is less advanced.

There is no clear correlation between high IPR protection and innovation[1], and much historical evidence to the contrary. A significant number of studies have shown that patents are important primarily in chemicals, chemical materials and pharmaceuticals, where patents can protect specific molecules or well defined but small slices of technology. In other areas, patents tend to be relatively less important in promoting innovation.

This means that India should first identify what are its national interests and then calibrate the IPR protection accordingly. For example, in pharmaceuticals, the current national interest lies clearly in restricting patents. This is also why the Indian Parliament has taken advantage of the flexibility of TRIPs to raise the bar of what is patentable. Indeed, other countries including the US are now copying some of these measures.[2]

An important example is in the area of software where India has a major interest, and where patents are being opposed by all Small and Medium sized companies. In Europe, this opposition led to the proposed directive on software patents to be defeated overwhelmingly in the European Parliament.

3. There are now attempts being made in India to bring in software patents using either the EPO or the USPTO practice. This attempt is being supported by a small number of large international software companies, who had earlier benefited from software being free from patents and are now trying to obstruct others who are entering the field. It is not in the interest of India's software industry to have restrictive patent regime, particularly as they switch from being service providers to product developers.

4. The EPO in fact has followed much of the USPTO practice, the only area that it differs with USPTO being in the business method patenting. However, as a number of observers have pointed out, this means drafting a business method patent as a technical application: it is the form of the patent rather than its content that changes with the EPO approach. Therefore, both EPO and USPTO have erred in accepting patents that are either algorithms or methods, dressed up as software patents.

5. The crisis of the US Patent Office is well known and many critics have pointed out that the US is facing effectively a broken patent system. They have pointed out that granting patents to objects that have existed for years, or patents that are patently ridiculous, does not serve any purpose whatsoever. A case in point is US Patent 20060071122, granted for a ‘full body teleportation system’. The abstract for this reads, ‘A pulsed gravitational wave wormhole generator system that teleports a human being through hyperspace from one location to another.’ Of course, there is no functional version of this. There are innumerable examples of this kind of patent being granted. Another kind of patent that serves no useful purpose is where the patented product or process is something that has been used for years and years, and is known to the whole world, such as the wheel, or swinging on a swing.[3] This undermines the entire basis of the patent system and has the potential to cause havoc. The rapid dilution of the tripartite test of novelty, non-obviousness and utility that led to such patents being granted is finally being halted in the USA, with the US Supreme Court ruling recently that obviousness cannot be constrained by a legal formulation, and the use of common sense is necessary in determining whether a patent be granted or not.[4]

6. Courts in all parts of the world have held that subject matter which would have the practical effect of pre-empting laws of nature, abstract ideas or mathematical algorithms is ineligible for patent protection. This age-old and time-tested precedent effectively establishes the ineligibility for patent protection to laws of nature, abstract ideas and mathematical algorithms. If these could be patented, then in effect one would be patenting the tools of scientific enquiry itself, something no patent law allows as it would lead to halting scientific progress.

7. In the past, the courts have also held that regarding patentable subject that the inquiry into whether subject matter is eligible for patenting is one of substance, not form. This requires that the patent office look, not simply at the language of the patent claim to see if it recites a structure of multiple steps or components, but also at the practical effect of the claim to see if it in fact covers -- or otherwise would restrict the public’s access to -- a principle, law of nature, abstract idea, mathematical formula, mental process, algorithm or other abstract intellectual concept. Otherwise, it would make the determination of patentable subject matter depend simply on the draftsman’s art and would ill serve the principles underlying the prohibition against patents for 'ideas' or phenomena of nature. By skilled patent drafting, one should not be able to start patenting essentially abstract ideas, mental processes and newly discovered laws of nature or mathematical algorithms.

8. However, a number of patent offices, particularly the USPTO and the EPO have been granting patents recently for software also. This is without taking into consideration that all software is ultimately the expression of algorithms or mathematical methods. This has already created a situation which Tim Berners-Lee, one of the founders of the World Wide Web and director of the World Wide Web Consortium that sets global standards for the Internet, calls the biggest threat to software development.

All companies developing emerging technology are threatened by the prospect of patent licensing royalties. You could never find out what patent could possibly apply to what technology. You could never guess what things people might have the gall to say they have patented already. It really is a universal fear.’ (Tim Berners-Lee at Emerging Technologies Conference at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, September 29, 2004.)

9. In the US, recent studies have shown that the only sector of the economy in which royalties are more than legal costs are pharmaceuticals[5]. In their recently published book, Bessen and Meurer have analysed the numbers in terms of revenues generated from patents as against cost of filing, maintaining and defending patents in courts. In their view, the data shows that except in the case of pharmaceuticals, patents generate far more litigation costs than revenue. The numbers are clear: domestic litigation costs --16 billion dollars in 1999 alone -- was about twice the revenue for patents. Even in this, almost two thirds of the revenue was from pharmaceuticals and chemicals. Worse, the more innovative the company, more was the likelihood of it being sued. The software and business method patents fared the worst, with costs far outstripping the benefits of patenting. The sector with the worst royalty to costs record is software, with most high technology firms being opposed now to software patents.

10. Apart from the reasons given above, the software patents have the problem of being ill defined and capable of very broad scope. It is difficult to build around as is possible in other areas of technology, precisely because of the vagueness of the claims. Novelty and inventive step is again much more difficult to disprove unlike pharmaceuticals, where it is the molecule with a clearly defined structure which is being patented. No company in the world can conduct patent searches for software, given the number of such patents being filed and the inability to identify the defining characteristic of the product being patented. Therefore, the provision of copyright is more than adequate for protecting IPR in software.

11. The other problem with software patents is that any large software project uses a large number of software components. Any one of them can be subjected litigation claiming patent violations. This would open the company to costly lawsuits and against the interests of all but the biggest global corporations who have deep pockets.

12. Today, even companies such as IBM, Sun, Texas Instruments, CISCO have joined the growing Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) community opposing software patents. Most of these companies have publicly stated that they are filing patents only for defensive purposes. Indian law also bars software patents. With regards to proprietary versus FOSS, India needs to analyse and define what should be its trajectory. There is enough grounds to believe that if Indian companies want to move from services model to a product model, software patents and proprietary software will not be the route to take instead, India should promote FOSS, as Brazil and China are doing.

13. Apart from the lack of natural reason for granting software patents, there are potential adverse consequences to the Indian economy in other areas should such patents are granted. The current explosion in bio-pharmaceutical development is increasingly dependent on the ability to perform large-scale data mining from huge amounts of genetic-genomic data. Highly specialised software is developed from pre-existing 'generic' software by bio-informatic technologists for this purpose. Allowing the patenting of the generic basic software will increase the costs of data mining substantially, and will have an extremely adverse impact on the competitive ability of small, knowledge-based entrepreneurial ventures of the kind that India excels in.

14. In India, it has been considered patents should be granted only when public good demands granting of such state protected monopolies. This was the practice also in the UK and the US. It is still the basis of the practice in most countries. It is only in the last few decades that the US, followed by the UK, Japan and now the European Patent Office has tried to change the interpretation of their Patents Acts to expand the scope of patentability. This attempt to enlarge the scope is from their national interest as they hold the largest number of patents. Therefore, their belief that strengthening the patent regime internationally will help their companies to build worldwide monopolies.

15. It is not in India’s national interest or in the interests of its people to expand the scope of state protected monopolies through expanding the patent scope. India’s national interest is best served by restricting the scope of such monopolies. Therefore, the patent regime in India should work on the presumption that patents are to be given only when there is a decisive case for patents. This has been the basis of the Indian Patents Act and is in tune with fundamentals of such legislation world over. It is only the deviation in patent interpretation that has produced a scenario where business methods, software and also mathematical methods are also being patented.

16. The US Supreme Court has now been correcting some of the excesses that has occurred in the US patents interpretation by the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC). We see no reason why India should change it understanding of patentability following in the footsteps of the US and the EPO and subsequently need to correct such excesses.

17. The US Supreme Court had ruled earlier that Supreme Court has held that patent protection may not be granted for “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981). The case has frequently been misread as a basis for patenting subject matter that is abstract and intangible. In fact, however, Diehr confirms that intangible subject matter may not be patented, whether directly or indirectly through artful claim drafting.

18. Diehr also re-affirmed its holding in Gottschalk v.Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), that algorithms, or procedures for solving mathematical problems—the building blocks of computer programs—cannot be patented. Likewise, it reaffirmed its holding in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1984), that an algorithm for computing a number that served as an alarm limit was not patentable by adding insignificant post-solution activity added to a unpatentable principle to a patenable process. Diehr reaffirmed that only tangible processes – in this case vulcanizing rubber-- and not abstract ideas are patentable.

19. In alignment with Benson and Flook, the US Supreme Court in Diehr held that structures or processes must, when considered as a whole, perform functions intended to be covered by patent law in order to be eligible for patent protection. Diehr followed and upheld the core holdings of both Benson and Flook.

20. The US Supreme Court therefore has not pronounced on software patents after Diehr and therefore Diehr still remains the definitive interpretation of software patents in the US.

21. The CAFC deviated from the Supreme Court ruling in Diehr in At&T vs Excel Communications and in State Street Bank. There, CAFC held that though abstract ideas were not patentable, they could be patented if they produced “a useful, concrete and tangible result.” This was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings on this matter.

22. In a number of recent cases, the US Supreme Court has overruled the CAFC. In all these cases, the US Supreme Court has narrowed the definition of what is patentable. We have already quoted the KSR Vs Teleflex case in this context.

23. It is in this context that the CAFC is revisiting the State Street and AT&T Vs Excel Communications sitting in en banc. Significantly, it has posed the following questions on which it wants to re-examine the two cases. These are:

(1) Whether claim 1 of the [Bilski] patent application claims patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101?

(2) What standard should govern in determining whether a process is patent-eligible subject matter under section 101?

(3) Whether the claimed subject matter is not patent-eligible because it constitutes an abstract idea or mental process; when does a claim that contains both mental and physical steps create patent-eligible subject matter?

(4) Whether a method or process must result in a physical transformation of an article or be tied to a machine to be patent-eligible subject matter under section 101?

(5) Whether it is appropriate to reconsider State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999), in this case and, if so, whether those cases should be overruled in any respect?

24. Obviously, the US Courts are re-thinking software patents in the light of its difficulty in establishing clear boundaries and tying all future innovation in a morass of litigation. With patent trolls entering the picture, it has become clear to the industry as well as the larger public in the US that the patent system is not being well served by software patents. The CAFC en banc review is only one such indication. Patent reforms are also being discussed in US Congress to address such issues.

25. Therefore, we would urge the patent office to take cognizance off the above and reconsider the paras in the Draft Patent Manual that allows software patents if they are seen to have technical applications.

26. We believe that the lawmakers have done their job and have defined clearly that software patents per se are not admissible in India. It is now incumbent on the patent office to make this clear and not admit such patents.

----

US CASES

Diamond v. Diehr,

450 U.S. 175 (1981)

Gottschalk v. Benson,

409 U.S. 63 (1972)

Parker v. Flook,

437 U.S. 584 (1984)

Alappat,

33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.,

149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), 525 U.S. 1093 (1999)

AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc.,

172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999),

KSR International v. Teleflex

127 US 1727 (2007)

----

[1] Against Intellectual Monopoly, Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm)

[2] Thus, while the US Trade Representative calls for Indian Patent Law to conform to US practices, patent reform is now being pushed aggressively within the US by the high tech industries that are complaining of grant opposition and post grant opposition (as exist in Indian Law) are being put forward as patent reforms in the US Congress. The US Supreme Court has now made combining two existing innovations into a “new” one invalid for patenting (again already barred under Indian Law). The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has now ruled in what is not patentable virtually in the same language for what is not patentable a broken patent system. Both pre according to the Indian Patent Act (Section 3 d, challenged by Novartis in Chennai High Court).

[3] US Patent 6368227, “Method for swinging on a swing”, filed by a five year old child; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1418165.stm, How an Australian lawyer patented the wheel. There are many other examples.

[4] "We build and create by bringing to the tangible and palpable reality around us new works based on instinct, simple logic, ordinary inferences, extraordinary ideas, and sometimes even genius. These advances, once part of our shared knowledge, define a new threshold from which innovation starts once more. And as progress beginning from higher levels of achievement is expected in the normal course, the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws. Were it otherwise patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8. These premises led to the bar on patents claiming obvious subject matter established in Hotchkiss and codified in §103. Application of the bar must not be confined within a test or formulation too constrained to serve its purpose." KSR International v Telefax US Supreme Court

[5] James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer, Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers

Put Innovators at Risk, Princeton University Press, March 2008.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/response-by-knowledge-commons-1

Resources

pranesh — 2009-10-20T03:29:16Z

A collection of resources that will help one navigate through the arguments and evidence for and against the Indian "Bayh-Dole" bill.

PUPFIP

Bayh-Dole

Technology Transfer

Innovation's Golden Goose (The Economist)

Improving Innovation(The Economist)

Scientific Culture

Patents and America's Universities(The Economist)

When Academia Puts Profits Ahead of Wonder(The New York Times)

Bayhing for blood or Doling out cash?(The Economist)

Evaluative Pieces

University Licensing under Bayh-Dole: What are the Issues and Evidence?(Thursby and Thursby)

Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries? Lessons from the US Experience(So et al.)

The Law of Unintended Consequences(Fortune Magazine)

The Growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities and the Bayh-Dole Act (Mowery et al.)

Overall Assessment of the Bayh-Dole Act (Nelson, Mowery, et al.)

General Resources

Joint Ventures and Intellectual Property(Andreas Panagopoulos)

Patents vs. Other Knowledge Transfer(Agrawal and Henderson)

Incentives Structure and Licensing Success(Dan Elfenbein)

University Licensing and Research Behavior(Lach and Schankerman)

Open Science and Private Property(Paul David)

IP Alternatives

New Approaches to Filling the Gap in TB Drug Discovery (Casenghi, Cole and Nathan)

The Role of Prizes in Developing Low-Cost Point-of-Care Rapid Diagnostic Tests and Better Drugs for TB(James Love)

How to boost R&D for essential drugs and diagnostics

Scrooge and intellectual property rights (BMJ January 2006)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip/resources

Research Project on Open Video in India

pranesh — 2011-08-23T02:51:36Z

Open Video Alliance and the Centre for Internet and Society are calling for researchers for a project on open video in India, its potentials, limitations, and recommendations on policy interventions.

Project Timeline

From mid-April to mid-July.

Summary of Outputs

A 15-20 page paper surveying the online video environment in India and the opportunities it presents for creative expression, political participation, social justice, and other such concerns. The paper should deal with the structural limitations of the medium (e.g.: limited bandwidth, IP lobbies discourage re-appropriation of cultural materials, online video is inaccessible to the deaf, and so on) and how they can be addressed. Recommendations should be bold but in touch with the real policy and business frameworks of present-day India.
Several 1-2 page briefs on specific policy matters like: where is jurisdiction being exercised? what are the policy inflections? and, what interventions are needed to solve the structural limitations of the medium?

Survey Paper

The survey paper should describe the online video scenario in India, and three or more policy tensions. The paper should focus on areas of intellectual property rights, network issues, standards, device freedom and interoperability, accessibility, etc. The Open Video Alliance website[ova] for a complete list of relevant issues.

Overall, it should paint both a qualitative as well as a quantitative picture of online video in India, and in which structural improvements are needed (if any) to empower individuals.This paper should not be viewed as a recommendation to policymakers but instead as a general interest document which will inform and appeal to many audiences. While we expect the paper to span several distinct issues, there should be a prevailing narrative to weave them together.

Basic Assumptions

We want online video to be a participatory and collaborative social medium powered by open source. We also value the ability of individuals to express themselves using these tools, and the ability of new entrants to challenge incumbents and innovate on top of existing technologies. No time is needed to be spent establishing these values—instead, through this paper we try to identify structural improvements to the online video medium. How do we get from the status quo to the ideal open video environment? What investments must be made? What protections must be put into place for users, producers, etc.? Further, we should be able to make some broad recommendations to governments, foundations, and big institutions.

Because the network and IP enforcement environment in India are still malleable, we want to stress that there are many possible shapes that the online video medium could take. Our goal is to shine some light on how a medium that privileges the values outlined above could take shape.

Suggested Methodology

First, you would need to carry out a basic survey of the literature. Second, you should talk to various organizations using video, discover what they consider the structural limitations of online video, and what might be considered open video practices: some are legal, some are technical. You would use this data to direct original research and weave your findings into an engaging narrative.

Next Steps

You send 2 writing samples, a CV, and letter of recommendation;
We'll discuss the unifying themes and identify a more detailed timeline;
We produce a contract;
We Pick a regular time to meet every other week, to track progress.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/open-video-research

Representation by Knowledge Commons

pranesh — 2008-09-30T14:47:25Z

Representation by Knowledge Commons to the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks on the Draft Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure (2008)

Representation on Modifying Section 4.11 of the Draft Patents Manual

1. Scope of 3 k) and the Amendment of 2004

3 k) A mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or

algorithms are not patentable.

The Amendment that was a part of the Ordinance in December 2004 on 3 k) above was as follows:

3 (k) a computer programme per se other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware;

3 (ka) a mathematical method or a business method or algorithms;

Comment: From the above, it is clear that Parliament did not believe that the exceptions to computer programme per se as an exception needed to be put in a different category and qualified as suggested in the Ordinance. Computer programmes per se, a mathematical or business method or algorithms were all treated as similar. The similarity here was based on the fact that they are all abstract ideas and therefore should not be patentable. The Draft Manual seeks to circumvent Parliament's definition of what is not patentable in the section on 3 k). We will give a para by para submission on the Draft Manual section on 3 k), namely, Sections 4.11.1 to 4.11.11.

2. Clause 4.11.1 A computer implemented invention mean any invention the performance of which involves the use of computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus, or an invention one or more features which are realized wholly or partially by means of a computer programme/ programmes.

Comment: The Clause above introduces a new category called computer implemented invention. The Patents Act cannot make an exception for inventions merely because the performance of this invention requires a computer. There is no provision in patents law for such exceptions to be created.

3. 4.11.5 Applications related to computer inventions may broadly fall under the following categories:

(a) Method/process:

(b) Apparatus/system:

(c) Computer program product.

The following aspects should be looked into while dealing with such applications.

Comment: The way this clause is phrased, it appears to accept that computer program products can have valid claims with regards to patents. It should have been made clear in this clause that computer program(me) products are not patentable as they come under computer programme per se.

4. 4.11.6 The method claim should clearly define the steps involved in carrying out the invention. It should have a technical character. In other words, it should solve a technical problem. The claims should incorporate the details regarding the mode of the implementation of the invention via. hardware or software, for better clarity. The claim orienting towards a “process/method” should contain a hardware or machine limitation. Technical applicability of the software claimed as a process or method claim, is required to be defined in relation with the particular hardware components. Thus, the “software per se” is differentiated from the software having its technical application in the industry. A claim directed to a technical process which process is carried out under the control of a programme (whether by means of hardware or software), cannot be regarded as relating to a computer programme as such.

For example, “a method for processing seismic data, comprising the steps of collecting the time varying seismic detector output signals for a plurality of seismic sensors placed in a cable.” Here the signals are collected from a definite recited structure and hence allowable.

Comment: Here, the Draft Manual clearly deviates from the Legislative intent that was expressed in rejecting the Amendment of the Patents Act as discussed in point 1 above. The Patent Office is now bringing back the Amendment of 3 k) by an interpretation that was denied by the Parliament.

There are two major departures that it makes from 3 k). In one, it expresses “the mode of the implementation of the invention via. hardware or software, for better clarity” treating software inventions to be on par with hardware inventions. This violates 3 k), which explicitly bars software per se. The argument that any software that solves a technical problem is not software per se is not sustainable as every problem solved can be claimed to be technical in nature by virtue of suitable drafting. It then makes software patents a matter of drafting skills and not a matter of content. The statement “the “software per se” is differentiated from the software having its technical application in the industry” has the problem that software can be claimed to solve problems in the data processing or in the video gaming or in multimedia industry. This definition renders software per se as devoid of any meaning and therefore is in violation of 3 k).

Software is machine implementation of an algorithm and by implementing on a computer an algorithm cannot become patentable. We have given detailed notes on this issue and have also shown that the US is currently revising some of these notions of software patenting.

The second issue is when software is combined with hardware. Here, the Draft Manual seems to argue that if the method is connected to physical signals, this in itself is enough to make the method allowable for patenting. The key question that the Draft Manual does not address that if the method has insignificant pre or post processing activity, in that case the method does not become eligible for patenting merely because it is connected to some real structures. Otherwise, a software which cannot be patented under current patent law would become eligible merely by adding some trivial pre or post processing features. It again becomes a way of “dressing” up software to escape from the bar of 3 k) and making this a drafting art rather than real content in terms of invention. A number of applications would need to be separately shown in the Patent Application to cover all possible applications of a method or an algorithm to convert a non-patentable idea to a patentable one.

5. 4.11.10 A mathematical method is one which is carried out on numbers and provides a result in numerical form (the mathematical method or algorithm therefore being merely an abstract concept prescribing how to operate on the numbers) and not patentable. However, its application may well be patentable, for example, in Vicom/Computer-related invention [1987] 1 OJEPO 14 (T208/84) the invention concerned a mathematical method for manipulating data representing an image, leading to an enhanced digital image. Claims to a method of digitally filtering data performed on a conventional general-purpose computer were rejected, since those claims were held to define an abstract concept not distinguished from a mathematical method. However, claims to a method of image processing which used the mathematical method to operate on numbers representing an image can be allowed. The reasoning was that the image processing performed was a technical (i.e. non- excluded) process which related to technical quality of the image and that a claim directed to a technical process in which the method used does not seek protection for the mathematical method as such. Therefore the allowable claims as such went beyond a mathematical method.

Comment: By virtue of the above, the Draft Manual is stating that the allowable claim goes beyond a mathematical method as it specifies a physical entity (signals) and the technical process (image processing) and therefore can be patented. Simply put, what the patent office is claiming is that while a mathematical method cannot be patented, however its application to a specific technical field – image processing in the Vicom case – is patentable.

The problem with this approach is that while the patent office may regard image or signal processing as a technical application, what is being patented is still a mathematical method. The mere fact that it is a mathematical algorithm applied to a specific application with specific physical entities does not change the content of what is being patented, which is still the mathematical algorithm. Only the scope of the patent is being narrowed by limiting it to image processing.

If the above is accepted, all that would be required for securing software patents for the actual mathematical method is to file separate applications for each of the application of the mathematical method, in this case the digital filtering algorithm. This is merely changing the form of the patent application and not its substance. We find such an interpretation completely contrary to the patent law that has been framed in this country.

The Image Processing case is particularly important, because if it is accepted, all compression techniques would also be patentable on similar grounds. Already, the practices of USPTO and EPO have led to a situation that a number of standard formats such as MPEG (MPEG4) and GIF have come under patents. Since any company that uses digital pictures – cameras, images on the web, etc., can be sued for infringing such patents, the potential economic consequence of such patents is enormous. This is why software patents under any garb, are particularly pernicious.

One of the earliest software patents was that of the LMZ compression, which was used in the GIF format. It is now widely accepted in the software industry that such patents are in fact patents of mathematical algorithms. It was because the GIF format came under a patent threat that other formats became popular. However, similar threats now exist for other formats for image processing. In most such cases, the software industry has had to file review applications in USPTO to invalidate such patents. We see no reason why we should follow this tortuous path, when we have a clear law on this on our statute books disallowing software patents.

The Indian Government has taken numerous policy decisions to promote open source software wherever it is available. One of the major threats to open source software is patents and the use of these patents in proprietary formats such as the GIF example noted above. This will effectively mean that Open Source software will be threatened by such patent claims making interoperability between two formats difficult to achieve. This will strike a body blow against the policies that the Government has been promoting on open source software in the country.

Instead, what needs to be done is to define the software in any invention in the manner of prior art. If the inventive criteria are satisfied outside of the software then the invention would be considered patent eligible. In the next para we have defined what in our view constitutes software per se, which is not patent eligible and allows for devices to be patented even if they have software as a component provided certain criteria are satisfied.

6. We give below what we believe is a clear and an unambiguous definition of software per se, which is therefore not patentable. This should replace the entire section 4.11.

Computer programme per se in clause 3 k) Computer programme per se in the relevant clause means (a) any computer programme in the abstract, (b) any computer programme expressed in source code form, including source code recorded on an information storage medium, or (c) any computer programme that can be executed or executes on a general purpose computer, including computer programme object code designed for execution on a general purpose computer that is recorded on an information storage medium. An information storage medium means any disc, tape, perforated media or other information storage device, which, if fed into or located in a computer or computer based equipment is capable of reproducing any information, other than an information storage medium that itself represents an inventive contribution to the art. A general-purpose computer here means a device capable of running multiple unrelated programs, often simultaneously for different purposes. It will comprise at least of: (1) one or more central processing units, (2) one or more input devices that are not specific to any one program, (3) memory, (4) one or more non volatile mass storage devices, and (5) one or more output devices. However, a general-purpose computer does not include a device that itself represents an inventive contribution to the art.

Under the foregoing definitions, a claim that merely recites software elements without any reference to hardware is per se unpatentable. If a claim recites both software elements and hardware elements, but the hardware elements amount to nothing more than reference to the components of a general purpose computer on which the software is executed, or an information storage medium in which the software is stored, such that the only possibly inventive aspect of the claim resides in the software elements, then the claim is not patentable. If the software/general purpose computer is combined with other hardware, and the inventive contribution resides primarily in the software or in the software in combination either with components of the general-purpose computer or in an information storage medium, then the claim is not patentable. If the claim recites software elements and hardware elements, and the hardware elements themselves are an inventive contribution to the art, then the claim may be patentable, provided that the claim as a whole is such that the pre-requisites of novelty, non-obviousness and utility are met.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/representation-by-knowledge-commons

Centre for Internet and Society

Screening of Pixel Pirate II: Attack of the Astro Elvis Video Clone

Screening of Partners in Crime

“Come along for a rollicking trip through the grey worlds of copyright, art, and the market in a story about love, money and crime”

PARTNERS IN CRIME

Synopsis

Featuring

About the Director

Screening of 'Steal this Film' (TV Cut)

RTI Applications on Blocking of Websites

RTI Application to Department of Information Technology

RTI Application to Department of Telecom

RTI Application to Visvesvaraya Technological University

Route to Tagore Hall, CCMG, JMI.

Robert Horowitz

Response to TRAI Consultation Paper on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-Top (OTT) Services

Executive Summary

Response to RTI on Decisions of the Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee

Response of Free Software Foundation of India

Response by the Centre for Internet and Society to the Draft Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions from the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Response by Knowledge Commons

Resources

PUPFIP

News-related/General Coverage

Scientific Culture

Analytical Pieces

Bayh-Dole

Technology Transfer

Scientific Culture

Evaluative Pieces

General Resources

IP Alternatives

Research Project on Open Video in India

Project Timeline

Summary of Outputs

Survey Paper

Basic Assumptions

Suggested Methodology

Next Steps

Representation by Knowledge Commons