Centre for Internet and Society

Lecture by Eben Moglen and Mishi Choudhary

pranesh — 2011-04-05T04:42:05Z

Software Freedom Law Center, National Law School of India University and Centre for Internet and Society jointly organize a lecture by Eben Moglen and Mishi Choudhary.

The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), National Law School of India University (NLSIU), and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) are organizing a lecture by Prof. Eben Moglen of Columbia University and Ms. Mishi Choudhary, head of the New Delhi branch of SFLC.

Prof. Moglen will be speaking on "Who Killed Intellectual Property and Why We Did It", and Ms. Choudhary will be speaking on "Globalising Public Interest Law: The SFLC Model".

Venue:
National Law School of India University,
Gnana Bharathi Main Road,
Nagarbhavi,
Bangalore
[map: http://bit.ly/nlsiu-map]

Date and Time:
Saturday, December 13, 2008
12:30-13:30

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/lecture-by-eben-moglen-and-mishi-choudhary

Workshop on Reforming the International ICT Standardization System

pranesh — 2011-08-23T02:56:30Z

On Day 4, the last day, of the Internet Governance Forum, a workshop was conducted by the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards on the reforming the international ICT standardisation system. The panellists were Bob Jolliffe of Freedom to Innovate South Africa, Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society, Ashish Gautam of IBM India, and Aslam Raffee, Chairperson of the Government IT Officers' Council, OSS Working Group, Republic of South Africa, who moderated the session.

Mr. Rafee, after introducing the panellists, laid out the parameters of the discussion. He noted that the discussion was not about "open standards" per se, but about the standardisation process.

Mr. Jolliffe noted that the main problems revolved around the question of legitimacy of the Standard Setting Organizations, which often arises from "standardisation by corporations" (a phrase coined by Martin Bryan), as shown by the representatives of the individual countries to the international bodies. For the international standardization process to acquire legitimacy, the national bodies need to do so first. A start can be made, Mr. Jolliffe noted, through simple steps like increase in stakeholder participation beyond vendors, full disclosure of institutional affiliations at the standardisation bodies, better streamlining of processes such as the fast-track system, and full and clear disclosures with regard to IP licensing terms would help in increasing accountability and legitimacy of standard setting organizations.

He also indicated that financial transparency, modernisation of processes (including remote participation), regulation of proportional influence of private interests, a code of best practices and innovation in patent searches, full interest disclosures, and clear display of IPR policies of committees would help in increasing the openness of standards.

Mr. Abraham chose to focus on the national standardization processes, and the lessons that can be learnt from those. He highlighted that the discussions around open standards were really discussions about standards followed by public institutions. He analogized the situation to private houses vs. the public road infrastructure, noting how the road infrastructure cannot be private. Ensuring that the public infrastructure was open to all, he said, was the important role played by the standardisation process. He went on to highlight the importance of open standards as a lever in the hands of governments which can be used to fix monopoly situations, as it was in the case of SCOSTA smart card standard, where the use of an open standard led to a drop in price from Rs.600 to Rs.30 and increased the number of vendors from 3 to 12. He then narrated a number of "stories" from India, Pakistan and Malaysia to show the various forms of weaknesses within the national standard setting processes. He further concluded that countries with weak institutions are the ones less likely to support open standards.

Mr. Abraham added the need to adopt common definitions of "open standards" and transparency of processes and encouragement of remote participation as suggestions for the standardization system.

Mr. Gautam from IBM India chose to talk about the standards principles that the company follows, and the need for reform of the standardization processes.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/workshop-on-reforming-the-international-ict-standardization-system

Report on Open Standards for GISW2008

pranesh — 2009-01-05T06:52:54Z

In this report, Sunil Abraham lays out the importance and the policy implications of Open Standards.

[PDF copy]

Most computer users today remain “digitally colonised” (Bhattacharya, 2008) due to our unquestioning use of proprietary standards. As users of proprietary standards we usually forget that we lose the right to access our own files the moment the licence for the associated software expires. For example, if I were to store data, information or knowledge in .doc, .xls or .ppt format, my ability to read my own files expires the moment the licence for my copy of Microsoft Office expires.

Definition

Unlike the terms “free software” or “open source software”, the term “open standard” does not have a universally accepted definition. The free and open source software (FOSS) community largely believes that an open standard is:

[S]ubject to full public assessment and use without constraints [royalty-free] in a manner equally available to all parties; without any components or extensions that have dependencies on formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an open standard themselves; free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by any party or in any business model; managed and further developed independently of any single vendor in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third parties; available in multiple complete implementations by competing vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all parties (Greve, 2007).

The controversy

Proprietary software manufacturers, vendors and their lobbyists often provide a definition of open standards that is not in line with the above definition on two counts (Nah, 2006).

One, they do not think it is necessary for an open standard to be available on a royalty-free basis as long as it is available under a “reasonable and non-discriminatory” (RAND) licence. This means that there are some patents associated with the standard and the owners of the patents have agreed to license them under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (W3C, 2002). One example is the audio format MP3, an ISO/IEC [International Organisation for Standardisation/International Electrotechnical Commission] standard where the associated patents are owned by Thomson Consumer Electronics and the Fraunhofer Society of Germany. A developer of a game with MP3 support would have to pay USD 2,500 as royalty for using the standard. While this may be reasonable in the United States (US), it is unthinkable for an entrepreneur from Bangladesh. Additionally, RAND licences are incompatible with most FOSS licensing requirements. Simon Phipps of Sun Microsystems says that FOSS “serves as the canary in the coalmine for the word ‘open’. Standards are truly open when they can be implemented without fear as free software in an open source community” (Phipps, 2007). RAND licences also retard the growth of FOSS, since they are patented in a few countries. Despite the fact that software is not patentable in most parts of the world, the makers of various distributions of GNU/Linux do not include reverse-engineered drivers, codecs, etc., in the official builds for fear of being sued. Only the large corporation-backed distributions of GNU/Linux can afford to pay the royalties needed to include patented software in the official builds (in this way enabling an enhanced out-of-the-box experience). This has the effect of slowing the adoption of GNU/Linux, as less experienced users using community-backed distributions do not have access to the wide variety of drivers and codecs that users of other operating systems do (Disposable, 2004). This vicious circle effectively ensures negligible market presence of smaller community-driven projects by artificial reduction of competition.

Two, proprietary software promoters do not believe that open standards should be “managed and further developed independently of any single vendor,” as the following examples will demonstrate. This is equally applicable to both new and existing standards.

Microsoft’s Office Open XML (OOXML) is a relatively new standard which the FOSS community sees as a redundant alternative to the existing Open Document Format (ODF). During the OOXML process, delegates were unhappy with the fact that many components were specific to Microsoft technology, amongst other issues. By the end of a fast-track process at the ISO, Microsoft stands accused of committee stuffing: that is, using its corporate social responsibility wing to coax non-governmental organisations to send form letters to national standards committees, and haranguing those who opposed OOXML. Of the twelve new national board members that joined ISO after the OOXML process started, ten voted “yes” in the first ballot (Weir, 2007). The European Commission, which has already fined Microsoft USD 2.57 billion for anti-competitive behaviour, is currently investigating the allegations of committee stuffing (Calore, 2007). Microsoft was able to use its financial muscle and monopoly to fast-track the standard and get it approved. In this way it has managed to subvert the participatory nature of a standards-setting organisation. So even though Microsoft is ostensibly giving up control of its primary file format to the ISO, it still exerts enormous influence over the future of the standard.

HTML, on the other hand, is a relatively old standard which was initially promoted by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), an international community of techies. However, in 2002, seven years after the birth of HTML 2.0, the US Department of Justice alleged that Microsoft used the strategy of “embrace, extend, and extinguish” (US DoJ, 1999) in an attempt to create a monopoly among web browsers. It said that Microsoft used its dominance in the desktop operating system market to achieve dominance in the web-authoring tool and browser market by introducing proprietary extensions to the HTML standard (Festa, 2002). In other words, financial and market muscle have been employed by proprietary software companies – in these instances, Microsoft – to hijack open standards.

The importance

There are many technical, social and ethical reasons for the adoption and use of open standards. Some of the reasons that should concern governments and other organisations utilising public money – such as multilaterals, bilaterals, civil society organisations, research organisations and educational institutions – are listed below.

Innovation/competitiveness: Open standards are the bases of most technological innovations, the best example of which would be the internet itself (Raymond, 2000). The building blocks of the internet and associated services like the world wide web are based on open standards such as TCP/IP, HTTP, HTML, CSS, XML, POP3 and SMTP. Open standards create a level playing field that ensures greater competition between large and small, local and foreign, and new and old companies, resulting in innovative products and services. Instant messaging, voice over internet protocol (VoIP), wikis, blogging, file-sharing and many other applications with large-scale global adoption were invented by individuals and small and medium enterprises, and not by multinational corporations.
Greater interoperability: Open standards ensure the ubiquity of the internet experience by allowing different devices to interoperate seamlessly. It is only due to open standards that consumers are able to use products and services from competing vendors interchangeably and simultaneously in a seamless fashion, without having to learn additional skills or acquire converters. For instance, the mail standard IMAP can be used from a variety of operating systems (Mac, Linux and Windows), mail clients (Evolution, Thunderbird, Outlook Express) and web-based mail clients. Email would be a completely different experience if we were not able to use our friends’ computers, our mobile phones, or a cybercafé to check our mail.
Customer autonomy: Open standards also empower consumers and transform them into co-creators or “prosumers” (Toffler, 1980). Open standards prevent vendor lock-in by ensuring that the customer is able to shift easily from one product or service provider to another without significant efforts or costs resulting from migration.
Reduced cost: Open standards eliminate patent rents, resulting in a reduction of total cost of ownership. This helps civil society develop products and services for the poor.
Reduced obsolescence: Software companies can leverage their clients’ dependence on proprietary standards to engineer obsolescence into their products and force their clients to keep upgrading to newer versions of software. Open standards ensure that civil society, governments and others can continue to use old hardware and software, which can be quite handy for sectors that are strapped for financial resources.
Accessibility: Operating system-level accessibility infrastructure such as magnifiers, screen readers and text-to-voice engines require compliance to open standards. Open standards therefore ensure greater access by people with disabilities, the elderly, and neo-literate and illiterate users. Examples include the US government’s Section 508 standards, and the World Wide Web Consortium’s (W3C) WAI-AA standards.
Free access to the state: Open standards enable access without forcing citizens to purchase or pirate software in order to interact with the state. This is critical given the right to information and the freedom of information legislations being enacted and implemented in many countries these days.
Privacy/security: Open standards enable the citizen to examine communications between personal and state-controlled devices and networks. For example, open standards allow users to see whether data from their media player and browser history are being transmitted along to government servers when they file their tax returns. Open standards also help prevent corporate surveillance.
Data longevity and archiving: Open standards ensure that the expiry of software licences does not prevent the state from accessing its own information and data. They also ensure that knowledge that has been passed on to our generation, and the knowledge generated by our generation, is safely transmitted to all generations to come.
Media monitoring: Open standards ensure that the voluntary sector, media monitoring services and public archives can keep track of the ever-increasing supply of text, audio, video and multimedia generated by the global news, entertainment and gaming industries. In democracies, watchdogs should be permitted to reverse-engineer proprietary standards and archive critical ephemeral media in open standards.

Policy implications

Corporations have a right to sell products based on proprietary standards just as consumers have a right to choose between products that use open standards, proprietary standards, or even a combination of such standards. Governments, however, have a responsibility to use open standards, especially for interactions with the public and where the data handled has a direct impact on democratic values and quality of citizenship. In developing countries, governments have greater responsibility because most often they account for over 50% of the revenues of proprietary software vendors. Therefore, by opting for open standards, governments can correct an imbalanced market situation without needing any additional resources. Unfortunately, many governments lack the expertise to counter the campaigns of fear, uncertainty and doubt unleashed by proprietary standards lobbyists with unlimited expense accounts.

Most governments from the developing world do not participate in international standard-setting bodies. On the other hand, proprietary software lobbyists like the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and Comptia attend all national meetings on standards. This has forced many governments to shun these forums and exacerbate the situation by creating more (totally new) standards. Therefore, governments need the support of academic and civil society organisations in order to protect the interests of the citizen. For example, the Indian Institute of Technology in Kanpur (IIT-K) helped the government of India develop the open standard Smart Card Operating System for Transport Applications (SCOSTA) for smart card-based driving licences and vehicle registration documents. Proprietary vendors tried to jettison the move by saying that the standard was technically not feasible. IIT-K developed a reference implementation on FOSS to belie the vendor's claims. As a consequence, the government of India was able to increase the number of empanelled smart-card vendors from four to fifteen and reduce the price of a smart card by around USD 7 each (UNDP, 2007a). This will hopefully result in enormous savings during the implementation of a national multi-purpose identification card in India.

In some instances, proprietary standards are technically superior or more universally supported in comparison to open standards. In such cases the government may be forced to adopt proprietary and de facto standards in the short and medium term. But for long-term technical, financial and societal benefits, many governments across the world today are moving towards open standards. The most common policy instruments for implementation of open standards policy are government interoperability frameworks (GIFs). Governments that have published GIFs include the United Kingdom, Denmark, Brazil, Canada, the European Union, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Australia (UNDP, 2007b).

While challenges to the complete adoption of open standards in the public sector and civil society remain, one thing is certain: the global march towards openness, though slow, is irreversible and inevitable.

References

Bhattacharya, J. (2008) Technology Standards: A Route to Digital Colonization. Open Source, Open Standards and Technological Sovereignty. .
Available at:
knowledge.oscc.org.my/practice-areas/‌government‌/oss-seminar-putrajaya-2008/technology-standards-a-route-to-digital/at_download/file

Calore, M. (2007) Microsoft Allegedly Bullies and Bribes to Make Office an International Standard. Wired, 31 August.
Available at: www.wired.com/software/coolapps/news/2007/08/ooxml_vote

Disposable (2004) Ubuntu multimedia HOWTO.
Available at: www.oldskoolphreak.com/tfiles/‌hack/‌ubuntu.txt

Festa, P. (2002) W3C members: Do as we say, not as we do. CNET News, 5 September.
Available at: news.cnet.com/2100-1023-956778.html

Greve, G. (2007) An emerging understanding of open standards.
.
Available at: www.fsfe.org/‌fellows‌/greve/freedom_bits/an_emerging_understanding_of_open_standards

Nah, S.H. (2006) FOSS Open Standards Primer. New Delhi: UNDP-APDIP.
Available at: www.iosn.net/open-standards/foss-open-standards-primer/foss-openstds-withnocover.pdf

Phipps, S. (2007) Roman Canaries..
Available at: blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/‌roman_canaries‌

Raymond, E.S. (2000) The Magic Cauldron.
Available at: www.catb.org/~esr/writings/‌cathedral-‌bazaar/‌magic-‌cauldron/‌index.html

Toffler, A. (1980) The Third Wave. New York: Bantam.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2007a) e-Government Interoperability: A Review of Government Interoperability Frameworks in Selected Countries.
Available at: www.apdip.net/projects/gif/gifeprimer

UNDP (2007b) e-Government Interoperability: Guide.
Available at: www.apdip.net/projects/gif/GIF-Guide.pdf

US DoJ (Department of Justice) (1999) Proposed Findings of Fact – Revised.
Available at: www.usdoj.gov/‌atr/‌cases/‌f2600/v-a.pdf

W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) (2002) Current patent practice.
Available at: www.w3.org/TR/patent-practice#def-RAND

Weir, R. (2007) How to hack ISO.
Available at: www.robweir.com/blog/2007/09/how-to-hack-iso.html

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/report-on-open-standards-for-gisw2008

Agreement on Procurement

pranesh — 2008-12-08T06:08:19Z

On December 6, 2008, at the closing of the third Internet Governance Forum in Hyderabad, India, the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS) released an agreement entitled the "Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS) Agreement on Procurement in Support of Interoperability and Open Standards".

Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS) Agreement on Procurement in Support of Interoperability and Open Standards

Third Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Hyderabad, India

6 December 2008

Preamble

The Contracting Parties,

Recalling the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles which states that "[i]nternational standards aim to create an environment where consumers can access services worldwide regardless of underlying technology,"

Recognizing that standards are increasingly global concerns, involving goods and services that move in international trade across borders,

Aware that current competition and legal remedies may not be enough to solve the inherent tensions that routinely arise in the realm of patents and standards,

Desirous of encouraging procurement policies that require evaluation of multiple, competing products based on open ICT standards in order to ensure a level playing field for vendors, governments and consumers,

Cognizant of the need for procurement policies for software programs that are predicated upon an open standard,

Open Standards

Given the multiplicity of interpretations of the term open standards, for the purpose of this document we endorse as an acceptable definition the position contained in the European Union's draft European Interoperability Framework:

1) The open standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties (consensus or majority decision etc.).
2) The open standard has been published and the standard specification document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.
3) The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of (parts of) the open standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty free basis.
4) There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.

(IDABC EIF v2 draft (http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7728))

As noted in the European Interoperability Framework cited above, open standards or technical specifications must allow all interested parties to implement the standards and to compete on quality and price. The goal is to have a competitive and innovative industry, not to protect market shares by raising obstacles to newcomers. Thus, open standards or technical specifications must be possible to implement in software distributed under the most commonly used open source licences, with no limitations arising from IPR associated with the standard in question.

In addition to the above requirements, it is recommended that there should be multiple independent implementations of the standard.

Governments, publicly funded and non-profit institutions agree to implement the following policies.

Governments, publicly funded and non-profit institutions

Hereby agree to the following measures in order to promote interoperability and accessibility through the use of open standards.

1. To create a policy statement on interoperability and open standards, to be available to employees and the public.

2. By 2010, procurement of all software should be vendor neutral and implement open standards

3. By 2010, tender specifications for hardware (including peripherals and mobile devices) should require that manufacturers provide the driver and interface information necessary to work with a reasonable range of proprietary and free operating system platforms.

4. By 2010, all public facing web pages should conform to W3C standards for structure, presentation and accessibility.

5. By 2010, tenders for the supply of web based services (for example, online reservations) must specify the requirements of point 4.

6. By 2010, agencies should implement policies regarding the storage and archiving of government data and records to ensure that data is stored in open data and document formats.

Signed by:

Aslam Raffee, Government IT Officers' Council, OSS Working Group, Republic of South Africa

Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

Bob Jolliffe, Freedom To Innovate, South Africa

Centre for Internet and Society, India

Hamid Rabiee, Sharif University of Technology, Iran

Knowledge Ecology International

Moving Republic, India

Shuttleworth Foundation, South Africa

Swathanthra Malayalam Computing, India

Endorsed by:

Bangladesh Friendship Education Society, Bangladesh

Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), India

Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippines

OpenForum Europe

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/dynamic-coalition-on-open-standards-dcos-agreement-on-procurement

Report on Open Standards for GISW 2008

pranesh — 2011-08-23T02:57:53Z

A report on Open Standards prepared by Sunil Abraham, for the Global Information Society Watch 2008. As on their site, GISWatch focuses on monitoring progress made towards implementing the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) action agenda and other international and national commitments related to information and communications. It also provides analytical overviews of institutions involved in implementation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/publications-automated/cis/sunil/Open-Standards-GISW-2008.pdf

DCOS Agreement on Procurement

pranesh — 2011-08-23T02:58:35Z

On December 6, 2008, at the closing of the third Internet Governance Forum in Hyderabad, India, the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS), of which the Centre for Internet and Society is a member, released an agreement entitled the "Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS) Agreement on Procurement in Support of Interoperability and Open Standards".

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-agreement-on-procurement

Photos

pranesh — 2008-12-01T13:17:32Z

Photographs of Open Access Day

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

Screening of 'Steal this Film' (TV Cut)

pranesh — 2011-04-05T04:44:27Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add to Google Calendar:

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

Visually impaired seek access to print materials

pranesh — 2013-01-16T06:20:49Z

An article in the Deccan Herald (November 3, 2008, page 4) by L. Subramani on the CIS signature campaign.

Rahul Cherian is quoted in this article published in the Deccan Herald.

Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), an organisation researching on the impact of internet on society, has initiated a signature campaign to persuade the Indian government to support the Treaty for the Improved Access for the Blind, Visually Impaired and other Reading Disabled Persons.

The treaty, drafted earlier this year by the World Blind Union (WBU) and Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), asks governments of various countries to change their copyright laws to allow free access to information of several print disabled persons.

The nation-wide campaign (in India) is being supported by organisations such as National Association of the Blind, Delhi and National Federation for the Blind (who is also an affiliate member of the WBU).

“Those who are visually challenged and otherwise print disabled are able to use computers independently with the help of screen readers and magnifiers (software technology), yet they are excluded from accessing copyrighted materials since such materials aren’t available in accessible formats,” said Nirmita Narasimhan, who oversees the campaign at CIS.

Treaty endorsement
Signatures are sought from individuals and organisations to urge the Government of India to endorse the treaty, which calls for copyright laws to be modified so that organisations of the blind and disabled can convert books available in the market into formats which can be accessed by persons with different visual and reading disabilities.

“The Indian Copyright Act (1957) is not taking into account recent technology advancements that has empowered the print disabled to access printed materials,” said Rahul Cherian, a Chennai-based copyrights lawyer involved in drafting the treaty.

“Collecting signatures from people would be an evidence of public opinion in India regarding the issue and would help us to persuade the Government to make our country a signatory to the treaty. This would mean that the government must make amending the national law a priority.”

Rahul said Indian publishers are largely willing to endorse changes to the law, since they view improved accessibility would bring more readers to the market (it is believed about 30 million persons are print disabled in the country). He also feels opposition from authors is unlikely as it doesn’t seriously threaten their incomes.

Interested can contact: Centre for Internet and Society, No D2, 3rd floor, Sheriff Chambers, 14, Cunningham Road, B’lore - 560 052. P: +91 80 4092 6283. M: 098458 68078. The current address of the Centre for Internet & Society is No. 194, Second 'C' Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bangalore - 560071, Ph: +91 80 4092 6283

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/deccan-herald-november-3-2008-l-subramani-visually-impaired-seek-access-to-print-materials

Software patenting will harm industry, consumer

pranesh — 2013-01-16T04:54:42Z

Report by Deepa Kurup in The Hindu dated 5th October 2008 as follow-up to the national meeting on software patents.

Original article on The Hindu website

BANGALORE: Living up to its status as the country’s Information Technology (IT) capital, Bangalore played host to a different kind of “software lobby” here on Saturday.

Unlike most lobbies, this one had no vested interests and no hard-line agenda. In a bid to raise awareness about software patenting and generate a debate among stakeholders, the Free Software community from across the country participated in a national-level meeting against software patents.

Public hearings

This open meeting comes in the wake of the public hearings being conducted by the Indian Patent Office to discuss the recently formulated patent manual. The office has shelved all discussion on software patents and promised an exclusive meeting with stakeholders. Nearly 20 organisations and various stakeholders who participated in the hearing threw up issues ranging from patent laws and principles in general, to specific issues of the “software per se” clause in the patent manual. Submissions made by many stakeholders to the patent office were also discussed.

The meeting was held to discuss the recent modification to the manual, which is being interpreted as a move to make “software in combination with hardware” patentable. As of now, software comes under the copyright law.

This move is significant because a similar ordinance was scrapped by the Parliament in 2005. The Free Software community feels that the clause panders to the powerful IT and multi-national companies lobby that has been rooting for this legislation.

Copyright

Speaking at the meeting, Venkatesh Hariharan of Red Hat said that software was protected by copyright and additional protection was more harmful for the industry and the consumer as a whole.

“Patent is a state-granted monopoly, but copyright protects the expression of an idea and a code is safe as long as one can prove that he has arrived at it independently,” he said.

As a sole representative of any government body, Joseph Mathew, Special IT advisor to the Government of Kerala, made a presentation of his government’s stand on software patents.

“The manual should not have brought this up again, considering Parliament scrapped it in 2005. We hope it is a clerical error and the Kerala Government will consider writing to the Union Government and the patent office informing them of our opposition to this issue,” Mr. Mathew said.

Small and medium enterprises which use Free Software such as Zyxware from Trivandrum, Deep Root Linux and Turtle Linux from Bangalore, among others made presentations at the meeting. Several research and advocacy organisations such as the Centre for Internet and Society and the Delhi Science Forum put forth various facets of this debate.

Lack of clarity

“The lack of clarity in the Patent Act results is being wrestled aggressively and effectively by corporate interests, patent attorneys and the patent office in favour of granting software patents. This meeting helped bring together the counter-opinions in this matter, and we will go ahead and participate in any meeting that will be called for by the authorities,” said Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/software-patenting-will-harm-industry-consumer

The National Public Meeting on Software Patents

pranesh — 2011-08-23T03:02:56Z

On Saturday, October 4, 2008, the Centre for Internet and Society, with the support of eighteen other organization, held a meeting on the National Public Meeting on Software Patents in the United Theological College campus. The aim of the event was to explore various issues surrounding software patents, especially from the perspective of the draft Patent Manual.

After introductions by Sunil Abraham of CIS, the discussions were kicked off by Sudhir Krishnaswamy (an Assistant Professor at National Law School), who spoke about typology of laws; principle-based arguments for excluding software from patenting; policy-based arguments for the same; and lastly, strategies for combating the patent manual. About the rationale behind excepting software ("computer programmes per se") from patentability, he theorised that given the location of "computer programmes per se" in section 3(k) of the Act, surrounded as it is by "mathematical or business method" and "algorithms", the exception seems to be a principle-based one and not a policy-based one. He also talked about what he saw as the practical realities of the Patent Office, and questioned the role the Draft Manual would actually play in the decisions of Patent Examiners.

He listed out economic arguments as:

Inapplicability of the incentive arguments. The software industry does not need patents since copyright covers software, and even if incentives are required, that is incentive enough;
Return on investment. Short shelf-life, and hence 17-year patent terms are irrelevant when the shelf-life is so small;
New intermediaries are created, who are neither producers nor consumers of software. These intermediaries who help in price-discovery. They discover value in patents which were previously thought neglected by the process known as patent trolling.

Apart from these, he also briefly talked of the legal arguments around software patents, and argued that the question is not only about copyright vs. patent, but also about property vs. contract. He asked questions such as: "What role does copyright play in the software industry, or is contract more important?", and pointed out that while this might have been addressed around a decade ago, those questions need to be revisited given the current scenario. Further, he proposed that the strategies should not revolve solely around the Patent Act and Draft Manual, but around pre- and post-grant oppositions as well.

Prabir Purkayastha of the Delhi Science Forum and Knowledge Commons spoke next, giving a quick run-through of the history, both legal and philosophical, surrounding software patents in India and in the U.S. and Europe (pointing out that most of the wordings of Draft Manual on this point are borrowed from a similar document in the U.K.). He asked the question of why people are opposing software patents. Is it because it is damaging to 'public interest', because it bad for Indian domestic software industry, or because it is an abstract idea which is sought to be patented in the guise of something else? He concluded that ultimately it is not the manual that groups are opposing, but the notion of software patents themselves. Thus, he focussed on how the phrase "per se" used in the Act ought to be interpreted by the Patent Office so as to give credence to the Indian Parliament's rejection (in 2005) of the 2004 patent ordinance (in which section 3(k) read: "a computer programme per se other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware"). Lastly, he talked about the various strategies to be employed in the fight against software patents, including pre- and post-grant oppositions.

Dr. Nagarjuna G. of the Free Software Foundation of India focussed on what he termed "the absurdity of software patents". He emphasised how software requires an interpreter or hardware, and hence talk of "software per se" often becomes meaningless. Further, he underlined how embedding software in hardware was not innovation in itself, and stressed ont he changing notions of software and hardware as we evolve technologically. His equation of software with abstract ideas gives us a glimpse into the foundation of his objection to software patents.

First up in the second session (which was more focussed on the manual, and the law in India) was Prashant Iyengar of the Bangalore-based Alternative Law Forum. He first listed out the different kinds of objections to software patents, including the point that there are only limited ways of thinking about programming, as Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming shows. Then he went on to go through the history of software patents in India, from the first software patent, granted in 1996, through the 2002 Amendment, the 2004 Ordinance, the 2005 Amendment, and the 2005 and 2008 Draft Manuals. He looked at the vocabulary surrounding software patents, including the words "per se" and "as such", and the cases and legislations from which the language used in the Draft Manual might have been borrowed. He also started a fruitful debate on the different ways to attack the implicit inclusion of that which is not "computer programmes per se" within the scope of patentable subject matter.

After Prashant was Venkatesh Hariharan of Red Hat. He spoke on the practical benefits and harms of software patents, and spoke at length about the difference between legal protection of software in the form of patents and via copyright. He pointed to data showing that lawyers are the ones who benefit most from software patents, and that software developers were the ones who suffered most. Pointing to such practical issues such as how does one go about coding a simple e-commerce transaction when more than 4000 patents have already been granted in that area, he brought down the level of discussion from abstract notions of laws and legalities to practical experiences of software programmers.

Next, Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society made a presentation on a small sample of software patents that have been applied for in India, and pointed out the infirmities in both the patents that have been applied for, as well as the problems in uncovering these patents because of various errors on the Indian Patent Office website. Going through a few of the patent applications, he showed how a great number applications have very badly worded abstracts, filled with weasel words, whose sole purpose is obfuscating the fact that what is being applied for is a software patent. This, he pointed out, made it difficult to both determine the scope of the applications (subject matter) as well as the innovations contained in the invention (novelty and non-obviousness), and thus difficult to examine from the perspective of pre-grant oppositions.

After these presentations, the meeting continued with the Open House session which had many people making presentations, including Abhas Abhinav of DeepRoot Linux, Arun M. of FSF India, and Joseph C. Matthew, who is the IT Adviser to the Chief Minister, Kerala. With the wrapping up of this session, the proceedings for the day came to a close.

Coverage in the press

Audio Recordings and Slides

The Principles of Patent Law and Introduction to Software Patents

Sudhir Krishnaswamy (National Law School) | mp3 | ogg
Prabir Purkayastha(Delhi Sience Forum) (Knowledge Commons) |mp3 | ogg
Nagarjuna G.(Free Software Foundation of India) | mp3 | ogg

Software Patents in India: The Indian Patent Act and the Draft Patent Manual

Prashant Iyengar(Alternative Law Forum) | mp3 | ogg
Venkatesh Hariharan(Red Hat) | mp3 | ogg

Software Patent Applications in India

Pranesh Prakash (Centre for Internet and Society) | mp3 | ogg | ppt

Open House

Abhas Abhinav (DeepRoot Linux) | mp3 | ogg

Arun M.(Free Software Foundation of India)| mp3 | ogg
Joseph Mathew (IT Adviser to the Chief Minister, Kerala)| mp3 | ogg

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/the-national-public-meeting-on-software-patents

ALF's Note before 2005 Amendment

pranesh — 2008-09-30T15:19:30Z

Briefing note on the impact of software patents on the software industry in India

Prepared by

Lawrence Liang

Anuranjan Sethi

Prashant Iyengar

Background

While there has been a lot of discussion on the impact that the latest amendment to the Indian Patent Act will have on public health and the pharmaceutical sector in India, there has been a disturbing silence about the impact that the amendment has on the software industry.

After the patents (second amendment) in 2002, the scope of non patentable subject matter in the Act was amended to include the following: “a mathematical method or a business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms”.

The important phrase that was added was ‘per se’, and with the amendment we effectively included Software patents into Indian Law. The latest amendment seeks to expand the scope of software patents, and states “a computer programme per se other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware; a mathematical method or a business method or algorithms”.

This briefing note will not address the technical and legal implication of this amendment but instead pose the larger question of why we should be concerned about software patents, and the impact that it will have on the software industry in India.

I. Conceptual difference between Copyright and Patent

The first thing to note is that software is already protected under Copyright law, so what then is the motivation and the implication of a move from copyright protection to patent protection?

Software has traditionally been protected under copyright law since code fits quite easily into the description of a literary work. Software Patenting has recently emerged (if only in the US, Japan and Europe) as an alternative that software companies are increasingly employing to, in order to protect their products.

The issues involved in conferring patent rights to software are, however, a lot more complex than taking out copyrights on them. Specifically, there are two challenges that one encounters when dealing with software patents. The first is about the instrument of patent itself and whether the manner of protection it confers is suited to the software industry. The second is the nature of software, and whether it should be subject to patenting.

a) Different Subject Matters

Copyright protection extends to all original literary works (among them, computer programs), dramatic, musical and artistic works, including films. Under copyright, protection is given only to the particular expression of an idea that was adopted and not the idea itself. (For instance, a program to add numbers written in two different computer languages would count as two different expressions of one idea) Effectively, independent rendering of a copyrighted work by a third party would not infringe the copyright.

Generally patents are conferred on any ‘new’ and ‘useful’ art, process, method or manner of manufacture, machines, appliances or other articles or substances produced by manufacture. Worldwide, the attitude towards patentability of software has been skeptical. The Indian Patent Act, as modified in 2002 had made non-patentable the following:

“…a mathematical method or a business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms”.

However, the recent amendment ordnance states instead:

“…a computer programme per se other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware;

a mathematical method or a business method or algorithms.”

b) Who may claim the right to a patent/copyright?

Generally, the author of a literary, artistic, musical or dramatic work automatically becomes the owner of its copyright.

Software developers are perfectly protected without patents. Everyone who writes a computer program automatically owns the copyright in it. It's copyright law that made Microsoft, Oracle, SAP and the entire software industry so very big. It's the same legal concept that also protects books, music, movies, paintings, even architecture.

Many of the world's richest people owe their wealth to copyright law. Some examples are: Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer (Microsoft); Larry Ellison (Oracle); Hasso Plattner and the other founders of SAP; Paul McCartney (Beatles); JK Rowling (Harry Potter).

The patent, on the other hand is granted to the first to apply for it, regardless of who the first to invent it was. Patents cost a lot of money. They cost even more paying the lawyers to write the application than they cost to actually apply. It takes typically some years for the application to get considered, even though patent offices do an extremely sloppy job of considering.

c) Rights conferred

Copyright law gives the owner the exclusive right to reproduce the material, issue copies, perform, adapt and translate the work. However, these rights are tempered by the rights of fair use which are available to the public. Under “fair use”, certain uses of copyright material would not be infringing, such as use for academic purposes, news reporting etc. Further, independent recreation of a copyrighted work would not constitute infringement. Thus if the same piece of code were independently developed by two different companies, neither would have a claim against the other.

A patent confers on the owner an absoulte monopoly which is the the right to prevent others from marking, using, offering for sale without his/her consent. In general, patent protection is a far stronger method of protection than copyright because the protection extends to the level of the idea embodied by a software and injuncts ancillary uses of an invention as well. It would weaken copyright in software that is the base of all European software development, because independent creations protected by copyright would be attackable by patents

Many patent applications cover very small and specific algorithms or techniques that are used in a wide variety of programs. Frequently the "inventions" mentioned in a patent application have been independently formulated and are already in use by other programmers when the application is filed.

d) Duration of protection

The TRIPS agreement mandates a period of at least 20 years for a product patent and 15 years in the case of a process patent.

For Copyright, the agreement prescribes a minimum period of the lifetime of the author plus seventy years.

II. Nature of Software and Indian Software Industry

Software is complex: The complexity of computer programs makes it difficult to be understood by any one person. This capacity for complexity allows for the creation of highly sophisticated products but also means that they are dependent on a vast range of technologies.

Software is free from the constraints of the real world that ensure a product does not become too complex. Major software may comprise up to 10 million lines of code - potentially thousands of inventions, any of which might be patented

For example, Apple was sued because its HyperCard program allegedly violates patent number 4,736,308, which covers a specific technique that, in simplified terms, entails scrolling through a database displaying selected parts of each line of text. Separately, the scrolling and display functions are ubiquitous fixtures of computer programming, but combining them without a license from the holder of patent 4,736,308 is now apparently illegal.

In its complexity, software is different from other engineering and mechanical inventions for which patent protection was devised. The latter are often characterized by large "building block" inventions that can revolutionize a given mechanical process. Software, especially a complex program, seldom includes substantial leaps in technology, but rather consists of adept combinations of many ideas. Whether a software program is a good one does not generally depend as much on the newness of a specific technique, but instead depends on the unique combination of known algorithms and methods. Patents should not protect such methods of innovation.

Software Technology evolves rapidly: Software technology is evolving much faster than other industries, even with its own hardware industry. Against this light, a patent that lasts upto 17 years is extremely alarming. Microprocessors double in speed every 2 years.

Research in software is galloping ahead of developments. In most industries, researching new ideas often costs more money than bringing them to the market. The software industry is, on the other hand, loaded with ideas.

The idea behind most software patents can be coded in just 20 lines of code, but any program incorporating that idea - along with many others - will be a thousand times larger. It is the writing of a program that takes all the time, not coming up with ideas.

What this means is that on an average of every two years, a product will have to be replaced in the market. The idea underlying it will remain the same although the particular means and variants of its applications may have changed radically.

Coming out with a full-featured product, every two years is costly especially in relation to the inexpensive idea that backs it. There’s more novelty in the development and application of the same idea to new technology than with coming up with the original raw idea.

The objective of granting patent rights should be to foster the growth and evolution of the industry. Granting a patent at this stage would be akin to unreasonably prolonging the life of a product.

It is generally found that those who are investing time creating and lodging patents are vastly outpacing those who are investing effort bringing such ideas to market. By the time an immature technology develops to the point where it can be incorporated into products, it has a dozen or more patents on it that render it commercially intractable.

Software doesn't wear out: In other industries, research continues up to a point where further research costs too much to be feasible. At this stage, the industry's output merely consists of replacing parts that have worn out.

However, in the software sector, a computer program that is fully debugged will perform its function forever without requiring maintenance or modification. “What this means is that unlike socks that wear out, and breakfast cereal that is eaten, a particular software product can be sold to a particular customer at most once. If it is to be sold to that customer again, it must be enhanced with new features and functionality.” This inevitably means that even if the industry were to approach maturity, any software company that does not produce new and innovative products will simply run out of customers! Thus, the industry will remain innovative whether or not software patents exist.

Software has different economics: Most other major industries have medium to high research and development costs and very high production costs. Most often, the production costs dwarf the other two areas (because of the physicality that they involve) so that these costs can be added on to the cost of the final product without any relatively major difference in the price.

Software is unique in this aspect because

-The research costs very little because “ideas are as abundant as air”

-The development of an idea into a marketable product costs far more than the research.

-The production costs are minimal, often just a little more than the price of the medium, which is typically a floppy or a CDROM.

Patents affect the ‘development’ stage of the process of ‘manufacture’ of software. Thus the threat exists that the price of software could be singularly determined by the number of patented innovations that it incorporates.

III. Patent and Innovation in Software Industry

As argued before the process of software development by its very nature is ‘incremental’ i.e. developing of new software majorly consists of building upon existing ideas and rearranging the processes devised by others, and hence has an inbuilt need for using existing algorithms and mathematical formulae. Patent protection over software or over a set of algorithms within patented software would inevitably create a thicket of patents which the subsequent software developer might need to obtain clearance from before he can begin to work on it. The costs involved in obtaining these clearances and those involved in case one finds oneself having infringed a patent are usually very high, as in the case of biomedical patents. This would act as a disincentive for an aspiring software developer and would adversely affect the growth of the Indian software industry. Introduction of two bills- ‘Genomic Research and Diagnostic Accessibility Bill, 2002’ and ‘Genomic Science and Technology Innovation Act of 2002’ though still pending before the US Congress show the real concerns involved for a ‘patent and innovation policy’ within genomics. Similar concerns are exist in the software and innovation policy and need to be addressed adequately by the each national legislature.

Further there are substantial costs involved in verifying which patents one must obtain clearance for as skimming through the huge patent databases has become a very costly exercise. Unfortunately, conducting a patent search is a slow, deliberative process that, when harnessed to software development, could stop innovation in its tracks. And because patent applications are confidential, there is simply no way for computer programmers to ensure that what they write will not violate some patent that is yet to be issued making survival a very important issue for smaller player in the market.

Various large companies in US have obtained exemptions from going through patent searches for standard work due to huge costs. In such a scenario in a small player software industry like India, it would be unwise to allow ‘software patents’ as they may have negative impact upon the innovation within the industry.

By its nature software industry is ‘innovation driven’ i.e. the only way a software company can compete and improve its sales or grip over market is by making better and more useful features available. This innovation which is the driving force behind the Indian software industry is bound to get affected if a patent protection is provided to software patents. If a company can easily sustain itself on its ‘invention’ (by obtaining patents upon its software) and need not remain innovation driven, which would mean that a patent monopoly would inversely impact innovation and competition in software industry. It would further give rise to monopolistic tendencies and a practice of quoting arbitrary price for the grant of ‘voluntary license’. This lesson can be learnt by looking west where the idea of Public Key Encryption was patented in the US. The patent expired in 1997 and until then, it largely blocked the use of Public Key Encryption in the US. Similar instances can be found w.r.t. ‘data compression software’ and ‘single click software’ patented by Amazon.com. A number of programs that people started to develop got crushed. They were never really available because the patent holders threatened them. This led to a lot of unrest in the software community which culminated into the public outrage against software patents. Similar pressures have prevailed in European community where software patents found public opposition too immense to mount for a long time.

A look at India's own development of its software industry would be of immense help as India started its software industry only after IBM was driven out of country. Before that, there was no software industry worth the name, with software and hardware being imported from IBM. Once IBM left, Indian computer companies developed computers using the UNIX operating system, which was in the public domain. This led to the presence of a large number of skilled software professionals with experience of UNIX were also writing high-level applications for making the entire computer system work.

IV. Political economy of software patents

While understanding the issue of software patents, it’s important to look at its political economy and the implications involved for India. If one were to study the trends of software patenting in US and Europe one would witness that the IBM owns a majority of patents along with other giant software companies and has been topping the list of maximum patents granted in US in the private sector. This fact must be seen in the light of the opposition faced from small business organisations, leading scientists and economists in Europe and the unprecedented delay in passing the Software Patent Directive of 2002 by the European parliament. It should be noted that the directive does not aim to make it possible to patent pure computer programs: it would only apply to computer software integrated into an appliance. This makes it much more restrictive than the amended Indian Patent Act, which opens out any technical application of a programme to industry or its realisation in hardware for patenting. Even with this restriction, the critics of the EU directive have pointed out that a patent on software is in effect a patent on an idea, while traditionally patents have been restricted to concrete physical inventions only. By making this amendment, it is possible to implement algorithms in hardware and then claim patent protection for this. Once an idea can be patented if it is burnt in to hardware, the argument for extending it to a software implementation gains ground. In fact, the first breach in the US for making software patentable came through this route. If one were to study the trends in the scope of patentable subject matter granted in software patents by US courts, one would observe that from Diamond v. Diehr onwards court has been granting patents on much more abstract components, which has slowly transformed into patenting the central idea underlying the software. This trend indicates the easy malleability of legal terminology which has brought US courts’ stand on software patents to a full circle from Gottschalk v. Benson where the court found a patent upon software as a patent upon the underlying algorithms which is nothing more than a mathematical formula, unpatentable by its very definition.

The concerns regarding the weaker relative position of these small players is much more relevant in India. Among the primary reasons for large corporations like IBM lobbying for software patents is due to their stronger hold over the software market and ownership of the largest number of patents in this market. Large corporations use their patents, apart from making royalty upon them, to getting access benefit to the patents of other companies. This would close the option of cross-licensing for a majority of Indian companies which have no patents upon software. License though may be obtained are usually available at exorbitantly high prices which would most likely be unaffordable for Indian companies which operate on a small scale and have restricted budget options. The multinational corporations would use software patents as a defensive strategy for preventing smaller Indian companies from gaining any grounds in the market, which would eventually drive them out of business hence destroying the existing Indian software industry.

Software industry has a very characteristic nature which makes it extremely vulnerable to being easily monopolized. Among these characteristics are Network effects (the fact that a program becomes more useful if more people use it), interoperability and compatibility problems, the low cost of massive reproduction of software, the difficulty of inspecting software distributed without the source code, the learning curve and the rapid evolution of the market. Taking the instance of Microsoft Windows (the most popular operating system in use in India today) which enjoys a perpetual monopoly over the operating system market in India, many a larger institutions find Windows extremely costly and desperately needed an alternative to it in order to do business profitably. The recent success of Linux operating systems is demonstrative of this, but this must be understood in the light that India follows a copyright regime for software which allows many of the above mentioned characteristics of compatibility and interoperability to be resolved which would be totally impossible in a software patent regime. This then means that software patents have a potential to hamper the growth of open software movement in India which has begun to play central role in Indian Government’s ‘e-governance’ initiative. Hence it’s extremely urgent to ensure that patents in software do not cause any harm to the fine balance that copyright has achieved.

While understanding a political economy argument of software patents the adverse impact of monopolization upon public interest which has been held to be of utmost importance by the apex court in India, even above one’s legitimate commercial interests.

V. Procedural Issues

There are a certain procedural issues involved which are of determinative nature as to the allowance of a software patent regime in India. India doesn’t have a well laid out or even a well practiced software patent practice to guide Indian patent office. In the absence of any such policy, examining software patent application becomes a very daunting task, coupled with which the complicated and highly technical nature of software, Indian patent office is quite incapable to evaluate complicated and technically trivial claims which software patent often present. Imposing a software patent regime in such a scenario would impact the quality of such patents which might then prove counter-productive in the development of Indian software industry.

To be able to tackle this situation more personnel and experts would have to be employed in the patent office that can then ensure maintenance of a certain quality standards while granting software patents. But this in turn may not produce increased innovation in the software industry for the human capital which would be invested into processing the claims and preventing and tackling with the patent infringements rather than being invested in developing new software and hence benefit the software industry and economy of the country in general.

The difficulty in reaching a policy to grant software patents and the impacts of granting these patents in the absence of policy are indeed far reaching. In the absence of a policy which classifies patents on algorithms, techniques etc. it would take an awfully long time for the patent office to process a claim, searching the ‘prior art’ which makes the system inefficient and unworkable. Long delays in processing patent applications and subsequent challenge procedure often makes filing for a patent an unwise option for small companies and individual software developer, which form the backbone of Indian software industry. For instance, IBM was granted a patent on the same data-compression algorithm that Unisys supposedly owned. Such an error which could prove lethal for a developing company which has planned its budget meticulously and in consequence of this error would be greatly disincentivized to develop new software. The Patent Office was probably not aware of granting two patents for the same algorithm because the descriptions in the patents themselves are quite different even though the formulas are mathematically equivalent. Even when patents are known in advance, software publishers have generally not licensed the algorithms or techniques; instead, they try to rewrite their programs to avoid using the particular procedure that the patent describes. Sometimes this isn't possible, in which case companies have often chosen to avoid implementing new features altogether. It seems clear from the evidence of the last few years that software patents are actually preventing the adoption of new technology, rather than encouraging it.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/alfs-note-before-2005-amendment

Response by Knowledge Commons

pranesh — 2008-09-30T15:07:50Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

US CASES

Diamond v. Diehr,

450 U.S. 175 (1981)

Gottschalk v. Benson,

409 U.S. 63 (1972)

Parker v. Flook,

437 U.S. 584 (1984)

Alappat,

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

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

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

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

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

KSR International v. Teleflex

127 US 1727 (2007)

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation by Knowledge Commons

pranesh — 2008-09-30T14:47:25Z

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

Representation on Modifying Section 4.11 of the Draft Patents Manual

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

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

algorithms are not patentable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) Method/process:

(b) Apparatus/system:

(c) Computer program product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Co-organisers

pranesh — 2008-10-01T13:56:24Z

These organisations are involved in organizing the event, in funding it, or just as a partner organisation wishing to share the platform. Some of them are tentatively being included in this list as their involvement is hoped for.

Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Free Software Users Group, Bangalore
Free Software Foundation of India, Mumbai
Society For Promotion of Alternative Computing and Employment, Trivandrum
IT for Change, Bangalore
Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore
Delhi Science Forum, Delhi
Movingrepublic, Kerala
Sarai/CSDS, Delhi
OpenSpace, Bangalore
Swathanthra Malayalam Computing, Kerala
Servelots - Janastu, Bangalore
Mahiti, Bangalore
DeepRoot Linux, Bangalore
Wiki Ocean, Pune [TBC]
Turtle Linux Lab, Bangalore
Zyxware Technologies, Trivandrum
INSAF (Indian Social Action Forum)
Aneka, Bangalore

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/co-organisers