Centre for Internet and Society

PERVASIVE TECHNOLOGIES PROJECT WORKING DOCUMENT SERIES: DOCUMENT 1 - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY FOR A PAPER ON COMPETITION LAW + IPR + ACCESS TO < $100 MOBILE DEVICES

nehaa — 2015-10-04T02:51:06Z

This blog post is the research methodology for my research paper under the Pervasive Technologies Project. This is a work in progress and is likely to be modified from time to time.

See a subsequent version titled Pervasive Technologies: Working Document Series - Research Questions and a Literature Review on the Actor-Network Theory

Preliminary

The realization of the promise of the sub hundred dollar mobile device as a facilitator of access to knowledge is contingent inter alia on its availability in the market place. In turn, the market availability of the sub hundred dollar mobile device is influenced by the existence of an enabling environment for producers to produce, and consumers to consume. From a regulatory perspective, the enabling environment itself is a function of existing laws and policies, and the 'developmental effects' of certain laws and policies (Saraswati, 2012).

This research paper under the Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Market Place Project ("PT Project") examines one such legal and policy lever and the role of a regulator in the development of an enabling environment for access to sub hundred dollar mobile devices. This paper is founded on four assumptions: first, that access to sub hundred dollar mobile devices is influenced by their price; second, that the question of access necessitates conversation between the intellectual property regime and several other actors, sites and tools; third, that one of the fundamental goals of regulatory reform is the creation of a 'stable, open and future- proof environment' (Guermazi and Satola, 2005) that encourages access to these devices; and fourth, that there exist public law implications of intellectual property that justify the involvement of State actors and regulators in matters that may arise out of private transactions.

Research Questions

This research paper will examine whether there is a role to be played by one regulator, that is, the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”), in this narrative of innovation, intellectual property and access to sub hundred dollar mobile devices. Specifically, the following research questions will be addressed:

First, what is the relationship between intellectual property and competition law? Second, what are the competition law/antitrust concerns that arise around the licensing of intellectual property (standard essential patents)? Third, can existing mechanisms in competition law address concerns around the licensing of standard essential patents on sub hundred dollar devices, and is competition law a viable solution to address this issue? If so, which ones? Fourth, given the frequency of these litigations, is there a role to be played by an ex-post regulator, such as the CCI, or is there a need for ex-ante regulation?

Research Objects

In an attempt to address these research questions, this paper will examine the role of the Competition Commission of India and the Indian Judiciary. This paper will also examine the role of similarly placed institutions in the United States of America as well as some member states of the European Union.

This research paper will also examine select tools and sites sought to be used to create an enabling environment to facilitate access to these sub hundred dollar mobile devices: first, principles, legal frameworks and provisions of competition law/antitrust law; second, all relevant judicial decisions.

Research Method

First , this research paper will begin with establishing the case for the intervention of the regulator and/or the judiciary in the sub hundred dollar mobile device market by undertaking a review of primary and secondary literature [1]("literature"). Second, also through a literature review, the research will be contextualized to India in terms of the market, the actors involved and the legal framework. Third, a cross jurisdictional comparative legal search will be undertaken to understand the potential areas of intervention for the judiciary and the Competition Commission of India based on existing legal disputes in other jurisdictions; and the possible challenges that might ensue. Fourth, in a scenario building exercise, an attempt will be made to outline the role that the judiciary and the regulator might play in India, in order to ensure access to sub hundred dollar mobile devices is not impeded by litigation around standard essential patents.

Generally, in the writing of this paper, inputs will be sought from experts including MHRD Chair Professors, legal practitioners in India, academics in India and abroad and members of relevant departments of the Indian Government.

Research Communication

This research will be communicated through a series of blog posts- one every month from December, 2014 to December, 2015. A preliminary draft of a research paper will be produced by December, 2015, tentatively to be presented at the 4th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, New Delhi. The final output will be a research paper.

References

Bouthenia Guermazi and David Satola, Creating the "Right" Enabling Environment for ICT, in Robert Schware (ed.), E-development: From Excitement to Effectiveness (2005, World Bank Publications).
Jyoti Saraswati, Dot. Compradors- Power and Policy in the Development of the Indian Software Industry (2012, Pluto Press)

[1] Unless otherwise specified, for the purposes of this document, primary and secondary literature includes academic articles and books, newspaper articles and opinion pieces, blog posts, case law and other legal provisions.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/methodology-sub-hundred-dollar-mobile-devices-and-competition-law

MHRD IPR Chairs — Underutilization of Funds and Lack of Information Regarding Expenditures

nehaa — 2014-11-19T15:19:18Z

Funds granted to the IPR Chairs set up by the Ministry of Human Resources and Development are often left underutilized. Details regarding the expenditures that are incurred by the Chairs are also currently unavailable. CIS intern Amulya Purushothama examines this further.

The Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of India (MHRD) has so far set up around 20 IPR Chairs under the Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach (IPERPO) scheme in various universities across the country.

However, as an Evaluation Committee for the Planning Commission observed last year, this scheme is failing to work for many reasons. Some of them the report says are that many of the IPR Chair positions are left vacant as the MHRD cannot find professors who are suitably qualified for the job, that there is no explicit mandate for activities to be undertaken by the chairs either under the IPERPOS scheme or the letters sanctioning the Chairs, that most of the Chairs only organize one or two day workshops and deliver a few lectures, that the research output produced by these Chairs etc. therefore has been very weak as they haven’t yet identified research questions, Therefore, the grant money under the scheme goes underutilized.

There exists an informational vacuum about the allocation of funds, expenditures of and the functioning of the MHRD IPR Chairs. The MHRD IPR Chair portal intended to provide information about the same is mostly incomplete. Out of the 20 universities where a chair has been set up, around four (CUSAT Cochin, IIM Ahmedabad, IIM Calcutta, and recently NUJS Kolkata) have been vacant for the last year (CUSAT Cochin has only recently reinstated their IPR Chair professor) and two only joined the posts in the last year (Delhi University and IIT Madras) . Only three of the professors have provided details about their research team on the portal (Delhi University, NALSAR Hyderabad and IIT Roorkee). Only IIT Roorkee and NALSAR Hyderabad have put up annual reports on the portal and even these reports do not cover expenditure made under the scheme.

The latest information regarding expenditure under the scheme can only be found in pieces and fragments. CUSAT published a self-study report that states that while Rs.50-60 lakhs are allotted every year, only Rs. 31, 49,950 has been received so far, NLSIU published an accounts report for the year 2012-2013 that states that Rs. 30, 00,000 had been received as of march 2013, but keeps quiet on the expenditure of the same.

The latest information on the issue is available in a 2013 report of an Evaluation Committee of the Planning Commission. The report says that the University of Madras last received funds of Rs.9 lakhs in 2001 and utilized most of it; that out of the Rs.100 lakhs released to NLSIU Bangalore so far, only around Rs.70 lakhs has been utilized as of 2013; that University of Delhi last received Rs.10 lakhs in 2001 and utilized only half of that. Further that CUSAT had so far received funds amounting to Rs.316.05 lakhs as of 2013 and has utilized only Rs.191.05 lakhs.

IIT Kanpur last received Rs.25 lakhs in 2006-07 and utilized Rs.17 lakhs from it; IIT Kharagpur also last received funds in 2009-10 of up to Rs.51.42 lakhs and utilized all of it. IIT madras is shown to have received Rs.25 lakhs in 2006-07 but it is unclear whether that has been utilized at all, IIT Delhi also received Rs.25 lakhs in the same year and utilized Rs.2 lakhs from it. IIT Bombay has received Rs.190 lakhs up till 2013 and has utilized only Rs.135 lakhs.

IIM Ahmedabad is yet to receive any funds. IIM Calcutta last received Rs.10 lakhs in 2007-08 but there is no information on whether that was utilized. IIM Bangalore had, as of 2013, received Rs.105.98 lakhs and utilized only Rs.78.98 lakhs of it.

JNU last received Rs.10 lakhs in 2007-08 but there is no word on whether it was utilized, same is the case with Delhi School of Economics.

NALSAR, Hyderabad had received Rs.111.40 lakhs as of 2013, but had utilized Rs.79.4 lakhs until then. NLU Jodhpur had received Rs.105.00 lakhs as of 2013 and utilized a mere Rs.69 lakhs from the bounty, NLIU Bhopal received Rs.100 lakhs as of 2013 and utilized only Rs.75 lakhs. NUJS had received Rs.90 lakhs as of 2012 and only utilized Rs.75 lakhs. IIT Roorkee had received Rs.30 lakhs as per 2012 and had utilized the entire amount; Tezpur University had received Rs.59 lakhs and utilized only Rs.29 lakhs as of 2013.

This wide variation in allocation of funds and in the utilization of funds, the report says, is due to lack of suitable proposals for seminars, workshops, conferences etc., “non-receipt of requests” for setting up of new Chairs, non-receipt of bills for grants that have already been released and a lack of continued attention to the scheme.

The details of how any of these funds were actually utilized are at present unavailable online. Statistics from the last financial year are unavailable anywhere on the internet as well; CIS has filed a Right to Information request for the same with the concerned authorities.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chairs-underutilization-of-funds-and-lack-of-information-regarding-expenditures

Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions: Mapping the Stakeholders' Response

nehaa — 2015-01-05T17:01:50Z

The procedure and tests surrounding software patenting in India have remained ambiguous since the Parliament introduced the term “per se” through the Patent (Amendment) Act, 2002. In 2013, the Indian Patent Office released Draft Guidelines for the Examination of Computer Related Inventions, in an effort to clarify some of the ambiguity. Through this post, CIS intern, Shashank Singh, analyses the various responses by the stakeholders to these Guidelines and highlights the various issues put forth in the responses.

I. Introduction

In June, 2013 the Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks ('IPO'), released the Draft Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions ('Guidelines'). The aim of the Guidelines was to provide some much needed clarity around patentability of Computer Related Inventions ('CRI'). The Guidelines discuss the procedure to be adopted by the examiners while examining CRI patent applications. In response to the Guidelines, several stakeholders submitted their comments to either accept, reject or modify the interpretation provided by the IPO. Most of the comments circled around the phraseology of Section 3(k), Patents Act, 1970 ('Act'). In its current form, Section 3(k) reads as "a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms", and comes under Chapter III of the Act which lists inventions that are not patentable. Simply put, this means that software cannot be patented in India, unless it is embedded/combined in with some hardware. While this is the most widely accepted interpretation of this Section 3(k), there have been contradictory interpretations as well.

In this note, I shall look at the various ambiguities surrounding patent application for CRIs. The note has been divided into five parts. Part II briefly reiterates the legislative history behind Section 3(k) and CRI patenting. Part III would briefly summarize the various parts of the Guidelines where the IPO has given their interpretation and opinion on the various issues surrounding CRI patenting. Part IV would then map the position of the stakeholders on each ambiguous point. Lastly, Part V would give the conclusion.

II. Legislative History

Under the Patent Act, 1970, prior to the 2002 Amendment, there was no specific provision under which software could be patented. Nonetheless, there was no explicit embargo on software patenting either. For an invention to be patentable, under Section 2(1) (j) of the Act, which defines an invention, general criteria of novelty, non-obviousness and usefulness must be applied. Software is generally in the form of a mathematical formula or algorithm, both of which are not patentable under the Act as they do not produce anything tangible. However, if combined or embedded in a machine or a computer, the resultant product can be patented as it would pass the aforementioned criteria.

The Parliament, in 1999, sought to amend the Act to bring it in conformity with the changing technological landscape. Consequently, the Patent (Second Amendment) Bill, 1999 was introduced in the Parliament which was then referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee ('JPC'). The ensuing Bill proposed Section 3(k) in its current phraseology. It reasoned that:

" In the new proposed clause (k) the words ''per se" have been inserted. This change has been proposed because sometimes the computer programme may include certain other things, ancillary thereto or developed thereon. The intention here is not to reject them for grant of patent if they are inventions. However, the computer programmes as such are not intended to be granted patent. This amendment has been proposed to clarify the purpose. "

The Bill was then enacted as the Patent (Amendment) Act, 2002 and reads in its current form as:

Section 3(k) - "a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithm"

This created some ambiguity with respect to the interpretation of the term "per se". It was interpreted to mean that software cannot be patented unless it is combined with some hardware. This combination would then have to comply with all the tests of patentability under the Act.

In December, 2004 the Patent (Amendment) Ordinance, 2004 ('Ordinance') was enacted which amended Section 3(k) to divide it into two parts, namely Section 3(k) and Section 3(ka).

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

(ka) a mathematical method or a business method or algorithms; ".

In February, 2005 the Ordinance was introduced in the Parliament as the Patent (Amendment) Bill, 2005.This included the amendment to Section 3(k) as under the Ordinance. In the Objects and Reasons it clarified that the intention behind the amendment was to " modify and clarify the provisions relating to patenting of software related inventions when they have technical application to industry or in combination with hardware ". However, the final amending Act did not divide Section 3(k) as proposed by the Ordinance. In the press note, by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry it was noted that:

"It is proposed to omit the clarification relating to patenting of software related inventions introduced by the Ordinance as Section 3(k) and 3 (ka). The clarification was objected to on the ground that this may give rise to monopoly of multinationals."

Later, in the same year the IPO release a Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure, 2005. Here, it noted that "a computer readable storage medium having a program recorded thereon…irrespective of the medium of its storage are not patentable". This did nothing to clarify the ambiguity that existed.

Similarly, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce, 88^th Report on the Patent and Trademark System in India (2008) noted the uncertainty surrounding the term 'per se' and said that there was a need to clarify the same. It did not do anything in furtherance of pointing this out.

The 2011 Manual of Patent Office and Procedure, 2011 tried to elaborately deal with the ambiguity. Nonetheless, substantively it did not change the uncertainty. It stated that:

"If the claimed subject matter in a patent application is only a computer programme, it is considered as a computer programme per se and hence not patentable. Claims directed at computer programme products' are computer programmes per se stored in a computer readable medium and as such are not allowable. Even if the claims, inter alia, contain a subject matter which is not a computer programme, it is examined whether such subject matter is sufficiently disclosed in the specification and forms an essential part of the invention."

III. Draft Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions, 2013

The Draft Guidelines were released on June 28, 2013, following which stakeholders were invited to give comments.

Terms/ Definitions used while dealing with CRIs

At the outset, the IPO put a caveat to say that the Guidelines do not constitute 'rule making'. Consequently, in case of a conflict between the Guidelines and the Act, the Act shall prevail. After the Introduction and Background, in Part I and Part II respectively, the Guidelines looked at the various definitions/terms that correspond to CRI patent claims in Part III. In all, there were 21 such definitions/terms that were sought to be clarified. These definitions can be branched into three categories.

Category I- Where the definition/term was borrowed from some other Indian stature.
Category II- Where the definition/term was construed according to the plain dictionary meaning. Category III- Where the Guidelines tried to give their interpretation to the term/definition.

Under Category I, there were seven definitions whose meaning was derived from some other stature. The meaning of Computer Network, Computer System, Data, Information and Function were derived from Information Technology Act, 2000 ('IT Act'). The definition of Computer Programme was taken from Copyright Act, 1957. Lastly, the definition of Computer was taken from both Copyright Act and IT Act.

Under Category II, the Guidelines underscored five definitions whose meaning was to be borrowed from the Oxford Dictionary. These were algorithm, software, per se, firm ware and hardware. Importantly, it was noted that these definitions have not been defined anywhere in Indian legislations. Lastly, under Category III the Guidelines tried to interpret certain terms according to their understanding. These terms included, Embedded Systems, Technical Effects, Technical Advancement, Mathematical Methods, Business Methods etc.

Categorization of CRI claims

In Part IV, the Guidelines tried to broadly group the various CRI patent applications under four heads. These categorizations tried to give an insight into what the patent examiners look for while rejecting a patent application.

Method/process:

Without defining what a method or process would entail, the Guidelines stated that any claim carrying a preamble with "method/process for..." shall not be patentable. It clarified that claims relating to mathematical methods, business methods, computer programme per se, algorithm or mental act are cannot be patented as they are prime illustrations of claims under this category. Further, the Guidelines gave specific examples of each of the aforementioned claims.

Apparatus/system

The second category consisted of claims whose preamble stated that the patent application was for an "apparatus/system". Under this, the patent application must not only comply with the standard tests of patentability- novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability, but also define the inventive constructional or hardware feature of the CRI. However, in contradictory statements, the Guidelines try to narrow down the prerequisites for a claim under this category, only to state that such claims cannot be patented.

Computer readable medium

While stating this as a category, the Guidelines do not elaborate on what this exactly means and what types of claims would be rejected being under this category.

Computer program product

This category includes computer programs that are expressed on a computer readable medium (CD, DVD, Signal etc.). Further, infusing ambiguity to the debate, the Guidelines failed to differentiate between Computer Readable Medium and Computer Program Product.

Examination Procedure used by IPO

The examination procedure for CRI patent application in the Guidelines is similar to other patent applications which look at novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. However, claims relating to determination of specific subject matter under the excluded categories (Method/Process, Computer Readable Medium, Apparatus/system, and Computer Program Product) require specific examination skills from the examiner.

Under the excluded category itself, Method/Process requires subjective judgement by the examiner as to whether such a claim qualifies to be classified under this category or not. For investigating the inventive step involved in the 'method/process', the technical advancement over existing knowledge in the technological field has to be analyzed. Any patent claim from a non-technological field shall not be considered.

The Guidelines then tried to clarify the controversial Section 3(k) which eliminates the patenting of computer programmes per se. While previously stating that the definition of the term 'per se' as borrowed from the Oxford dictionary meant 'by itself', the Guidelines stated that computer programme loaded on a general purpose computer or related device cannot be patented. Nonetheless, while filing patent application for a novel hardware, with a loaded computer programme, the likelihood patenting the combination cannot be ruled out. Further, the stated hardware must be something more than a general purpose machine. Essentially, a patent for a novel computer programme combined with a novel hardware, which must be more than a general purpose machine, may be considered for patenting. It then gave several examples which were followed by flowcharts to further clarify ambiguities surrounding CRI patentability. Interestingly, all these examples and flowcharts only listed the inventions that are not patentable.

IV. Response by Stakeholders

Many and various comments were received from 36 stakeholders that including lawyers, civil society members, law firms, students, global and national trade bodies and industry representatives.

Our compilation (and the first level of analysis) of the Stakeholders' Responses is available here.

While all the stakeholders' applauded the much needed transparency in the IPO, substantively they differed considerably on various issues and highlighted some inconsistencies. In this part, I shall map the responses of the various stakeholders'. While doing so, I shall also try and find specific patterns to the responses corresponding to the following segments:

1. Civil Society

2. Law Firm/Advocates ('law Firms')

3. Industry/ Industry Representatives/Global Trade Body (Industry)

4. Students

These segments have been created on the assumption that each of the aforementioned segment would lobby for similar kind of policy.

Interpretation of Section 3(k)

One of the major points of deviation between the stakeholders was regarding the interpretation of Section 3(k) which encapsulates the term "computer programme per se".

The industry responded by critiquing the current CRI patenting regime in India as being "restrictive" ( FICCI , NASSCOM, US India Business Council and Bosch ). While some industry representatives sought clarifications due to uncertain phraseology, there was no industry representative that favored restricted interpretation to exclude software patenting altogether. While opposing the Guidelines, they sought assistance from the legislative history behind introduction of Section 3(k). It was pointed out that the term 'per se' was included to raise the threshold of patentability to something higher than the previous patentability standard, but it did not explicitly exclude patent protection for software.

The general perception of the stakeholders, keeping in mind the current Guidelines, was that for patenting software it had to be combined with some hardware. This combination would then be scrutinized against the triple test of novelty, inventive step and industrial application.

While the Guidelines noted that the hardware involved must not be general purpose hardware and that the chances of software patentability would increase significantly if novelty resides in the hardware; however, most of the industry and global trade bodies disagreed with this interpretation. They argued that if software in combination of hardware technically advances the existing technology, then such an innovation must be patentable, despite being combined with a general purpose machine (Bosch). Another explanation supporting expanded interpretation was that much of the technological innovation is accomplished through software development as compared to hardware innovation and novel software can achieve technical effect without the hardware developments ( BSA- The Software Alliance ). Consequently, software development that allows a general purpose machine to perform tasks that were once performed by a special machine must be incentivized. Some stakeholders interpreted the Guidelines to reason that hardware must be completely disregarded while examining patentability of software (Majumdar & Co. ).

Most of the responses from the civil society argued for a restricted interpretation of Section 3(k) ( Centre for Internet & Society). They concurred with the interpretation provided by the IPO to exclude software patentability. Most of the stakeholders responded seeking further clarification on the subject (Software Freedom Law Centre , K&S Partners and Xellect IP Solutions).

However, within each segments itself there was difference of opinion on the interpretation of Section 3(k). For instance, out of the five civil society members, four wanted to restrictive interpretation while one of them favoured expansive interpretation to include software patenting. Similarly, 13 law firms sought further clarification on the subject matter, while seven argued for expansive interpretation and one of them argued for restricted interpretation. The most consistent response was from the industry that clearly favoured software patenting and called the Guidelines "restrictive". Seven out of the nine industry representatives supported expansive interpretation and the other two sought further clarifications on the subject.

Section 5.4.6- Hardware

The interpretation of Section 3(k) until the release of the Guidelines was that software in combination with some hardware could be considered for patenting. However, the Guidelines increased the threshold stating that this hardware must be "something more than a general purpose machine". A stakeholder pointed out that increasing this threshold would go against the legislative intent as the requirement of a novel hardware has not been mentioned anywhere in the Act ( Anand & Anand ).

The industry's perspective on this matter was largely uniform. They pointed out the large technological field that would be eliminated from the scope of patentability if the interpretation provided by the Guidelines is adopted ( Bosch). Also, the investigation of novelty in the hardware would disincentives inventors in the field of CRIs ( Kan & Krishme ). Most of the stakeholders, across segments, sought more clarification on the role of hardware under Section 3(k) (Majumdar & Co. Centre for Internet & Society).

Comparative Analysis

Much of the criticism surrounding CRI patenting policy in India is based on the comparative inconsistency with similar laws in other jurisdictions. Comparative analysis on the subject has only been provided by the stakeholders that support software patentability. They point out that most countries like US, UK, Japan and the European Patent Convention allow patenting of software, and India must also do the same in order to comply with its international obligations under the TRIPs Agreement. Paradoxically, stakeholders who supported the current practice chose not to comparatively analyze CRI policy of other jurisdictions. While most of the stakeholders simply jumped to analyze comparative jurisprudence on the subject, only one of them gave a reasonable explanation for such a comparison ( LKS). It was noted that the Supreme Court of India and the Intellectual Property Appellate Board regularly borrow from foreign decisions to either accept or deny patents. Therefore, while formulating any policy on the matter, the position in other jurisdictions must be considered.

It was reasoned that the term 'per se' used in the Act, is similar to the European Patent Convention and UK Patent Act, 1977 where the term 'as such' has been used. Therefore, while juxtaposing both the terms, the interpretation of 'per se' must be similar to 'as such'. Consequently, software patenting must be allowed subject to the tests evolved by the courts. Similarly, the term 'as such' has been used by several Asian countries including China, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan. In these countries, software in concert with a specific hardware that resolves a technical problem thereby achieving a technical result can be patented ( Krishna and Saurastri Associates ).

Likewise, while comparing the jurisprudence of US, the landmark case Diamond vs. Diehr, which marked the beginning of software patenting was cited ( Subhojeet Ghosh and US India Business Council ). Several others argued that India must align their laws with global standards ( Bosch, Phillips Intellectual Property and Standards , Sun Smart IP Services , United Overseas Patent Firm).

Business Method

The Guidelines tried to narrow down the definition of 'Business Method' to clarify that such claims cannot be patented. It was urged that the Guidelines reconsider such a blanket embargo ( Legasis Partners- Advocates and Solicitors, Anand & Anand ). While judging patentability, a patent must not be rejected simply because it mentions business method or business method related terminology. What must be examined is whether the inventive step resides in the technical or non-technical part of the claim ( Legasis Partners- Advocates and Solicitors). A distinction must be made differentiating as to what software implementing business method and a software relating to the technical aspect of the transaction ( Anand & Anand ). While the former can be rejected, the latter must be accepted subject to the triple test of patenting.

It was pointed out that reevaluating a business method claim apart from a method involving financial transaction; monopoly claim over trade and new business strategies; monopoly claim over new types of carrying out business and method of increasing revenue; must be rejected (Law Offices of Mohan Associates , Remfry and Sagar, FICCI ). The more overarching opinion of the stakeholders was there is no objection to the exclusion of business method patents, but what constitutes business methods need more clarity (D. Moses Jeyakaran, Law Firm of Naren Thappeta , Japan Intellectual Property Association ).

Critique of Examples and Flowcharts

The Guidelines provided for several examples and flowcharts to foster a better understanding of the subject matter. However, a notable feature of each of these was that they only gave examples of what claims would be rejected. This was sufficiently pointed out by most of the stakeholders who sought more positive examples (Bosch, BSA- The Software Alliance , K&S Partners , FICCI , Xellect IP Solutions, Japan Intellectual Property Association , In-House Intellectual Property Professional Forum, NASSCOM , Obhan & Associates , Remfry & Sagar, Tata Consultancy Services ). It was pointed out that the examples have not sufficiently elaborated on their relation with Section 3(k) ( FICCI ), and some of them are "weak, obscure and incorrect" ( Software Freedom Law Centre). These examples also fail to elaborate on the tests that have previously been applied by the Patent Office ( LKS). Overall, the general perception was that, the examples were confusing and greater clarity along with positive examples was needed ( LKS, Anand & Anand ).

Interestingly, out of the 25 stakeholders' who commented on the illustrations, 16 sought positive examples. Further, most of the positive examples were sought by industry representatives and law firms who supported software patenting.

V. Conclusion

It has been over a year since IPO released the CRI Guidelines. On release, it invited suggestions in order to revise the Guidelines, but the revised version has still not been released by the IPO. The Guidelines were authored from a patent examiner's perspective; however, while doing so it obscured the matter further. It was argued that in totality the application of the Guidelines would now make the patentability of software stricter. It was also pointed out that the Guidelines have not taken into account the legislative history and the specific rejection of the Ordinance in the 2005 Amendment.

The responses received by IPO gave conflicting opinion on the same issue. In general, it can be concluded that the industry and law firms were in favour of allowing software patenting. They sought removal of the hardware requirement for software patentability. Most of the stakeholder's who favoured software patenting also undertook a comparative study of jurisdictions like US, UK, EU and Japan to point out the difference in the software patenting policy. Further, they also wanted the Guidelines to give positive examples wherein CRIs patenting has previously been allowed.

Admittedly, the Guidelines have no legal standing and much like the Patent Manual, they serve merely to guide the patent applicants and provide transparency patent examination. Overall, the Guidelines failed to explain the previous inconsistencies surrounding the subject matter. In conclusion the Guidelines mention that it would periodically release and update the Guidelines incorporating the stakeholder's comments. Considering the diverse set of opinions received by the IPO, it now needs to be seen which suggestions are accepted until the next round of comments.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions

Letter to the Prime Minister on Indo-US Bilateral Relations on Intellectual Property

nehaa — 2014-11-03T14:58:26Z

This is a letter that many organizations sent to the Prime Minister. The Centre for Internet and Society was one of the signatories.

22 October 2014

To,

Shri. Narendra Modi
Hon’ble Prime Minister of India
South Block, Raisina Hill,
New Delhi-110011

Fax: 23019545

SUBJECT: US-India Bilateral Relations on Intellectual Property

Dear Prime Minister Modi ji,

We, the undersigned, wish to share with you some of our concerns on India’s position on intellectual property (IP), particularly in the context of bilateral relations between the United States of America and India. We gather from the US-India Joint Statement dated 30 September 2014 that the Indian Government

(a)greeing on the need to foster innovation in a manner that promotes economic growth and job creation…committed to establish an annual high-level Intellectual Property (IP) Working Group with appropriate decision-making and technical-level meetings as part of the Trade Policy Forum.

The necessity for setting up the joint Indo-US IP Working Group is not entirely clear. As the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP)‘s press release of 3 October 2014 mentions, there is already in operation an Indo-US Trade Policy Forum since 2010. Therefore, we request your Government to kindly make the specific purpose of this joint Working Group publicly known.

We wish to further submit that the grant of decision-making powers to the new joint Working Group could be at the risk of ingression of sovereign policy space. Bilateral arrangements should not have the power to supersede domestic democratic decision-making processes mandated by the Constitution of India. We appreciate that bilateral parleys at the political and diplomatic levels may be necessary in order to address threats of unilateral action by the US administration. But such bilateralism in the area of IP must be approached with an extremely high degree of caution.

We urge that the Government be particularly wary of higher IP standards (benefiting US corporations) that are typically demanded by the US administration and its trade negotiators in bilateral and plurilateral negotiations. The US demands clearly go beyond what the World Trade Organisation (WTO) asks for from its member countries. Several regional trade agreements or bilateral investment treaties either signed by or being negotiated by the US bear evidence to this trend. Any bilateral negotiation on IP between India and the US would definitely witness demands on India to provide for higher standards of IP protection that are not required of us by the WTO’s IP agreement - TRIPS.

It is important to note that the new bilateral arrangement between the United States Government and the Government of India is being undertaken against the backdrop of heightened US political interest in India’s IP regime, which has been spurred on by its business interests. Pharmaceutical and biotechnology MNCs backed by the US are the key actors on that front. India has earned phenomenal interest world over for its generic medicines -- a reputation that must be preserved. US should not decide our IP policies when it is a question of national interest and international solidarity. There have been intensified pressures on India; US putting India on its 2014 ‘Priority Watch List’ and the current Out-of-Cycle Review (OCR) of India’s IP regime being conducted by the US are recent examples of this. We fully support the position taken by Indian authorities to not go along with any such unilateral measures by the US Government. We insist that this stance of the Government of India be relentlessly maintained.

In case there is an intent to craft afresh our position on IP and its different dimensions, it should be pursued by a ‘National Working Group on IP’ working under the oversight of a Standing Committee of the Parliament of India. While formulating India’s positions on IP we trust that the Government of India will continue to withstand external pressures on this front. We urge the Government not to continue with the proposed annual forum on IP with the US, particularly as we do not have a matching domestic process.

The process begun under the DIPP to frame a national IP Policy, first needs to be completed independently along with public consultation. Many more stakeholders from amongst ‘ordinary’ peoples need to be included in the process; these include treatment activists, farmers groups, community organisations, etc. While there is no harm in having a policy statement, the policy should be consistent with the existing laws in our country and mindful of the future challenges, particularly for the generic medicines industry. While framing a national IP Policy afresh, it needs to be kept in mind that our current IP laws are already compliant with existing international laws and allied obligations. We strongly urge you not to amend India's IP statutes to reduce the flexibilities currently available to safeguard the public interest such as affordable medical products, right to food and the access to knowledge.

As you are aware, India’s IP rules and their enforcement also have trans-boundary implications. As an emerging global force, as well as a responsible member of the global community, through its IP strategy India is well positioned to also articulate the concerns of many Low and Middle Income countries. The legitimate space for discussions on global IP standards is the WTO’s TRIPS Council, and it is in this multilateral forum that issues of concern between different countries should be discussed. India ought to reach out to a much larger constituency, even beyond the 160 country governments represented in the WTO, through the promotion of IP-related policies that are humane and which foster people-centred and planet-sensitive ‘development’.

We the undersigned, working in different sectors, would also like to collectively reiterate that higher standards of IP protection will not necessarily translate into ‘economic growth and job creation’ in a country such as India. IP-related policy cannot be dealt with as a mere trade issue. Sectors that entail the provision of basic human needs, such as health, agriculture, biodiversity, education, etc., can be adversely impacted by higher standards of IP protection and the dilution of flexibilities (for example, those in our existing Patent Act). Public policy goals with respect to scientific endeavours, technology development and local innovations that offer more sustainable options for the future – such as climate-adaptive seeds and Indian Systems of Medicine, can also be severely challenged by inappropriate domestic IP strategies.

Given the multiple domestic concerns that our IP Policy must respond to, we press for your Government to kindly view it with a holistic perspective that it warrants, rather than the official approach being subsumed by the relatively narrow confines of trade and economic policy.

We earnestly entreat you to take a personal interest in this important matter.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

CONCERNED CITIZENS/GROUPS:

Shalini Bhutani, Legal Researcher & Policy Analyst
B L Das, Former Ambassador to GATT
Anand Grover, Director, Lawyers Collective
K M Gopakumar, Third World Network
Dinesh Abrol, National Working Group on Patent Laws
Prof. Jayati Ghosh, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Kalyani Menon-Sen, Feminist Activist & Coordinator, Campaign for Affordable Trastuzumab
S. Srinivasan, Low Cost Standard Therapeutics (LOCOST), Gujarat
Amit Sengupta, Jan Swasthya Abhiyan
Mira Shiva, Initiative for Health & Equity in Society and All India Drug Action Network
Biswajit Dhar, Professor CESP/SSS, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Sagari R Ramdas, Food Sovereignty Alliance - India
K. Pandu Dora, Adivasi Aikya Vedika
Kavitha Kuruganti, Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA)
Vikas Ahuja, President, The Delhi Network of Positive People
Loon Gangte, Regional Coordinator, ITPC-South Asia
Aruna Rodrigues, Sunray Harvesters
Suman Sahai, Gene Campaign
Wilfred Dcosta, Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF)
Surajit Mazumdar, Professor CESP/SSS, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Kanchi Kohli, Campaign for Conservation and Community Control over Biodiversity & Kalpavriksh
Kapil Shah, Jatan Trust, Gujarat & Organic Farming Association of India (OFAI)
S. Ashalatha on behalf of Rythu Swarajya Vedika, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh
Kavita Panjabi, Professor, Jadavpur University
Umendra Dutt, Kheti Virasat Mission, Punjab
Usha S., Thanal, Kerala
Aruna Burte, Feminist Researcher and cancer survivor
Nivedita Menon, Feminist Activist and Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Gabriele Dietrich, National Alliance of People's Movements
Kannamma Raman, Associate Professor, Department of Civics and Politics, University of Mumbai
Jacob Nellithanam, Centre for indigenous Farming Systems, Chhattisgarh & Madhya Pradesh
Rajesh Krishnan, Coalition for a GM Free India
Rachna Arora from Public Awareness on GM Food (PAGMF)
Ashish Gupta, IFOAM Asia
Claude Alvares, Goa Foundation
M R Baiju, Democratic Alliance for Knowledge Freedom (DAKF), Kerala
Madhu Sarin, Forest rights researcher and policy analyst
P V Satheesh, Director, Deccan Development Society
C N Suresh Kumar, Co-Convenor, Millet Network of India (MINI)
C Jayasri, Coordinator, Southern Action on Genetic Engineering (SAGE)
A Giridhar Babu, Alliance for Food Sovereignty in South Asia (AFSSA)
Narsamma Masanagari, Media Coordinator, Community Media Trust
Bharat Mansata, Earthcare Books
T C James, former Director (IPRs), DIPP, Government of India
D. Narasimha Reddy, ICSSR National Fellow, CSD, Hyderabad
Mishi Choudhary, Executive Director, Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC.IN)
K Ashok Rao, President, National Confederation of Officers Associations (NCOA)
B Ekbal, Kerala Sastra Sahithya Parishad
Gautam Mody, General Secretary New Trade Union Initiative
Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS)
Veena Johari, Lawyer and Legal Researcher
Subbiah Arunachalam, Science writer
Vandana Shiva, Director Navdanya Trust.
Manoj Pardeshi, General Secretary, National Coalition of People Living with HIV in India (NCPI+) and NMP+
Malini Aisola, Oxfam India
Manicandan, Forum Against FTAs
Afsar H. Jafri, Focus on the Global South
Forum against FTAs.

Cc:

Hon’ Minister of Agriculture
Hon’ Minister of Commerce and Industry
Hon’ Minister of External affairs
Hon’ Minister of Environment, Forests and Climate Change
Hon’ Minister of Human Resources Development
Hon’ Minister of Communications and Information Technology
Hon’ Minister of Science and Technology
Principal Secretary, PMO
Secretary, Department of Agriculture Research and Education
Secretary, ER& DPA , Ministry of External Affairs
Secretary, Department of Commerce
Secretary, Department of Communication and Information Technology
Secretary, Department of Environment, Forests and Climate Change
Secretary, Department of Higher Education
Secretary, Department of Industry Policy and Promotion
Secretary, Department of Science and Technology

For Further Communications:

Dinesh Abrol, Convener, National Working Group on Patent Laws (NWGPL), J 17, Second Floor, Lajpat Nagar 3, New Delhi 110 02.
Tel: 011-40521773, Email: dinesh.abrol@gmail.com

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/letter-to-prime-minister-on-indo-us-bilateral-relations-on-intellectual-property

Karnataka Goondas Act - A note on Legislative Competence

nehaa — 2014-09-06T04:47:33Z

A couple of weeks ago, we had an insightful guest post by Nehaa Chaudhari on amendments to Karnataka's Goondas Act, a draconian legislation which seeks to allow preventive detention for some types of copyright violations. Today, we have a follow up post on that, that argues that the recent amendments are unconstitutional.

This was published in Spicy IP on August 28, 2014. This post is authored by Nehaa Chaudhari and Amulya Purushothama. Nehaa works on intellectual property/openness law and policy and the Centre for Internet and Society, while Amulya is a fifth year law student at Nalsar University of Law, Hyderabad.

The recent amendments to the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Gamblers Act, 1985 (“the Karnataka Goondas Act”/ “the Act”/ “the Goondas Act”) bring within the ambit of the Act offences under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. Digital offenders and audio and video pirates, can now be punished and can be preventively detained under the new Act seemingly in order to protect public order. [See previous post examining this here]

Without prejudice to other concerns with this legislation including inter alia the use of preventive detention itself, provisions dealing with ‘expulsion from areas’ and the wide range of ‘offences’ that the Act seeks to cover, this article argues that those recent amendments that make audio and video piracy offences under the Act are unconstitutional, for want of legislative competence.

Union and State Lists

Article 246 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament and State Legislatures to legislate. Categories on which the Parliament may legislate have been laid out in List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule; on which the State Legislatures may formulate laws have been laid out in List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule and on which either may legislate have been enumerated in List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule. The power of the Parliament to formulate laws on matters in the Union List is exclusive and notwithstanding the powers of the Parliament itself and of the State Legislature with reference to the Concurrent List and of the State Legislature with reference to the State List. This exclusive power of the Parliament was also upheld in the now famous Hoechst Pharma Case.

Public Order is set out as a subject matter upon which the State Legislature can enact laws under Entry 1 of the State List. Entry 49 of the Union List enumerates Patents, Inventions and Designs; Copyright; Trademarks and Merchandise Works as matters upon which the Parliament can exclusively legislate.

Pith and Substance and Incidental Encroachment

The competence of any legislature to formulate laws is adjudged on the basis of what is known as the pith and substance doctrine. In this instance it means checking whether the substance or the essence of the Goondas Act has to deal with maintaining of public order. If this were to be the case, the incidental trenching upon matters beyond its competence as Kartar Singh put it (in this instance provisions dealing with audio and video piracy) is not all together forbidden.

However, this argument doesn’t stand. As required by the Hoechst Pharma Case, the infringement/encroachment has to be necessarily incidental to effective legislation by the state with respect to matters under List II. The newly introduced offences dealing with audio and video pirates are not necessarily incidental to pursuing the intention behind the Goondas Act as a whole (proceeding with the assumption that this intention is justified), which is to maintain public order and to provide for preventive detention of persons (bootleggers, drug offenders, gamblers, goondas, immoral traffic offenders) who are recognized by the Act as antisocial elements, particularly since there is no logical link between these particular offences and the maintenance of public order.

It would be worthwhile here to understand what exactly is meant by public order in the State List. The phrase was properly defined in the case of Indrajit Barua where the Delhi High Court held that for an illegal activity to qualify as threatening the public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. It was held that there was a difference between law and order and public order and that this difference was rooted in the degree and extent of … impact upon society. The Bombay High Court in the Nathwani case held that public order is the absence of public disorder involving breaches of local significance in contradistinction to national upheavals , such as revolution civil war… . The Supreme Court in Ramlila Maidan incident even held that if public order is disturbed it must lead to public disorder… whereas every breach of peace might not always lead to public disorder.

It is therefore, patently clear that offences under the Copyright Act, 1957 do not affect public order as understood in the legal sense simply because these offences while unlawful would not cause public disorder as has been envisioned by the court. Ergo, it follows that the true character of these amendments to the law, is not to preserve public order.

Even if it could somehow be proven that the offences added to the Act were a matter of public order, as held by the cases of Prof. Yashpal and Kerala State Electricity Board, when an entry is in general terms in List II (Entry 1- Public Order) and in more specific terms in List I (Entry 49 Patents, Copyright et al.), the entry in List I takes effect regardless of the entry in List II.

Furthermore, in this instance, the infringement on a matter under the Union List is not merely incidental, as the purpose sought by the Goondas Act, and the methods it adopts (preventive detention), stand in direct contradiction to the purpose of the Copyright Act, 1957. Copyright laws were enacted to incentivize innovation and to protect the intellectual property rights of individuals. In furtherance of this, offences under the Copyright Act, 1957 are punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years, the police have the power to seize infringing copies, the courts have the power to order the destruction of these copies. And there also exist fair-dealing provisions that need to be accounted for. A provision that allows preventive detention for copyright infringement is therefore not only disproportionate, but also incongruous in this context, leading to absurdities defeating the purpose of the legislation. Furthermore, this amendment amounts to an addition to the Copyright Act, 1957 in an indirect manner. Therefore in the guise of an incidental provision, the state legislature has altered the nature of the Act, and therefore engaged in a colourable exercise of power.

Therefore, subject to other reservations that one has with this legislation, due to a lack of legislative competence, at the very least, the amendments dealing with audio and video piracy should be repealed, applying the doctrine of severability expounded in Abdul Quader , R.M.D Chamarbaugwala and KihotoHollohan.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/spicy-ip-nehaa-chaudhari-august-28-2014-karnataka-goondas-act-a-note-on-legislative-competence

Preventive Detention for Copyright Violation: Karnataka Amends the 'Goondas' Act

nehaa — 2014-08-13T12:46:51Z

Last week, the Government of Karnataka amended the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Gamblers Act, 1985 (“the Karnataka Goondas Act”). The Karnataka Goondas Act would now also apply to offences under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. This article presents an overview on the various provisions of this law and discusses the potential impact of the amendment.

The blog post by Nehaa Chaudhari was first published on SpicyIP on August 13, 2014.

Goondas and Goondas Acts

Now used in ‘Indian English’ to mean a ‘hired thug or bully’, goonda/gunda seems to have Hindi/Urdu origins. Incidentally, thug itself has Hindi origins, with its meaning encompassing a range of criminals from robbers to murderers to gangs of criminals, or anti-social elements.

In 1923, the Goondas Act (India’s first) was enacted in Bengal. As per the Act, a goonda residing within, habitually frequenting or visiting Culcutta either by herself/himself or as part of a gang, committing/has committed/assisting in the commission of/is about to commit a non-bailable offence against person or property, or the offence of criminal intimidation or causing breach of peace was liable for action under this legislation. Similar laws were soon enacted across the country, including the Central Provinces and Berar Goondas Act, 1946 of Madhya Pradesh, (later struck down as unconstitutional in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Baldeo Prasad), the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (see: an illustrative decision); the Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act, 1975 (see: an illustrative decision); The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (legislation prior to the 2004 amendment available here), and the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985, which was amended a few weeks ago.

While these legislations are broadly similar in their object – that of curtailing the criminal activities of ‘goondas’ with provisions for removal as well as preventive detention, there is a variation in scope of the legislation. Karnataka and Tamil Nadu having extended the application of their respective Goondas Acts to a larger number of activities, including video piracy – which is the focus of this post.

The Karnataka Goondas Act: What Remains and What has Changed

Scope and Definition
Enacted in 1985 to curb activities of “anti-social” elements, which have frequently disturbed the “even tempo of life” especially in “urban areas”, the Karnataka Goondas Act extended to ‘bootleggers, drug offenders, gamblers, goondas, immoral traffic offenders and slum grabbers’. Amongst others, the 2014 amendment, which comes into effect “at once”, extends the scope of this legislation to “video or audio pirates” and “digital offenders”.

As per the new amendment, Section 2(iv) of the Act first refers to a “digital offender” as ‘when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a digital offender, which affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. An Explanation to Section 2 under Clause (f) specifies that a “digital offender” is any person who knowingly or deliberately violates for commercial purposes any copyright law in relation to any book, music, film, software, artistic or scientific work and also includes any person who illegally enters through the identity of another user and illegally uses any computer or digital network for pecuniary gain for himself or for any other person or commits any of the offences specified under section 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

These mentioned sections (67-75 of the IT Act), refer to a variety of measures which penalize refusal to decrypt information, publication of obscene information, access or attempts to access a ‘protected’ computer or network, misrepresentation, and breach of confidentiality and privacy, as well as prescription of penalties for some offences. (See more here)

The requirement that the action be committed for a “commercial purpose” has been eliminated in those instances where the offence is a violation of any of the listed sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

A “video or audio pirate” as defined under amended Section 2(xiii) is when he is engaged or is making preparations for engaging in any of his activities as a video or audio pirate habitually for commercial gain, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. The Explanation to Section 2 under amended Clause (o) states that a “video or audio pirate” means a person who commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences of infringement of copyright habitually for commercial gain, in relation to a cinematograph film or a record embodying any part of the soundtrack associated with the film, punishable under the Copyright Act, 1957.

The Explanation to amended Section 2 lays down the conditions in which public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely, viz. that if any of the activities of any of the persons referred to in this clause directly or indirectly, is causing or is calculated to cause any harm, danger or alarm, or a feeling of insecurity, among the general public or any section thereof or grave or widespread danger to life or public health.

Preventive Detention Orders
The amendment now means the State Government accordingly has the power to detain audio and video pirates and digital offenders, to prevent them from acting in a manner “prejudicial” to public order. In the first instance, such an order may not be for more than three months, it may be extended to a period of twelve months (Section 13), three months at a time, passed for the commission or the suspicion of commission of various offences, including copyright infringement, which under the Copyright Act, 1957 can only be determined by a court of law and is subject to subsequent appeals.

The 2014 amendment also modifies Section 17, by virtue of which no order of detention can be made under the National Security Act, 1980 against any of the persons named under the Karnataka Goondas Act, including audio or video pirates or digital offenders.

Section 8 requires grounds of detention to be disclosed to the detainees within five days of their detention, but not when it might not be in the public interest to do so.

Anomalies
This recent amendment to the Karnataka Goondas Act has resulted in anomalies. There are probably more; but two come to mind straight away.

First- preventive detention under the Karnataka Goondas Act means that the person arrested need not be produced before a magistrate immediately- there is a significantly long review process and detention may continue for a period of one year. This is for offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000, under which persons arrested have to be produced before a magistrate. This is also for offences under the Copyright Act, 1957, under which a person may be arrested only when found guilty of an offence by the court, whereas the Karnataka Goondas Act allows arrest on mere suspicion. Further, persons detained under this legislation cannot secure bail.

Second- the amendments to the Karnataka Goondas Act negate the exceptions laid out under the Copyright Act, 1957. While a reading of the Karnataka Goondas Act suggests that copyright infringement for commercial purposes falls under the purview of the legislation (and therefore non -commercial uses are excluded), however, under its provisions, persons may be detained (preventively) on mere suspicion as well. Therefore, even if a person were to be performing an activity permitted under the Copyright Act, 1957 (for instance, converting a coyrighted work into a machine readable format for the benefit of persons with disabilities), this person could be preventively detained on the suspicion of engaging in this activity for commercial purposes.

Constitutional Validity

Legislative Competence
The legislative competence of the Karnataka Government in amending the Karnataka Goondas Act to apply to audio and video pirates as well as to digital offenders is moot. Prima facie, these amendments seem to be unconstitutional.

Article 246 read with List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India specifies those subjects on which the Centre has the authority to make laws. Offences related to and committed by “video or audio pirates” or “digital offenders” as explained under the Karnataka Goondas Act are subjects on which the Centre has the authority to make laws, by virtue of the provisions relating to posts and telegraphs; telephones, wireless, broadcasting and other like forms of communication (Entry 31 of List I) and patents, inventions and designs; copyright; trade-marks and merchandise marks and merchandise marks (Entry 49 of List I).

Article 246 read with List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India specifies those subjects on which the States have the authority to make laws. Seemingly, the Government of Karnataka may have chosen to make laws relating to “video or audio pirates” and “digital offenders” Entry I of List II, i.e., public order. It is my submission, however, that these offences would not fall under an understanding of “public order” and this amendment would still remain unconstitutional.

Freedom of Speech
Gautam Bhatia’s article in the Outlook (with a slightly modified version on his blog) make out the case against the recent amendments to the Karnataka Goondas Act violating Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Bhatia argues that preventive detention under this legislation would be “prior restraint”, where government action prevents expression before it can take place, which is unconstitutional in most cases. He also argues that in order for free speech to be restricted on the grounds of “public order” under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, the State is required to meet a high threshold, which the Karnataka Goondas Act does not meet.

Closing Comments

The idea of introducing provisions to deal with online piracy and other ‘digital offences’ under the Goondas Act is not a new one. Mridula Chari writes that Tamil Nadu introduced such amendments to its Goondas Act in 2004 and Maharashtra in 2009, with Andhra Pradesh toying with the idea in 2010. She also writes that the Bengali and Punjabi music industries are making demands of their respective governments to introduce their own versions of the Goondas Acts and insert similar provisions. The Economic Times report on these recent amendments to the Karnataka Goondas Act also seems to suggest that these changes have been introduced for the protection of business interests. In contrast, in a detailed report, the Bangalore Mirror provides various illustrations of seemingly innocuous actions which may attract a draconian legislation, ranging from forwarding a song to a friend on WhatsApp to posting comments on social media sites.

The prospect of the protection of business interests with draconian legislations which are prima facie unconstitutional, aside from being ridiculous is deeply concerning. Widening the scope of these legislations to areas on which they have no constitutional authority to legislate, and introducing provisions with grave ramifications on fundamental rights, states in their continued and extended use of the Goondas Act are engaging in callous ill thought out actions with a deep disregard for their implications.

Nehaa is a Nalsar Law graduate. She works on intellectual property/openness law and policy at the Centre for Internet and Society, New Delhi. [Note: Due to the examination of definitions in the Act, this post is considerably longer than our standard post. Though the whole post is recommended, readers in a hurry could skip directly to headings titled "Anomalies", "Constitutional Validity" and "Closing comments" for the juicy bits.]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/spicy-ip-nehaa-chaudhari-august-13-2014-preventive-detention-for-copyright-violation

28th Session of the WIPO SCCR: Report on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations

nehaa — 2014-08-07T10:44:05Z

The 28th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“the Committee” / "SCCR") took place in Geneva from June 30, 2014 to July 04, 2014. In this article, Nehaa Chaudhari, who attended this meeting on behalf of CIS, discusses the developments that took place with reference to the proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (“Broadcast Treaty”).

At its 28^th Session, the WIPO SCCR devoted two and a half days to a discussion on the Broadcast Treaty. For the majority of this period informal discussions (“Informals”) were held between member states and there was no plenary. While Non- Government Organizations ( “NGOs”) and those member states who were not participating in the Informals were able to listen to the discussions taking place, we were requested to not report about them in any form whatsoever. Consequently, this article does not mention, cite or discuss the conversations in the Informals in any manner whatsoever, and is confined to deliberations at the plenary sessions.

Preliminary

Proceedings on Day 1 (June 30, 2014) began with a speech by the Director General of WIPO, Francis Gurry. Commending the “exceptional progress” made by the Committee over the past few years, Mr. Gurry cited the Marrakesh and Beijing Treaties as success stories. In talking about the Broadcast Treaty, Mr. Gurry said that the then ongoing FIFA World Cup, 2014 was “the perfect example” for member states on the economic and social importance of broadcasting. He went on to add that the Broadcast Treaty was the last component of the international legal framework which had not been “updated for the digital environment”. Identifying the challenge as developing a shared understanding of what and how to protect, Mr. Gurry was of the opinion that the Committee would make progress on the development of an instrument that was narrow in scope to combat cross border digital piracy.

In his statement following that of the Director General, the Chairperson, Edgar Martin Moscoso Villacorta (“the Chair”) explained that he had held consultations with the regional coordinators and three other nations from each group on June 27, 2014 to figure out how best to proceed at the upcoming 28^th Session of the Committee; before opening the floor to Regional Coordinators for their Opening Statements.

Group Opening Statements by Regional Coordinators : Reflections of a North-South Divide

Opening statements by Regional Coordinators on behalf of their groups reflected sentiments similar to those witnessed at the 26^th and 27 ^th Sessions of this Committee[1]. While there was broad consensus on having a well-balanced work plan that addressed the different issues of broadcasting, limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives as well as limitations and exceptions for education, teaching, research and persons with disabilities, statements also reflected the disagreements between various groups on the maturity (or the lack thereof) of the various items on the agenda, largely along the fault-lines of the classic Global North v. the Global South. For instance, statements by the European Union (“the EU”) and Group B, the group of developed countries emphasised the convening of a diplomatic conference for the Broadcast Treaty, but on the other hand, statements by the groups of developing countries highlighted the importance of limitations and exceptions.

The Regional Coordinator (presently, Paraguay) for the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (“GRULAC”) placed emphasis on a “well balanced work plan which envisages the different issues” but also stated that for their group, “the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and educational and research institutions (is) of the utmost importance.”

The representative of Bangladesh, in his capacity as the Regional Coordinator of the Asia-Pacific Group said that their group considered all issues to be equally important, notwithstanding the fact that they might enjoy different levels of discussion at the SCCR; and on the issue of protection of broadcasting organizations said that the group was “willing to work constructively” and hoped to continue “meaningful technical discussions in finalization of the scope of the protection of broadcasting organizations and to advance further to a balanced international instrument of rights and responsibility for the broadcasting organizations.”

The statement of the Central European and Baltic States (“CEBS”) Group, presently represented by the Czech Republic categorically stated that the CEBS Group was “striving for the successful conclusion of the work regarding the protection of broadcasting organizations with the aim to recommend to the General Assemblies to convene the Diplomatic Conference to take place, as soon as possible, preferably in 2015.” (sic)

Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, in their statement recognised the “tradition…to allocate more time to discussion on more mature subject matters”, referring to the Broadcast Treaty and, like the CEBS Group, also touched upon the issue of convening a Diplomatic Conference as soon as possible.

The European Union (“the EU”) has perhaps been one of the most vocal proponents of the Broadcast Treaty at past sessions of the Committee, and carried forward this tradition into the 28^th session as well, labelling negotiations on the Broadcast Treaty “a high priority” for Member States. The EU also echoed the statements made by the CEBS Group as well as Group B on the need to call for a diplomatic conference “as soon as possible.” In order to achieve this, said the EU, there was a need to build a “broad consensus” on the problems that needed to be addressed as well as on the extent of protection envisaged.

Technical Assistance from Broadcasters

The United States of America placed an emphasis on a treaty that would address challenges posed by new technologies, indicated in their request to the Secretariat to inform the member states about different sizes and types of broadcasters using new technologies by conducting a survey, recognising that a lot had changed over the course of the past 12 years, when a report on this issue was last prepared; a proposal which was supported by the delegation of India as well.

Following these comments by the United States of America (but in an unrelated move), the Chair suggested technical assistance be sought from broadcasters. Surprisingly, he identified three NGOs (in this case associations of broadcasters), namely Asian Broadcasters Union, International Association of Broadcasters and National Association of Broadcasters, who could provide technical assistance if required.

This stance was supported strongly by the delegations of Egypt and the Russian Federation. While it also found support from the Japanese delegation, it also pointed out that a mere presentation might bring about some confusion, and instead thought that it might be a better idea to update the studies commissioned by WIPO in 2002.

Resistance to this proposition was offered by the delegation of Venezuela who questioned the “expertize of these experts to speak to the Member States about such a complicated issue” and “the selection criteria” among others. Exclaiming in surprise at the manner on which this proposal had been accepted, the delegate sough further clarifications on the issue, demanding to know “who these very important people are who are going to come in and help us solve a problem in which we have not been able to solve in 10 years.” (sic.) The concern on the absence of transparency was also echoed by the delegate of Uruguay, who expressed his great “astonishment” at “three technical experts” at the session, saying that it was “most inappropriate” to be informed about the presence of technical experts after regional coordinators had earlier expressed their refusal to have such an exercise. In response, the Chair said that this was a decision that he had taken in response to a request for technical consultations made at the earlier session of the Committee. He went on to add that the Committee could do without the technical assistance if perceived to be unnecessary and the process not transparent.

Scope of Protection: Article 6

The Scope of Protection under the Broadcast Treaty is laid out under Article 6 of WorkingDocument 27/2/Rev. (“Working Document”). This document lays out the text which forms the basis of the negotiations at the SCCR.

Confining the Broadcast Treaty to a signal based approach versus broadening the scope of the treaty to a more technologically neutral rights based approach was the chief point of conflict between the developed and the developing nations, reflect in their statements discussed below.

Opening the proceedings, the United States of America (“the US”/ “USA”) placed complete support on the statement of Group B; but also added that the way forward “to finding consensus” was to “focus on a narrow treaty based on the core need of broadcasters for protection from signal piracy.” The US proceeded to outline its proposal of “a single right to authorise the simultaneous or near simultaneous transmission of signal to the public over any medium.” Highlighting the key advantages to this proposal the US said that its proposal was “modern”, recognizing the importance of “new technologies that are used for engaging in signal piracy and avoids a number of negatives as to which concerns have been expressed in the discussions”. However, the US was also quick to clarify that the “right would be limited to protection for the signal and not to the content contained in fixations of the broadcast” and would also “avoid interference with the rights of the right holders in the content that was broadcast” as well as “avoid any impact on consumers who were engaged in private activities such as home copying”.

India reiterated its serious concerns regarding webcasting, simulcasting and retransmission over computer networks. Japan, on the other hand, while most other nations chose to reserve their comments for discussions in the Informals alone.

On the third day of this meeting, the Chair presented the progress that had been made over the course of the discussions taking place in the Informals. He said that webcasting had been removed from the scope of application. The concern, said the Chair, was that webcasting was also carried out by other actors- not just broadcasting organizations, and that having different rules for different actors carrying out the same activity would not be “a good message” (sic.)

Rights of Broadcasters: Article 9

The Rights of Broadcasters under the Broadcast Treaty are laid out under Article 9 of the Working Document. The US said that it “remained convinced” that a narrow scope of rights would make it possible for the SCCR to recommend convening a diplomatic conference. The Russian Federation on the other spoke of the need to take into account the “appearance of new technologies which provide new possibilities, particularly the use, and the unauthorized use of the signal.”

As in the case of the Scope of Application, in the case of Rights of Broadcasters as well, the Chair updated the plenary on the discussions in the Informals. The discussions were informed by two informal documents listing out the rights as well as the scope. While discussing the rights, said the Chair, it was decided to merge simultaneous and near simultaneous retransmission since they were closely related. The rights sought to be granted to the broadcasters include those of fixation, reproduction of fixations, distribution of fixations and performance of the broadcast among others.

In response to the Chair’s invitation for suggestions, the delegate of Sri Lanka suggested that one of the sentences be rephrased as follows: “Transmission or retransmission of the broadcast signal to the public over any medium whether simultaneous, near simultaneous or deferred including on demand transmission on a broadcast signal.” She also added fixation rights should be granted only to that extent of a file being copied for the purpose of transmission, before it has been transmitted. A few other delegations either echoed similar sentiments, or chose to remain silent until the Informals.

Comments by NGOs

On the third (and the final for the Broadcast Treaty), day of discussions, the Chair opened the floor to interventions, observations and comments by NGOs.

AIR, representing broadcasting organizations spoke of the “great need” to update the Rome Convention because of the prevalence of piracy, especially transmissions over the internet. The National Association of Broadcasters cited instances of television piracy as examples of the harm to broadcasters and need for such a treaty. The Japanese Commercial Broadcasters Association expressed its support for post fixation rights and said that they were important to broadcasters, “especially the right of making available a fixed broadcast is crucial in order to fight online piracy which we said a number of times before…” (sic.). Also recognising the need to be flexible, the Japanese Commercial Broadcasters expressed their support to the proposal made by the Japanese delegation in making some rights optional.

A different set of concerns was articulated by other NGOs, who were not associations of broadcasters. Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue ( “TACD”) spoke of the possible “collateral damange to public access and culture” and the addition of “new layers of complications barriers and costs added” to access to information and knowledge by consumers. Further, highlighting the irony of the SCCR with the strong push towards a binding Broadcast Treaty “with a wide scope”, the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue said that this was in “stark contrast on the part of some other Member States to discussing new global norms” to facilitating the role played by libraries and archives. Additionally, TACD also said that there was the danger of “opening up an endless and incomprehensive Pandora box of overlapping rights on content between non creators of broadcasts and the real creators” (sic.), and also expressed grave concern over the negative impact of post fixation rights on the use of news, culture and information by consumers ad users. “In consideration of a new international norm for broadcasters, we must not forget the common food for the free flow of information for citizens,” said TACD. It also said that the focus of the work should not be to satisfy the interests of one special group while ignoring the possible negative unintentional consequences on “normal users”, and asked for a social impact assessment of the Broadcast Treaty.

Knowledge Ecology International (“KEI”) in their statement stated that the broadcasters had failed to meet their burden of proving the need for “exclusive rights to fight piracy.” In order for the Committee to make progress, KEI suggested that the focus be on a “narrow treaty based on a single right corresponding to the key need of broadcasting organizations for protection from signal piracy.” KEI also questioned and opposed the extension of broadcasters’ rights to cable television and other services which were not only subscription based, but were also protected under theft of service laws. Further confining the scope of the Broadcast Treaty, KEI suggested that the treaty only deal with over the air broadcasts which were free to the public.

A powerful statement by CCIA referred to fixed signals as “fiction” and said that the existing model in the Brussels Satellite Convention was adequate to protect piracy of signals. Echoing the sentiments of various other organisations as well (including CIS as discussed below), CCIA stated that while broadcasters had stated that the present approach was not adequate to protect their interests, no reasons had been offered fir the same. In agreement with other nations as well as TACD before it, CCIA also sought information from WIPO on the “real world impact of the obligations” it intended to create.

Also joining the call for impact assessment was the Third World Network (“TWN”). TWN also spoke of restricting the scope of the Broadcast Treaty to the mandate accorded to the SCCR in line with the 2007 General Assembly decision, the need to base discussing on WIPO’s Development Agenda, and the “negative implications on the free flow of information over the Internet and the negative impact on the public domain and access to knowledge.”

The Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”), in agreement with CCIA pointed out that the broadcasters had not discharged their burden of justifying the need for the Broadcast Treaty and why “international instruments including, among others, the TRIPS and the Rome Convention” were insufficient to address the concerns of broadcasters. Joining other organizations including CCIA, TACD and TWN in a call for a further study, CIS requested an impact assessment of the Broadcast Treaty on all stakeholders. Further, CIS pointed out that if the rationale for seeking this protection was the protection of the underlying investment, IP based transmissions should be out of the scope of this treaty, since the investments involved in IP based transmissions and those in broadcasting in a traditional sense were very different. CIS also strongly opposed the inclusion of fixation and post fixation rights since they were inconsistent with a signals based approach and pointed out the irony in protecting a signal for twenty years, when the signal itself lasted milliseconds.

IFTA, the Independent Film and Television Alliance placed emphasis on the separation of the content and well as the broadcast signal as well maintaining a balance by also safeguarding public interest.

Chair’s Conclusions

After five days of deliberations, the 28^th Session of the SCCR, just like the 27^th Session, ended with no conclusions being adopted by the Committee, as a result of which the Chair’s Conclusions were prepared by the Chair, Martin Moscoso.

Clarifying that this item would be maintained on the agenda for the 29^th Session of the SCCR and that there had been no agreement on recommendations to the WIPO General Assembly, the Chair’s Conclusions state that the Committee conducted discussions on issues relating to “categories of platforms and activities to be included under the object and scope of protection to be granted to broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense, and initiated discussions on definitions.” The Chair’s Conclusions also clarify that “the Secretariat was requested by some Members to provide an update of the 2010 study on “Current Market and Technology Trends in the Broadcasting Sector” (Document SCCR 19/12), focusing on the use of digital technology by cablecasting and broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense whether public or commercial, including in developing countries, with the aim of presenting the results of the study and providing opportunities for technical discussion at the 29th session of the SCCR.”

[1] See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-consolidated-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-1 (last accessed 17 July, 2014), http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-2 (last accessed 17 July, 2014) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-3 (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for CIS’ report on the 26^th Session of the Committee.

See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for transcripts of the discussions at the 27 ^th Session of the Committee.

See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-limitations-and-exceptions-education-training-research-institutions-persons-with-other-disabilities (last accessed 17 July, 2014) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-treaty-for-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for CIS’ Statements at the 26^th Session of the Committee.

See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations (last accessed 17 July, 2014), http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-orphan-works-retracted-withdrawn-works-and-works-out-of-commerce-at-27-sccr-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 17 July, 2014) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-on-technological-measures-of-protection-27-sccr-on-limitations-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for CIS’ Statements at the 27^th Session of the Committee.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-28-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations

Mapping Institutions of Intellectual Property: Part C — Comparing Intellectual Property Institutions

nehaa — 2014-07-22T04:24:23Z

Earlier this year, a proposal to establish a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights (“NIIPR”) was presented at a Stakeholders Consultation held in New Delhi organized by the Planning Commission and the Ministry of Human Resource Development (“MHRD”), Government of India. As a third part in the series on Mapping Institutions of Intellectual Property, this article undertakes a comparison of the functions of this proposed Institute with similarly placed Institutions of Intellectual Property around the world.

View Parts A and B here and here

Preliminary

Intellectual Property Institutes/Institutes of Intellectual Property (“Institutes”) world over usually perform two kinds of functions- first, they may serve as the Intellectual Property Office (the nodal agency for matters relating to intellectual property) in their respective countries and second, they may provide policy inputs to their respective governments. From discussions at a Stakeholders Consultation in New Delhi earlier this year (which I have written about here and here), it emerged that the Indian government (specifically, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, India’s nodal agency for IPR related matters except copyright, and the MHRD, India’s nodal agency for copyright related matters ) lacked an institutional framework for policy feedback to the government, which in turn would supplement international negotiations. In order to address this lacuna, the Planning Commission and the MHRD presented a proposal (“the Proposal”) to set up the NIIPR, which would, inter alia, perform the function of advising the Indian government on matters of intellectual property law and policy and inform international negotiations pursuant to the same. This article examines Institutes other jurisdictions on the basis of their functions, and attempts to ascertain what functions an ‘ideal’ Institute might perform.

Methodology and Preliminary Findings

A list of two hundred and fifty seven territories was prepared and attempts were made to trace Institutes in each of these territories. Out of these, those Institutes that had websites, and whose websites had content available in English (or for which an official or credible translation was available) were earmarked. Once the Institutes had been thus identified, their distinctive features and past achievements were studied on the basis of disclosures available on the websites of the Institutes.

It emerged that twenty three (23) countries had Institutes that performed functions similar to those envisaged for the proposed NIIPR. These countries include Albania, Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Chile, France, Gabon, Greece, Iceland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Portugal, Romania, Switzerland, Taiwan and Vietnam. However, this number cannot be said to be exhaustive as for 10 Countries, the translated page could not be availed. Further, in a few countries including Belgium, Belize, Iceland, New Zealand, Trinidad and Tobago, Sri Lanka and United States, the Intellectual Property Office performed the additional function of providing policy inputs to the government, in addition to administering and granting Intellectual Property Rights.

A diagrammatic representation of these preliminary findings and the methodology is available in Figures 1 and 2 (below).


Figure 1


Figure 2

Observations on Functions


Figure 3

Institutes across the world are varied in their functioning, structure and organization. Some observations (that could aid the establishment of the NIIPR) on the functioning of some of these Institutes are as under:

The Institute for Intellectual Property Rights of Bosnia and Herzegovina performs a dual role of the Patent Office as well as that of a research institute. In addition to assisting the government when it enters into agreements, it also performs documentation tasks and implements regulations related to intellectual property. It is also entrusted with the task of maintaining a record of industrial property applied for and granted.
The National Institute of Industrial Property, France contributes to the development and implementation of public policies in the field of anti-counterfeiting.
The Centre for Industrial property of Gabon presents and defends the interests of the Gabonese government at the international level.
The Hellenic Industrial Property Organisation registers inventions in Greece by granting patents and utility model certificates. It also registers industrial designs and community designs and models. Moreover, it also acts as a receiving office for the European Patent and the PCT certificate among others.
The National Institute of Intellectual Property, Kazakhstan performs the functions of the National Patent Office, including examination of applications for patents, useful models, trademarks, appellation of origin of goods and industrial designs.
The Intellectual Property Organization, Pakistan seeks to serve as the nodal organisation for the integrated management of intellectual property and seeks to coordinate the enforcement of intellectual property as well.
The Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property performs the task of examining national filing applications and grants and administers intellectual property rights. It has also developed a patent database (ESPACEMENT) which has ensured access to over eighty (80) million patent documents.
The Japanese Institute of Intellectual Property provides inputs on existing laws to the Government of Japan. These inputs have influenced the revision of Japanese laws relating to patents, trademarks, utility models and the prevention of unfair competition.

Takeaways for the NIIPR

This attempt at an overview of Intellectual Property Institutes around the world has revealed broad similarities in their functioning. These similarities are also seen with the proposed functions of the NIIPR, as outlined in the Proposal of the MHRD and the Planning Commission. It would therefore lead one to believe that the establishment of this institution is potentially headed in the right direction. However, even while the functions of these existing Institutions might guide the establishment of the NIIPR, it would do well to tailor itself to meet India’s specific requirements. With pre-existing ministries, departments and offices in place to deal with the enforcement of intellectual property rights, India needs a body that informs the government on issues of intellectual property law and policy reform, in preparation for international negotiations, which is a lacuna that the NIIPR ought to address. In addition to this core function, the NIIPR may be the institution that oversees the role and functioning of the MHRD Chairs, and also be developed as a research institution aiding the government in developing an intellectual property framework addressing the needs of all stakeholders. Further, the NIIPR may also consider undertaking activities such as the establishment of databases containing patent documents and other publications in Indic languages to ensure access to a larger group of people. The NIIPR could also play an influential role in shaping regional discussions on intellectual property at the international level and encourage and facilitate South-South dialogue.

With nine thousand nine hundred and eighty (9980) lakh Indian rupees being allocated for the National Programme on Intellectual Property Management under the current Five Year Plan (2012-2017), which includes the establishment of the NIIPR, one awaits further developments that might well change the face of India’s intellectual property framework in the long run, with a sense restrained excitement.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-c

Opening Comments by India on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives at WIPO SCCR 28

nehaa — 2014-07-21T17:55:28Z

This was the statement made by the Indian delegation at the 28th session of the World Intellectual Property Organization Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights on July 2, 2014.

Hon'ble Chair

In the quest for Knowledge society-for the developing countries- the issue of haves and have -not’s is now sliced with an additional divide of knows and Know -not’s. Libraries and Archives are the engines of creativity and promote intergeneration equity. They indeed are the modern day temples, mosques and churches- The notion of strong copyright boundaries has found its resonance to encircle spaces hitherto providing the socio economic infrastructure for developing nations. It is in this context that we need to look for appropriate international instrument to consolidate the access by way of limitations and exceptions to libraries, archives, educational institutions and other disabled people.

The overemphasis of stricter and stronger copyright as the engine of creativity is now questioned by latest studies. Ekhard Höffner a German historian has in his comprehensive research argues the fact that in the 19th century Germany outpaced UK, as the copyright laws were not strong as it was in UK. This fact goes contrary to the established view that Copyright is directly correlated to the expansion of creative works and publication. In fact Germany could do the catch up with the other powers in Europe.

I am mentioning this to emphasize for the developing world to do the catch up it is necessary to have limitations and exceptions for Libraries/archives/educational institutions. At this junction it is necessary to recognize the importance of such consensus without presuming whether what sort of International Instrument it should be.

India supports the effort of harmonizing the exceptions and limitations from an international dimension for intergenerational equity and as a tool to develope socio-economic- human resource infrastructure.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/opening-statement-of-india-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives

Statement on the Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives at WIPO SCCR 28

nehaa — 2014-07-21T17:56:24Z

Nehaa Chaudhari, attending the 28th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 30 June, 2014 to 04 July, 2014, made this statement on the Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives on behalf of CIS on Day 4, 03 July, 2014.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We thank the delegation of the United States for putting forward their Objectives and Principles for Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives, presented to this Committee in Document SCCR/ 26/8. I would like to comment on two of the topics that we have discussed today- one; the adoption of national exceptions and two; limitations and exceptions in a digital environment.

First, Mr. Chair, on the adoption of national exceptions: We appreciate the recognition of the ‘public service’ role of libraries and the importance of limitations and exceptions for them to perform their role of facilitating access to and the dissemination of knowledge and information, the goals of the copyright system. However, Mr. Chair, we do believe that the true and complete realization of these objectives would not be possible without an international legal instrument that lays out minimum international standards for countries to adopt and implement, that fosters a system for cross border exchange and creates an enabling environment to facilitate the implementation and adoption of limitations and exceptions at the national level.

Second, Mr. Chair, on limitations and exceptions in a digital environment; we appreciate the objective set out in the proposal made by the United States and welcome the statements by the delegations of Kenya, Chile and South Africa, that international regulation will grant a solution to the problems facing libraries and archives in the digital environment. Mr. Chair, the digital environment presents huge opportunities for countries such as India and perhaps others in the Global South for the preservation and dissemination of knowledge and in turn benefit education and research; with libraries and archives playing a crucial role. The digital environment, Mr. Chair, also presents a fair share of challenges. These include as IFLA, CLA, EIFL, IAB, the Karisma Foundation and others have also stated- multiplicity and complexity of licenses to be negotiated with various rights holders, the mandated use of particular platforms by publishers, difficulties in obtaining copyright clearances and limitations on remote access to name a few. Additional challenges are placed by technological measures of protection, (something that we also spoke about in our submission at the previous session of this Committee; where technological measures of protection often placed on master copies of files obtained by libraries and archives prevent basic preservation activities such as file format migration and limit the ways in which end users can utilize the work in question, rendering redundant, fair use or fair dealing provisions.

Therefore, Mr. Chair, we are of the opinion that an international legal instrument addressing the challenges faced by libraries and archives in the digital environment is necessary and the way forward for members of this Committee- and existing mechanisms in national laws of those nations that do have them are insufficient.

Video

Videos of the WIPO's proceedings from June 30, 2014 to July 04, 2014 are available online. To view CIS' Statement, select 'Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights: Twenty-Eighth Session- June 30 to July 4, 2014 (Geneva, Switzerland)' from the drop-down list of videos. CIS' Statement is in the video titled SCCR/28- Thurs3 - English - Afternoon session. The length of the video is 02:13:52. The statement is available in this video from 01:38:46

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives

Statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations at WIPO SCCR 28

nehaa — 2014-07-14T05:40:27Z

Nehaa Chaudhari, attending the 28th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 30 June, 2014 to 04 July, 2014, made this statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations on behalf of CIS on Day 3, 02 July, 2014.

Thank you, Mister Chair.

Mister Chair, there are two things that I would like to talk about, on behalf of CIS- first, on justifications for this Treaty; second on the scope and the rights sought to be granted under this Treaty, which I will speak of together, if I may.

On justifying the need for this Treaty, Mr. Chair, we would reiterate what we have said in past sessions of this Committee – there has been no conclusive demonstration on the need for this Treaty and on why existing mechanisms in international legal instruments, including, among others TRIPS and the Rome Convention are not sufficient to address the concerns of the broadcasters. We have heard that these are insufficient, but no justifications as to why- something that KEI also pointed out in their statement before us. Further, Mr. Chair, we’re concerned by the fact that the latest study on the unauthorised use of signals presented to this Committee is the one from 2010 at the 20^th Session of this Committee. We strongly support the proposal made by India, TWN, CCIA and TACD to update this study and include an impact assessment of ALL the stakeholders, something that the earlier study does not address; in order to more comprehensively assess not just the need, but also the impact of this proposed treaty, and address some of the questions and concerns raised by TACD and TWN in their statement earlier.

Without prejudice to this submission on the need for this treaty, Mr. Chair, we would also like to comment on the scope of, and the rights under this Treaty.

Mr. Chair, we would continue to submit that this proposed treaty should be based on a signals based approach and not a rights based approach. We have heard submissions by broadcasters at this and at previous sessions of this Committee, where the basis of seeking additional protection for broadcaster is to protect the underlying investment. Mr. Chair, investments made in infrastructure for broadcasting in the traditional sense are very different from those required for an IP based transmission, even if the same broadcaster is engaging in both. Therefore, Mr. Chair, given that the rationale for seeking this additional layer of rights over and above existing copyright is the protection of investment for broadcasting in the traditional sense is the , IP based transmissions should not be covered in any way under this Treaty.

Further, Mr. Chair, fixation and post fixation rights envisaged under Article 9 of Working Document SCCR 27/2/ Rev. and indicated in the Informal Document circulated today, are inconsistent with a signals based approach. We are strongly opposed to all of the rights indicated in the Third Row of this Informal Discussion Document. This Document, we believe, is moving the discussion towards a rights based approached and not a signals based approach, which we find deeply concerning. We also believe, Mr. Chair, that it is not logical to prescribe a term of protection (beyond the life of a signal), least of all 20 or 50 year term (as under Article 11 of this Working Document) for a signal that lasts milliseconds.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Video

Videos of the WIPO's proceedings from June 30, 2014 to July 04, 2014 are available online. To view CIS' Statement, select 'Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights: Twenty-Eighth Session- June 30 to July 4, 2014 (Geneva, Switzerland)' from the drop-down list of videos. CIS' Statement is in the video titled SCCR/28- Wed2 - English - Morning session. The length of the video is 44:51. The statement is available in this video from 24 minutes, 00 seconds- when the Chair recognizes CIS.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-on-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations

India's Ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty Celebrated; Accessible Books Consortium Launched

nehaa — 2014-07-01T11:09:08Z

On Day 1 of the 28th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”), the WIPO organized an event to mark India’s ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled, 2013 (“Marrakesh Treaty”), and to launch the Accessible Books Consortium (“ABC”).

India Becomes the First Country to Ratify the Marrakesh Treaty

Francis Gurry, Director General, WIPO said that the Marrakesh Treaty received 79 signatures in the twelve month period that the treaty was open for signatures. He further said that India’s ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty one year from its conclusion was a “WIPO record of sorts” and a “great example from a major country” of the importance attached to the Marrakesh Treaty.

Dilip Sinha, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations in Geneva handed over India’s Instrument of Accession to the Marrakesh Treaty to Francis Gurry. Ambassador Sinha in his speech stressed on the importance of the Marrakesh Treaty to India and said that it helped that India had its amendments to its Copyright Act, 1957 in place, incorporating the provisions of the Marrakesh Treaty.

Maryanne Diamond, the Immediate Past President of the World Blind Union (“WBU”) congratulated India on its ratification. Calling it a country who showed “huge leadership” in negotiations of the Marrakesh Treaty, Ms. Diamond said that this ratification was extremely significant, with India being home to a large number of blind and print disabled people and a part of the Global South. Ms. Diamond urged other nations to follow India’s example and make it a priority to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty.

Jens Bammel, Secretary General, International Publishers Association (“IPA”) also congratulated India on its ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty and called on other member states to ratify it.

Accessible Books Consortium Launched

At the launch of the ABC, Mr. Gurry said that the Marrakesh Treaty was only the means to an end, where the end was books in the hands of print disabled and visually impaired persons across the world. “To make it operational,” said Mr. Gurry, “we need to have operational activities.” He said that the ABC was an operational activity which would “breathe life” into and “make operational” the legal framework provided by the Marrakesh Treaty.

What Does it Do?

Mr. Gurry said that the ABC aimed at achieving three things- first, capacity building; second, international book exchange and third, international book exchange.

Capacity Building- Mr. Gurry said that the ABC seeks to provide training on accessible book production and distribution. He thanked the Republic of Korea which has committed to providing financial assistance for training in respect of production of books in accessible formats.
International Book Exchange- Mr. Gurry said that this activity was an IT supported facility, namely, the TIGAR Service which has its origins in India. This would allow participating institutions to perform international searches of databases to find out if accessible formats of books are available.
Inclusive Publishing- Mr. Gurry said that at the end of the day, “books should be born accessible” and technology was creating the “promise of the realization of this aspiration.” Mr. Gurry said that the ABC would promote accessible publishing and to this end, had drawn up a charter of accessible publishing- Accessible Publishing Best Practice Guidelines for Publishers. Elsevier is the first publisher to have signed this charter.

India, WBU and IPA delighted

Praising the ABC, Ambassador Sinha called it an indicator of what multi-stakeholder cooperation needs to do. He said that the ABC would assist organizations such as the DAISY Forum of India in achieving the goal of access to books in accessible formats. Congratulating the WIPO for its efforts on this front, Ambassador Sinha said that this would help nations like India realize their goal of achieving the purposes of the Marrakesh Treaty. Ms. Diamond, representing the WBU congratulated Elsevier on signing the charter. Jens Bammel, on behalf of the IPA expressed concern for making books available in accessible formats for non English speakers. The ABC, he said, was a project initiated to “genuinely complement” the Marrakesh Treaty, and would create a global catalogue of accessible works, whether provided by libraries or by publishers. Expressing his delight that the ABC was being supported equally by all stakeholders, Mr. Bammel reached out to member states to support this initiative politically.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/indias-ratification-of-marrakesh-treaty-celebrated

Mapping Institutions of Intellectual Property: Part B — India's National Program on Intellectual Property Management

nehaa — 2014-06-26T15:27:18Z

As a second part in the series on Mapping Institutions of Intellectual Property this blog post deals with the documents introduced at the Stakeholders’ Consultation for India’s National Program on Intellectual Property.

Many thanks to CIS interns Jessamine Matthew, Tanvi Mani and Upasana Chauhan for their support on this.

On the 21st of February, 2014, the Planning Commission and the Ministry of Human Resource Development (“MHRD”), Government of India organized a Stakeholders Consultation at New Delhi (“the Consultation”) to discuss India’s National Program on Intellectual Property Management. (Click here: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-a to read our post about this, the first in this series on mapping institutions of intellectual property). I attended this Consultation on behalf of CIS. Discussions were informed by three documents introduced at this meeting, the important parts of which have been summarized below:

Report of the Evaluation Committee on Continuation of the Scheme of Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach (IPERPO) (“the Scheme”) in the XII Five Year Plan Period 2012-2017 (PDF, 21378 Kb)

Introduction

The Evaluation Committee involved in the preparation of this report comprised of Prof. Sudhir K. Jain, Shri T.C. James and Shri J.R. Agarwal. The rationale behind such scrutiny was to yield recommendations with regard to whether the Scheme should be continued or not. And if the answer was found to be in affirmative, to analyze the scope for improvement, phasing of expenditure and setting of targets for each component of the Scheme.

Essentially the report seeks to analyze the overall impact of the Scheme in the discipline of IP rights with respect to education and awareness. It examines the trajectory of progress of the MHRD-IP Chairs and assesses ways to monitor them more efficiently. In addition to that it also analyzes the procedure adopted to release grants to the Chairs and to recognized universities and explores the possibility of widening the scope of the Scheme.

Genesis of the Scheme

The Scheme was formulated to encourage study of IP rights and research, and create awareness about copyright and IP matters. It also aimed to develop specialized courses, train enforcement personnel, organize seminars and workshops on IPR matters, develop inputs, awareness on WTO matters and evolve strategies of regional cooperation.

Under the Scheme, the purposes for which expenditure is to be incurred by the Ministry are clearly chalked out. The details of the same are given in the Report of the Committee. It also lays down the eligibility of Institutions/ Organizations that are to be selected under the Scheme.

MHRD-IPR Chairs

Around 20 MHRD-IPR Chairs have been set up across various universities, IITs and National Law Universities for growth and development of IPR education, research and training. The staff –pattern followed for MHRD-IPR chair is one Chair Professor, two Research associates, one Steno-cum- Documentation assistant and one group-D employee. Such appointments are supposed to be made in accordance with the rules and guidelines of the UGC. Apart from the recurring expenditure towards salaries of the above-mentioned staff, the Chairs have also been given a non-recurring provision for library, equipments and ancillary items. However, such grants are to be given upon fulfilment of certain conditions imposed under the Scheme.

The working of MHRD-IPR Chairs is overlooked by two committees-namely, the ‘Coordinating Committee’ and ‘Review Committee’. The Coordinating Committee is responsible for discussing proposed activities and resolving pending disputes while the Review Committee review their progress periodically.

Observations on Performance of IPR Chairs

Inability to find a suitable Professor level person to occupy the IPR Chair.
Absence of qualification- criteria for the IPR Chair in the Scheme.
Less focus on research component, development of human resource and teaching.
Few IPR-Chairs have appointed full staff which is complementary to their working.
Flow of fund to IPR-Chairs is interrupted dur to lack of proper documentation.
Uncertainty about the continuation of IPR Chairs which has a detrimental effect on their performance.
Active participation in seminars and workshops organized by universities, institutes and colleges on IPR awareness.

Plan Allocation and Expenditure

There exists variations with respect to allocation and actual expenditure of funds due to various reasons.

New Initiatives to be taken during XII Plan

New IPR-Chairs should be established to encourage research in the field of IPR and create a pool of trained human resources.
IPR Centres/ Cells should be set up and they should be linked to the IPR-Chairs.
Internal Monitoring and Information Systems should exist for effective implementation of the Scheme.
National Seminars/ Conference should be held annually.
World Intellectually Property Day should be celebrated annually with various themes as decided by WIPO.
Awareness about copyright and IPR should be spread through print and electronic media.
Copyright Office should be strengthened and modernized to bring it at par with offices in the USA, UK.

Specific Recommendations

The Committee recommended that the post of IPR-Chairs needs to be incentivized and given full functional autonomy. Moreover, the support provided by Government to the Chairs should be long-term.
The appointment of academic and administrative staff needs to be revised periodically.
Only publicly funded universities and institutes of higher learning should be beneficiaries to this Scheme.
The proposed activities and achievements of the IPR Chairs should be made public.
IPR Chairs should provide assistance to the Central Government by way of research and providing solutions to policy problems and issues.
Some flexibility should be allowed with respect to documentation for uninterrupted flow of accounts.
Provision for replacement/ purchase of equipments.
It should be made mandatory for IPR-Chairs to appoint full staff and conduct lon term training programmes in advanced areas of IPR at the national level.
The work of the IPR Chairs needs to be chalked out explicitly by the Scheme.
Having a scheme for converting the well-functioning Chairs into Specialized IPR Centres with the participation of MHRD.
Raising awareness on IPR issues and problems by holding workshops and seminars. Moreover, universities and colleges should ensure adequate participation in such seminars/ workshops.
School-curriculum should include Chapters on IPR.
Modernization of the Copyright Office should be considered to be a priority to ensure easy access and to make copyright registration easier.

Note on the establishment of an Inter-University Centre for Intellectual Property Rights

Background

The Inter-University Centre for Intellectual Property Rights (“the Centre”) will be established under UGC/ Ministry of HRD, Government of India. Broadly, the mission of this independent autonomous Policy Research Centre is to provide research and policy inputs in the arena of IPR. The targeted audience for these inputs will be the State and Central Governments. In addition to that, it also seeks to serve as a connecting bridge for dialogue between developing countries on IPR. To actualize the mission, it will work on inter-disciplinary research and disseminate information on various socio-legal and other aspects of IPR. It will also promote, integrate and develop models and mechanisms associated with IPR.

Functions

In order to make IPR resources more accessible, the Centre will establish a repository of such resources by entering into collaboration with other organizations and institutions. It will also provide assistance to stakeholders by ways of and not limited to organization of seminars, awareness programmes. As a means to encourage inter-disciplinary research which is quintessential for this Centre, it would offer visiting fellowships and forge links with national and international research institutions. As a nodal centre with respect to interfacing government on IP matters, it will also have the added responsibility of reviewing performance of MHRD-IP chairs.

Broad Deliverables and Outcomes of the Centre

The Deliverables of this Centre world would include Policy Research Inputs, Research Publications, Research Monographs, Treaty Analysis, Sensitization Programmes and National and International Conferences. On the other hand, the outcomes would include Research on thrust areas, Knowledge Management in IPRs, IPR Online Resources and discussions.

Linkages

The Centre seeks to link MHRD-IP Chairs, Industry Associations, Civil Society Advocacy Groups and Public Institutes with IPR research capacity.

Organizational Structure and Funding

The organizational structure of the Centre would include the Governing Council, Governing Board and the Research Advisory Council. Each Council/ Board will comprise of Chairman, Ex-Officio Members and Nominated Members. The individuals who are responsible for the nomination of members to these structures are the President, Chairman of the GB and Chairman of the Centre respectively. It has laid down the specification of such composition in its note on establishment.

For the purpose of funding, the Centre would depend on UGC for its building infrastructure, salary and non-salary components. In addition to that it will also aim to create its own corpus by means of consultancy and other grant-in-aids. Towards capital expenditure, the required allocation would be Rs. 65 crores. While the revenue expenditure is estimated at Rs. 25 crores annually. A detailed break-down of the expenditure also been laid down by the Centre in its note.

Discussion Paper for the Establishment of a National Institute for Intellectual Property Rights

Introduction

The National Institute for Intellectual Property Rights (“the Institute’) will be established as an autonomous policy research institute under the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. It envisages a specialization in policy research and development cooperation in the field of IP rights. Further, it aims to provide multi-stakeholder collaborations in the fields of IPRs. It will provide policy inputs to the government of India for formulating legislations and international agreements. The Institute will serve as a common platform for dialogue among developing countries on IPR issues. Moreover, it will act as a ‘Hub and ‘spoke’ model to connect and coordinate with the MHRD IPR Chairs/ other institutions working in the field of IPRs.

Vision: To be an institute of excellence in policy research and advocacy of IPR.

Mission: To provide effective research and policy inputs in the field of IPR.

Objectives

The Institute would serve as a think-tank to provide policy inputs on IPR at a regional, national and international level. It would work on interdisciplinary research involving multi-stakeholders and focus on IPR trade related issues and their impact on socio-economic aspects at regional, national and international levels. Further, it would disseminate information regarding the social, legal, ethical and economic aspects of IPR. It would endeavour to promote, integrate and develop ‘Academia-Industry’ knowledge structures. Models and mechanisms associated with IPR. Further, it would coordinate the activities of ‘MHRD-IPR’ chairs on behalf of the Ministry of HRD. Lastly, it would engage in capacity building and provide inputs on IPR policy makers including the judiciary.

Functions

In order to realize the objectives elucidated, the Institute would perform the following functions. It would undertake inter-disciplinary research and provide necessary inputs to the State and Central governments to formulate the required policy in IPR. It would further establish a repository of IPR resources in collaboration with various academic institutions, organizations, chairs and stakeholders engaged in IPRs. It would also offer visiting fellowships to encourage multi-disciplinary research. It would organize and participate in seminars, conferences and awareness programs. It would also undertake consultancy and conduct training in IPR to assist various stakeholders. Additionally, it would forge links with national and international IP research institutions/ organizations and act as a nodal institute to interface various Ministries/Departments of the Government on IP related matters. In furtherance of its adjudicative functions it would also undertake a review on the performance of MHRD-IPR chairs on behalf of the Ministry of Human Resource Development. Lastly, it would offer a Ph.D program in IPR in association with reputed Universities/ Institutions in India and abroad.

The Institute will mainly focus on: (I) Research, (ii) Policy and Advocacy, (iii) International Collaboration and (iv) Developmental Agenda

The Broad Deliverables and outcomes of the Institute include:

Deliverables : (i) Policy Research Inputs (ii) Research Publications (iii) Research Monographs (iv) Treaty Analysis (v) Sensitization Programs (vi) National and International Conclaves/Conferences/Roundtables

Outcomes: (i) Research on thrust areas: Preparation of occasional briefs/ annual briefs and discussion papers/ books/journals. (ii) Knowledge and Management of IPRs: Documenting and mapping the competencies on various segments of IP (iii) IPR Online resources: Online documents relating to IPR policy inputs (iv) National/ International Conferences/ Public Debate and Distinguished Lectures: To provide a common platform for deliberation on contemporary IPR practices, issues and critical analysis.

Linkages and Network

The Institute will establish linkages and network with:

MHRD-IPR Chairs
Industry Associations (National and International)
Civil Society Advocacy Groups
Public Institutes with IPR research capacity

Organizational Structure

The organizational structure of the Institute would include the following sub committees:

Steering Committee: Ex-Officio Members: The Secretary, DHE,MHRD would be the president of the Committee. The members would include the Secretary of The DIPP,MOC, The Secretaries of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and The Department of Science and Technology, The Joint Secretaries of the (BP&CR),MHRD and the DIPP. MOC, GOI, The Director of (BP&CR),MHRD, The Vice Chancellor, Delhi University (Host Institution) and the Director of the NIIPR. The Members nominated by the President are the Two Members from the governing board, the two vice- chancellors of Universities having MHRD Chairs, the two directors of IITs/IIMs having MHRD IP Chairs and the two experts from the regulatory/ research councils.
Governing Board: The Chairman of the governing board shall be appointed by the president of the Steering Committee as per the procedure given in Rule 33.
Ex-Officio Members: These members include the Joint Secretary (BP&CR),MHRD, Joint Secretary (DIPP),GOI, The Director (BP&CR),MHRD and The Director, NIIPR who will be the member Secretary.The members nominated by the Chairman of the GB includes the Two Faculty Members of the Institute, The Two MHRD IPR Chair professors and Three National and International Experts in the field of IPR.
The Research Advisory Council: The Director of the Institute is the Chairman of the Research Advisory Council. The Ex-Officio Members include the Deans and Two Professors of the Institute. The members nominated by the Chairman include two IP experts and one representative each from The Ministry of Culture, Arts, Agriculture, Information technology, Environment and Forests, Science and Technology and External Affairs, Two representatives from Civil Society Advocacy Groups and the Administrative Officer of the Institute would be a Non Member Secretary.

Funding

The Institute will be established by UGC funding for its building, infrastructure salary and non-salary components. The institute will also strive to create its own corpus by way of consultancy and other grant-in aids from relevant National/ International Organizations to compliment the UGC funding. Required allocation is estimated at Rs 65 crore towards capital expenditure relating to acquisition of land, building (Academic Block, Conference Halls, Guest House, Administrative Block, Faculty Quarters, Equipment, IT infrastructure etc) The revenue expenditure is estimated at Rs. 25 crore annually, towards meeting the operating activities of the proposed Institute.

The report also contains particulars with respect to staff requirements. It also contains estimates with respect to Non-recurring Capital Expenditure and Recurring Expenditure per annum.

Lastly, attached along with the report is the Memorandum of Association for the National Institute for Intellectual Property Rights.

The memorandum contains the objectives, functions, members of the Steering Committee and the Rules of the Institute.

The Rules include the functions and powers of the Governing Board. The Board is to carry out the objectives of the Institute. It will be subject to the limitations of the Department of Higher Education, MHRD (the Department will also have the power to inspect the Institute at any time). The Governing Board will have the power to:

Manage the affairs of the Institute, consider annual and supplementary budgets,
Create and abolish emoluments structures of various posts,
Appoint staff to these posts,
Enter into agreements with the Central or State Governments or public or private organisations or individuals for grants, donations etc,
Appoint Committees or Sub-Committees,
Delegate any administrative or financial powers to the Director,
Prepare budget estimate and sanction expenditure,
Prepare for the recruitment of offices, faculty and establishment of the Insitute, terms and conditions of scholarships, fellowships, etc.

It also contains details regarding meetings and the powers and functions of the chairman.There are guidelines for the appointment of the Director and Staff Employees.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-b

Mapping Institutions of Intellectual Property (Part A): India's National Programme on Intellectual Property Management

nehaa — 2014-06-10T07:34:34Z

This blog post discusses India’s National Program on Intellectual Property Management, including the establishment of a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights.

On the 21^st of February, 2014, the Planning Commission and the Ministry of Human Resource Development (“MHRD”), Government of India organized a Stakeholders Consultation at New Delhi (“the Consultation”). I attended this meeting on behalf of CIS. The discussion was centred around devising a strategy for India’s National Program on Intellectual Property Management under our 12^th Five Year Plan (2012 to 2017). On the agenda were two key issues:

Evaluating and rethinking the role of IPR Chairs established by the MHRD
Establishing a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights

Pawan Agarwal, Advisor, Higher Education, Planning Commission, Government of India made a detailed presentation on both of these issues. The key parts of his presentation and the ensuing discussions have been reproduced below.

Presentation and Ensuing Discussions

The diagrams in this section correspond to those in Pawan. Agarwal’s presentation.

Ecosystem

In Figure 1, the proposed structure of the national intellectual property system has been outlined. Those government departments and ministries that would have a role to play have been identified, as well as the functions expected to be performed.

In the discussion that followed it was observed that traditional knowledge should also be included within this ecosystem. The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“DIPP”) could coordinate and seek inputs from the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.


Figure 1

Education: Programs and Courses

Figure 2 details the proposed structure of IPR education, including courses, financial aid and the nature of the program. Members attending the Consultation were of the opinion that having ten centres for doctoral education was an ambitious target. They were also of the opinion that there was need to integrate IPR education with more courses, for instance, MBA and MSc.


Figure 2

Education: Various Elements

Figure 3 deals with other elements of the IP education universe- curriculum development (envisaged as a joint effort), faculty development (of selected faculty) and funding. Various suggestions emerged on the role of the IP Chairs. This has been examined in greater detail subsequently in this blog post. A key suggestion was made regarding the establishment of more law schools in the IITs, along the lines of the Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law at the Indian Institute of Technology (“IIT”), Kharagpur.


Figure 3

Research and Policy Support

Figure 4 lays out the details of the research and policy support to be provided by the Government towards developing this IPR ecosystem. The Government seeks to achieve this through the existing institutions of the IP Chairs, by way of awarding fellowships and research grants. Once again, concerns and questions were raised regarding the role of MHRD IP Chairs, which will be discussed subsequently in this blog post.


Figure 4

Training & Capacity building

Training and capacity building has been visualised on two levels- basic awareness building about intellectual property rights in institutions of higher education and on the advanced level, dealing with specialised courses on trademark/patent drafting or technology licensing, among others.


Figure 5

Creation/ Protection and Management

For the creation, protection and management of intellectual property, a two pronged approach has been envisaged- the establishment of cells for the management of intellectual property in institutions of higher education and an increased focus on patents, including the creation of incentives for patenting for researchers. Figure 6 lays out the scheme.


Figure 6

National/ Regional Centres/ Chairs

This program on intellectual property outlines a proposal for the establishment of one national centre, five regional centres and twenty chairs, with a distinct role outlined for each. Details are available in Figure 7.


Figure 7

Governance

The National Program on intellectual Property Management lays out a three tiered governance structure, headed by the National Steering Committee on IPR, assisted by the Advisory and Project Approval Committees, with five Regional Committees constituting the final tier. This has been represented in Figure 8.


Figure 8

Funding Arrangements


Figure 9

The discussion that occurred after Pawan Agarwal’s presentation was centred around the issues of intellectual property education, revisiting the role of the MHRD IPR Chair Professor and on the establishment of a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights.

Intellectual Property Education

On a broader level, the Consultation dealt with the subject of intellectual property education, which the proposed plan envisaged on a generic basic level as well as a more advanced technical level. Narendra Sabharwal, former Deputy Director General, World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) was had a three pronged opinion on intellectual property education- first, that intellectual property education had to be mainstreamed, and that this mainstreaming should be a part of the vision and strategy of any national plan on intellectual property; second, that intellectual property education should be used to synergise and encourage the creation of more IP assets and third that the proposed national institute should play an advisory role in the intellectual property education framework.

Evaluating and Rethinking the Role of IPR Chairs Established by the MHRD

Background

The MHRD has, under the Scheme for Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach (“the Scheme”), established twenty IPR Chairs in various universities and other institutions of higher learning across the country. According to the MHRD IPR Chairs website, six of these Chairs have been set up in Universities (University of Delhi, University of Madras, Tezpur University, CUSAT- Kochi, JNU- Delhi and the Delhi School of Economics); five in National Law Universities (NLSIU- Bangalore, NALSAR- Hyderabad, NLU- Jodhpur, NLIU- Bhopal and WBNUJS- Kolkata); six in the Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT- Delhi, IIT- Madras, IIT- Kanpur, IIT- Kharagpur, IIT- Bombay and IIT- Roorkee) and three in the Indian Institutes of Management (IIM- Bangalore, IIM- Kolkata and IIM- Ahmedabad).

With the purpose of creating awareness among the “general public intelligentsia etc. on IPR Copyright and WTO Studies”[1] , the Scheme has been implemented with the objectives of encouraging the study of intellectual property rights in universities and other institutions of higher learning and developing and encouraging study in specialized courses of IPR; creating awareness about IPRs; organizing activities such as seminars and workshops for IPR awareness; creating knowledge resources, developing policy inputs and negotiating strategies and course awareness- all on WTO matters and evolving strategies of Regional Cooperation and Regional Trading Agreements. Expenditure under the Scheme may be incurred by the MHRD (directly or indirectly) for a wide array of purposes including inter alia, the institution of “Chairs” for IPR Studies for higher education and “also on WTO Studies” (sic.).

At the Consultation

There was a general consensus on the need to restructure the existing ‘MHRD Chair’ institutions and questions were raised regarding their longevity and the sustainability. Veena Ish, Joint Secretary, Department of Higher Education, MHRD, Government of India, spoke of the need to strengthen the existing IPR Chairs and bring about changes in the funding scheme. She also sought inputs on what form and structure the institutions should adopt.

Faculty members of various educational institutions present at the meeting were of the opinion that there was an urgent need to set norms clarifying the role of Chairs. Out of the various suggestions put forth, some of them were as under:

Specify the number of hours (if any) that a Chair was expected to teach. This proved to be a contentious issue at the meeting, with various members of the faculty raising questions on how one was to balance teaching requirements with research and policy feedback obligations.
Envisage the role of the Chair as that of a mentor who would not teach except for the occasional guest lecture, but would guide younger faculty in teaching. The Chairs would then instead produce at least three research outputs in a year based on topic inputs from the National Institute/Centre for Intellectual Property Rights. These research outputs would then act as policy inputs to the government.
The Chair would liaison with industry, academia and policy makers to identify issues of policy concern and research interest.
The institution of the MHRD Chair should be delinked from the university set up. Chairs should be appointed directly by the MHRD through a transparent and accountable process, distinct from the present state of affairs where the Vice Chancellors of universities were allowed to exercise discretion in appointments.

Establishment of a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights

Context
The present circumstances that might necessitate the establishment of a National Institute of Intellectual property Rights were highlighted at the Consultation by D.V. Prasad, Joint Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“DIPP”), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. He said that there was a need for a nodal agency for World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) matters. He also said that there was a need for a body to focus on government policy and provide policy inputs to the DIPP and other departments and ministries working on intellectual property law and policy issues. At the moment, he said, there were no formal mechanisms in place though which the DIPP sought policy input, and instead relied on basic inputs from paid external consultants.

At the Consultation

The discussion at the Consultation pertained to the form and functions of this proposed institution. D.V. Prasad emphasised that this institution ought not to become an academic exercise or a university and that the focus should remain policy inputs to the government. This view was echoed by Shilpi Jha of the Confederation of Indian Industries. V.C .Vivekanandan, MHRD Chair Professor, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, was also in agreement with D.V. Prasad and Shilpi Jha, and said that the proposed institution ought to be a ‘stand alone model’. Narendra Sabharwal envisaged this institution as a think-tank that would research on legal and policy issues and international relations on emerging areas of technology. This would be distinct from university research undertaken by MHRD Chairs, although some of the university research ought to feed into the think-tank. N.S. Gopalakrishnan, former MHRD Chair Professor at CUSAT, Kochi was of the opinion that this proposed institution ought not to be within the aegis of the University Grants Commission. Further, he said that it was critical to develop capacity for policy research within the country, but until that time, it was critical to attract people from both within as well as outside India to undertake policy research. Sunita Tripathy, Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School was also of the opinion that there was a need to build capacity for policy research in India.

Concluding Observations

From the conversation at the Consultation it seems evident that there is a need to revisit the institution of the MHRD Chair Professor, but what remains moot is the form that it should take. The viability of the proposed national institute would also have to be studied in further detail, against similar models in other countries.

This is an exercise that we shall continue to undertake in subsequent blog posts as a part of this series of mapping institutions of intellectual property.

[1].See Scheme for Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach, available at http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf (last accessed 03 June, 2014) at page 1.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-a

Comments on the Open Licensing Policy Guidelines of the National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology

nehaa — 2014-06-30T11:26:44Z

The Centre for Internet and Society submitted its comments on the Open Licensing Policy Guidelines to the National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology (NMEICT), Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, on May 28, 2014. The comments were prepared by Sunil Abraham and Nehaa Chaudhari.

I. PRELIMINARY

1.1 This submission presents comments from the Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”)[1] on the Open Licensing Policy Guidelines (“Guidelines”) of the National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology (“NMEICT”).

1.2.The Guidelines provide a set of recommendations and procedures to ensure that content produced under the NMEICT is openly licensed.

1.3 CIS commends the NMEICT for this initiative, and appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on the Guidelines. CIS’ comments are as stated hereafter.

II. SECTION-WISE COMMENTS

2.1 Preamble

2.1.1 Recognizing the role of intergovernmental agencies in promoting the use of open licenses, the Preamble makes a reference to the 2012 Paris OER Declaration.[2] CIS appreciates this inclusion and suggests that reference may also be made to another important declaration, i.e., the Cape Town Open Education Declaration, released in 2008,[3] which encourages the publishers and governments to make available, at no charge, via the internet, publicly funded educational materials.

2.2 Principles of Openness

2.2.1 The first principle[4] requires the treatment of information products as “national resources.” The phrase “national resource” most often used in connection with rivers, forests, mines and minerals or spectrum would imply specific legal connotations and might therefore prove to be a misnomer for information products. It is suggested that “national resources” be replaced with “commons” or, alternatively, the sentence be restructured to state that content, software and technology would be treated as “information commons”.

2.2.2 The third principle[5] states that “information and knowledge resources” shall be available “freely”. “Freely” has a wide array of connotations including the absence of restrictions and the absence of payment/costs. It is suggested that “freely” be further clarified and perhaps be replaced with “on a gratis basis”.

2.2.3. The fifth principle deals with the transfer of “all intellectual property rights” to the Government of India and the retention of “moral rights” with the contributor. Intellectual property rights is a wider term including among others copyright and related rights, patents, trademarks and industrial designs. There are two types of right under copyright- moral rights (of attribution for the work) and economic rights (which allow the owner to derive financial benefit and reward from the use of her/his work).[6] It is submitted that the intention behind the fifth principle is seemingly to transfer all economic rights to the Government of India while ensuring due credit to the author/contributor for her/his work. “Intellectual property rights” being a wider term would be a misnomer in this sense, as would the use of “copyright”, since this does not appreciate the distinction between economic and moral rights. Therefore, it is suggested that “intellectual property rights” be replaced with “economic rights” for the applicable branch of copyright law.

2.2.4. The sixth principle deals with the release of information and knowledge resources in a “suitable open licence”. “Suitable open licence” could include both indigenously developed as well as existing licences. It is submitted that in the interests of interoperability, one of the fundamental principles of open access, it would be appropriate to adopt an existing system of licensing. It is recommended therefore, that the Creative Commons approach could be adopted for content and the GNU or BSD licenses could be considered for software. It is strongly suggested that “suitable open licence” be replaced with a specific license framework to ensure interoperability, particularly between information and knowledge resources produced by other nations also funding and adopting OER.

2.3 Guidelines

2.3.1 The second guideline mandates a single portal/gateway for all knowledge resources under this project. It is suggested that this be replaced with the adoption of the principle ‘lots of copies keep stuff safe’, the basis for the LOCKSS Program of Stanford University.[7] The LOCKSS Program allows participating libraries to take custody of and preserve access to the content to which they have subscribed. It is suggested that a similar approach be adopted towards the content being developed under the NMEICT OER project.

2.3.2. The fourth guideline makes a reference to the possible adoption of a CC-BY-SA licence to make content available. The rationale behind a Share-Alike clause could be to prevent the appropriation of the education market by ‘rent seekers’. However, it is necessary to examine this further. The danger of appropriation and subsequent monopolization of content is one that needs to be addressed provided that the process of content creation itself is dependent on contributions from subsequent utilizers of content. Content under the NMEICT model is developed as a result of government contributions and is not dependent on subsequent utilizers feeding back into the system, thus invalidating the need for a Share -Alike clause. Additionally the absence of a Share-Alike clause is likely to incentivise private participation. Private players would have the freedom to utilize the content generated under this scheme, modify and develop it further and make it available in the market for sale. This would be extremely useful in meeting the last mile connectivity and ensuring the wider availability of content. It is therefore submitted that that the licence to be adopted should be CC-BY.

2.3.3. The fifth guideline places a requirement on the grantee/creator to intimate the NMEICT about the use of other open license materials. It is submitted that this could be excessive regulation. It is suggested that this guideline be modified and a two- fold requirement be placed on the content creator/grantee- one, to specify clearly and explicitly the licence being used and the licensing conditions in her/his work, and two, to attribute any and all content used to the rightful creator and holder of copyright.

2.3.4. The eighth guideline mandates the use of “open formats” for delivery of outputs. It is suggested that “open formats” be replaced with the mandatory adherence to “open standards” and a reference be made to the National Policy for Open Standards notified in 2010. The eighth guideline also discourages the use of proprietary software. It is submitted that the requirements of sharing the source file along with the relevant APIs need a more detailed explanation. It is suggested that the difference between a development platform/environment and the software written subsequently over this platform be clarified. Notwithstanding that the former may be proprietary if no other alternative is available, developers/creators/licensees would be obligated to openly license any code/software they create using the platform. It is suggested that it ought to be made explicit that there shall be no choice for the latter and that the choice was limited to the type of platform being employed.

2.3.5. It is suggested that a ninth guideline be included. This guideline would deal with accessibility for persons with disabilities. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0[8] may be referenced and invoked.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

3.1. CIS welcomes the initiative of the NMEICT towards the adoption of an OER Policy. These Guidelines, while indeed addressing the important issues associated towards the end of adoption of an OER Policy, would be further strengthened by addressing the concerns enumerated above.

3.2. CIS is thankful to the NMEICT for the opportunity to provide feedback on this Policy. As a non-governmental research organization working in the areas of Openness and[9] and Access to Knowledge,[10] CIS appreciates this effort by the NMEICT, and would be privileged to work with the Government on this and other matters in these areas.

[1].See www.cis-india.org (last accessed 26 May, 2014).

[2].See http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/Events/Paris%20OER%20Declaration_01.pdf (last accessed 26 May, 2014).

[3].See http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/read-the-declaration (last accessed 26 May, 2014).

[4].See 2(a), Principles of Openness of the Guidelines.

[5].See 2(c), Principles of Openness of the Guidelines.

[6]. See illustratively http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/intproperty/909/wipo_pub_909.html#moral_rights (last accessed 26 May, 2014); http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html (last accessed 26 May, 2014); http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-otherprotect/c-moralrights.htm (last accessed 26 May, 2014).

[7]. See http://www.lockss.org/about/what-is-lockss/ (last accessed 26 May, 2014).

[8].See http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ (last accessed 28 May, 2014).

[9].See http://cis-india.org/openness (last accessed 26 May, 2014).

[10].See http://cis-india.org/a2k (last accessed 26 May, 2014).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/comments-on-open-licensing-policy-guidelines-of-national-mission-on-education-through-information-and-communication-technology