Centre for Internet and Society

Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, release first draft of Open Access Policy

sinha — 2014-12-26T11:20:59Z

The Department of Biotechnology and the Department of Science, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, recently published a draft Open Access Policy in consultation with several open access experts, government officials and CIS. This post discusses open access and the exercise undertaken to draft this policy.

The Department of Biotechnology (“DBT”) and the Department of Science (“DST”), Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, released their draft Open Access Policy (“the Policy) on July 5, 2014 (the Policy may be accessed hereand comments may be sent to madhan@dbt.nic.in by July 25, 2014). This step by the Ministry of Science and Technology is laudable, especially from the view of increasing access to research undertaken at these institutions. DBT/DST’s endeavour to provide open access applies to scientific research directly (including ad-hoc) or indirectly funded by them. It also applies to scientific research which has received benefits, infrastructure or other support from the DBT/DST. Providing open access may also ensure percolation of cutting edge research at a rapid pace into higher education curriculum, thereby raising the standard of technical and scientific education.

The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (“CSIR”), Indian Council of Agricultural Research (“ICAR”) and Institute of Mathematical Sciences (“IMSc”) are the few Indian government institutions to have implemented open access policies applicable to the research undertaken at their respective institutions. While the CSIR and ICAR present outlines of their open access policies, the IMSc provides access to a digital repository containing digital theses/dissertations, matscience reports and other publications of institute members. CIS had sent comments to the ICAR upon release of ICAR’s draft policy.

Open Access in Scientific Research

Presently two models of scientific research publications exist, namely, the commercial model and the open access model. The scientific research ecosystem traditionally functioned on the commercial model, until open access was embraced by a part of the scientific community. It is reported that presently, there exist approximately 25,000 journals in the areas of science, technology and medicine. The conventional model of communicating research is by publishing it in printed journals. These journals are usually subscription based, and demand hefty amounts from interested authors for publication. Further, research was only accessible to that select group of persons willing to pay a high monetary sum for the same. These industry practices led to restrictions on access to scholarly research, including restrictions on sharing and building further on work already created. . Over the past few years, this trend has witnessed a change, with research being increasingly published in online, open access journals.

Open Access is free, immediate, permanent online access to the full text of research articles for anyone, web-wide, without severe restrictions on use commonly imposed by publisher copyright agreements. Open access was first defined in 2002 at the Budapest Initiative. The Bethesda Statement (2003) provided:

An Open Access Publication is one that meets the following two conditions:

The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship[2], as well as the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use.

A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, including a copy of the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard electronic format is deposited immediately upon initial publication in at least one online repository that is supported by an academic institution, scholarly society, government agency, or other well-established organization that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution, interoperability, and long-term archiving (for the biomedical sciences, PubMed Central is such a repository).

The Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities is another significant milestone of the Open Access movement. Globally, USA and Europe have been instrumental in adopting open access policies across a wide range of institutions. Illustratively, the US’ National Institute of Health open access policy is a comprehensive document detailing every aspect of the policy and its implications. Several premier academic institutions (Harvard) under experts (Peter Suber) have drafted documents containing guidelines on drafting a suitable open access policy.

The advantages of adopting an open access policy are manifold- free access to scientific research irrespective of subscription affiliation, decrease in publishing and research costs for industry and academia; It has also been argued that restricting access to government funded research is unethical, since scientific research conducted by government agencies is partly, if not entirely, funded by the taxpayers’ money. Further, adoption of open access alone could improve visibility and impact of Indian science,

Open Access and Intellectual Property

Intellectual property is the essential instrument used to effect principles of open access. The extent of rights under copyright which the owner chooses to exercise over scholarly publication in question determines whether a publication may be openly accessed or not. Traditionally, journal publishers ran an inequitable policy which required all publication and reproduction rights (copyright) to be exclusively transferred by the author or institution to the publishers in consideration of publication in reputed journals. This practice created artificial and expensive barriers to scholarly research. Contrast this with open access principles wherein to provide open access- Generally, the author or the institution (depending on the jurisdictional copyright laws) retain certain rights in the publication, whilst permitting zero-barrier access to their research. This requires careful balancing and distribution of rights between three stakeholders- author, institution and the publisher.

About the DST/DBT’s Open Access Policy

The Open Access Policy Document for DBT/ DST was drafted by the Open Access Policy Committee on a specific request from Dr. VijayRaghavan, Secretary, DBT. The Policy was drafted after multiple rounds of consultation with Ministry officials, eminent academics and experts on open access, government officials with prior experience of set-up of institutional repositories and CIS. Prof Subbiah Arunachalam led the discussions along with the Open Access Policy Committee and brought different perspectives to the fore. The Policy may be accessed here. The Policy will be applicable to publications in peer reviewed journals, and aims to maximise the distribution of these publications by providing free online access by depositing them in a gratis open access repository (deemed mandatory). Authors can make their publications open access by publishing in an open access journal, or if they choose to publish in a subscription journal, by posting the final accepted manuscript to an online repository. The Policy suggests a maximum embargo period placed on authors by journals to not exceed one year. It also addresses the methodology of depositing in a repository and provides for a proposed copyright addendum between the author and publisher.

CIS’ Contribution

CIS participated in discussions along with experts brought on board by Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam to develop and review an open access policy for the purposes of DST and DBT. CIS, inter alia, commented on the legality of clauses in the policy pertaining to Indian copyright law and supplied a note on utilisation of ‘public domain’ in open access policies. Legally, a work is said to have entered the public domain when it is free from copyright protection. The note recommended usage of the phrase “made available to public” as opposed to “public domain” since the said policy permitted the institution and/or author to retain rights in the scientific paper. You may access the note here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/department-of-biotechnology-and-department-of-science-ministry-of-science-and-technology-government-of-india-release-open-access-policy

ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾಗೆ ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ

praskrishna — 2014-07-16T11:14:16Z

ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾನಿಲಯವು ಇದೀಗ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲೂ ಹೆಸರು ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಹಲವಾರು ವಿದ್ವಾಂಸರ ಅವಿರತ ಶ್ರಮದಿಂದ ರೂಪುಗೊಂಡಿರುವ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶಗಳು ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಾಗುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡುವಲ್ಲಿ ವಿವಿ ಯಶಸ್ವಿಯಾಗಿದೆ.

The article was published in Kannada Prabha on July 15, 2014.

ಮೊದಲ ಹಂತದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೂರು ದಶಕಗಳಷ್ಟು ಹಳೆಯ ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ ಆರು ಸಂಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್ ಪರವಾನಗಿಯಡಿ ಗಣಕೀರಣಗೊಳಿಸಿ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾಗೆ ಬಿಡುಗಡೆಗೊಳಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಪರಿವರ್ತನೆ ಯೋಜನೆಯಾದ ಡಿಡಿಠಣಣಛ್ಝಿಡಿ.ಟಣಣಟಣಡ್ಟ್ಠಜ್ಡಟ್ಝಿಢಿಠ ಅನ್ನು ಮಂಗಳವಾರ ಮಾನಸಗಂಗೋತ್ರಿಯ ಕುವೆಂಪು ಕನ್ನಡ ಅಧ್ಯಯನ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ಬಿ.ಎಂ.ಶ್ರೀ ಭವನದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿ ಕುಲಪತಿ ಪ್ರೊ.ಕೆ.ಎಸ್. ರಂಗಪ್ಪ ಲೋಕಾರ್ಪಣೆ ಮಾಡಿದರು. ನಂತರ ಮಾತನಾಡಿದ ಅವರು, ಇತ್ತೀಚಿನ ದಿನಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದ ವೇಗೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚಾಗಿದೆ. ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಉತ್ಕೃಷ್ಟವಾದ ಪ್ರೌಢ ಪ್ರಬಂಧಗಳಿದ್ದು ಅವುಗಳೆಲ್ಲ ಜನರಿಗೆ ತಲುಪಬೇಕೆಂಬ ನಮ್ಮ ಅಭಿಲಾಷೆಗೆ ಪೂರಕವಾಗಿ ಈ ಯೋಜನೆ ಈಡೇರಿದೆ. ನಮ್ಮ ವಿವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ 14 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳಿದ್ದು, ಈಗ 6 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳು ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾಗೆ ಮಾರ್ಪಟ್ಟಾಗಿವೆ. ಇನ್ನುಳಿದ ಸಂಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾರ್ಪಾಟುಗೊಳಿಸಲಾಗುವುದು. ವಿಷಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ 30 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳಿದ್ದು 5 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾರ್ಪಟಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಬೆರಳ ತುದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬೇಕಾದ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಾಗಬೇಕೆಂಬುದು ವಿವಿಯ ಉದ್ದೇಶವಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರು.

ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಪರಿವರ್ತನಾ ಯೋಜನೆಯ ರೂವಾರಿ ಯು.ಬಿ. ಪವನಜ ಮಾತನಾಡಿ, ಕನ್ನಡ ಭಾಷೆ ಉಳಿಯಬೇಕೆಂದರೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಬಳಸಬೇಕು. ಭಾಷೆಯನ್ನು ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನಕ್ಕೆ ಅಳವಡಿಸಿದರೆ ನಮ್ಮ ಮುಂದಿನ ಪೀಳಿಗೆ ಬಳಸಿ, ಬೆಳೆಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಮಕ್ಕಳಿಗೆ ಓದೋಕೆ ಪಠ್ಯಪುಸ್ತಕಗಳಿವೆ. ಆದರೆ, ಬೇಕಾದ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ನೀಡಬೇಕೆಂದರೆ ಪುಸ್ತಕದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶವನ್ನು ನೆಚ್ಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಈಗ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾಗೆ ಮಾರ್ಪಡಿಸಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಜನರಿಗೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಅನುಕೂಲವಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರು.

ಮಾಹಿತಿ ತುಂಬಬಹುದು: ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಕಣಜ ಎನಿಸಿರುವ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಇದುವರೆಗೆ ಪ್ರಪಂಚದ 287 ಭಾಷೆಗಳು ಅಳವಡಿಕೆಯಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಭಾರತದ 20 ಭಾಷೆಗಳಿವೆ. ಮುಕ್ತವಾಗಿ, ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರ ವಿವಿ ಎಂದೆ ಕರೆಯುವ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾರು ಬೇಕಾದರು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ತುಂಬಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ, ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಆಕ್ಟ್‌ನಡಿ ಬರುವ ಲೇಖನಗಳನ್ನು ಬಳಸುವಂತಿಲ್ಲ. ಅದಕ್ಕಾಗಿಯೇ ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್ ಪರಾವನಗಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಿದ್ದು, ಇದರ ಸಹಾಯದಿಂದ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಒದಗಿಸಬಹುದು ಎಂದರು.

ಸ್ಮರಣಿಕೆ ನೀಡಿ ಗೌರವ: ಇದೇ ವೇಳೆ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶವನ್ನು ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾಗೆ ಅಳವಡಿಸಲು ಶ್ರಮಿಸಿದ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಕ್ರೈಸ್ತ ವಿವಿಯ ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿಗಳಾದ ಕೋಮಲ್, ಗೀತಾ, ಗೌತಮ್, ಪ್ರತಾಪ್, ಭರತ್, ಸ್ಮಿತಾ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಸ್ಮರಣಿಕೆ ನೀಡಿ ಗೌರವಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.

ಕುವೆಂಪು ಕನ್ನಡ ಅಧ್ಯಯನ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕ ಪ್ರೊ.ಆರ್. ರಾಮಕೃಷ್ಣ ಅವರು ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು. ಮೈವಿವಿ ಯೋಜನೆ, ಉಸ್ತುವಾರಿ ಮತ್ತು ಮೌಲ್ಯಮಾಪನ ಮಂಡಳಿಯ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕ ಪ್ರೊ.ಎಸ್. ರವಿ, ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವಿ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್‌ನ ತೇಜಸ್ ಜೈನ್ ಇದ್ದರು.

ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್ ಲೈಸನ್ಸ್ ಬಳಸಿ

ಮೈಸೂರು ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ಪುಸ್ತಕಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನಮಗೆ ಬೇಕಾದ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಇದ್ದರು ಸಹ ಹಂಚಲು ಮುಂದಾದಾಗ ಕಾಡುವ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಆಕ್ಟ್ ಭೂತದಂತೆ ಕಾಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಅದರಿಂದ ಹೊರ ಬರಲು ಇರುವ ಪರ್ಯಾಯ ಉಪಾಯವೇ ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್ ಲೈಸನ್ಸ್. ಇದನ್ನು ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಬ್ಬರೂ ಬಳಸಬಹುದಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ತೇಜಸ್ ಜೈನ್ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಪಟ್ಟರು. ಜ್ಞಾನ ಯಾರ ಸ್ವತ್ತೂ ಅಲ್ಲ. ಅದೊಂದು ಮುಕ್ತ ಹಾಗೂ ಸುಲಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಸಿಗುವಂತಾಗಬೇಕು. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ವೇದಿಕೆಯೊದಗಿಸಿಕೊಡುವ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲಕ್ಕೆ ಪರವಾನಗಿ ಎಂಬ ಕೊಂಕು ಕಾಡುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಇದರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಎಬೆನ್ ಮೊಗ್ಲೆನ್ ಎಂಬವರು ಚಳವಳಿ ನಡೆಸಿ ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್ ಲೈಸನ್ಸ್ ಎಂಬ ಹೊಸ ಪರಿಕಲ್ಪನೆಯನ್ನು ಹುಟ್ಟುಹಾಕಿದರು. ಇದರಡಿ ಯಾರ ಬೇಕಾದರು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಬಳಸಬಹುದು ಎಂದರು.

ಏನಿದು ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ?

ಜ್ಞಾನದ ವಿವಿಧ ಶಾಖೆಗಳ ವಿವೇಚನೆಯುಳ್ಳ, ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಬಿಡಿ ಲೇಖನಗಳನ್ನು ಅಕರಾದಿಯಾಗಿ ಒಳಗೊಂಡ ಭಂಡಾರವೇ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ. ಎನ್‌ಸೈಕ್ಲೋಪಿಡಿಯಾ ಬ್ರಿಟಾನಿಕ ಮಾದರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ 1954 ರಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ರಚಿಸುವ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ ಆರಂಭವಾಯಿತು. 1968 ರವರೆಗ ಈ ಯೋಜನೆಯು ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯ ಮತ್ತು ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತಿ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಅಧೀನದಲ್ಲಿತ್ತು. ನಾಡೋಜ ಡಾ. ದೇಜಗೌ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯ ಕುಲಪತಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದಾಗ ಯೋಜನೆಯನ್ನು ವಿವಿಯ ವಶಕ್ಕೆ ವಹಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಇದುವರೆಗೆ ಒಟ್ಟು ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ 14 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ಹೊರತರಲಾಗಿದ್ದು, 30 ವಿಷಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶಗಳಿವೆ.

ಇದನ್ನು ಬಳಸುವವರ ಗಮನಕ್ಕೆ

ಯಾವುದೇ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಪಡೆದರು ಸಹ ಅದರ ಕರ್ತೃವಿನ ಹೆಸರನ್ನು ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸುವುದು
ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಬದಲಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡಿ ಅಥವಾ ಹಾಗೆ ವಿತರಿಸಬಹುದೇ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಗಮನಿಸಬೇಕು
ಕೆಲವು ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಬದಲಾಯಿಸುವ ಅಥವಾ ಪುನರಾವರ್ತಿಸುವ ಸಂದರ್ಭ ಬಂದಲ್ಲಿ ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್ ಲೈಸನ್ಸ್‌ನಡಿ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು

ಬಳಸುವಾಗ ಎದುರಾಗುವ ಸವಾಲುಗಳು

ಇಷ್ಟುದಿನ ಪುಸ್ತಕದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ದಾಖಲಿಸಿ ವ್ಯಾಪಾರ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದವರಿಗೆ ಆತಂಕ ಕಾಡಬಹುದು
ತಮ್ಮ ಬೌದ್ಧಿಕ ಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯತೆ ಹೋಗುತ್ತೆ ಎಂಬ ಭಯ ಕಾಡಲಿದೆ
ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸಬೇಕಾದಾಗ ಗಣಕೀಕರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಒಪ್ಪುವ ಭಾಷೆಯನ್ನು ಬಳಸುವುದು
ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲವನ್ನು ಬಳಸುವುದರಿಂದ ಗ್ರಂಥಾಲಯಗಳ ಅವಶ್ಯಕತೆ ಬೇಕೆ ಎಂಬ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ ಕಾಡಲಿದೆ

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/kannada-prabha-july-15-2014-coverage-of-open-knowledge-day

Soon, all 14 volumes of Kannada encyclopaedia to be online

praskrishna — 2014-07-16T11:06:56Z

Four volumes have been uploaded so far on a pilot basis.

The article by R.Krishna Kumar was published in the Hindu on July 15, 2014. Dr. U.B.Pavanaja gave his inputs.

All 14 volumes of the Kannada Vishwakosha published by the University of Mysore along with five volumes of subject encyclopaedia — also published in Kannada by the varsity — may soon be available on the internet.

This will not only enrich Kannada content on the Internet, but will give the multi-volume publications that are available only in a few libraries and research institutions a new lease of life.

While four volumes of the Vishwakosha published by the Prasaranga wing of the varsity have already been uploaded on Wikisource, talks are on to upload other volumes along with the subject encyclopaedias.

“We are in discussion with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore, in this regard and may soon decide on making the other volumes available on the Internet through Creative Commons (CC) licence to coincide with the centenary of the university in 2016,” said K.S. Rangappa, Vice-Chancellor, University of Mysore.

Speaking at the Open Knowledge Day organised in collaboration with the CIS here on Tuesday, Prof. Rangappa said four volumes of the Vishwakosha have been uploaded as part of a pilot project. “This has helped people access the contents and hence its popularity has grown,” he said.

The university is in talks with the authors and editors concerned at Prasaranga to take the project forward and was also considering digitising the subject encyclopaedia and migrate them to the CC licence platform for public sharing, he added.

The CIS and the varsity signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to re-release the first six volumes of the Vishwakosha under the CC licence, of which four volumes have been released, and the Open Knowledge Day was organised to mark the occasion. The CIS said it also coincided with the Open Knowledge Festival being held in Berlin (July 15 to 17).

U.B. Pavanaja of the CIS said it was imperative to make the latest developments in the world available in Kannada so that people can keep themselves updated. “But for books prescribed in the syllabus, there is not much available on the Internet in Kannada and this project will help bridge the gap,” he said.

Students of Christ University, Bangalore, who worked to upload the Vishwakosha, were felicitated on the occasion.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-july-15-2014-r-krishna-kumar-soon-all-14-volumes-of-kannada-encyclopaedia-to-be-online

The Fifth Elephant in Bangalore

praskrishna — 2014-07-16T11:02:15Z

HasGeek is organizing the Fifth Elephant in Bangalore at NIMHANS Convention Centre on July 25 and 26, 2014. The Centre for Internet and Society is a community outreach partner with HasGeek.

Facebook has 100 million users in India. You know who has a billion?

The Indian Census.

Varsha Joshi, Director of the National Population Register, was present at The Fifth Elephant 2013 to explain on how the census team collects and processes such a vast amount of data.

Each year, The Fifth Elephant conference brings consumers and producers of technology to understand how data is processed (via available technologies), insights mined from datasets in different domains, and opportunities that data presents for economy and society. The key differentiator of The Fifth Elephant conference is that the content is crowdsourced and carefully curated by a panel of experts.

HasGeek, organizer of The Fifth Elephant, also shares a strong commitment to open access, open knowledge and open data. We ensure that every edition of The Fifth Elephant has representatives from the government –– either officials themselves or technology teams working on important data projects –– addressing citizens’ concerns around privacy and protection of data.

In 2012, we had Pramod Varma and Regunath B. speaking about the Aadhar project alongside Lucy Chambers’ presentation on the OKF’s work with data journalism, Nikhil Pahwa’s on RTI and Sumandro’s on NSSO data.

In 2013, Varsha Joshi talked to participants about the challenges that the census faces in collating data.
This year, we have invited Mr. Ram Sewak Sharma, secretary of Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DEITY), to talk about the state of government data and how citizens can participate in strengthening government’s efforts.

Why should you attend The Fifth Elephant?
The Fifth Elephant is a relevant event for data geeks and enthusiasts, NGOs, journalists and members of advocacy groups not just from the immediate standpoint of open data. This year’s edition also brings talks from finance and healthcare where speakers will talk about the challenges of working with complex financial datasets, data security and privacy concerns in the field of genomics, and related concerns. S. Anand will speak about what it took – in terms of technology infrastructure and data visualization – to do real-time visualizations for the recently concluded Indian elections. Participants will also get a flavour of frameworks – Lambda, Julia,OSM – and how these are used for building tools and platforms for mining data.

We welcome you to participate in the discussions and enrich interactions at the conference.

Schedule: https://fifthelephant.in/2014/conference
Registrations: http://fifthelephant.doattend.com
For more information, write to support@hasgeek.com

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-fifth-elephant

Open Access: Students help revive and digitize rare books for Malayalam Wiki Library

praskrishna — 2014-07-28T08:50:07Z

The blog post that quotes Centre for Internet and Society was published in SPICY IP on July 15, 2014.

The New Indian Express reports that in a terrific effort, more than 1000 school students and 234 members of the public across the state of Kerala digitized, proof-read and uploaded more than 150 rare and out-of-copyright Malayalam books as part of a digitization contest organized to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Wiki Source project by the Centre for Internet and Society, the state government run IT@School project, Swanthanthra Malayalam Computing and the Kerala Sahitya Akademi online library.

While these rare books were already in the public domain, the importance of preserving them in an accessible format cannot be emphasised enough. Books published as early as 1772 are now available on Wiki Grandhasala, the Malayalam wiki library to which these digitized copies have been uploaded. As they have been digitized rather than simply scanned, one can also search through them for keywords/phrases. If I’m not mistaken, OCR solutions for Indian languages either do not exist or are not of reliable quality. This would mean that much of the over 13,000 pages were typed out! I understand that these articles will also be used to cross reference wikipedia articles as well.

A big round of applause to all the involved parties for organizing and participating in this great effort at preserving as well as making accessible local literature and culture, that could otherwise be at a risk of getting lost amongst unhelpful copyright laws and/or tarnished or lost physical copies amongst other risks.

(I’m not sure if these overlap but as we reported here, there also seems to be the Kerala State Central Library that makes rare books available as well).

Can this effort be replicated in other states? I know the Panjab Digital Library is another resource that looks to do something similar. Their mission statement includes: to locate, digitize, preserve, collect and make accessible the accumulated wisdom of the Panjab region, without distinction as to script, language, religion, nationality, or other physical condition. There is also the Digital Library of India, hosted by IISC Bangalore, which states that they are trying to digitize all the significant works of mankind! If our readers know of other such databases, please do let us know in the comments.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/spicy-ip-swaraj-paul-barooah-july-15-2014-open-access-students-help-revive-and-digitize-rare-books-for-malayalam-wiki-library

Open Knowledge Day at Mysore

praskrishna — 2014-07-14T09:41:39Z

Mysore University along with the Centre for Internet and Society's Access to Knowledge (CIS-A2K) team invites you to an Open Knowledge Day at the University of Mysore on July 15, 2014.

We signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the University of Mysore earlier this year in January to re-release the first six volumes of their Kannada encyclopaedia under Creative Commons (CC) license.

CIS-A2K facilitated extracting the legacy text from the soft-copies, converting them to Unicode, distributing the files among volunteers and Christ University interns and uploading them to Kannada Wikisource. So far about 1200 articles have been added. These articles will feed to articles in Kannada Wikipedia.

To commemorate this, the University of Mysore and CIS-A2K is organizing this event. This will also coincide with the Open Knowledge Festival happening at Berlin from July 15 to 17, 2014.

The invitation for the Mysore program given below:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/events/open-knowledge-day-mysore

Four volumes of Kannada Encyclopaedia digitised

praskrishna — 2014-07-14T05:49:48Z

The content is available online under Creative Commons License.

The article by R. Krishna Kumar was published in the Hindu on July 12, 2014, Dr. U.B.Pavanaja is quoted.

Articles from the Kannada Encyclopaedia (Kannada Vishwakosha) of the University of Mysore can now be accessed online under the Creative Commons License. The move to make content of the Kannada Vishwakosha accessible is part of the ongoing effort to enrich Kannada content on Internet.

The University of Mysore is working with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) to digitise encyclopaedic publications for which the copyrights are owned by the varsity, and to re-release them under the Creative Common License.

U.B. Pavanaja of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, who is promoting Kannada content on the Internet, told The Hindu that of the 14 volumes, digitised content of the first four volumes has been uploaded.

And, the CIS is awaiting the release of the revised edition of the other two volumes. “Each volume has about 900 pages and hence over 3,600 pages of the Kannada Vishwakosha can now be accessed. What is significant is that people seeking quality information in Kannada can now access reliable content. It is also subject to editing in real time and hence will remain updated,” according to Mr. Pavanaja. The content was digitised and uploaded with the help of students who were interning with the CIS and included three boys and five girls, said Mr. Pavanaja.

The permission for digitising the content has been accorded for the first six volumes. However, the CIS has sought permission from the varsity for digitising the content of the other volumes, including Subject Encyclopaedia.

The Centre for Internet and Society signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the University of Mysore in February. The varsity issued a certificate to publish the work under the Creative Common License in May.

As per the plan, the digitised content will be made available for everyone through free content distribution platforms like Wikipedia, Wikisource and this is expected to enhance digital literacy in Kannada language while helping in free dissemination of knowledge in Kannada to students, academics, researchers and the general public. As of now, the articles have been uploaded on Wikisource and will shortly be migrated to Wikipedia also.

Besides, the CIS is trying to hold talks with Kannada University, Hampi, on digitising the Janapada Vishwakosha and make it available under the Creative Common License, said Mr. Pavanaja.

Niranjan Vanalli, Director of EMMRC of the University of Mysore, said digitisation of Kannada Vishwakosha has given a new lease of life to publications. “The 14-volume Kannada Vishwakosha was not available to everyone earlier and was confined to research institutions or libraries. But now that the content is available online, it is accessible to all those who are interested. And, what it is more is that most articles, especially those pertaining to history, art and culture, will be of reference quality and that will act as a major boost to the cause of Kannada language,” he added.

Meanwhile, the University of Mysore and CIS will celebrate World Open Knowledge Festival on July 15 at the Kuvempu Institute of Kannada Studies from 11 a.m. to commemorate the event.

Those interested to access the Kannada Vishwakosha online can log on to: http://bit.ly/mysoreuniv

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-july-12-2014-r-krishna-kumar-four-volumes-of-kannada-encyclopaedia-digitised

Patent Valuation and License Fee Determination in Context of Patent Pools

vikrant — 2014-07-09T09:46:16Z

The focus of this research paper is on an extremely limited though important aspect of patent pools — that of patent valuation and license fee determination. It is important to bear in mind that the concept of patent valuation and license fee determination as it exists independently is modified when it is applied in context of patent pools.

I. Introduction

A patent pool is essentially “An agreement between two or more patent owners to aggregate (pool) their patents and to license them to one another or third parties. Pools usually offer standard licensing terms to licensees and allocate a portion of the licensing fees (royalties) to patent owners according to a pre-set formula or procedure.[1]

A patent pool particularly faces intense scrutiny by way of competition/ antitrust law and each step of structuring of a patent pool has to be done keeping the prevalent norms of antitrust law in context. This article merely brushes with the antitrust aspect, as a discussion on that topic is beyond the scope of this particular article. However, suffice is to say that like other aspects of structuring of a patent pool, patent valuation and licensing fee determination is also subject to antitrust law concerns.

Part II of this research paper is a discussion as regards factors which determine patent value in context of a patent pool. Similarly, Part III is a discussion as regards factors that determine license fee in context of a patent pool. Thereafter, Part IV discusses the methods which are applied for patent valuation and license fee determination. A number of these methods are independent evaluation methods and hence their dynamics when applied in context of patent pools may need to be altered in light of the discussion in Parts II and III. Part V discusses certain aspects of actual patent pools in the technological field to better understand the principles which have been discussed in Parts II-IV. Finally, Part VI concludes this research paper.

II. Determination of Patent Value in a Patent Pool

One of the prominent pillars of a patent pool is an appropriate patent valuation process. Patent valuation is a difficult and subjective task.[2] Moreover, the result of a patent valuation independently outside of a pool might be quite different from when it is part of a pool transaction. A “pool regularizes the valuation of individual patents - making, as the United States Supreme Court put it, ‘a division of royalties according to the value attributed by the parties to their respective patent claims’”.[3] However, this value attribution process is not an arbitrary one but incredibly dynamic, and constantly evolving. This difficulty is furthered by the fact that the term “patent value” itself is subject to interpretation. Patent value essentially comprises of the economic benefit that the patent can bestow.[4]

A number of factors as discuss hereinafter determine the value of a patent. It is not necessary though that all the factors would come into play in context of every exercise of valuation of a patent in a pool. The factors determining patent value can be largely classified into a discussion as regards the types of patents in a patent pool in context of their relative importance and other complementary factors which further affect such importance.

A. Categories of Patents in a Patent Pool

Patents in a pool can be classified based on their necessity and quality. Thus, arises the concept of essential and non-essential patents and strong and weak patents.

Essential and Non-Essential Patents
As the terms indicate, essential patents are those which are imperative for the success of pool creation and thus naturally have considerably more value. Non-essential patents on the other hand are patents which though not imperative may bring efficiency advantages to the pool. However, what exactly comprises an essential patent is a subjective and constantly evolving definition determined by each patent pool according to its commercial needs and capabilities. For example, the number of patents in the MPEG-2 pool, all of which are declared to be essential to the MPEG-2 standard, increased from 27 in 1997 to more than 900 in 2010.[5]

Essential patents naturally have more economic value than non-essential patents.[6] “A pool that includes non-essential patents can increase prices for some consumers, while decreasing prices for other consumers.”[7] Also, inclusion of inessential patents can raise potential concerns about foreclosure of alternative technologies and higher royalties for some licenses than would have occurred if these patents were excluded from the pool.[8] These concerns though should be balanced against the costs of excluding potentially essential patents from the pool.[9] Such concerns were raised in context of the DVD 3C patent pool.[10] Thus, it has to be decided on a case by case scenario as to whether the patent pool will include only essential patents or both essential as well as non-essential patents.

“Whether a patent pool improves a market’s transactional efficiency depends on the competitive characteristics of the patents included within the pool’s offering.”[11] Properly demarcating all required patents for a technology is important during patent pool formation. Otherwise it may create a “hold out” problem where a patent owner will “hold out” for higher royalties, “knowing that the manufacturer has individually negotiated for and already acquired the rest of the necessary … patent licenses, and that the value of all those licenses depends on obtaining a license to its own patent.”[12] Essentiality of a patent can be determined based on certain characteristics of patents:

a. Blocking Patents
Blocking patents comprise of improvement patents on an existing technology. Thus, the improvement patent is deemed to be “subservient” to the earlier, “dominant’ patent”[13] and the subservient and dominant patents are said to block one another.[14] This is so because, the subservient patent cannot be exploited without infringing upon the dominant patent.[15] Likewise, the dominant patent cannot be developed in the improved embodiment without permission from the subservient patentee.[16] For example, the Wright brothers patents for aeroplane wings were improved upon by Glenn Curtiss and Alexander Graham Bell by using a set of wing flaps, or ailerons. The Curtiss patent, however, was found to infringe upon the Wright patent. As a result, Curtiss had no legal right to make, use, or sell his ailerons without a license from the Wright brothers, and the Wright brothers had no legal right to make, use, or sell Curtiss's commercially successful form of the stabilizing device. Their patents mutually infringed and blocked one another and they had to form a patent pool.[17] Similarly, public key encryption method was devised and patented at Stanford University, and licensed to Cylink. Soon thereafter, a team of scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology developed and patented an algorithm, and licensed its use to RSA. The RSA algorithm was successfully commercialized and became an industry standard. Cylink and RSA constituted blocking rival patents and the issue was resolved by formation of a patent pool.[18]

b. Complementary Patents
Complementary patents cover technologies that are largely lacking or inefficient absent a license to a separate patented product.[19] They occur as a consequence of independent invention. Thus, value of complementary patents increases when combined with a separate patented invention; they act synergistically, each increasing the value of the other.[20] “Two products or technologies are complements if an increase in the price of one of them reduces the demand for the other.”[21] For example, production of a light bulb requires patent rights to both the vacuum bulb as well as the filament.[22] A patent pool that only contains complementary patents may have substantial market power if the pool does not face competition from alternative or substitutable technology.[23] This though, could lead to the occurrence of royally stacking i.e. double-marginalization, which can occur when firms sell or license complementary products or technologies and demand is sensitive to price.[24] It refers to the addition of successive mark-ups by suppliers in a vertical relationship.[25]

c. Competing Patents

Competing patents result when there exist totally novel products or processes that provide market substitutes for patented goods, or when inventors sufficiently modify existing patented goods so that the original patent is deemed “invented around” and not infringed.[26] “Two products or technologies are substitutes if an increase in the price of one of them increases the demand for the other.”[27] A patent pool may obtain market power by obtaining control over substitutable patents too.[28] An individual who acquires the rights to a competing patent eliminates or significantly lessens his need for competing patents within or outside of the pool.[29] Thus, the value of a pool consisting of competing patents increases with acquisition of substitute patents.[30]

Strong and Weak Patents
A patent pool can comprise of strong as well as weak patents. The value accorded to the patents would naturally be in accordance with its “strength.” “‘Low patent quality’ is shorthand for such problems as overlapping claims, inappropriately broad claims, slow patent prosecution, and patents on obvious inventions.”[31] Patents are “probabilistic rights”[32] Their scope and extent often remains probabilistic until their claim determination which may often be done only upon adjudication. Similarly in situations of a patent flood,[33] the overall quality of patents may become lower.[34] The additional protection of the pool affords a weak patent enforcement rights that it may not have secured standing alone.[35] Thus, even weak and invalid patents become important and can be used to exclude competitors, for example for litigation threats.[36]

Some patent pools contain explicit agreements to support weak patents, such as covenants not to challenge patents, joint defense agreements, and allocation of patent rights to parties who are best able to defend them.[37] Some patent pools achieve a similar effect not by explicit agreements, but by creating an institutional environment where patentees find that it is mutually advantageous to recognize each other’s patents.[38]

B. Other Factors Determining Patent Value in Context of Patent Pool

Besides the patents themselves, other complementary criteria impact on patent value. These comprise of the holistic environment in which the patents subsist, as discussed hereinafter.

Subject matter of Invention
“Value is highly dependent upon the subject matter of the invention.”[39] Certain subject matter fields or innovations do not have sufficient commercial importance or market demand to warrant investments.

Scope of Invention
A particular subject where there is extensive minefield of patents already in existence is less likely to have considerable patent value due to the limited patent scope as opposed to a field where patents are relatively lacking and there is possibility of a broader patent scope. Analogously, “value of a patent is derived from an ability to preclude others from practicing the unique innovation described by the words of the patent’s claims.”[40] “Generalizing, a patent employing broad claim language is typically more valuable than a patent of narrowly written claims in the same technology arena.”[41]

Size of Patent Pool
The size of a patent pool i.e. the number of its members and their patents is an important facet in determining the value of patents involved. Greater the number more are the governance issues as well as royalty determination issues, which in turn affect the valuation of the patents. This though does not imply that pools should be of a specific size, only that their size should meet efficiency demands.

Value of Patent Pool
The patents under the purview of a patent pool determine the pool’s value which in turn determines the value of the patents within as well as out of the pool. Value of a patent pool may be limited if certain holders of essential patents are not members.[42] This may occur due to various reasons such as if it was perceived that the patent may have more value as an independent entity, or due to strategic interests, or choice of joining different pools.[43] Correspondingly, if the patent pool does not contain all the patents it cannot curtail royalty stacking issues for the users. For example, Alcatel-Lucent pursued infringement claims for patents that it alleged covered the MPEG-2 standard and were not in the pool.[44]

While it is evident that collecting all necessary patents where the end product or standards is determined is extremely difficult, it becomes considerably more difficult where there is no predetermined or identifiable end-product.[45]

Patent Portfolio
Certain academic studies are of the opinion that “the real value of patents lies not in their individual significance, but instead in their aggregation into a patent portfolio: a strategic collection of distinct-but-related individual patents that, when combined, confer an array of important advantages upon the portfolio holder.”[46] This theory has been applied to explain the patent paradox where the patent intensity, i.e. patents obtained per research and development dollar has risen dramatically even as the expected value of individual patents has diminished.[47] Thus, greater the control of an entity over a portfolio of patents, more would be its negotiation power in context of valuation.

Signaling
It has been opined that the value of patents inheres not so much in the exclusivity they confer upon inventors, but rather in their ability to serve as credible signals.[48] Firms use patents to credibly convey information about the invention to the market who otherwise might not be willing to expend the costs necessary to obtain the information.[49]

Defensive Aspect
Patent value is also ascertained based on its use to serve as an insurance, whereby competing firms use them as “bargaining chips” to negotiate and secure certain niches in the marketplace.[50] This is so especially from the negotiation as well as the litigation viewpoint.

Valuation Dynamics
In context of certain subject matters, inability of the patents to be valued or possibility of dynamic changes in value creates problems in structuring the patent pool, or it might lead to issues of according over-value or under-value. For example, in the process of biological research, where hypotheses are often adjusted and experimentation continually refined, it is impossible to anticipate the particular value of a given research tool for an investigative procedure.[51] Similarly, in context of the Human Genome Sciences, the patent for the gene that encodes CCR5 protein, was likely not valued very highly, because of unsurity of its utility, which changed when independent research established its importance in the fight against HIV.[52]

C. Role of Independent Evaluator

Often, independent experts in the relevant technology are employed for patent valuation purposes. Their role includes the responsibility of providing a mechanism for determining the market value of each participating patent for the purpose of setting appropriate royalty rates within the patent pool.[53] Also, they would evaluate the current state of the art and determine which patents are essential and which aren’t.[54] An evaluator’s is a continuing responsibility throughout the existence of the duration of the patent pool to monitor developments in the field so as to ensure each patent’s essentiality and incorporate additional patents if necessary.[55] Concerns though have been expressed as regards the expert’s ability and impartiality.[56]

III. Determination of License Fee for a Patent Pool

Theorists, have suggested criteria to gauge viability of patent pools.[57] The various elements involved in structuring of a patent pool do not function in a vacuum. Each has an impact on the other and ultimately they determine in totum, the licensing fees.

A. Pool Dynamics

The factors catalyzing pool creation impact on the licensing fee that is set. A patent pool may primarily be structured due to government influence,[58] court influence,[59] commercial and business perspective,[60] to achieve or pursuant to standard setting,[61] and social objectives.[62] Accordingly, riders may be placed on creation of the pool and setting of licensing fees.

Analogously, members comprising the patent pool affect royalty determinations. Different perspectives can be observed in commercial entities as opposed to research entities or voluntary organizations. Similarly, the negotiation capabilities are different for established commercial conglomerates as opposed to entrepreneurs, or smaller entities.[63] Similarly, patent pools may distinguish between patent contributing licensees and mere licensees in fixing royalty rates.[64]

Furthermore, pool governance as well as nature of the pool would have an impact on royalty determination. Pools can essentially be of two types based on regulation of members or licensing- open and closed.[65] Correspondingly, the patent holders themselves may have different perspectives or expectations of their rights.

The negotiating entity too has an impact on royalty determination. “Agreements between the members of the patent pool and third parties can be established directly through patentees and licensees or indirectly through an entity specifically created to administer the pool.”[66] There are a considerable number of business models involved in context of a patent pool that define the parameters of the relationship between what are primarily classified as IP creators and IP consumers.[67] These dynamics have considerably altered with the strong and prolific emergence of IP intermediaries; they in turn affect the royalty rate negotiations.[68]

B. Negotiation Dynamics

License negotiations involve complicated factors, such as uncertain outcomes, asymmetric information about the values of technologies and the contributions of licensees to a technology's value, the credibility of disagreements, differential bargaining power and skill, and the individual circumstances of licensors and licensees.[69] Royalty determination depends on “the bargaining skills of patentees, their licensing objectives, the qualities of their patents, opportunity costs that patentees may have if they choose not to license their patents, the likelihood of injunctions, and the methods that courts apply to calculate infringement damages.” [70] Pool members act strategically to maximize their share of the pool’s revenues.[71] “The defining characteristic of patent ownership has been described as the right to extract royalties ‘as high as [one] can negotiate with the leverage’ of exclusivity.”[72] “The patent holder can ask for a high starting price; the potential infringer can counter by pointing to potential substitute technologies; and ultimately the process should yield a price that accurately reflects the marginal advantages of the patented technology.”[73] Again, negotiation strategies include deploying a number of tactics by corporates to whittle down an independent inventor’s patience and his price, thus reducing the licensing fee from the desired amount.[74] Correspondingly, there is no average length of time or amount of money needed for successfully creating a patent pool; it depends on the number of members involved in the negotiations and their commitment and willingness to negotiate an appropriate price.[75]

Timing of the license negotiation too has an impact on determination of the royalty scheme. Licensing can occur in two primary settings: ex ante licensing, i.e. prior to pool formation; and ex post, i.e. post pool formation. In ex ante licensing, the manufacturer has a choice to alter existing products to incorporate the patented features, and can thus perform a rational cost-benefit analysis prior to making any product alterations.[76] Analogously, a holdout who demands royalties prior to the final organization of the pool can only demand a royalty that reflects the additional value that his new patent adds to the collection.[77] If he demands more than this value, the pool will work around the holdout’s patent by adopting a different standard, adjusting the patent pool to cover slightly different technology, or dissolving itself.[78] In ex post licensing, on the other hand, a holdout is in a stronger negotiating position, and can demand not only the marginal value of his patent, but also the switching costs that would be incurred if the established standard or licensing regime were limited by a court injunction.[79] Complicating this situation are licenses that are granted ex ante but negotiated ex post.

Furthermore, patent pools are generally voluntary collaborations; however, it is also possible to compel parties to join the pool or risk losing revenue from a large segment of the industry.[80] Depending on the situation, the negotiation dynamics and hence the royalty scheme would be affected.

Rules governing damages for patent infringement also affect patentees’ decision to join a pool or to license independently, as the threat of injunctive relief can provide a patentee with bargaining power that can be disproportional to the number of patents he owns.[81]

C. Terms of License

The terms of the license considerably influence royalty determination. These include, nature of licensed products,[82] character of license- whether exclusive or non-exclusive,[83] granting clause, geographic scope of the license, field of use governed by the license, provision of sublicensing, grantback provisions, future usage governance, non-assertion clauses, reach-through provisions, termination clause, and licensee’s ability to challenge patents in the pool.

Included herein too would be the treatment of after-acquired patents, which in turn can be classified into two types: (1) improvement patents based on a patented technology licensed by another member of the patent pool; and (2) patents unrelated to patented technologies licensed to the members of the patent pool.[84]

License governance in context of graduated and progressive licensing would also influence royalty determination. This would include “provisions for pool members to license their patents without licensing all the patents in a pool”[85] And the freedom “to license their patents bilaterally, i.e., outside of the pool structure.”[86]

IV. Methods for Patent Valuation and License Fee Determination

There are three basic methods of valuation: the cost method,[87] the market method,[88] and the income method.[89] In context of patent valuation, these methods find varied expressions. “A truly accurate assessment of patent value requires intensive legal and technical evaluation of individual patents.”[90] The economics literature, however, has also proposed several proxies for patent value based on objective and readily available information.[91]

In context of patent pools the dynamics of patent valuation methods is altered and they need to be viewed through the prism of factors discussed in Part II. This doesn’t imply that approaches to objective patent valuation are not relevant.[92] “However, such valuation approaches focus only on characteristics of patents at the time of issue and neglect to consider what happens afterwards.”[93] “Technology developments or price fluctuations, among many factors, may alter the relationship between two patents … In turn, this may decrease the value of any static analysis conducted by experts.”[94]

Determination of the licensing fee of a patent pool is based on the joint affect of certain transactions. Again, as with patent valuation, so also with licensing fee determination, in context of patent pools, the factors discussed in Part III need to be given heed. The transactions influencing licensing fee determination essentially comprise of valuation of the patent, which in turn is used to set a royalty rate pertaining to allocation of various fees received by licensing of the pool patents. Thus, royalty payment is comprised of two components: a royalty rate and a royalty base, upon which the rate is applied.[95]

A. Determining an Appropriate Royalty Base

The scope of the royalty base can be determined in two principal ways- apportionment and entire market value rule.

The apportionment principle implies that when a patent reads on the entirety of an infringing product, the royalty base should be the total value of the sales (or use) of that product.[96] When the patent at issue covers only a component of the infringing product, the value of the sales or uses of that item must be apportioned between the patented invention and the remaining unpatented components.[97] Thus, the principle aims at allocating awards in proportion to contribution, and is not based on any value attributable to the infringer’s or third parties’ inventions.[98] Thus, essentially, a licensor garners a royalty fee in proportion to the number of infringed patents owned by him.

The entire market value rule, recognizes that the economic value added to a product by a patented component may be greater than the value of the component alone.[99] Thus, this rule focuses on whether the patented component drives demand for the entire product, and if it is so, then the patentee may treat all revenue from the infringing product as an appropriate royalty base.[100]

B. Setting Royalty Rates

Royalty rates are typically a percentage rate and thus reflects the proportion of the base value that the patented technology contributes.[101] Various approaches have emerged in determining royalty rates; these could be adapted in context of patent pools.

Rule of Thumb
This approach suggests that the licensor should receive 25 percent of the licensee’s gross profit from the licensed technology.[102]Thus, this rule’s purpose is not the valuation of a technology per se, but rather the apportionment of a technology’s value between the licensor and licensee.[103] The percentage split between the licensor and licensee should be adjusted upwards or downwards to take into account the parties’ respective investment and risk in the licensed technology.[104]

Numerical Proportionality
According to this approach, royalty entitlement of the holder of patents essential to a standard should be calculated in light of the proportional contribution of that patent owner’s essential patents compared to the total contribution of all other essential patents reading on the standard.[105] This method rests on the proposition that every patent is of equal value.[106]

Industry Standards / Market or Comparable Technology Method
Under this approach, the worth of a patent is determined by examining the royalty rates garnered in similar past transactions.[107]

Discounted Cash Flow
This approach proposes that patent price can be expressed as the present value of the future stream of economic benefits derived from ownership, which includes projected sales of products (or components) based on the patent over its expected life or any increased share of sales as compared to competitors, net of any capital requirements of production.[108] To implement it, one must determine (1) the future cash flows generated by the patent in question and (2) an appropriate discount rate.[109]

Ranking
This approach compares the intellectual property asset to be valued to comparable intellectual property assets on a subjective or objective scale.[110] There are five components to a ranking method: (i) scoring criteria; (ii) scoring system; (iii) scoring scale; (iv) weighting factors; and (v) decision table; these components are used to calculate a composite score for an asset, which is then compared to the average score for a comparable intellectual property asset to determine the relative value.[111]

Cost-based Rate Setting
This approach proposes that the patent holder’s cost of obtaining the invention and its patent forms the basis of the royalty rate; a profit margin is simply tacked onto the innovation cost.[112]

Surrogate Measures
Surrogate measures value patents by reference to the patents themselves.[113] They can be largely categorized into: (1) the number of patents issued to a company; (2) payment of patent maintenance fees i.e. patents which are regularly renewed are more valuable; (3) prior art citations i.e. more a patent is cited, more is its value; (4) characteristics of litigated patents i.e. patents which are the subject matter of litigation are more valuable.[114]

Disaggregation Methods
There are two basic types of disaggregation methods - value disaggregation and income disaggregation.[115] The former apportions some fraction of total value to intellectual property assets by setting the value of intangible assets equal to the value of a firm minus the firm’s monetary and tangible assets from to determine the value of the intangible assets.[116] The latter apportions some fraction of total earnings of a firm, based upon various factors, to intellectual property assets.[117]

Option Methods
This approach views an investment in intellectual property as an option to develop the intellectual property further, or to abandon the intellectual property, depending upon future technical and market information.[118]

Competitive Advantage Valuation (R)
The major premise of the CAV method is that intellectual property assets have no inherent value; the value of intellectual property assets resides entirely in the value of the tangible assets which incorporate them.[119] The minor premise of the CAV method is that the value of a given intellectual property asset can best be measured by the competitive advantage which that asset contributes to a product, process, or service.[120] In its most general form, CAV method consists of following six basic steps[121]:

The intellectual property asset to be valued (IPA) is associated with a product and the product’s net present value is calculated.
The product's net present value is apportioned among tangible assets, intangible advantages and intellectual property assets. (There are three groups of intellectual property assets: technical [utility patents, functional software copyrights and technical trade secrets]; reputational [trademarks, service marks and brand names]; and operational [business method patents and proprietary business processes].
The product is associated with competition parameters which can be used to compare the product to substitute products and competition parameter weights are calculated. (There are three groups of competition parameters: technical [price and performance], reputational [recognition and impression], and operational [cost and efficiency]. Weights are calculated for each parameter group and for individual parameters within each group).
The IPA is associated with an individual competition parameter and the IPA's competitive advantage relative to substitute intellectual property assets is calculated. (Substitute intellectual property assets are assets which are incorporated in substitute products and associated with the same competition parameter as the IPA).
The IPA is associated with complementary intellectual property assets and the IPA's competitive advantage relative to complementary intellectual property assets is calculated. (Complementary intellectual property assets are assets which are incorporated in the same product and associated with the same parameter group as the IPA).
The value of the IPA is calculated by apportioning a share of the product's intellectual property asset value to the IPA based upon the IPA's competitive advantage contribution relative to substitute and complementary intellectual property assets. If the IPA is associated with multiple products, the IPA's relative competitive advantage contribution to each product is calculated and these contributions are summed to calculate the total value of the IPA. If the IPA is associated with multiple parameters, the IPA's relative competitive advantage contribution for each parameter is calculated and these contributions are summed to calculate the total value of the IPA.

Georgia Pacific
The fifteen factors enumerated in the Georgia Pacific case, several of which repeat approaches discussed above, are used in royalty rate determination:[122]

The royalties received by the patentee for the licensing of the patent in suit, proving or tending to prove an established royalty.
The rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the patent in suit.
The nature and scope of the license, as exclusive or non-exclusive; or as restricted or non-restricted in terms of territory or with respect to whom the manufactured product may be sold.
The licensor’s established policy and marketing program to maintain its patent monopoly by not licensing others to use the invention or by granting licenses under special conditions designed to preserve that monopoly.
The commercial relationship between the licensor and licensee, such as, whether they are competitors in the same territory in the same line of business; or whether they are inventor and promoter.
The effect of selling the patented specialty in promoting sales of other products of the licensee; the existing value of the invention to the licensor as a generator of sales of its non-patented items; and the extent of such derivative or convoyed sales.
The duration of the patent and the term of the license.
The established profitability of the product made under the patent; its commercial success; and its current popularity.
The utility and advantages of the patent property over the old modes or devices, if any, that had been used for working out similar results.
The nature of the patented invention; the character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and produced by the licensor; and the benefits to those who have used the invention.
The extent to which the infringer has made use of the invention; and any evidence probative of the value of that use.
The portion of the profit or of the selling price that may be customary in the particular business or in comparable businesses to allow for the use of the invention or analogous inventions.
The portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the invention as distinguished from non-patented elements, the manufacturing process, business risks, or significant features or improvements added by the infringer.
The opinion testimony of qualified experts.

The amount that a licensor (such as the patentee) and a licensee (such as the infringer) would have agreed upon (at the time the infringement began) if both had been reasonably and voluntarily trying to reach an agreement; that is, the amount which a prudent licensee-which desired, as a business proposition, to obtain a license to manufacture and sell a particular article embodying the patented invention-would have been willing to pay as a royalty and yet be able to make a reasonable profit and which amount would have been acceptable by a prudent patentee who was willing to grant a license.

Academics have prescribed modification to the approach towards these factors analyzing that the relevant questions in calculating a reasonable royalty fall into four basic categories: (1) whether the patentee in fact produces a product in the market; (2) the contribution made by the patented technology compared to the next best alternative; (3) the number and importance of other inputs necessary to make that technology work; and (4) evidence of how the market has actually valued the patent, to the extent it differs from the outcome of (1), (2), and (3).[123]

V. Patent Pool Examples

The following discussion highlights certain aspects of patent pools from real world examples. These examples are restricted to the technological field. Study of these aspects is of value in understanding the concepts discussed hereinbefore.

A. Manufacturers Aircraft Association (MAA)

The MAA was formed in 1917 in U.S.

Apart from the “foundational” patents of Glenn Curtiss and the Wright Brothers, which had substantial royalty rates, most licensing was conducted on a royalty-free basis, with mutual forbearance from infringement suits as the real payment for the exchange.[124]

The MAA was open to anyone who wished to use the Wright-Curtiss designs for a $1000 initiation fee and a licensing fee of $200 per aircraft built; these funds were to be distributed primarily between the Wright and Curtiss interests until each received a sum of $2,000,000 or their key patents expired.[125] MAA retained $ 25 (12.5%) to cover its administrative expenses, $ 135 (67.5%) was paid to the Wright-Martin Aircraft Corporation and $ 40 (20%) was paid to the Curtiss-Burgess Airplane & Motor Corporation.[126]

Patents added to the pool after its formation were divided into two classes- normal patents were licensed into the pool for all to use, with no special royalty payout going to the inventor or firm; exceptional patents earned ongoing royalties, in an amount determined by a formal arbitration procedure.[127]

The MAA also included a grant-back provision that applied to after-acquired patents.[128]

MAA’s members could license their patents to non-members if the terms were no more favorable than to members and any MAA member could withdraw at any time, but its patents in the pool at the time of withdrawal would remain.[129]

B. Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG)

MPEG technology allows for transmission and storage of digital video and audio signals. It was formed by the Trustees of Columbia University, Fujitsu Limited, General Instrument Corp., Lucent Technologies Inc., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Philips Electronics N.C., Scientific Atlanta, Inc., and Sony Corp. in 1997. The patent pool for the MPEG-2 standard is administered by a common license administrator- MPEG-LA

MPEG-LA is required to grant licenses to any potential licensees, without discrimination and at a reasonable royalty rate.

MPEG LA offers a portfolio of MPEG-2 systems licenses with a fixed royalty for each licensed mobile MPEG-2 systems signal receiver and a different fixed royalty for all other MPEG-2 systems devices.[130] Additional patents, not included in the portfolio, are available for specific implementations.[131]

The pool offers a standardized five-year license to all prospective licensees.[132] The licensing royalties do not change if patents are added to the portfolio during the five-year licensing period, although the royalty rate may increase by up to 25% in a license renewal.[133] Each patent in the pool is valued equally.[134]

The license has a grant-back provision that requires the licensee to grant to the licensor and other portfolio licensees a nonexclusive license, under fair and reasonable terms and conditions, on any essential patent that the licensee has a right to license.[135]

There exists a partial termination right given to licensors, who may request that MPEG-LA terminate the license of that licensor’s IPR to a particular licensee, if that licensee has sued the licensor for infringement of an MPEG-2 essential or “related” patent or refused to license a related patent on fair and reasonable terms.[136]

C. DVD

Sony, Philips and Pioneer organized the DVD3C patent pool in 1998 for the licensing of patents that are “essential” to comply with the DVD-Video or DVD-ROM standard specifications.

Royalty payments are allocated under guidelines set by the Ground Rules for Royalty

Allocation rather than on subjective analysis by an expert.[137] The royalty rate in standard licenses is not related to fluctuations in the market price of a licensed product; also, the royalty rate is not computed on a per-patent basis and does not fluctuate as patents are added or removed, therefore, the same royalty rate is payable when using one essential patent as when using several.[138]

Hitachi, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Time Warner, Toshiba, and Victor organized the DVD6C patent pool in 1999 again for the licensing of patents that are “essential” to comply with the DVD-Video or DVD-ROM standard specifications.

The DVD6C pool is also governed by the “Ground Rules for Royalty Allocation” guidelines.[139] The royalties are 4% of the net selling price of the product or U.S. $4.00 per product, whichever is higher. Royalties for DVD decoders are 4% of the net selling price of the product or U.S. $1.00 per product, whichever is higher.[140]

The DVD6C agreement contains a grant-back clause, which, requires licensees to grant each of the licensing companies of DVD6C (and their licensees) a non-exclusive license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms to use any of their patents that are deemed essential for the manufacture, use or sale of DVD Products; this grantback is restricted only to those DVD products actually licensed to the licensee.[141]

D. 3G Mobile Telephony

The 3G Patent Platform Partnership was formed in 1999. The purpose of the 3G Patent Platform Partnership is to allow for “fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory” access to rights essential for implementing the W-CDMA 3GPP standard.[142]

There are three form contracts associated with the Platform: the Framework Agreement, the Standard License, and the Interim License.[143] The Framework Agreement gives each member the choice either to license its essential patents according to the Standard License or to negotiate terms directly with a licensee.[144] The Standard License prescribes standardized royalties for licenses, to be determined by an independent commission.[145] If the patent owner foregoes the Standard License and fails to come to terms in bilateral negotiations, the Interim License comes into effect which has the same royalty terms as the Standard License.[146]

E. Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG)

The Bluetooth SIG was formed in 1997 to provide a technology for interconnection of mobile phones, computers, laptops, printers, PDAs, and other devices via a short-range radio frequency band; SIG oversees the development of Bluetooth standards and its licensing.[147]

SIG’s member companies are divided into three different classes- (1) promoter company, which are intensely engaged in the strategic and technical development of Bluetooth wireless technology; they include Agere, Ericsson, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, and

Toshiba; (2) associate members, who are licensed to use Bluetooth specifications and trademarks; (3) adopted members, which use published specifications and trademarks, but do not influence the specification process, nor do they have early access to unpublished specifications.[148]

SIG licenses to member companies on a royalty-free basis, but, associate members pay an annual fee based on their company’s annual revenue, with “small” associates (less than $100 million USD/year) paying $7,500 USD/year and “large” associates (more than $100 million USD/year) paying $35,000 USD/year; adopted members are not required to pay an annual fee.[149]

VI. Conclusion

As is evident, patent valuation and license fee determination are extremely subjective and case based. Moreover, their dynamics alter according to the situation, as in the context of patent pools. This dynamism is furthered by the fact that there are no strict or universal formulas or procedures which can be applied in such determinations. Furthermore, such determinations cannot be made in a vacuum but are subject to the cascading effect of a multitude of factors comprised of the holistic technological environment that may not be just restricted to the innovation in question.

[1] Krista L. Cox, The Medicines Patent Pool: Promoting Access and Innovation for Life-Saving Medicines Through Voluntary Licenses 4 Hastings Sci. & Tech. L.J. 293 (Summer, 2012) citing IGWG Briefing Paper on Patent Pools: Collective Management of Intellectual Property--The Use of Patent Pools to Expand Access to Essential Medical Technologies, Knowledge Ecology International, (June 3, 2007) quoting Robert P. Merges, Institutions for Intellectual Property Transactions: The Case of Patent Pools, in Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property, Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society 123 (Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss et al. eds., 2001).

[2] Jer Rutton Kavasmaneck v Gharda Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. (Suit No.2932 of 2011; Decided On: 20.03.2012) Bombay H.C. (Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) including the patent right is valuable right for all the commercial purposes. These intangible assets play important role in any financial assessment of the trade/commercial or the market. It changes from time to time, market to market, person to person based upon the situations. If valuation is always a complex and flexible issue and a matter of discussion and debate in business strategies. The patent valuation involves many described and undescribed elements).

[3]Robert P. Merges, Contracting into Liability Rules: Intellectual Property Rights and Collective Rights Organizations 84 Calif. L. Rev. 1293 (October 1996) citing Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 283 U.S. 163, 171 (1931).

[4] Michael S. Kramer, Valuation and Assessment of Patents and Patent Portfolios Through Analytical Techniques 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 463 (Spring, 2007).

[5] Richard J. Gilbert, Ties That Bind: Policies to Promote (Good) Patent Pools 77 Antitrust L.J. 1 (2010) MPEG LA Business Review Letter from Joel I. Klein, Ass’t Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Garrard R. Beeney, Esq., Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (June 26, 1997), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/busreview/215742.pdf; MPEG LA, MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License Briefing (Aug. 4, 2010).

[6] See Kramer, supra n.4 at 463 (essential patents of technical standards are more valuable, on average, than the general population of patents).

[7] Gilbert, supra n.5.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.citing DVD 3C Business Review Letter from Joel I. Klein, Ass't Att'y Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice, to Garrard R. Beeney, Esq., Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (Dec. 16, 1998), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/busreview/2121.pdf.

[11]R. Justin Koscher, A Patent Pool's White Knight: Individual Licensing Agreements And The Procompetitive Presumption 20 DePaul J. Art Tech. & Intell. Prop. L. 53 (Fall, 2009).

[12] Daniel Lin, Research versus Development: Patent Pooling, Innovation And Standardization In The Software Industry 1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 274 (2002).

[13] Steven C. Carlson, Patent Pools and the Antitrust Dilemma 16 Yale J. on Reg. 359 (Summer, 1999).

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Michael A. Sanzo, Antitrust Law And Patent Misconduct In The Proprietary Drug Industry 39 Vill. L. Rev. 1209 (1994).

[21] Gilbert, supra n.5.

[22] Carlson, supra n.13.

[23] Philip B. Nelson, Patent Pools: An Economic Assessment Of Current Law And Policy 38 Rutgers L. J. 539 (Winter, 2007).

[24] Gilbert, supra n.5.

[25] Id.

[26] Carlson, supra n.13.

[27] Gilbert, supra n.5.

[28] Nelson, supra n.23.

[29] David S. Taylor, The Sinking Of The United States Electronics Industry Within Japanese Patent Pools 26 GW J. Int'l L. & Econ. 181 (1992).

[30] Id.

[31] Michael J. Meurer, Business Method Patents and Patent Floods 8 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 309 (2002).

[32] Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, Frontiers of Intellectual Property: Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking 85 Tex. L. Rev. 1991 (June, 2007).

[33] Meurer, supra n.31 (A patent flood occurs when many inventors apply for patents on similar inventions during an interval of a few years).

[34] Id.

[35] Robert P. Greenspoon and Catherine M. Cottle, Don't Assume A Can Opener: Confronting Patent Economic Theories With Licensing And Enforcement Reality 12 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 194 (2011).

[36] Meurer, supra n.31.

[37] Gilbert supra n.5 citing the cross-licensing arrangement between the Singer Manufacturing Company and Gegauf, contained provisions by which each of the parties agreed not to bring any infringement action against the other. United States v. Singer Mfg. Co., 374 U.S. 174, 178 (1963).

[38] Gilbert supra n.5.

[39] Kramer, supra n.4.

[40] Id.

[41] Id.

[42] Jorge L. Contreras, Standards, Patents, and the National Smart Grid 32 Pace L. Rev. 641 (Summer Issue, 2012).

[43] Gilbert, supra n.5 (To the extent that a patent pool successfully lowers total royalties relative to independent licensing, this leaves ‘headroom’ available for an independent licensor outside the pool to charge a high royalty for its patent).

[44] Id. citing Multimedia Patent Trust v. Microsoft Corp., et al., 525 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

[45] Chase A. Marshall, A Comparative Analysis: Current Solutions To The Anticommons Threat 12 J. High Tech. L. 487 (2012); Damien Geradin and Anne Layne-Farrar, Patent Value Apportionment Rules for Complex, Multi-Patent Products 27 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 763 (2010 / 2011) (the typical semiconductor chip likely involves hundreds, perhaps more, patents. In turn, that chip may be intended for use in a laptop computer, the other components of which involve hundreds, or more, patents. Without knowing how many patents actually read on a product, and how many have holders who will actively seek licensing fees, it can be exceedingly difficult to assign the contributed value to those that are known).

[46] Gideon Parchomovsky and R. Polk Wagner, Patent Portfolios 154 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1 (November, 2005); Elizabeth M. Bailey, Gregory K. Leonard and Mario A. Lopez, Making Sense Of “Apportionment” In Patent Damages 12 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 255 (2011) (combining patented technologies typically creates value that is greater than the sum of the parts. For example, patent pools often bring together various technologies that are necessary to create the product in question. The stand-alone value of any one patent in the pool may be low or close to zero unless combined with the other patents in the pool).

[47] Parchomovsky and Wagner, supra n.46.

[48] Id.

[49] Id.

[50] Id.

[51] Scott Iyama, The USPTO's Proposal of a Biological Research Tool Patent Pool Doesn't Hold Water 57 Stan. L. Rev. 1223 (March, 2005).

[52] Bradley J. Levang, Evaluating the Use of Patent Pools For Biotechnology: A Refutation to the USPTO White Paper Concerning Biotechnology Patent Pools 19 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 229 (December, 2002).

[53] Courtney C. Scala, Making the Jump From Gene Pools to Patent Pools: How Patent Pools Can Facilitate the Development of Pharmacogenomics 41 Conn. L. Rev. 1631 (July, 2009).

[54] Id.

[55] Id.

[56] R. Justin Koscher, A Patent Pool's White Knight: Individual Licensing Agreements And The Procompetitive Presumption 20 DePaul J. Art Tech. & Intell. Prop. L. 53 (Fall, 2009) citing DVD-6 Business Review Letter from Joel I. Klein, Assistant Attorney General, to Carey R. Ramos, Esq., of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (June 10, 1999), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/busreview/2485.htm.

[57] Alexander Lee, Examining the Viability of Patent Pools for the Growing Nanotechnology Patent Thicket, 3 Nanotechnology L. & Bus. 317 (2006) suggests that to determine the viability of using a patent pool in a market, companies should ponder the following list of nine criteria: (1) product development driven by standards; (2) moderate fragmentation of patent landscape; (3) at least five pool members; (4) each member working on specific subcomponent of a product; (5) willingness of patent holders to negotiate; (6) commitment by members to create the pool; (7) an industry that is in the later stages of product development; (8) certainty of patent ownership; and (9) a patent pool clear of potential antitrust violations.

[58] See Gilbert, supra n.5 discussing the Manufacturers Aircraft Association, where the U.S. government used the threat of compulsory licensing to compel the pioneers of the aircraft industry to form a patent pool in 1917. The industry was enmeshed in litigation over the scope and validity of patents, and some patentees, particularly the Wright-Martin Company, were demanding royalties that the government and other aircraft manufacturers deemed excessive. Creation of the Manufacturers Aircraft Association patent pool resolved the litigation chaos. The government negotiated a portfolio license from the pool with a royalty of $ 200 per aircraft, which was a fraction of the royalty that Wright-Martin was demanding for a single patent ($ 1,000 per aircraft).

[59] See Carlson, supra n.13 discussing that pool agreements are frequently employed as a means of settling existing litigation, and citing examples including patent pools in the laser eye surgery, and the public key encryption industries;

also see Lemley & Shapiro, Frontiers of Intellectual Property, supra n.32 discussing that the average royalty rate granted in all reasonable-royalty cases is 13.13% of the price of the infringing product, which is much higher than that of patent licenses negotiated without litigation.

[60] See Greenspoon and Cottle, supra n.35 discussing the value of patents as a form of currency that can be used to further goals unrelated to market creation or entry. Such goals can be to improve a firm's competitive position when trying to acquire start-up funds, to improve negotiating terms when licensing other patents, and to reduce the chance of paying excessive royalties to external patent owners;

also see, Gilbert, supra n.5 discussing how different business strategies can cause firms to pool their patents with some firms, but not with others, citing the example of emergence of two pools to license DVD patents as a consequence of differing approaches to industry standards. One explanation offered for the existence of two separate pools is that the two groups could not reach an accord about their respective shares of joint royalty payments.

[61] See Gilbert, supra n.5 discussing how some pools license their patents royalty-free or at royalties that are deliberately held below profit-maximizing levels in an effort to promote adoption of new technologies covered by their patents, citing the example of the Bluetooth Special Interest Group and the Multimedia Home Platform. The article also discusses patent pools formed to license patents that are necessary to implement a defined standard, such as MPEG encoding, DVDs, or mobile telephony.

[62] See Gilbert, supra n.5 discussing pools that limit royalties to promote social objectives rather than to profit from new products citing examples of companies, universities, and research organizations such as Syngenta- an agricultural technology company, the Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture, the SARS IP Working Group, and the UNITAID pool for AIDS medications.

[63] Yuichi Watanabe, Patent Licensing And The Emergence Of A New Patent Market 9 Hous. Bus. & Tax L.J. 445 (2009) (The current state of affairs shows that the patent licensing market strongly favors larger corporations over smaller ones, enabling the larger corporations to reap much of the market opportunities and benefits while limiting them to smaller patentees).

[64] Roger B. Andewelt, Practical Problems In Counseling And Litigating: Analysis Of Patent Pools Under The Antitrust Laws 53 Antitrust L.J. 611 (October 11, 1984/October 12, 1984) (Pools typically contain restrictions on those who join the pool by contributing patents and/or those who take licenses under the pooled patents).

[65]Chase A. Marshall, A Comparative Analysis: Current Solutions To The Anticommons Threat 12 J. High Tech. L. 487 (2012).

[66] Ann Weilbaecher, PSY.D., Diseases Endemic in Developing Countries: How to Incentivize Innovation 18 Ann. Health L. 281 (Summer, 2009).

[67] Greenspoon and Cottle, supra n.35 identify five general types of entities that license and enforce patents: (1) Individual inventors with a single patent; (2) Individual serial inventors; (3) Non-Practicing Entities; (4) Operating companies who practice inventions acquired from others; and (5) Operating companies who practice inventions developed in-house.

[68] See, Raymond Millien and Ron Laurie, A Survey Of Established & Emerging IP Business Models 9 Sedona Conf. J. 77 (2008) discussing various models, viz. Patent Licensing and Enforcement Companies, Institutional IP Aggregators/Acquisition Funds, IP/Technology Development Companies, Licensing Agents, Litigation Finance/Investment Firms, IP Brokers, IP-Based M&A Advisory Firms, IP Auction Houses, On-Line IP/Technology Exchanges, Clearinghouses, Bulletin Boards, and Innovation Portals, IP-Backed Lending, Royalty Stream Securitization Firms, Patent Rating Software and Valuation Services, University Technology Transfer Intermediaries, IP Transaction Exchanges & Trading Platforms/IP Transaction Best Practices Development Communities, Defensive Patent Pools, Funds and Alliances, Technology/IP Spinout Financing, and Patent-Based Public Stock Indexes.

[69] Richard J. Gilbert, Deal or No Deal? Licensing Negotiations In Standard-Setting Organizations 77 Antitrust L.J. 855 (2011).

[70] Gilbert, supra n.5

[71] Merges, Contracting into Liability Rules, supra n.3.

[72] Alan Devlin, Standard-Setting And The Failure Of Price Competition 65 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 217 (2009) citing Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29, 33 (1964).

[73]Doug Lichtman, Understanding The Rand Commitment 47 Hous. L. Rev. 1023 (2010).

[74] Peter N. Detkin, Leveling The Patent Playing Field 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 636 (Summer, 2007).

[75] Lee, infra n.57.

[76] Kelce Wilson, The Four Phases of Patent Usage 40 Cap. U.L. Rev. 679 (Summer, 2012).

[77]Gavin D. George, What is Hiding in the Bushes? eBay's Effect on Holdout Behavior in Patent Thickets, 13 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 557 (2007).

[78] Id.

[79] Id

[80]Daniel R. Cahoy and Leland Glenna, Private Ordering and Public Energy Innovation Policy 36 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 415 (Spring, 2009).

[81] Gilbert, supra n.5; See for example, Merges, Contracting into Liability Rules, supra n.3 describing how in the airplane cross-licensing agreement, it provides that a board of arbitrators may decide in any case what reward should be paid to individual patent owners and this is based not upon the official determination of patentability by the Patent Office, but upon the unofficial determination of the importance of the invention by a board of arbitrators.

[82] See Andewelt, supra n.64 (The scope and variety of patents included vary considerably from pool to pool. Some pools are limited to patents covering a single commercial device. Others contain numerous and diverse patents relating to different devices in different markets).

[83] See, Scala, supra n.53 discussing how the non-exclusive character of a license is particularly important for those firms holding patents whose full utility is unascertainable at the time of the formation of the pool.

[84] Dustin R. Szakalski, Progress In The Aircraft Industry And The Role Of Patent Pools And Cross-Licensing Agreements 2011 UCLA J.L. & Tech. 1 (Spring 2011).

[85] Ed Levy, et. al, Patent Pools And Genomics: Navigating A Course To Open Science? 16 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 75 (Winter, 2010).

[86] Id.

[87] Ted Hagelin, Technology and Legal Practice Symposium Issue: Valuation of Intellectual Property Assets: An Overview 52 Syracuse L. Rev. 1133 (2002) (The cost method of valuation measures the value of an asset by the cost to replace the asset with an identical or equivalent asset. The assumption underlying the cost method of valuation is that the cost to purchase or develop a new asset is commensurate with the economic value that the asset can provide during its life).

[88] Id. (The market method values an asset based upon comparable transactions between unrelated parties).

[89] Id. (The income method values an asset based upon the present value of the net economic benefit (net future income stream) expected to be received over the life of the asset).

[90] Sannu K. Shrestha, Trolls Or Market-Makers? An Empirical Analysis Of Nonpracticing Entities 110 Colum. L. Rev. 114 (January, 2010).

[91]Id.

[92]Colleen V. Chien, From Arms Race to Marketplace: The Complex Patent Ecosystem and Its Implications for the Patent System 62 Hastings L.J. 297 (December, 2010).

[93] Id.

[94]R. Justin Koscher, A Patent Pool's White Knight: Individual Licensing Agreements And The Procompetitive Presumption 20 DePaul J. Art Tech. & Intell. Prop. L. 53 (Fall, 2009).

[95] Geradin and Layne-Farrar, supra n.45.

[96] Id.

[97] Id.

[98] Id.

[99] Id.

[100] Id.

[101] Id.

[102] Hagelin, supra n.87; also see, Geradin and Layne-Farrar, supra n.45.

[103] Id.

[104] Id.

[105] Geradin and Layne-Farrar, supra n.45.

[106] Id.

[107] Hagelin, supra n.87; also see, Geradin and Layne-Farrar, supra n.45.

[108] Geradin and Layne-Farrar, supra n.45.

[109] Malcolm T. "Ty" Meeks & Charles A. Eldering, PhD, Patent Valuation: Aren’t We Forgetting Something? Making the Case for Claims Analysis in Patent Valuation by Proposing a Patent Valuation Method and a Patent-Specific Discount Rate Using the CAPM 9 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 194 (Fall, 2010).

[110] Hagelin, supra n.87.

[111] Id.

[112] Geradin and Layne-Farrar, supra n.45.

[113] Hagelin, supra n.87.

[114] Id.; Meeks & Eldering, supra n.109.

[115] Hagelin, supra n.87.

[116] Id.

[117] Id.

[118] Id.

[119] Id.

[120] Id.

[121] Id.

[122] Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).

[123] Daralyn J. Durie and Mark A. Lemley, A Structured Approach To Calculating Reasonable Royalties 14 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 627 (Summer, 2010).

[124] Merges, Contracting into Liability Rules, supra n.3.

[125] Michael Mattioli, Communities Of Innovation 106 Nw. U.L. Rev. 103 (Winter, 2012).

[126] Szakalski, supra n.84.

[127] Merges, Contracting into Liability Rules, supra n.3.

[128] Mattioli, supra n.125.

[129] Szakalski, supra n.84.

[130] Gilbert, supra n.5.

[131] Carlson, supra n.13.

[132] Id.

[133] Id.

[134] Id.

[135] Lin, supra n.12.

[136] Dorothy Gill Raymond, Benefits and Risks Of Patent Pooling For Standard-Setting Organizations 16 Antitrust ABA 41 (Summer, 2002).

[137] David Serafino, Survey of Patent Pools Demonstrates Variety of Purposes and Management Structures, KEI Research Note 2007:6, Knowledge Ecology International, 4 June 2007.

[138] Id.

[139] Id.

[140] Id.

[141] Id.

[142] Id.

[143] Michael R. Franzinger, Latent Dangers in a Patent Pool: The European Commission's Approval of the 3G Wireless Technology Licensing Agreements 91 Calif. L. Rev. 1693 (December, 2003).

[144] Id.

[145] Id.

[146] Id.

[147] David Serafino, Survey of Patent Pools Demonstrates Variety of Purposes and Management Structures, KEI Research Note 2007:6, Knowledge Ecology International, 4 June 2007.

[148] Id.

[149] Id.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patent-valuation-and-license-fee-determination-in-context-of-patent-pools

ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy – I: DIDP Basics

Vinayak Mithal — 2014-07-01T13:01:34Z

In a series of blogposts, Vinayak Mithal analyses ICANN's reactive transparency mechanism, comparing it with freedom of information best practices. In this post, he describes the DIDP and its relevance for the Internet community.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) is a non-profit corporation incorporated in the state of California and vested with the responsibility of managing the DNS root, generic and country-code Top Level Domain name system, allocation of IP addresses and assignment of protocol identifiers. As an internationally organized corporation with its own multi-stakeholder community of Advisory Groups and Supporting Organisations, ICANN is a large and intricately woven governance structure. Necessarily, ICANN undertakes through its Bye-laws that “in performing its functions ICANN shall remain accountable to the Internet community through mechanisms that enhance ICANN’s effectiveness”. While many of its documents, such as its Annual Reports, financial statements and minutes of Board meetings, are public, ICANN has instituted the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (“DIDP”), which like the RTI in India, is a mechanism through which public is granted access to documents with ICANN which are not otherwise available publicly. It is this policy – the DIDP – that I propose to study.

In a series of blogposts, I propose to introduce the DIDP to unfamiliar ears, and to analyse it against certain freedom of information best practices. Further, I will analyse ICANN’s responsiveness to DIDP requests to test the effectiveness of the policy. However, before I undertake such analysis, it is first good to know what the DIDP is, and how it is crucial to ICANN’s present and future accountability.

What is the DIDP?

One of the core values of the organization as enshrined under Article I Section 4.10 of the Bye-laws note that “in performing its functions ICANN shall remain accountable to the Internet community through mechanisms that enhance ICANN’s effectiveness”. Further, Article III of the ICANN Bye-laws, which sets out the transparency standard required to be maintained by the organization in the preliminary, states - “ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness”.

Accordingly, ICANN is under an obligation to maintain a publicly accessible website with information relating to its Board meetings, pending policy matters, agendas, budget, annual audit report and other related matters. It is also required to maintain on its website, information about the availability of accountability mechanisms, including reconsideration, independent review, and Ombudsman activities, as well as information about the outcome of specific requests and complaints invoking these mechanisms.

Pursuant to Article III of the ICANN Bye-laws for Transparency, ICANN also adopted the DIDP for disclosure of publicly unavailable documents and publish them over the Internet. This becomes essential in order to safeguard the effectiveness of its international multi-stakeholder operating model and its accountability towards the Internet community. Thereby, upon request made by members of the public, ICANN undertakes to furnish documents that are in possession, custody or control of ICANN and which are not otherwise publicly available, provided it does not fall under any of the defined conditions for non-disclosure. Such information can be requested via an email to didp@icann.org.

Procedure

Upon the receipt of a DIDP request, it is reviewed by the ICANN staff.
Relevant documents are identified and interview of the appropriate staff members is conducted.
The documents so identified are then assessed whether they come under the ambit of the conditions for non-disclosure.
- Yes - A review is conducted as to whether, under the particular circumstances, the public interest in disclosing the documentary information outweighs the harm that may be caused by such disclosure.
- Documents which are considered as responsive and appropriate for public disclosure are posted on the ICANN website.
- In case of request of documents whose publication is appropriate but premature at the time of response then the same is indicated in the response and upon publication thereafter, is notified to the requester.

Time Period and Publication

The response to the DIDP request is prepared by the staff and is made available to the requestor within a period of 30 days of receipt of request via email. The Request and the Response is also posted on the DIDP page http://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency in accordance with the posting guidelines set forth at http://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/didp.

Conditions for Non-Disclosure

There are certain circumstances under which ICANN may refuse to provide the documents requested by the public. The conditions so identified by ICANN have been categorized under 12 heads and includes internal information, third-party contracts, non-disclosure agreements, drafts of all reports, documents, etc., confidential business information, trade secrets, information protected under attorney-client privilege or any other such privilege, information which relates to the security and stability of the internet, etc.

Moreover, ICANN may refuse to provide information which is not designated under the specified conditions for non-disclosure if in its opinion the harm in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Further, requests for information already available publicly and to create or compile summaries of any documented information may be declined by ICANN.

Grievance Redressal Mechanism

In certain circumstances the requestor might be aggrieved by the response received and so he has a right to appeal any decision of denial of information by ICANN through the Reconsideration Request procedure or the Independent Review procedure established under Section 2 and 3 of Article IV of the ICANN Bye-laws respectively. The application for review is made to the Board which has designated a Board Governance Committee for such reconsideration. The Independent Review is done by an independent third-party of Board actions, which are allegedly inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation or Bye-laws of ICANN.

Why does the DIDP matter?

The breadth of ICANN’s work and its intimate relationship to the continued functioning of the Internet must be appreciated before our analysis of the DIDP can be of help. ICANN manages registration and operations of generic and country-code Top Level Domains (TLD) in the world. This is a TLD:

(Source: here)

Operation of many gTLDs, such as .com, .biz or .info, is under contract with ICANN and an entity to which such operation is delegated. For instance, Verisign operates the .com Registry. Any organization that wishes to allow others to register new domain names under a gTLD (sub-domains such as ‘benefithealth’ in the above example) must apply to ICANN to be an ICANN-accredited Registrar. GoDaddy, for instance, is one such ICANN-accredited Registrar. Someone like you or me, who wants to get our own website – say, vinayak.com – buys from GoDaddy, which has a contract with ICANN under which it pays periodic sums for registration and renewal of individual domain names. When I buy from an ICANN-accredited Registrar, the Registrar informs the Registry Operator (say, Verisign), who then adds the new domain name (vinayak.com) to its registry list, and then it can be accessed on the Internet.

ICANN’s reach doesn’t stop here, technically. To add a new gTLD, an entity has to apply to ICANN, after which the gTLD has to be added to the root file of the Internet. The root file, which has the list of all TLDs (or all ‘legitimate’ TLDs, some would say), is amended by Verisign under its tripartite contract with the US Government and ICANN, after which Verisign updates the file in its ‘A’ root server. The other 12 root servers use the same root file as the Verisign root server. Effectively, this means that only ICANN-approved TLDs (and all sub-domains such as ‘benefithealth’ or ‘vinayak’) are available across the Internet, on a global scale. Or at least, ICANN-approved TLDs have the most and widest reach. ICANN similarly manages country-code TLDs, such as .in for India, .pk for Pakistan or .uk for the United Kingdom.

All of this leads us to wonder whether the extent of ICANN’s voluntary and reactive transparency is sufficient for an organization of such scale and impact on the Internet, perhaps as much impact as the governments do. In the next post, I will analyse the DIDP’s conditions for non-disclosure of information with certain freedom of information best practices.

Vinayak Mithal is a final year student at the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. His interests lie in Internet governance and other aspects of tech law, which he hopes to explore during his internship at CIS and beyond. He may be reached at vinayakmithal@gmail.com.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann2019s-documentary-information-disclosure-policy-2013-i-didp-basics

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

nehaa — 2014-07-01T11:09:08Z

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

India Becomes the First Country to Ratify the Marrakesh Treaty

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

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

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

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

Accessible Books Consortium Launched

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

What Does it Do?

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

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

India, WBU and IPA delighted

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

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

June 2014 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2014-07-14T10:05:11Z

Our newsletter for month of June is below:

Highlights

Nehaa Chaudhari participated in a Stakeholders Consultation organized by the Planning Commission and the Ministry of Human Resource Development in New Delhi, February 21, 2014, on Mapping Institutions of Intellectual Property. She blogged about the outcome in a two-part series. The first part discusses establishment of a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights and the second part deals with the documents introduced at the Stakeholders’ Consultation for India’s National Programme on Intellectual Property.
For the first time in the history of Indian books, 10 Telugu books by a single author were released under Creative Commons license (CC-BY-SA 3.0). These books will be uploaded on Telugu Wikisource and converted into Unicode (searchable) text. This will ensure that these books are freely read, both online and offline in various formats like PDF, epub, mobi, text, etc. This is a major milestone initiative by CIS-A2K to make the sum of all knowledge in Telugu freely available to all Telugus over the internet.
ICANN published a call for public comments on "Enhancing ICANN Accountability" in the wake of the IANA stewardship transition spearheaded by ICANN and related concerns of ICANN's external and internal accountability mechanisms. CIS submitted its comments.
ICANN sought comments on the existing barriers to Registrar Accreditation and operation and suggestions on how these challenges might be mitigated. CIS sent its comments.
Vodafone, the world’s second largest mobile carrier released a report disclosing to what extent governments can request their customers’ data. Joe Sheehan analyses the report to tell us that if more companies were transparent about the level of government surveillance their customers were being subjected to then the public would press the government for stronger privacy safeguards and protections.

Accessibility and Inclusion

Under a grant from the Hans Foundation we are doing two projects. The first project is on creating a national resource kit of state-wise laws, policies and programmes on issues relating to persons with disabilities in India. We compiled the National Compendium of Policies, Programmes and Schemes for Persons with Disabilities (29 states and 6 union territories). We will be publishing this soon. The draft chapters along with the quarterly reports can be accessed on the project page. The second project is on developing text-to-speech software for 15 Indian languages. The progress made so far in the project can be accessed here.

NVDA and eSpeak

►Monthly Update

Work Report for June (by Suman Dogra, June 30, 2014).

►Other

Blog Entry

For a Truly Inclusive Consultative Process (by Amba Salelkar, June 25, 2014).

Media Coverage

NISH Website to Help the Disabled (The New Indian Express, June 26, 2014).

Access to Knowledge

As part of the Access to Knowledge programme we are doing two projects. The first one (Pervasive Technologies) under a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is for research on the complex interplay between pervasive technologies and intellectual property to support intellectual property norms that encourage the proliferation and development of such technologies as a social good. The second one (Wikipedia) under a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation is for the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects.

►Analysis

Mapping Institutions of Intellectual Property (Part A): India's National Programme on Intellectual Property Management (by Nehaa Chaudhari, June 10, 2014). This discusses establishment of a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights.
Mapping Institutions of Intellectual Property: Part B — India's National Program on Intellectual Property Management (by Nehaa Chaudhari, June 26, 2014). This deals with the documents introduced at the Stakeholders’ Consultation for India’s National Program on Intellectual Property

►Participation in Event

Yogyakarta Meeting on Open Culture and Critical Making (organized by organized by HONF Foundation, Catec, and r0g, June 12 – 15, 2014). Sharath Chandra Ram was a panelist.

Wikipedia

As part of the project grant from the Wikimedia Foundation we have reached out to more than 3500 people across India by organizing more than 100 outreach events and catalysed the release of encyclopaedic and other content under the Creative Commons (CC-BY-3.0) license in four Indian languages (21 books in Telugu, 13 in Odia, 4 volumes of encyclopaedia in Konkani and 6 volumes in Kannada, and 1 book on Odia language history in English).

The following were done this month:

►Articles / Blog Entries

Twitter weekly Curation WeAreWikipedia brings one Wikipedian Every Week (by Diptiman Panigrahi, June 16, 2014).
This Twitter Account Puts a Face to the Unsung Volunteer Editors Behind Wikipedia (by Subhashish Panigrahi, Global Voices, June 18, 2014).
Odia Language gets a new Unicode Font Converter (by Subhashish Panigrahi, June 20, 2014).
Ten Telugu Books Re-released Under CC-BY-SA 3.0 License (by Rahmanuddin Shaik, June 22, 2014).

►Events Organized

Kannada Wikipedia Workshop for Kannada Book Lovers (co-organized by Navakarnataka Publications, Bangalore, June 4, 2014). Dr. U.B.Pavanaja conducted the workshop.
Knowledge and Openness in the Digital Era (co-organized by Andhra Loyola College and CIS, Vijaywada, June 24-25, 2014).

►News and Media Coverage
CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Knowledge and Openness in the Digital Era: Coverage in Sakshi (Sakshi, June 25, 2014).
Knowledge and Openness in the Digital Era: Coverage in Enadu (Enadu, June 25, 2014).
Loyola Faculty Enlightened About Open Edn Resources (The New Indian Express, June 25, 2014).

Internet Governance

Freedom of Expression

As part of our project on Freedom of Expression (funded through a grant from the MacArthur Foundation) to study the restrictions placed on freedom of expression online by the Indian government and contribute to the debates around Internet governance and freedom of expression at forums like ICANN, ITU, IGF, WSIS, etc., we bring you the following outputs:

►Submissions

CIS Comments: Enhancing ICANN Accountability (by Geetha Hariharan, June 10, 2014).
Comments to ICANN Supporting the DNS Industry in Underserved Regions (by Jyoti Panday, June 13, 2014).

►Blog Entries

Free Speech and Contempt of Court: Overview (by Gautam Bhatia, June 8, 2014).
Multi-stakeholder Models of Internet Governance within States: Why, Who & How? (by Geetha Hariharan, June 16, 2014).
UN Human Rights Council Urged to Protect Human Rights Online (by Geetha Hariharan, June 19, 2014).
Free Speech and Source Protection for Journalists (by Gautam Bhatia, June 19, 2014).
WSIS+10 High Level Event: A Bird's Eye Report (by Geetha Hariharan, June 20, 2014).
Understanding IANA Stewardship Transition (by Smarika Kumar, June 22, 2014).
IANA Transition: Suggestions for Process Design (by Smarika Kumar, June 22, 2014).
Free Speech and Civil Defamation (by Gautam Bhatia, June 25, 2014).
CIS Policy Brief: IANA Transition Fundamentals & Suggestions for Process Design (by Geetha Hariharan and Smarika Kumar, June 22, 2014).
An Evidence based Intermediary Liability Policy Framework: Workshop at IGF (by Jyoti Panday, June 30, 2014).

►FOEX Live
We are also posting a selection of news from across India implicating online freedom of expression and use of digital technology: June 8 – 15, 2014 and June 16 – 23, 2014.

Privacy

As part of our Surveillance and Freedom: Global Understandings and Rights Development (SAFEGUARD) project with Privacy International we are engaged in enhancing respect for the right to privacy in developing countries. We have produced the following outputs during the month:

►Blog Entries

A Review of the Functioning of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal and Adjudicatory Officers under the IT Act (by Divij Joshi, June 16, 2014).
Content Removal on Facebook — A Case of Privatised Censorship? (by Jessamine Mathew, June 16, 2014).
Vodafone Report Explains Government Access to Customer Data (by Joe Sheehan, June 16, 2014).

►Event Organized

Privacy and Surveillance Roundtable (co-organized with the Cellular Operators Association of India and the Council for Fair Business Practices, June 28, 2014, IMC Building, Churchgate, Mumbai).

►Participation in Events

Commonwealth Domain Name System Forum 2014 (organized by the CTO, hosted by ICANN, and supported by Nominet and the Public Interest Registry, London, June 19, 2014). Pranesh Prakash was a panelist. Jyoti Panday participated in the event.
Research Advisory Network Meeting (organized by the Global Commission on Internet Governance’s Research Advisory Network, OECD Headquarters, Paris, June 26-27, 2014). Sunil Abraham was a panelist.

►News & Media Coverage

CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Right to be forgotten poses a legal dilemma in India (by Leslie D' Monte, Livemint, June 5, 2014).
Stay connected even when you go underground (by Sunita Sekhar, The Hindu, June 12, 2014).

Digital Humanities

CIS is building research clusters in the field of Digital Humanities. The Digital will be used as a way of unpacking the debates in humanities and social sciences and look at the new frameworks, concepts and ideas that emerge in our engagement with the digital. The clusters aim to produce and document new conversations and debates that shape the contours of Digital Humanities in Asia:

►Blog Entries

Not a Goodbye; More a ‘Come Again’: Thoughts on being Research Director at a moment of transition (by Nishant Shah, June 15, 2014).
Living in the Archival Moment (by P.P. Sneha, June 19, 2014).

Telecom

CIS is involved in promoting access and accessibility to telecommunications services and resources and has provided inputs to ongoing policy discussions and consultation papers published by TRAI. It has prepared reports on unlicensed spectrum and accessibility of mobile phones for persons with disabilities and also works with the USOF to include funding projects for persons with disabilities in its mandate:

►Newspaper Column

A Great Start (for the Modi government) (by Shyam Ponappa, Business Standard and Organizing India Blogspot, June 5, 2014).

About CIS

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness (including open government, FOSS, open standards, etc.), and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
Visit us at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Access_To_Knowledge
E-mail: a2k@cis-india.org

► Support Us

Please help us defend consumer / citizen rights on the Internet! Write a cheque in favour of ‘The Centre for Internet and Society’ and mail it to us at No. 194, 2nd ‘C’ Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru – 5600 71

► Request for Collaboration:

We invite researchers, practitioners, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to collaboratively engage with Internet and society and improve our understanding of this new field. To discuss the research collaborations, write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org or Nishant Shah, Director – Research, at nishant@cis-india.org. To discuss collaborations on Indic language Wikipedia, write to T. Vishnu Vardhan, Programme Director, A2K, at vishnu@cis-india.org.

CIS is grateful to its primary donor the Kusuma Trust founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin for its core funding and support for most of its projects. CIS is also grateful to its other donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and IDRC for funding its various projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/june-2014-bulletin

Access to Knowledge Bulletin — June 2014

praskrishna — 2014-10-04T15:31:04Z

The Access to Knowledge (Wikipedia) newsletter for the month of June 2014:

Telugu Books Re-release Under Creative Commons License

Ten Telugu Books Re-released Under CC-BY-SA 3.0 License (by Rahmanuddin Shaik, June 22, 2014). For the first time in the history of Indian books, 10 Telugu books by a single author were released under Creative Commons license (CC-BY-SA 3.0) on June 22, 2014 at 10 a.m. at Golden Threshold, Abids, Hyderabad.
CIS-A2K has collaborated with Telugu Wikipedians in convincing Indu Gnaana Vedika to re-release 10 of their books under CC-BY-SA 3.0 license which is compatible with Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Unlike the predominant digitization efforts (which only makes scanned images available), these books will be uploaded on Telugu Wikisource and converted into Unicode (searchable) text. This will ensure that these books are freely read, both online and offline in various formats like PDF, epub, mobi, text, etc. This is a major milestone initiative by CIS-A2K to make the sum of all knowledge in Telugu freely available to all Telugus over the internet and is part of its Telugu language area plan.

Article

This Twitter Account Puts a Face to the Unsung Volunteer Editors Behind Wikipedia (by Subhashish Panigrahi, Global Voices, June 18, 2014).

Blog Entries

Twitter weekly Curation WeAreWikipedia brings one Wikipedian Every Week (by Diptiman Panigrahi, June 16, 2014).
Odia Language gets a new Unicode Font Converter (by Subhashish Panigrahi, June 20, 2014).

Events Organized

Kannada Wikipedia Workshop for Kannada Book Lovers (co-organized by Navakarnataka Publications, Bangalore, June 4, 2014). Dr. U.B.Pavanaja conducted the workshop.
Knowledge and Openness in the Digital Era (co-organized by Andhra Loyola College and CIS, Vijaywada, June 24-25, 2014).

News and Media Coverage

CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Knowledge and Openness in the Digital Era: Coverage in Sakshi (June 25, 2014).
Knowledge and Openness in the Digital Era: Coverage in Enadu (June 25, 2014).
Loyola Faculty Enlightened About Open Edn Resources (The New Indian Express, June 25, 2014).

Wikimedia Foundation has funded A2K to anchor the growth of Wikimedia movement in India. The A2K team consists of six members, four based in Bangalore: T. Vishnu Vardhan, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja, Subhashish Panigrahi and Rahmanuddin Shaikh. One team member Nitika Tandon is based in Delhi. We also have one Advisor Dr. Tejaswini Niranjana working with us. Archives of our newsletters can be accessed here. Wikipedians from various communities can request for outreach programs, technical bugs, logistics-merchandize and media, public relations and communications here.

About CIS

Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
CIS group on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/cis.india
Visit us at: https://cis-india.org

Request for Collaboration:

We invite researchers, practitioners, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to collaboratively engage with Internet and society and improve our understanding of this new field. To discuss the research collaborations, write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org or Nishant Shah, Director – Research, at nishant@cis-india.org. To discuss collaborations on Indic language wikipedia, write to T. Vishnu Vardhan, Programme Director, A2K, at vishnu@cis-india.org.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/access-to-knowledge-bulletin-june-2014

PMA Policy and COAI Recommendations

dipankar — 2014-07-02T06:45:22Z

Introduction

The Ministry of Communications and Information Technology on the 10th of February, 2012 released a notification [1] in the Official Gazette outlining the Preferential Market Access [2] Policy for Domestically Manufactured Electronic Goods 2012. The Policy is applicable to procurement of telecom products by Government Ministries/Departments and to such electronics that had been deemed to having security concerns, thus making the policy applicable to private bodies in the latter half. The Notification reasoned that preferential access was to be given to domestically manufactured electronic goods predominantly for security reasons. Each Ministry or Department was to notify the products that had security implications, with reasons, after which the notified agencies would be required to procure the same from domestic manufacturers. This policy was also meant to be applicable to even procurement of electronic goods by Government Ministries/Agencies for Governmental purposes except Defence. Each Ministry would be required to notify its own percentage of such procurement, though it could not be less than 30%, and also had to specify the Value Addition that had to be made to a particular product to qualify it as a domestically manufactured product, with the policy again specifying the minimum standards. The policy was also meant for procurement of electronic hardware as a service from Managed Service Providers (MSPs).

The procurement was to be done as according to the policies of the each procuring agency. The tender was to be apportioned according to the procurement percentage notified and the preference part was to be allotted to the domestic manufacturer at the lowest bid price. If there were no bidders who were domestic manufacturers or if the tender was not severable, then it was to be awarded to the Foreign Manufacturer and the percentage adjusted as against other electronic procurement for that period.

Telecom equipment that qualifies as domestically manufactured telecom products for preferential market access include: encryption and UTM platforms, Core/Edge/Enterprise routers, Managed leased line network equipment, Ethernet Switches, IP based Soft Switches, Media gateways, Wireless/Wireline PABXs, CPE, 2G/3G Modems, Leased-line Modems, Set Top Boxes, SDH/Carrier Ethernet/Packet Optical Transport Eqiupments, DWDN systems, GPON equipments, Digital Cross connects, small size 2G/3G GSM based Base Station Systems, LTE based broadband wireless access systems, Wi-Fi based broadband wireless access systems, microwave radio systems, software defined radio cognitive radio systems, repeaters, IBS, and distributed antenna system, satellite based systems, copper access systems, network management systems, security and surveillance communication systems (video and sensors based), optical fiber cable.

The Policy also mentioned the creation of a self-certification system to declare domestic value addition to the vendor. The checks would be done by the laboratories accredited by the Department of Information Technology. The policy was to be in force for a period of 10 years and any dispute concerning the nature of product was to be referred to the Department of Information Technology.

International and Domestic Response to the Policy

There was a large scale opposition, usually from international sectors, towards the mooting of this policy. Besides business houses, even organizations like those of the United States Trades Representatives criticized the policy as being harmful to the global market and in violation of the World Trade Organization Guidelines.[3] Criticism also poured in from domestic bodies in terms of recommendations towards modification of the policy largely on three grounds: (i) the high domestic value addition requirement and the method of calculation of the same, (ii) the lack of a link between manufacturing and security and (iii) application of the policy to the private sector.

The Cellular Operations Association of India (COAI) in a letter dated March 15, 2012 to the Secretary of the Department Technology and Chairman of the Telecom Commission expressed its views on the telecom manufacturing in the country.[4]The COAI stated that such a development had to be done realistically and holistically so that the whole eco-system was developed as a comprehensive whole. In that regard it also forwarded a study that had been commissioned by COAI and conducted by M/s. Booz and Company titled “Telecom Manufacturing Policy – Developing an Actionable Roadmap”. The report was a comprehensive study of the telecom industry and outlined the challenges and opportunities that lay on its development trajectory. It also talked about Government involvement in the development process. The Report while citing the market share of Indian Telecom Industry which would be around 3% [5] of the Global Market highlighted the fact that no country could be self-sufficient in technology. It further talked about the development of local clusters in order to cut costs and encourage manufacturing, while ensuring that the PMA Policy was consistent with the WTO Guidelines. It further recommended opening up of foreign investments and making capital available to ensure growth of innovation. Finally it highlighted the lack of a connection between manufacturing and security and instead stressed upon proper certification, checks and development of a comprehensive CIIP framework across all sensitive networks for security purposes.

In a further letter to the Joint Secretary of the Department of Information and Technology dated April 25, 2012 the COAI expressed some reservations concerning the draft guidelines that had been published along with the notification.[6] While stressing upon the fact that a higher value addition would be impossible with the lack of basic manufacturing capabilities for the development of technological units, it also highlighted the need to redefine Bill of Materials which had been left ambiguous and subject to exploitation. It further highlighted the fact that allowing every Ministry to make its own specifications would lead to inconsistent definitions and an administrative challenge and hence such matters should be handled by a Central Body. Furthermore it opined that the calculation of BOMs and the Value Additions should be done using the concept of substantial transformation as has been given in the Booz Study. Furthermore, while discouraging the use of disincentives, it stated that one individual Ministry should be in charge of specifying such incentives to avoid confusion and for the sake of ease of business.

In another letter to a Member of the Department of Telecommunications dated July 12, 2012 the COAI stressed upon the futility of having high value additions as the same was impossible under the present scenario.[7] There was a lack of manufacturing sector which had to be comprehensively developed backed by fiscal incentives and comprehensive policies. In spite of that, it stressed that no country could become self-reliant and that such policies, like the PMA, were reminiscent of the “license and permit raj” era. It further said that such policies should be consistent with WTO Guidelines and should not give undue preference to domestic manufacturers to the detriment of other manufacturers. Countering the security aspect, it said that the same had been addressed by the DoT License Amendment of May 31, 2011 whereby all equipments on the network would have to comply with the “Safe to Connect” standard, and stressed upon the lack of any link between manufacturing and security. Furthermore for calculation of Value Addition it suggested an alternative to the method proposed by the Government as the same would lead to disclosures of sensitive commercial information which were contained in the BOMs. The COAI said that the three stages as laid out in the Substantial Transformation (as mentioned in the Booz Study) should be used for calculating the VA. It made several proposals to develop the telecom manufacturing industry in India including provision of fiscal incentives, development of telecom clusters and comprehensive policies which led to harmonization with laws and creation of SEZs among other such benefits.

In October 2012 the Government released a draft notification notifying products due to security consideration in furtherance of the PMA Policy.[8] The document outlined the minimum PMA and VA specification for a range of products. It also stated several security reasons for pursuing such a policy and stated that India had to be completely self-reliant for its active telecom products. It also contained data on the predicted growth of the telecom market in India. The COAI thereafter released a document commenting upon the draft notification of the Government.[9]

Besides highlighting the fact that the COAI still had not received a response to its former comments, it again stressed upon the lack of a link between security and manufacturing. It reiterated its point on the impossibility of a complete self-reliance on any nation’s part, and stressed upon the need of involving other stakeholders in the promulgation of such policies. It also made changes to the notified list of equipments, reclassifying it according to technology and only listing equipments which had volumes. Furthermore it also suggested changes towards the calculation of value addition to include materials sourced from local suppliers, in-house assemblage to be considered local material and the calculation to be done for complete order and not for each item in the order. It further recommended a study be conducted and the industry be involved while predicting demands as such were dated and needed revision. The Government thereafter released a revised notification[10] on October 5, 2012 but it did not contain much of the commented changes that the COAI had proposed.

Thereafter in April 2013, the DeitY released draft guidelines[11] for providing preference to domestically manufactured electronic products in Government Procurement in further of the second part of the PMA Policy. The guidelines besides containing definitions to several terms such as BOM also prescribed a minimum of 20% domestic procurement while leaving the specifications onto individual Ministries. It recommended the establishment of a technical committee by the concerned Ministry or Department that would recommend value addition to products. It followed a BOM based calculation of Value Addition while leaving the matter of certification to be dealt by DeitY certified laboratories that are notified for such purposes by the concerned Ministry/Department. DeitY was the nodal ministry for monitoring the implementation of the policy while particular monitoring was left to each Ministry or Department concerned. Among the annexures were indicative lists of generic and telecom products and a format for Self Certification regarding Domestic Value Addition in an Electronic Product.

The COAI thereafter released a revised draft containing its own comments on April 15, 2013.[12] The COAI pointed out faults in the definition of BOM. It highlighted the difficulty in splitting R&D according to countries, and also stressed upon the impractical usage of BOM in calculation of value addition as the same was confidential business information. As it had already suggested earlier, it reiterated the usage of the Substantial Transformation process for the calculation of Value Addition. While removing the lists of equipments mentioned, it further pointed out that the disqualification in the format for self-certification would be a very harsh disincentive and would result in driving away manufacturers. It suggested that there should be incentives for compliance instead.

The COAI along with the Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India sent a letter dated January 24, 2013 to the Secretary, DoT containing their inputs on Draft List of Security Sensitive Telecom Products for Preferential Market Access (PMA).[13] It again stressed upon the fact that security and manufacturing were not related and that the security aspect had been dealt by the “Safe to Connect” requirement mandated by the DoT License Amendment. It talked of the impossibility of arriving at VA figures until the same is defined to internationally accepted norms. Further it opined that if the Government had security concerns it should consider VA at a network level in the configurations as would be deployed in the network or its segments rather at element or subsystem levels as the latter would leave too many calculations open and the procurement entities will find it very difficult to ensure if they meet the PMA requirement or not. It further stressed upon the need to comply with WTO Guidelines while stressing upon the need to pay heed to certification standards than pursue the unavailable link between manufacturing and security through a PMA Policy. Finally it suggested a grouping of telecom products for the policy based on technology rather than individual products.

Pursuant to a Round Table Conference Organized by the Department of Information and Technology, AUSPI and COAI sent another letter dated April 15, 2013 to the Secretary, Department of Information and Technology.[14] It reiterated several points that both the AUSPI and COAI had been suggesting to the Government on the Telecom Manufacturing Policy. It cited the examples of other manufacturing nations to reiterate the fact that no country could be completely self-reliant in manufacturing electronics and such positions would only lead to creation of an environment that would not be conducive to global business. It further stressed upon the need to change the manner of calculation of VA while highlighting the fact that every Department should notify its list of products having security implications and the list of telecom equipment should be deleted from the draft guidelines being issued by DeitY to ensure better implementation.

A major change came in on July 8, 2013 when the Prime Minister’s Office made a press release withdrawing the PMA policy for review and withholding all the notifications that had been issued in that regard.[15] It said that he revised proposal will incorporate a detailed provision for project / product / sector specific security standards, alternative modes of security certification, and a roadmap for buildup of domestic testing capacity. It further noted that the revised proposal on PMA in the private sector for security related products will not have domestic manufacturing requirements, percentage based or otherwise and that the revised proposal will incorporate a mechanism for a centralised clearing house mechanism for all notifications under the PMA Policy.

The COAI thereafter on November 7, 2013 sent a letter to the DoT containing feedback on the list of items slated for Government procurement.[16] It noted that there were 23 products on which PMA was applicable. It pointed out that there were no local manufacturers for many of the products notified. It also asked the Government to take steps to ensure that fiscal incentives were given to encourage manufacturing sector which was beset by several costs such as landing costs which acted as impediments to its development. It stressed upon the tiered development of the industry needed to ensure that a holistic and comprehensive growth is attained which would result in manufacturing of local products. It requested that the Government "focus on right enablers (incentives, ecosystem, infrastructure, taxation) as the outcome materializes once all of these converge."

The COAI sent a further letter dated November 13, 2013 to the DoT concerning the investment required in the telecom manufacturing industry.[17] It noted the projected required investment of 152bn USD in the telecom sector and that the Government had projected that 92% of the investment would have to come from the Private Sector. COAI, while stressing upon the need of the Government and the Private Industry to work in tandem with each other, suggested that the Government devise methods to attract investments in the telecom sectors from international telecom players and that the Telecom Equipment Manufacturing Council meet to review and revise methods for attracting such investments.

Pursuant to the PMO directive, DeitY released a revised PMA Policy on the 23rd of December, 2014.[18] While there have been a few major changes, not all of recommendations by various bodies have been adhered to.[19] The major changes in the revised policy included the exemption of the private sector from the policy and the removal of PMA Policy to equipments notified for security reasons. The manner of calculation of the domestic value addition has not been changed though there has been a reduction in the percentage of value addition needed to qualify a product as domestic product. Another addition has been of a two-tiered implementation mechanism for the Policy. Tier-I includes a National Planning and Monitoring Council for Electronic Products which would design a 10-year roadmap for the implementation of the policy including notification of the products and subsequent procurement. Under Tier-II, the Ministries and Departments will be issuing notifications specifying products and the technical qualifications of the same, after approval by the Council. The former notifications under the 2012 Policy, including the notification of 23 telecom products by Department of Telecom,[20] are still valid until revised further.[21]

[1]. No. 8(78)/2010-IPHW. Available at http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/5-10-12.PDF (accessed 03 June, 2014).

[2]. Preferential Market Access

[3]. See The PMA Debate, DataQuest at http://www.dqindia.com/dataquest/feature/191001/the-pma-debate/page/1 (accessed June 2014).

[4]. The letter is available at http://www.coai.com/Uploads/MediaTypes/Documents/letter-to-dit-on-pma-notification.pdf (accessed June, 2014).

[5]. Around $17bn.

[6]. The letter is available at http://www.coai.com/Uploads/MediaTypes/Documents/letter-to-dit-on-pma-notification.pdf (accessed June, 2014).

[7]. The letter is available at http://www.coai.com/Uploads/MediaTypes/Documents/coai-to-dot-on-enhancing-domestic-manufacturing-of-telecom-equipment-bas.pdf (accessed June, 2014).

[8]. The notification no. 18-07/2010-IP can be found at http://www.coai.com/Uploads/MediaTypes/Documents/DoT-draft-notification-on-Policy-for-preference-to-domestically-manufactured-telecom-products-in-procurement-October-2012.pdf (accessed June, 2014).

[9]. The commented COAI draft can be found at http://www.coai.com/Uploads/MediaTypes/Documents/Annexure-1-Comments-on-draft-notification-by-DoT.pdf (accessed June, 2014).

[10]. Available at http://www.coai.com/Uploads/MediaTypes/Documents/dots-notification-on-telecom-equipment-oct-5,-2012.pdf (accessed June, 2014).

[11]. The draft guidelines can be found at http://www.coai.com/Uploads/MediaTypes/Documents/pma_draft-govt-procurement-guidelines-april-2013.pdf (accessed June, 2014).

[12]. The COAI commented draft can be found at http://www.coai.com/Uploads/MediaTypes/Documents/pma-draft-security-guidelines-15-april-2013.pdf (accessed June, 2014).

[13]. The letter can be found at http://www.coai.com/Uploads/MediaTypes/Documents/jac-007-to-dot-on-Januarys-list-of-telecom-products-final.pdf (accessed June, 2014).

[14]. The letter can be found at http://www.coai.com/Uploads/MediaTypes/Documents/jac-to-moc-on-pma.pdf (accessed June, 2014).

[15]. The press release can be found at http://www.coai.com/Uploads/MediaTypes/Documents/pmo-on-pma.pdfhttp://www.coai.com/Uploads/MediaTypes/Documents/pmo-on-pma.pdf (accessed June, 2014).

[16]. The letter can be found at http://www.coai.com/Uploads/MediaTypes/Documents/COAI-letter-to-DoT-on-Feedback-on-List-of-Items-for-Govt-Procurement.pdf (accessed June, 2014).

[17]. The letter can be found at http://www.coai.com/Uploads/MediaTypes/Documents/COAI-letter-to-DoT-on-Investments-Required-(TEMC)-Nov%2013-2013.pdf (accessed June, 2014).

[18]. The Notification No. 33(3)/2013-IPHW can be found at http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Notification_Preference_DMEPs_Govt_%20Proc_23_12_2013.pdf (accessed June, 2014).

[19]. For more information, see http://electronicsb2b.com/policy-corner/revised-preferential-market-access-policy/# (accessed June, 2014).

[20]. The notification has been mentioned and discussed above.

[21]. A list of notifications dealing with electronic products except telecom products can be found on the website of DeitY at http://deity.gov.in/esdm/pma (accessed June, 2014).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/pma-policy-and-coai-recommendations

For a Truly Inclusive Consultative Process

salelkar — 2014-07-02T04:44:14Z

At Inclusive Planet we attempt to engage as many people with disabilities as possible with the consultative process which precedes the enactment of legislation and policy, and we are very happy with the NDA Government’s positive steps in putting out all proposed amendments to the public at large for feedback.

Some of the areas on which public comment has been sought is the proposed repeal and reenactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, the amendments of three labour laws viz. the Factories Act, the Minimum Wages Act, and the Prevention of Child Labour Act, and the Railways Ministry has asked for comments towards the formulation of the Rail Budget. All of these are extremely key legislations and in fact there is a lot to contribute in terms of suggesting enabling provisions towards accessibility and recognizing potential discrimination against persons with disabilities.

Unfortunately, the disabilities sector is faced with two major problems when it comes to this process. One is that the material which is uploaded onto the respective government websites is inaccessible for screen readers. Many of these are large documents which are essentially scanned copies of the printed notifications – for example, the Factories Act press release is now available in an easier format than the original version which had been uploaded. The websites themselves are not easy to navigate and are not screen reader friendly. Efforts are on by the newly launched India Access Hub to convert these documents into an accessible format for contributors and discussions on their forum, however, the process seems tedious and there is no reason why the Government bodies cannot ensure that the best possible document, screen reader compatibility wise, is not made available to the public. This would ensure that precious time is not consumed in the process of making the document accessible.

Which is closely linked to the second issue – the comments and suggestions which have been called for are required within a short period of time – between 15 days (Juvenile Justice Act) to 30 days (all three labour legislations) and while the advertisement for the Railway Budget appears to have been put out on the weekend of the 21^st of June, since the budget itself is slated to be tabled on the 8^th of July by recent media reports, feedback is realistically required within this week itself. The process becomes exclusionary on account of these narrow deadlines – the presumption being made is that specialized agencies with able-bodied representatives can revert speedily with their feedback. The disability sector is quite keen on responding to all proposed legislation, as the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities demand compliance in terms of non discrimination and access across all sectors. It is also difficult to respond with such momentum considering that many stakeholders are not online, and for some, processing and expressing viewpoints may take longer than the average person, not to mention the importance of making this information available in a simplified format. Ideally, any person with impairment should be able to express their views and be considered as a stakeholder; however, with the barriers in place which prevent effective access and accommodation to the expression of views, 15% of the population may effectively be disabled to that extent.

This is by no means a new complaint – the lack of accessibility of government documentation has been rampant and raised before previous Governments as well – however, the hope is that with the NDA Government’s manifesto focus on using information technology to alleviate the concerns of persons with disabilities, that the mandate for all Government Websites to be compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 will be implemented with immediate effect, and in the meantime that Government Officials be instructed to upload fully accessible documents to their websites. It would also not be out of place to institute a common information portal for all documents open for public consultation to make such access easier for all.

There should never be any bar on access to information: particularly that which affords an opportunity to the public to be heard and considered. It is sincerely hoped that the new Government takes a much needed positive step in this direction.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/for-a-truly-inclusive-consultative-process

Loyola Faculty Enlightened About Open Edn Resources

praskrishna — 2014-07-02T04:50:48Z

“The tremendous changes in the digital technology have introduced the newage faculty to certain open and collaborative tools like Wiki, termed as open educational resources (OER),” Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) progarmme director T Vishnu Vardhan has said.

The article published in the New Indian Express on June 25, 2014 can be read here. T. Vishnu Vardhan gave his inputs.

Adressing a two-day national workshop on ‘“Openness of Knowledge in Digital Era’ at Andhra Loyola College here Tuesday, Vishnu Vardhan stressed that within this context of digital era, openness and transparency gained newer significance, which creates a pre-condition for the transformation of society into knowledge society.

Pointing out that many of the websites were offering opportunity to access the information in almost all Indian languages and with everyone making use of Wikipedia as an OER tool, he explained the changes in the digital technology and also introduced the faculty to certain open and collaborative tools like Wikipedia.

Besides to giving a historical overview of the free and open source software movement, mass collaboration on the internet, details about Wikipedia authors and users, the participants were educated about using the simple technological tools like QR code to create increased and seamless access to knowledge using pervasive technologies like mobile phones.

Graduate and postgraduate teaching faculty from various streams partcipated in the workshop meant to discuss and learn new development in the fields of knowledge sharing and access in digital era.

CIS programme officer Rahimanuddin Shaik, jounalist Malladi Kameswara Rao, ALC principal Fr Kishore, college vice-principal Fr Anil kumaralso participated.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-new-indian-express-june-25-2014-loyola-faculty-enlightened-about-open-edn-resources