Centre for Internet and Society

Response to Suggestions and Comments Sent on GIGW by Committee Members

Admin — 2017-11-26T06:55:12Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/files/response-to-suggestions-and-comments-sent-on-gigw-by-committee-members

Advocating for Openness: Nine Ways Civil Society Groups Have Mobilized to Defend Internet Freedom

Admin — 2017-11-26T03:58:47Z

The debate over whether the Internet is a better tool for democratic empowerment or authoritarian control misconstrues the nature of the democratic challenges of the digital age.

The blog post by Sarah Oh was published by the Center for International Media Assistance on November 15, 2017

Key Findings

Civil society groups from the Global South are leading the charge to advocate for an Internet that remains open, pluralistic, and democratic. The nine case studies highlighted in this report demonstrate various ways groups in different countries have successfully fought for policies and norms that strengthen Internet freedom and digital rights. These strategies include awareness-raising, nonviolent direct action, regional and international coalition-building, and strategic litigation.

Media freedom advocates have been at the forefront of many Internet freedom efforts.
Threats to independent media online and freedom of expression continue to mount as authoritarian regimes become more technologically savvy.
Building broad civil society coalitions around Internet rights increases the chances of long-term success.

Introduction

The debate over whether the Internet is a better tool for democratic empowerment or authoritarian control misconstrues the nature of the democratic challenges of the digital age. The Internet is not a tool, but a complex domain of “competing forces and constraints.”1 These forces are comprised of powerful businesses, states, politicians, criminal enterprises, advocacy groups: in short, all of the elements present in any democracy. But in this cyber-democracy, forces compete in part on the shifting ground of the technological and physical infrastructure of the Internet, where some players wield more power than others with an ability to mold the terrain in their favor. Authoritarian states aware of what is at stake in the evolution of the Internet are beginning to engage in long-term and well-resourced efforts to undermine the democratic rights of citizens in this more fundamental way.

In a reference to the distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks that take down a specific website, these broader efforts represent what some have called a “distributed denial-of-democracy” (DDoD) attack aimed at reducing the utility of the Internet for genuine democratic discourse. These efforts, which are coordinated and well resourced, are often more insidious, harder to detect, and have the overall effect of undermining civic engagement and overall trust in the media ecosystem.

And while the diffuse and fast-changing nature of Internet can at times make it difficult for authoritarian regimes to exert their control, the complex interplay between technology, laws, infrastructure, and socio-political factors shaping the Internet make it equally difficult for democratic actors to counteract these DDoD strategies. As an additional obstacle, the values that underpin Internet freedom can be sidelined in the forums and governing bodies that set Internet standards by the dominance in those spaces of private tech companies concerned primarily with generating profits.

Formidable though they may be, these challenges are not insurmountable. Civil society groups from the Global South are leading the charge to advocate for an Internet that remains open, pluralistic, and democratic. The nine case studies highlighted in this report demonstrate various ways groups in different countries have successfully fought for policies and norms that strengthen Internet freedom and digital rights. These strategies include awareness-raising, nonviolent direct action, regional and international coalition-building, and strategic litigation.

Each of the following case studies corresponds to one of the nine guiding principles of a Democratic Framework to Interpret Open Internet Principles. This framework was collaboratively developed by a network of civil society groups worldwide to illuminate the ways that an open Internet is essential for the functioning of democratic societies. It was inspired by the norms and standards developed by the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition (IRPC) of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum.

The framework is an important starting point for more effective, coordinated effort to ensure that the Internet remains a welcoming place for democratic life. Its aim is to create a consensus around the values that should shape the future development of the Internet. But moreover, it also provides an avenue for understanding and sharing knowledge on the concrete strategies that can be put into practice in different contexts to make sure that the Internet remains a level playing field. The following nine examples demonstrate how citizen groups can mobilize to enshrine such democratic principles in cyberspace.

“The debate over whether the Internet is a better tool for democratic empowerment or authoritarian control misconstrues the nature of the democratic challenges of the digital age.”

1. Freedom of Expression

In the Philippines, a cybercrime law introduced in 2012 proposed increasing penalties for libel and giving authorities unchecked power to track information online. Internet freedom activists worried several provisions of the law would infringe on freedom of expression by preventing Filipinos from freely posting content on websites, and participating in online forums and discussions without fear of being blocked or facing serious penalties. In response, pro-democracy organizations from across the political spectrum joined together to challenge the constitutionality of the law. Through protests, roundtables, and capacity building activities, they raised awareness and encouraged advocacy efforts around the dangers the law posted to freedom of expression and privacy. The Foundation for Media Alternatives (FMA ), a digital rights organization founded after the fall of the Marcos dictatorship and the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA), a broad nationwide coalition of pro-democracy and Internet freedom advocates, were among the organizations in the front lines on the struggle. PIFA was even one of the 20 organizations to file 15 petitions to the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of the law.

Public efforts in the courts and actions in the streets contributed to the takedown of three contested provisions of the law, including provision that would allow government to block or restrict access to computer data. The Supreme Court declared these provisions unconstitutional and delayed implementation of the law. Despite public concerns about the surviving provisions, the national campaign against the cybercrime law led to a turning point for Filipino activists; it showed the power of people coming together and fighting for the importance of digital rights in the Philippines. Initially fragmented, the campaign led to a larger movement unified under the goal of protecting human rights and freedom of expression online. Thus, it took the introduction of a flawed law and active public campaigns to initiate a broader dialogue about privacy, surveillance, and digital security. Digital rights communities across Southeast Asia have been inspired by Filipino advocacy efforts, which they have understood to be an example of how to communicate the balance required between anti-cybercrime measures with fundamental rights to a public audience.

2. Freedom of Assembly and Association

Social media is an important organizing tool for journalists and advocacy groups in Uganda. Facebook, WhatsApp, and other messaging applications have been used to share political knowledge, connect leaders with supporters, and organize events — even share information about government abuses. During national ‘Walk to Work’ protests in 2011, organized to protest living costs after presidential elections, Facebook and Twitter provided a steady stream of updates from protestors, bystanders, and journalists.

Using social media, however, can have dangerous consequences for marginalized groups such as the LGBT community. The government of Uganda has been known to collect user information and prosecute individuals based on information shared on social media. Uganda is one of 76 countries where homosexuality is currently criminalized, and LGBT activists fear that their online conversations will be monitored and used against them. By posting information taken from photos and content posted on Facebook, a local tabloid exposed the identity of numerous members of the LGBT community in 2011 and again in 2014. The tabloid stories in 2011 are believed to have contributed to the killing of David Kato, a prominent gay rights activist.

Furthermore, the government has repeatedly restricted access for advocacy groups to use the Internet to share political information. In 2016, the country’s media regulator restricted the use of WhatsApp, Facebook, and Twitter to prevent the organizing of protests before presidential elections in February as the government had done before in 2011. In both cases, the electoral commission enforced the social media shut-down.

Civil society groups have responded in two ways. First, they have sought to deepen their digital security capacity. To protect against threats to journalists, LGBT organizations, and other groups have learned how to use Facebook and social media applications more securely and to implement other practices that increase their privacy. In the lead up to the 2016 election this included the use of virtual private networks (VPNs) to share information. Civil society groups spread information about how to use them through radio broadcasts. The fact that the hashtag #UgandaDecides trended on Twitter shows how they were able to spread their knowledge through local networks and connect with international media. Secondly, civil society groups built coalitions with international organizations to draw attention to abuses taking place in Uganda. In 2016, Access Now supported a coalition of groups to demand that the government stop the Internet shutdown as part of the #KeepitOn campaign.

3. Accessibility

In Nigeria, national broadband plans have overlooked rural communities, leaving them with low bandwidth and high-cost options for Internet access. This means that broadband and mobile data fees are unaffordable to many in Nigeria, especially the poor. Fixed-line broadband subscriptions cost an average of 39 percent of average income, and mobile broadband packages cost 13 percent. Given that approximately 80 percent of Nigerians earn below the poverty line ($2 a day or less), access to the Internet is out of reach and unaffordable for a majority of citizens in Nigeria.

The Alliance for Affordable Internet, a global coalition working on Internet affordability, works with Nigerian civil society leaders to raise awareness around this issue through thematic working groups. The consumer advocacy and pricing transparency working group, for instance, works closely with a coalition of Nigerian NGOs that have been leading campaigns to raise awareness about pricing and taxation policies that have been proposed in Nigeria. One proposed policy includes imposing a nine percent tax on voice, data, and SMS services to consumers. This policy would make the Internet dramatically more expensive for Nigerian consumers. Groups say they worry about the consequences of the proposed policy in an environment where farmers are forced to climb trees just to get a stable Internet connection.

Civil society leaders who are part of the coalition have worked to build a healthy dialogue between regulators, civil society, and the government. A key strategy, according to activists, has been encouraging groups to find constructive ways to work with government and leveraging the interests of each of these groups to protect and drive down costs for Nigerian consumers. They seek to build relationships with the regulator and to inform them about ways to better communicate with and engage consumer groups, such as sharing their content through social media rather than press releases. Another important learning has been identifying champions within government to work on these issues.

4. Privacy and Data Protection

In Burma, gaps in the law have left citizens vulnerable when it comes to privacy and data protection. Restrictions on privacy have eased since the country’s transition from military rule, but a lack of data protection laws and general lack of awareness around privacy and data protection present significant challenges for protecting an open Internet.

Messaging applications such as Viber and Facebook Messenger, for example, are the de-facto tool for communication for activists and are used to organize political events and activities. Cheaper than voice calls, far more accessible than landlines, and easier to use than email, these tools are the primary way people in Burma communicate. Activists have received harsh penalties for sharing content that may be viewed as threatening state security. These applications are often not secure, making it possible for Burma state authorities or agents of the state to intercept their conversations. During a crackdown on student protests in March 2015, mobile phones were taken by police. Activists worried at the time that information on these phones would eventually be used against them.

Observing the need to protect activists and educate them about data protection, activists in 2016 formed a coalition, Digital Rights MM. The coalition, led by Phandeeyar, Myanmar Center for Responsible Business, Myanmar ICT for Development, and Free Expression Myanmar, has led a national conversation on the issue. Drawing on expertise from the region and international organizations, 22 local Burma-based organizations have been successful in pointing out gaps when it comes to privacy and freedom of expression in the national telecommunications law, a comprehensive law that oversees the development of the telecommunications sector in Burma. They also participated in meetings with the government and launched a public facing campaign #ourvoiceourhluttaw pushing to amend 23 articles, including one on lawful interception of data.

“Messaging applications such as Viber and Facebook Messenger, for example, are the de-facto tool for communication for activists and are used to organize political events and activities.”

5. Personal Safety and Security

In Pakistan, women face threats of physical, sexual, and psychological harassment online. Leaking explicit photos and threats of blackmail are growing increasingly more common. From 2014 to 2015, more than 3,000 cybercrimes were reported to the Federal Investigation Agency and of those cases, nearly half were targeted to women on social media. Observers estimate far more cases go unreported. In fact, in workshops conducted by the The Digital Rights Foundation, many female college students reported that they did not know cyber harassment was a crime.

Online platforms are an important space for political engagement, expression, and mobilization in Pakistan. Thus, online harassment directly impacts the political participation of women, including female journalists and women politicians. In 2016 the Digital Rights Foundation established a Cyber Harassment Helpline that women can reach out to for help when they are harassed on the Internet. One of the main objective of the helpline is to help bridge the trust deficit between survivors and law enforcement agencies. An analysis of more than 400 cases showed that the most common barriers to equal participation are non-consensual use of information, impersonation, account hacking, black mailing, and receiving unsolicited messages; the most targeted groups include women, children, human rights defenders, and minority communities. The Digital Rights Foundation has also been leading efforts to strengthen legal protections for women and responding to survivors by recommendations to law enforcement agencies and the government. Pakistan has a National Response Centre for Cybercrime, but it has faced challenges serving women outside of major cities.

6. Inclusion

In India, the population of people with disabilities is estimated to be as high as 150 million people, and the recorded rates of those who are vision-impaired are among the highest in the world. Indian digital rights advocacy groups, like the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) have worked to ensure that these individuals are able to participate fully online by promoting policies that prioritize accessibility. These include the National Policy on Universal Electronics Accessibility, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, and Guidelines for Indian Government Web (GIGW), which all require government information be shared in formats that are accessible. Advocacy groups, however, have successfully shown that policies alone are not enough and have taken action to ensure persons with disabilities have access to critical resources and information online.

Mobile phones in particular are a vital portal to access government services, but mobile applications remain largely inaccessible to many people with disabilities, especially those with vision disabilities. For example, CIS observed in 2015 that the MyGov, the Indian Government’s mobile citizen engagement platform and the Prime Minister’s application was highly inaccessible: screens cannot be navigated by visually impaired users and can also not be read using a screen reader. Based on this, CIS with other advocacy organizations worked on framing accessibility guidelines for mobile applications recommended to the Government of India as a standard. Advocacy groups, such as the National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP), have also been appealing to the private sector to ensure products designed to serve these needs are affordable and readily available to people with disabilities. They appeal to Indian companies and policymakers by advocating for the universal appeal of assistive technology to ensure disabled communities are not left behind.

Sustained advocacy, new legal mandates applied to public and private sectors, and increased research in this domain have helped advance the issue of accessibility of mobile applications. The country’s National Informatics Centre has set up a committee to revise the GIGW to bring them up to speed with international standards.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/news/cima-sarah-oh-november-15-2017-openness-nine-ways-civil-society-groups-have-mobilized-to-defend-internet-freedom

CIS Comments on TRAI Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing

sinha — 2017-11-26T02:56:15Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) sent comments to the TRAI Consultation Paper on promoting telecom equipment manufacturing. CIS submission drew primarily from the research done in the Pervasive Technologies project.

Read TRAI's Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing

Preliminary

This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet and Society, India ("CIS") on the Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing dated 18.09. 2017, released by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), under Department of Telecom, Ministry of Communications and Information Technologies (“the TRAI Consultation Paper”).
We commend TRAI for its efforts at seeking inputs from various stakeholders on this important and timely issue and are thankful for the opportunity to put forth our views.
We have addressed questions 3 and 5 of the TRAI Consultation Paper. Question numbers referred to in our submission correspond to those in the TRAI Consultation Paper.
Further, the Department of Industrial Planning and Promotion (DIPP) invited comments on SEPs and their availability on FRAND terms on 01. 03. 2016.[1] CIS submitted a detailed response to the consultation, and our present submission will draw significantly from our earlier response[2], as well as new empirical research concluded in the since the time of the consultation.

About CIS

CIS[3] is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. Our areas of focus include IP rights, openness, internet governance, telecommunication reform, free speech, intermediary liability, digital privacy, cyber-security, and accessibility for persons with diverse abilities.
We strive to maximise public benefit, useful innovation, vibrant competition and consumer welfare. This submission is consistent with our commitment to the domestic goals (as enumerated in Make in India and Digital India), and the protection of India's national interest at the international level.

Submission on the Issues for Resolution

“Q.3 Are the existing patent laws in India sufficient to address the issues of local manufacturers? If No, then suggest the measures to be adopted and amendments that need to be incorporated for supporting the local telecom manufacturing industry.”

We submit that amendments to the Patents Act, 1970 may not be preferred, presently. It may be noted that there have been no judgments concluded by Indian courts on disputes relating to licensing of SEPs, yet. Justice Bakhru’s landmark order in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Competition Commission of India (2016) provided valuable clarity on the issue of conflict between remedies under Patents Act, 1970 and Competition Act, 1970. As various other matters are yet to be conclusively decided, and given the complex legal questions involved around the interpretation of Patents Act, 1970 and Competition Act, 2002, and constitutional issues around the jurisdiction of regulators and the power of judicial review of the courts, we believe that it would be prudent to examine the ruling of the courts on these issues in some detail, before considering amendments.

However, to support the local telecom manufacturing industry the Government of India may adopt and implement the following measures:

Develop Model Guidelines to improve the working of Indian Standard Setting Organisations (SSOs): Given the increasing complexity and time-consuming nature of SEP litigation in India, there is a tangible threat of the abuse of the FRAND process, it might be useful for the government to make suggestions on the working of Indian SSOs. The functioning of Indian SSOs has not been satisfactory and it is suggested that the government develop Model Guidelines that may be adopted by Indian SSOs, taking into account India specific requirements. The India specific requirements include a large and exponentially growing mobile device market which has made it possible for manufacturers, patent owners and implementers alike to achieve financial gains even with a low margin. We believe that this measure will also enable the fulfillment of the objectives of the Make in India and Digital India initiatives.

We recommend that various stakeholders, including IP holders, potential licensees and users of IP, civil society organizations, academics, and, government bodies, including the Indian Patent Office, the Department of Telecommunications, the DIPP, TRAI, and, the CCI be consulted in the creation of these Model Guidelines.

In our opinion, the Model Guidelines may cover (a) the composition of the SSO; (b) the process of admitting members; (c) the process of the determination of a standard or technical specification; (d) the process of declassification of a standard or technical specification; (e) the IPR Policy; (f) resolution of disputes; (g) applicable law.
Initiate the formation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and cap royalty payments: In light of the observed inadequacies in the IPR policies of various SSOs in India, as well the spate of ongoing patent infringement lawsuits around mobile technologies, we recommend that the government intervene in the setting of royalties and FRAND terms by setting up a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and apply a compulsory license with a five per cent royalty. Further, patent pools should be required to offer FRAND licenses on the same terms to both members and nonmembers of the pool.

Our motivations for this proposal are manifold. In our opinion, it is nearly impossible for potential licensees to avoid inadvertent patent infringement. As a part of our research on technical standards applicable to mobile phones sold in India, we have found nearly 322 standards so far.[4] It is submitted that carrying out patent searches for all the standards would be extremely expensive for potential licensees. Further, even if such searches were to be carried out, different patent owners, SSOs and potential licensees disagree on valuation, essentiality, enforceability, validity, and coverage of patents. In addition, some patent owners are non-practising entities and may not be members of SSOs. The patents held by them are not likely to be disclosed. More importantly, homegrown manufacturers that have no patents to leverage and may be new entrants in the market would be especially disadvantaged by such a scenario. Budget phone manufacturers, standing to incur losses either as a result of heavy licensing fees, or, potential litigation, may close down. Alternatively, they may pass on their losses to consumers, driving the now affordable phones out of their financial reach. With the objectives of Make in India and Digital India in sight, it is essential that Indian consumers continue to have access to devices within their purchasing power.

Further, how did we arrive at a cap of 5 percent? The rationale for this figure is the royalty cap imposed by India in the early 1990s. As part of regulating foreign technology agreements, the (former) Department of Industrial Development (later merged with DIPP) capped royalty rates in the early 1990s. Payment of royalties was capped at either a lump sum payment of $2 million, or, 5 percent on the royalty rates charged for domestic sale, and, 8 percent for export of goods pertaining to “high priority industries”.[5] Royalties higher than 5 percent or 8 percent, as the case may be, required securing approval from the government. While the early 1990s (specifically, 1991) was too early for the mobile device manufacturing industry to be listed among high priority industries, the public announcement by the government covered computer software, consumer electronics, and electrical and electronic appliances for home use. The cap on royalty rates was lifted by the DIPP in 2009.[6] It is submitted in the case of mobile device technology, we are witnessing a situation similar to that of the 1990s. In this sphere, most of the patent holders are multinational corporations which results in large royalty amounts leaving India. At the same time, litigation over patent infringement in India has limited the manufacture and sale of mobile devices of homegrown brands. While SEP litigation in India is indeed comparable to international SEP litigation on broader issues raised, specifically competition law concerns, but differs crucially where the parties are concerned. International SEP litigation is largely between multinational corporations with substantial patent portfolios, capable of engaging in long drawn out litigations, or engaging in other strategies including setting off against each other’s patent portfolios. Dynamics in the Indian market differ – with a larger SEP holder litigating against smaller manufacturers, many of whom are indigenous, homegrown.

In June, 2013, we had recommended to the erstwhile Hon’ble Minister for Human Resource Development[7] that a patent pool of essential technologies be established, with the compulsory licensing mechanism. Subsequently, in February, 2015, we reiterated this request to the Hon’ble Prime Minister.[8] We propose that the Government of India initiate the formation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and mandate a five percent compulsory license.[9] As we have stated in our request to the Hon’ble Prime Minister, we believe that such a pool would “possibly avert patent disputes by ensuring that the owners' rights are not infringed on, that budget manufacturers are not put out of business owing to patent feuds, and that consumers continue to get access to inexpensive mobile devices. Several countries including the United States issue compulsory licenses on patents in the pharmaceutical, medical, defence, software, and engineering domains for reasons of public policy, or to thwart or correct anticompetitive practices.”[10] We believe that such a measure will not be in breach of our international obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.
Increase transparency in the patent system by making patentees comply with the law: The Patents Act, 1970 requires patentees and licensees to submit a statement on commercial working of the invention to the Controller every year.[11] Form 27 under section 146(2) of the Act lists the details necessary to be disclosed for compliance of the requirement of “working”. A jurisprudential analysis reveals the rationale and objective behind this mandatory requirement. Undeniably, the scheme of the Indian patent regime makes it amply clear that “working” is a very important requirement, and the public as well as competitors have a right to access this information in a timely manner, without undue hurdles. Indeed, as the decision[12] in Natco Pharma v. Bayer Corporation[13] reveals, the disclosures in Form 27 were crucial to determining the imposition of a compulsory license on the patentee. Thus, broadly, Form 27 disclosures can critically enable willing licensees to access patent “working” information in a timely manner.

However, there has been little compliance of this requirement by the patentees, despite the Indian Patent Office (IPO) reiterating the importance of compliance through the issuance of multiple public notices[14] (suo motu and in response to a public interest litigation filed in 2011[15]), and, reminding the patentees that noncompliance is punishable with a heavy fine.[16] Findings of research submitted by one of the parties[17] in the writ of the 2011 public interest litigation Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India and others[18] reveal as follows. First, a large number of Form 27s are unavailable for download from the website of the IPO. This possibly indicates that the forms have either not been filed by the patentees with the IPO, or have not been uploaded (yet) by the IPO. Second, a large number of filings in the telecom sector remain incomplete.

In 2015, CIS queried the IPO website for Form 27s of mobile device patents to arrive at a similar conclusion. We obtained 4,916 valid Form 27s, corresponding to 3,126 mobile device patents from public online records. These represented only 20.1% of all Forms 27 that should have been filed and corresponded to only 72.5% of all mobile device patents for which Forms 27 should have been filed. Forms 27 were missing for almost all patentees, and even among Forms 27 that were obtained, almost none contained useful information regarding the working of the subject patents or fully complying with the informational requirements of the Indian Patent Rules.[19]

Further, in our study, we observed that patentees adopted drastically different positions regarding the definition of patent working, some arguing that importation of products into India or licensing of Indian suppliers constituted working, while others even went so far as to argue that the granting of a worldwide license to a non-Indian firm constituted working in India. Several significant patentees claimed that they or their patent portfolios were simply too large to enable the provision of information relating to individual patents, and instead provided gross revenue and product sale figures, together with historical anecdotes about their long histories in India.

The Indian government has made little or no effort to monitor or police compliance with Form 27 filings, undoubtedly leading to significant non-compliance. We also propose the alteration of the Form 27 template[20] to include more disclosures.[21] Presently, patentees are required to declare number of licensees and sub-licensees. We specifically propose that the format of Form 27 filings be modified to include patent pool licenses, with an explicit declaration of the names of the licensees and not just the number.
Require royalty rates to be decided on the basis of the Smallest Saleable Patent Practicing Component: Most modern telecommunication and IT devices are complex with numerous technologies working in tandem. Different studies indicate that the number of patents in the US applicable to smartphones is between 200,000 and 250,000.[22] A comprehensive patent landscape of mobile device technologies conducted by CIS reveals that nearly 4,000 patents are applicable to mobile phones sold in India.[23] It is thus extremely difficult to quantify the exact extent of interaction and interdependence between technologies in any device, in such a way that the exact contribution of the patented technology to the entire device can be determined. Thus, we submit that royalty rates for SEPs should be based on the smallest saleable patent practising component, and not on the net price of the downstream product.

The net cost of the device is almost always several times that of the chipset that implements the patented technology. Armstrong et al[24] have found that the cost of a 4G baseband chip costs up to $20 including royalties in a hypothetical $400 phone sold in the US. One of the litigating parties in the ongoing patent infringement lawsuits in India has stated that one of the reasons for preferring to leverage its patents as downstream as possible in the value chain is that it will earn the company more royalties.[25] In instances where patent exhaustion occurs much earlier in the value chain, such as in the case of the company’s cross-licenses with Qualcomm (another company that owns patents to chip technologies), the company does not try to obtain royalties from the selling prices of devices for the cross-licensed technologies. It is submitted that such market practices could be detrimental to the government’s objectives such as providing a mobile handset to every Indian by 2020 as a part of the Digital India programme.[26] It is also worth noting in this context that the mobile device is the first and only medium of access to the Internet and telecom services for a large number of Indians, and, consequently, the only gateway to access to knowledge, information and critical services, including banking.[27]

“Q.5 Please suggest a dispute resolution mechanism for determination of royalty distribution on FRAND (Fair Reasonable and Non Discriminatory) basis.”

The licensing of SEPs on FRAND terms requires the parties to negotiate “reasonable” royalty rates in good faith, and apply the terms uniformly to all willing licensees. It is our submission that if the parties cannot agree to FRAND terms, they may enter into binding arbitration. Further, if all efforts fail, there exist remedies under the Patents Act and the Competition Act, 2002 to address the issues.

Section 115 of the Patents Act empowers the court to appoint an independent scientific adviser “to assist the court or to inquire and report upon any such question of fact or of opinion (not involving a question of interpretation of law) as it may formulate for the purpose.”[28] Such an independent adviser may inform the court on the technical nuances of the matter.

Further, under the Patents Act, pending the decision of infringement proceedings the Court may provide interim relief, if the plaintiff proves first, a prima facie case of infringement; second, that the balance of convenience tilts in plaintiff’s favour; and, third, that if an injunction is not granted the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable damage. However, it is our suggestion that courts adopt a more cautious stance towards granting injunctions in the field of SEP litigation. First, in our opinion, injunctions may prove to be a deterrent to arrive at a FRAND commitment, in particular, egregiously harming the willing licensee. Second, especially in the Indian scenario, where litigating parties operate in vastly different price segments (thereby targeting consumers with different purchasing power), it is difficult to establish that “irreparable damage” has been caused to the patent owner on account of infringement. Third, we note the approach of the European Court of Justice, which prohibited the patent holder from enforcing an injunction provided a willing licensee makes an offer for the price it wishes to pay to use a patent under the condition that it deposited an amount in the bank as a security for the patent holder.[29] Fourth, we also note the approach of the Federal Trade Commission in the USA, which only authorizes patent holders to seek injunctive relief against potential licensees who have either stated that they will not license a patent on any terms, or refuse to enter into a license agreement on terms that have been set in the final ruling of a court or arbitrator.[30] Further, as Contreras (2015)[31] observes, that the precise boundaries of what constitutes as an unwilling licensee remains to be seen. We observe a similar ambiguity in Indian jurisprudence, and accordingly submit that courts should carefully examine the conduct of the licensee to injunct them from the alleged infringement.

Concluding Remarks

We are thankful to TRAI for the opportunity to make these submissions. It would be our pleasure and privilege to discuss these comments with the TRAI; and, supplement these with further submissions if necessary. We also offer our assistance on other matters aimed at developing a suitable policy framework for SEPs and FRAND in India, and, working towards the sustained innovation, manufacture and availability of mobile technologies in India.

[1] Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Discussion Paper on Standard Essential Patents and their Availability on Frand Terms, available at https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/discussion-paper-on-standard-essential-patents-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms (last accessed November 13, 2017)

[2] Anubha Sinha, Nehaa Chaudhari and Rohini Lakshane, “CIS’ Comments on Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Discussion Paper on Standard Essential Patents and their Availability on Frand Terms” (April 23, 2016); available at https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-department-of-industrial-policy-and-promotion-discussion-paper-on-standard-essential-patents-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms

[3] www.cis-india.org

[4] Rohini Lakshané, CIS, List of Technical Standards and IP Types (Working document), available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8SgjShAjhbtaml5eW50bS01d2s/view?usp=sharing (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[5] Kumkum Sen, News on Royalty Payments Brings Cheer in New Year, available at http://www.businessstandard.com/article/economypolicy/newsonroyaltypaymentbringscheerinnewyear11001 0400044_1.html (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[6] See Sanjana Govil, Putting a Lid on Royalty Outflows How the RBI Can Help Reduce India’s IP Costs , available at http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/lidonroyaltyoutflows (last accessed 13 November, 2017) for a discussion on the introduction of royalty caps in the early 1990s, and its success in reducing the flow of money out of India.

[7] Nehaa Chaudhari, Letter for Establishment of Patent Pool for Low cost Access Devices through Compulsory

Licenses, available at http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/letterforestablishmentofpatentpoolforlowcostaccessdevices (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[8] See Rohini Lakshané, Open Letter to PM Modi, available at http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/openlettertoprimeministermodi (last accessed 13 November, 2017) for further details of CIS’ proposal.

[9] Rohini Lakshané, FAQ: CIS’ proposal to form a patent pool of critical mobile technology, September 2015, available at http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/faqcisproposalforcompulsorylicensingofcriticalmobiletechnologies (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[10] Id.

[11] Section 146(2) of the Patents Act, 1970.

[12] Sai Vinod, Patent Office Finally Takes Form 27s Seriously, available at http://spicyip.com/2013/02/patentofficefinallytakesform27s.html (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[13] Order No. 45/2013 (Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai), available at http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/0452013.htm (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[14] Intellectual Property India, Public Notice, available at

http://www.ipindia.nic.in/iponew/publicNotice_Form27_12Feb2013.pdf ((last accessed 13 November, 2017) and Intellectual Property India, Public Notice, available at http://ipindia.nic.in/iponew/publicNotice_24December2009.pdf (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[15] Supra note 11.

[16] Id.

[17] See research findings available at http://spicyip.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/FORM27WP1Rcopy.pdf (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[18] In the High Court of Delhi, W.P.(C) 5590/2015. This litigation is currently ongoing. See, illustratively, Mathews P. George, Patent Working in India: Delhi HC issues notice in Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India & Ors. – I , available at http://spicyip.com/2015/09/patentworkinginindiadelhihcissuesnoticeinshamnadbasheervunionofindiaorsi.html (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[19] Contreras, Jorge L. and Lakshané, Rohini and Lewis, Paxton, Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products (October 1, 2017). NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3004283

[20] Form 27, The Patents Act, available at http://ipindia.nic.in/ipr/patent/manual/HTML%20AND%20PDF/Manual%20of%20Patent%20Office%20Practice%20and%20Procedure%20%20html/Forms/Form27.pdf (last accessed November 13, 10`7).

[21] However, we came across some complaints raised by patentees and industry observers regarding the structure of the Form 27 requirement - namely, patents covering complex, multi-component products that embody dozens of technical standards and thousands of patents are not necessarily amenable to the individual-level data requested by Form 27. See Contreras, Jorge L. and Lakshané, Rohini and Lewis, Paxton, Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products (October 1, 2017). NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3004283

[22] Mark Lemley and Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 Tex. L. Rev. at 2015 ; See also, for e.g.,

RPX Corporation, Amendment No. 3 to Form Sl,11 Apr. 2011, at 59, available at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1509432/000119312511101007/ds1a.htm (last accessed 22 April, 2016), quoting “Based on our research, we believe there are more than 250,000 active patents relevant to today’s

smartphones…” .; See further Steve Lohr, Apple Samsung Case Shows Smartphone as Legal Magnet, New York Times, 25 Aug. 2012, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/technology/applesamsungcaseshowssmartphoneaslawsuitmagnet.html (last accessed November13, 2017).

[23] Jorge L. Contreras and Rohini Lakshané, Patents and Mobile Devices in India: An Empirical Survey, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2756486 (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[24] Ann Armstrong, Joseph J. Mueller and Timothy D. Syrett, The SmartphoneRoyalty Stack:Surveying Royalty Demands for the Components Within Modern Smartphones, available at https://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_Content/Editorial/Publications/Documents/TheSmartphoneRoyaltyStackArmstrongMuellerSyrett.pdf (last accessed 13 November, 2017)

[25] Florian Mueller, Ericsson Explained Publicly why it Collects Patent Royalties from Device (Not Chipset) Makers, available at http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/ericssonexplainedpubliclywhyits.Html (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[26] Romit Guha and Anandita Singh Masinkotia, PM Modi’s Digital India Project:Government to Ensure that Every Indian has a Smartphone by 2019, available at http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/20140825/news/53205445_1_digitalindiaindiatodayfinancialservices (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[27] Nehaa Chaudhari, Standard Essential Patents on Low Cost Mobile Phones in India: A Case to Strengthen Competition Regulation? available at http://www.manupatra.co.in/newsline/articles/Upload/08483340C1B94BA4B6A9D6B6494391B8.pdf (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[28] Section 115 of the Patents Act, 1970.

[29] Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. ZTE Corp. and ZTE Deutschland , Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 in GmbH C170/13.

[30] Third Party United States Fed. Trade Commission’s Statement on the Public Interest, In re Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof, U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Inv. No. 337TA745 (Jun. 6, 2012).

[31] Jorge L. Contreras, A Brief History of FRAND: Analyzing Current Debates in Standard Setting and Antitrust Through a Historical Lens , 80 Antitrust Law Journal 39 (2015), available at h ttp://ssrn.com/abstract=2374983 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2374983 (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-comments-on-promoting-local-telecom-equipment-manufacturing

Why should you keep a close eye on the net neutrality debate in the US

Admin — 2017-11-25T15:33:32Z

As the United State's FCC Chairman Ajit Pai gears up to repeal the net neutrality laws put in place in 2015, India should sit up and take note.

The blog post by Subhrojit Mallick was published by Digit on November 24, 2017.

Back in 2014, a group of Redditors started debating net neutrality in India after Airtel announced it would charge extra for Voice Over IP (VoIP) services like Skype. Soon, that snowballed into a nation-wide campaign with over a million internet users participating. Things didn’t help when Facebook too wanted to provide a bunch of internet services for free in India through its Internet.org or Free Basics initiative. However, a year-long discussion and public outrage against the two, led the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to rule in favour of net neutrality and stop both Airtel and Facebook in their tracks of violating a free and open internet.

Fast forward three years down the line and America, the birthplace of the internet, is struggling with the problem of internet freedom. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under the Donald Trump Administration led by Chairman Ajit Pai submitted a final draft proposal yesterday to repeal the existing net neutrality laws put in force by the Obama administration in 2015. The draft proposal will be voted upon by FCC by the end of the year and considering the FCC has a Republican majority under Ajit Pai, the proposal is likely to pass.

The draft removes almost every net neutrality rule from 2015, making ISPs the gatekeepers of the internet. It states internet providers will have the freedom to implement fast and slow speed lanes, prioritise traffic and block apps and services. The only rule they have to follow -- publicly disclose when they are doing any of the things stated above.

Executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, Sunil Abraham elaborated on what's on Pai's mind.

"Ajit Pai's ideology is pro-market. He believes the market will sort all problems out. According to Pai, the magic of competition will eliminate all the harms emerging from net neutrality violation," he said.

"Pai has said, you do what you want to do, but you have to disclose that to the public. You can block, throttle, have fast lanes, prioritise traffic, have discriminatory pricing, but you disclose them. If the customer doesn't like it, he can swith to another network. Pai believes the transparency requirements will allow the magic of the market to diminish and eliminate harm. His regulation of net neutrality is transparency," Abraham further added.

However, such a move will have drastic effects on the free flow of internet traffic. Telecom companies and ISPs can handpick services by charging customers to access some sites or by slowing down the speeds of others. For instance, ISPs can make consumers pay more to watch high-quality content on Netflix.

With net neutrality rules repealed, the internet will become a pay-to-play service. It will essentially divide the internet into fast and slow lanes. One will be a speedy service that could be priced higher and another, much slower and cheaper. While big players like Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix and the likes can easily pay the higher fees and stay unfettered, newcomers and smaller players will have it tough. Although, the move will lead to cuts in profits for everyone. A higher price to consumers will eat into the user base of these companies, while startups and new voices in the media will find entry and success prohibitive.

Although it’s true that no single ISP in the US has the entire market to itself and the market is indeed divided into a handful of players, they do operate in a de facto monopolised way. How? ISPs in the US have sliced up the entire country into areas such that users in a particular area have only one choice of service provider. That essentially leaves users at the mercy of whatever Comcast or Spectrum is offering (or not offering).

By putting the net neutrality rules in place in 2015, the US had ensured these ISPs won’t do anything grossly uncompetitive. The current rules make broadband in the country a public utility, same as electricity. And now, Ajit Pai-led FCC is about to repeal those very rules that kept them grounded.

Will the FCC ruling make apps and services expensive in other countries?

While Pai’s jurisdiction does not extend beyond the United States, his tirades against a free internet will most definitely have rippling effects across the world. More importantly, it will raise the cost of operations of companies like Netflix and Amazon who will have to hire legal experts and lobbyists to negotiate deals with service providers. That extra cost will be burdened on the US consumers of course, but since they have a large international presence, it is likely that the extra cost will trickle down to users outside the US as well.

And that’s not just the streaming companies. All the tech giants hail from the US and it is only logical that a rise in their costs of operation will have an impact on their global operations.

Although, if the level playing field in the US is disrupted, companies will look for greener pastures and if that means moving out of the US to other countries, it could happen.

How will FCC’s decision impact India?

While US is grappling with such a reality, Indians fought against it and won. Or did they? Last year, after Airtel and Facebook were asked to drop their plans for differential pricing, TRAI released a paper on net neutrality and differential pricing to finalise its views on the matter. The regulatory body released a 14-question long consultation paper seeking comments on internet traffic management from the public.

“Increasingly, concerns have been raised globally relating to discriminatory treatment of Internet traffic by access providers. These concerns relating to nondiscriminatory access have become the centre of a global policy debate. The purpose of this second stage of consultation is to proceed towards the formulation of final views on policy or regulatory interventions, where required, on the subject of NN,” the paper read.

“Net Neutrality being repealed in the US will hurt innovation in that country, and will lead to a consolidation of power with those Internet companies which have the money to partner with US carriers. This hurts Indian product startups, because it means that their apps may not be as easily available to users in the US. The Internet is one world, and we need the same Internet to be available everywhere, across the world: one Internet for the entire world,” Nikhil Pahwa, Co-Founder of Internet Freedom Foundation told Digit.

That means, essentially, the debate on net neutrality is not over in India. In fact, both RS Sharma, the Chairman of TRAI and FCC’s Ajit Pai agree on the need to bridge the digital divide. Both are exploring ways to keep the internet open while providing access to the unconnected. Thankfully, both differs on the approach to meet that goal.

Pai believes the internet should be left unregulated despite the “hypothetical harms” to the consumer. He thinks the current rules were put in place to avoid theoretical harms which were not based on hard evidence. Pai claims there should be evidence-based regulation of the internet.

Sharma, in contrast, disagrees on an evidence-based approach.

“The TRAI's view of Net Neutrality has so far been diametrically opposite to Ajit Pai's FCC, and with good reason. Net Neutrality ensures that all ISPs and telecom operators act as exchanges of data between users, and do not discriminate on the basis of the type or source of that data. This allows for permission-less innovation on the Internet, which has given us the Internet that we have today,” Pahwa added.

Will India’s stance on net neutrality change after the FCC’s decision?

Rajan Mathews, Director General of Cellular Operators Association of India believes the FCC’s decision will no doubt have some impact on the path India takes.

“I think the policymakers will look at the decision the US makes. They had taken their decision as a point of reference before and the FCC’s ruling is too large an issue to not look at it. Both the DoT (Department of Telecom) and TRAI will have to reevaluate their approach in the context of the what happens in the US,” he said.

“Net neutrality approach in both countries is still in flux and India is going to tread lightly on net neutrality issues,” he added. As per Mathews, in India, the situation is different from the US where a handful of telecom companies and ISPs wield control of the entire country. In India, there is a licensed environment which provides a minimal standard of net neutrality, which is applied across the board and everybody who is providing a similar service is made to follow similar guidelines.

However, Mathews did attribute India’s efforts to enforce net neutrality to the United States’ efforts to place the rules in the first place in 2015 under the Obama administration, when internet was deemed as a public utility, same as electricity or telephone.

“Net neutrality in India emerged from the US definition. Now that they are going to repeal it, people in India who were looking at the US as a model will evaluate the implications of the move,” Mathews elaborated.

The US is looking to implement an ex-post approach to regulating the internet wherein the ISPs and telcos will adopt a free market approach and will only be investigated if they violate a rule. India, Mathews says, is adopting an ex-ante approach where there will be some commonly accepted criteria of net neutrality, but operators will have the ability to manage their traffic to ensure quality of service.

Minister of Information and Broadcasting, Ravi Shankar Prasad also helped alleviate fears of India following suit. During the Global Summit for Cyberspace Security held yesterday, he said, "The citizens' right of accessing the internet is "non-negotiable" and the government will not allow any company to restrict people's entry to the worldwide web."

Prime Minister Narendra Modi also came in support of net neutrality in India. He tweeted, "The internet, by nature, is inclusive and not exclusive. It offers equity of access and equality of opportunity."

Pahwa, who fought hard against Airtel and Facebook to ensure the internet remains neutral, was confident the decision won’t affect India’s stance on net neutrality. However, he is apprehensive that Indian telecom companies might borrow a leaf from their US counterparts and lobby hard to repeal the rules.

“I don't think the FCC decision affects the Indian regulation in any way, because the Indian regulator TRAI has already established strong and well rooted principles for Net Neutrality regulations in India. The only thing that worries me is that Indian telecom operators will use the developments in the US to push back against Net Neutrality with renewed vigour,” he said.

So, on the face of it, while India is well insulated from the catastrophe the United States has embarked upon, it is important to watch what the US is doing closely and make sure we don’t repeat their mistakes here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/digit-subhrojit-mallick-november-24-2017-why-should-you-keep-a-close-eye-on-net-neutrality-debate-in-us

Why you should keep a close eye on the net neutrality debate in the US

Admin — 2018-01-18T14:50:52Z

As the United State's FCC Chairman Ajit Pai gears up to repeal the net neutrality laws put in place in 2015, India should sit up and take note.

The blog post by Subhrojit Mallick was published by Digital.in on November 24, 2017.

What is FCC chairman Ajit Pai doing?

Executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, Sunil Abraham elaborated on what's on Pai's mind.

Will the FCC ruling make apps and services expensive in other countries?

And that’s not just the streaming companies. All the tech giants hail from the US and it is only logical that a rise in their costs of operation will have an impact on their global operations.

Although, if the level playing field in the US is disrupted, companies will look for greener pastures and if that means moving out of the US to other countries, it could happen.

How will FCC’s decision impact India?

While US is grappling with such a reality, Indians fought against it and won. Or did they? Last year, after Airtel and Facebook were asked to drop their plans for differential pricing, TRAI released a paper on net neutrality and differential pricingto finalise its views on the matter. The regulatory body released a 14-question long consultation paper seeking comments on internet traffic management from the public.

Sharma, in contrast, disagrees on an evidence-based approach.

Will India’s stance on net neutrality change after the FCC’s decision?

Rajan Mathews, Director General of Cellular Operators Association of India believes the FCC’s decision will no doubt have some impact on the path India takes.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/digit-in-subhrojit-mallick-november-24-2017-why-you-should-keep-a-close-eye-on-the-net-neutrality-debate-in-the-us

Indian activists slam FCC decision to ditch net neutrality

Admin — 2017-12-18T15:27:04Z

Indian net neutrality activists are assured the ongoing net neutrality tussle in the US will have no impact on India.

The article by Kul Bhushan was published in the Hindustan Times on November 23, 2017.

Net neutrality is in the news again. This time it is because the US’ Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has decided to formally scrap existing protections that are meant to keep access to internet equitable.

India had its own tryst with the idea of net neutrality after it blocked the zero-rating programmes by social networking giant Facebook — which proposed to rollout the Internet.org or Free Basics project in February last year.

A powerful social media campaign made Facebook back down and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to announce that ‘differential pricing’ — a practice where some services or sites are priced in a special manner — will no longer be allowed.

Some people who were at the forefront of the net neutrality campaign in here almost three years ago have expressed their displeasure over the FCC’s move.

“I think the approach the FCC is taking is flawed. Spectrum is a public resource and it needs to be spent on maximisation of public good. That public good, and the utility of the Internet is based on the freedom that people have to create new apps and services, without needing permission from ISPs, or the fear that ISPs might discriminate against them or favour their competitors. This is what net neutrality enables,” said Nikhil Pahwa, founder of publication Medianama and one of the activists.

“By going against Net Neutrality, FCC chairman Ajit Pai is attacking the core of what makes the Internet tick. We didn’t let that happen in India, and instead, focused on increasing competition between ISPs and telecom operators, because of which we’ve see broadband prices drop, quality of service improve, a tremendous growth in Internet users in India. For this, we owe a great debt to all those who supported Net Neutrality, especially the TRAI,” he added.

Apar Gupta, who is closely associated with the ‘Save the Internet’ initiative and is the co-founder of Internet Freedom Foundation, said, “FCC’s move to take back the internet order is a huge setback to the global campaign to ensure open internet because it undermines the net neutrality.”

“I don’t think the development should impact the regulatory process in India considering TRAI’s strong support for net neutrality. I hope that TRAI comes out with a comprehensive network neutrality regulation in the future,” he responded when asked about the possible impact on India of the FCC move.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organisation Centre for Internet and Society, said there should be no impact on India from the FCC move.

He also slammed FCC chief Pai’s attempt to change the existing net neutrality rules. “What Ajit Pai is trying to do he’s not saying he will not regulate. He is saying when companies violate net neutrality principles they should be transparent about it. He hopes the magic of market competition will help resolve the problem,” he said

“Pai’s approach to the net neutrality might work in a market where there is a lot of competition. In the US, there is no competition and that in case damage will be immediate,” he added.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-kul-bhushan-november-23-2017-indian-activists-slam-fcc-decision-to-ditch-net-neutrality

Training

Admin — 2017-11-23T15:44:37Z

The Rotary Club of Salem in association with the Centre for Internet and Society – Access to Knowledge, India and Salem Tamil Sangam is organising series of “Wikimedia training and orientation” programme for the youth on December 9 and 10 and also from 16 –17 at Rotary Hall in the city.

The news was published by the Hindu on November 20, 2017.

This training of trainers programme is aimed at increasing the digital content in Tamil and make them to be part of open knowledge movement of Wikimedia movement, R. Venkatachalapathy, president of Rotary Club of Salem said in a statement here on Sunday.

Interested candidates can register their names in group or individually at Rotary Club of Salem on or before November 25.

Interested candidates can register their names by visiting Wikipedia

https://ta.wikipedia.org or

https://en.wikipedia.org

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/hindu-november-20-2017-training

Counter Comments

Admin — 2017-11-23T14:22:40Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/counter-comments.pdf

Elements of a Decentralized Web

Admin — 2017-11-23T14:16:26Z

Gene Kogan will deliver a talk on the elements of a decentralized web at the Centre for Internet (CIS) office in Bengaluru on December 11, 5.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

The internet is broken. Straying far from the original vision of democratizing access to knowledge, large tech companies now resemble the industrial barons of the 19th century, presiding over what many scholars regard as a public utility but nevertheless unregulated. As machine learning has entered the picture, the usual suspects like Facebook, Reddit, and Quora, have begun training sophisticated algorithms on personal data to route traffic in order to maximize attention, leading to a web which is more atomized, addictive, and anxiety-inducing.

In response to this, some have begun writing about, conceptualizing, and implementing the open-source protocols of what they consider the future web 3.0. Cryptocurrency enthusiasts have expanded their focus to more generalized blockchains which enable trust in decentralized platforms, while initiatives like IPDB and IPFS ambitiously promise to make hosting, storage, database querying, and even computation itself possible inside of peer-to-peer networks. But all is not well in this techno-utopia -- as the speculative bubble around this "internet of money" grows, so too does interest from the very institutions these new initiatives seek to overcome. The landscape is beginning to look like Silicon Valley of the 1990s and the threat of a crash looms. It's up to us to determine which way this one will play out.

Gene Kogan

Gene Kogan is an artist and a programmer who is interested in generative systems, computer science, and software for creativity and self-expression. He is a collaborator within numerous open-source software projects, and gives workshops and lectures on topics at the intersection of code and art. Gene initiated ml4a, a free book about machine learning for artists, activists, and citizen scientists, and regularly publishes video lectures, writings, and tutorials to facilitate a greater public understanding of the subject.

Links:

genekogan.com

twitter.com/genekogan

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/elements-of-a-decentralized-web-talk-by-gene-kogan

India’s internet missionaries: The women Google is relying on to spread its Next Billion message

Admin — 2017-11-23T02:33:35Z

Google’s internet saathis have brought 11.5 million women in 105,000 villages online. But there’s a catch: the women are taught to use only Google products.

The article by Sunny Sen was published by Livemint on November 21, 2017.

Until Google came calling at Khaula, one of the nearly 100,000 villages in Uttar Pradesh, early in 2016, few among the womenfolk there had heard about the internet. A few had seen their men watching videos on smartphones, but none had accessed the internet on her own.

Now, more than 1,100 women in Khaula and neighbouring villages know how to access the internet and regularly log in. They teach their children, they teach themselves new skills, they look up fixes to niggling medical problems, and watch YouTube videos.

Khaula is ground zero for an ambitious Google initiative called Next Billion to spread use of the internet in developing economies. The initiative rides on the shoulders of women—internet saathis, who have been roped in to carry the “here’s how to access the internet” message across India. The success or failure of the saathis (saathi means friend in Hindi) in the internet literacy project will make or break the programme.

India, whose over 400 million data consumers make it the No. 2 market by internet users, only behind China, is the top focus country in the Next Billion programme. The project also covers Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria, and parts of Africa.

The internet saathi programme, run by Google along with Tata Trusts is designed in such a way that two-three women in a village are handpicked and trained to use the internet. They, then, further train thousands of village women—not men—on how to access it. This design is with good reason: less than one-third of internet users in India are women and the number is far lower in its villages, explained Rajan Anandan, Google’s vice president for Southeast Asia and India, in a Mint newspaper article in April.

Neetu’s story

Four years ago, Neetu Bhagour, now 22, had made news in the village when she won a state-level wrestling event and was selected at the national level. But, she never made it to the nationals. “My parents didn’t allow me to… girls in our villages are not allowed to play much,” Bhagour said, her disappointment showing in her smile.

After leaving wrestling, she decided to pursue studies. The college was far away from the village and she didn’t attend every day, yet completed her graduation in science earlier this year—one of the few to do so in Khaula.

It was on one of the days she was home, bunking college, that her uncle told her that if she had time, she could teach village women how to access the internet. That was about one-and-a-half years ago.

“I had only seen my brother using (the internet). He had an Android phone, but he would never let us use it,” Bhagour said. “I decided to learn how to use the internet. People from Google trained us for three-four days… That was the first time I used the internet.”

Google gave her a Lava smartphone and a Celkon tablet—both entry-level brands—to use and train other village women. The cost of the two devices was around Rs11,000, a price that the women of Khaula would perhaps never be able to afford. The trainers also get an umbrella and 2GB of monthly data for each device—all provided by Google.

Till now Google has spent about Rs50 crore on training 35,000 saathis. That’s a tab of between Rs14,000 and Rs15,000 per saathi which includes the Rs11,000 spent on the devices, umbrella and data.

It was not easy for Bhagour to convince women in her village that learning to access the internet would be useful. Often they would scoff at her: “We don’t need it.” She stayed persistent. “It’s okay if you don’t need the internet, but teach it to your children,” she told them. “Use Google to know anything in this world.”

Next billion

Bhagour is one of the 35,000 internet saathis in India Google is backing. And, in a move atypical of the search giant, it is pouring crores of rupees training them. “Tata Trusts are equally funding the initiative for us. Google brings in the devices, the data, and the technical know-how of training the saathis. And Tata Trusts are managing the on-ground implementation, the saathi stipend,” said Neha Barjatya, head of ads marketing & digitizing initiatives, Google India.

The saathis are trained on how the web works, especially how to use various Google products such as Chrome, Search, YouTube, and PlayStore. They are not trained to use any other product, not Facebook or WhatsApp.

Since the beginning of the internet saathis project in 2015, Google has covered 105,000 villages in 12 states and taught 11.5 million women how to use the internet—making it the biggest project by Google under its Next Billion initiative and perhaps the single largest such outreach programme anywhere in the world.

Google wants to take the programme to 300,000 villages. “These women discover the internet (through Google and its products), and eventually discover how to use the internet for their needs,” said Barjatya.

Internet hard-sell

It wasn’t easy for Bhagour or any of the other saathis, initially.

Deepa Rajput of Dehtora village (near Khaula) is a Ph.D in Hindi. She teaches at the Shree Jagdamba Degree College in Agra. She was introduced to the internet saathi initiative by a friend of her husband’s. “Our family is one of the progressive ones in the village, so it was easy to convince my in-laws,” said Rajput.

But when she went out to teach, it was a problem. At the start, women didn’t allow her to take their picture, which is needed to enrol them in the programme. Some even refused to fill the enrolment form.

Rajput’s pitch was simple, yet compelling. “Google pe saara vishwa ka jankari prapt kar sakte hai… Agar aapka bhains bimar ho jata hai toh aap uske karan dekh sakte hai (You can find the entire world’s information on Google… If your buffalo falls sick, you find the reasons there),” she told the village women.

Most women liked the idea but they had to take the permission of their in-laws and husbands. “Women are weak… their survival depends on how much their husbands provide,” Rajput said.

When Google first went to a few villages in 2013, it started by training women directly for three-four hours. This was done at a school or the village community centre. It didn’t work out. The turnout was dismal. Folks at Google knew that they had to fix it if they had to expand beyond towns.

A pilot was done in a village near the Maheshwar town in Madhya Pradesh. Google piloted something called the internet cart, like an ice cream cart, which had internet-enabled tablets. Google-contracted agents would go from village to village, home to home, with these carts and teach the village women how to use the internet.

But, even that wasn’t enough. Google realized that it was important to stay in the village for a long period of time and keep training the women. That’s when the internet saathi concept was born.

The other problem was that women didn’t have devices to access the internet on. So Google gave them devices and free data. In 2015, Google and Tata Trusts started identifying trainers. Initially, Google also provided the saathis with a cycle in 1,500 villages, but stopped it as the women preferred walking.

Changing lives

For many of these beneficiaries, the internet is the only form of empowerment. For Deepmala, a primary school teacher in Atus village not far from Khaula, the internet helps her children learn English. “Children often ask things we don’t know… I have started using Google to explain things to children,” she said.

Deepmala’s first acquaintance with the internet was when she enrolled to become a saathi. She has trained 1,500 women since then. It wasn’t easy to convince her husband to allow her to learn how to use the internet but his mother stepped in. “My mother-in-law allowed me to learn… she used to go with me for the training,” she said.

For all the world that the internet has opened up for her, some centuries-old habits haven’t changed. Deepmala doesn’t know much about her husband’s work or what he earns. All she knows is that her husband works in a shoe factory near Agra. Without her mother-in-law’s backing, Deepmala said, she wouldn’t have been able to become a saathi.

When she showed the village women the internet, they were initially afraid to use it. There are a lot of myths about the ills of the internet in the villages. Rightly so, as often boys and men in the villages click pictures of girls and upload them to porn sites.

Women are shy and shun anything that may intrude on their privacy. It is in such a context that the world of information—access to Bollywood, culture, lifestyle, pornography, information, email, voice calling, and dozens of applications—suddenly opened up to them.

The saathis need to have a minimum education of up to Class VIII and should be comfortable with English. But there are no restrictions on the saathis to pick educated women. Many of their students don’t know how to read or write. For them, Deepa Rajput of Dehtora village said, Google voice commands are the easiest way to search the internet. “Women are seeing videos condemning domestic violence and oppression of women… That is a big change,” she said.

Making money

Deepmala, the school teacher saathi, taught women to search for mehendi designs and facial makeup on Google and YouTube. “Some of them have even started searching new salwar and blouse designs… The women tailors make more money for these designs,” she said.

Some women have started charging Rs50 for drawing mehendi designs. Others have started using the internet to look for agriculture and health-related information.

There are other avenues of making money, too. Deepmala and few of the women she trained landed a contract from research firm Nielsen to do a survey of the villages and the shops, for which they were paid. A list of 96 shops was given to them with a list of 80 questions. “The form was on the internet, we surveyed these villages and filled the form. It was about things like what products are sold, which shops have shut down, updating contact information…,” said Deepmala.

Monica Sisodiya from Barhan village has trained 2,000 women, most of them who are young. After being trained by Monica, two of them opened a beauty parlour. “She gets customers from 10-12 villages because of the new ways she has introduced,” said Monica, who wanted to study law in Agra, but couldn’t because her family wouldn’t allow her to go to the city. She is now pursuing a nursing course at Maa Bhagwati College, 7km from her home.

Google makes most of its revenue by serving digital ads. As more people join the internet and as more of them use the worldwide web, Google can negotiate with brands to get a higher share of the digital advertizing wallet.

Others like Babita Singh are evidence that the lack of information access is not a problem of the poor alone. Babita, 20, whose father is an intelligence officer with the Uttar Pradesh police, lives in a house that is prosperous by Dehtora standards. Her house has four CCTV cameras monitoring the front and rear of the building. The images are captured on a 42-inch LED television on the living room wall.

Yet, Babita used the internet for the first time only four months ago after getting trained by Deepa. Babita refers to the Chrome browser as ‘kromee’. She said she uses the internet to fill forms for banking entrance exams. At leisure, she browses designs of cushion covers and sweaters and tries out new food recipes that she pulls up from the Net.

Babita’s neighbour, Malti Rajput, teaches in a school for the mentally challenged in a nearby village. She isn’t well off and got her first phone from Google.

“We have started using the internet in our schools to teach the children dance steps… They also see craft designs. We sell some of these products to raise some money for the children,” said Malti.

It’s business, of course

For Google, this is not any corporate social responsibility activity. It is about getting every individual in India online. “This is not a social initiative for us. It is very much a business or marketing objective,” said Barjatya.

Getting more people to use the internet lies at the heart of Google’s business. Google makes most of its revenue by serving digital ads. As more people join the internet and as more of them use the worldwide web, Google can negotiate with brands to get a higher share of the digital advertizing wallet.

Barjatya said Google does not measure what it is getting back from the initiative. “It’s very much to get these women online and the rest will follow,” she said. “We are only seeing how many villages and how many women are coming online, and how does it tie back into our Next Billion initiative.”

But experts say Google alone can’t change rural India. “Google is probably worried that rural India might end up like Myanmar where most users stay within Facebook and do not explore the rest of the internet,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bengaluru-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society.

Click here for enlarge

Moving the needle

All the saathis FactorDaily spoke with said that at their training sessions they are taught only how to use Google products, apart from handling the hardware. Those, too, only on Android phones. No Facebook, no WhatsApp, no Snapchat, no Twitter, no Paytm, no Flipkart...

“This is a smart business decision for Google but it does not really bridge the digital divide. We need all stakeholders, including Google to work together to reduce the cost of hardware and connectivity,” Abraham said.

Still, a Google-commissioned study by research firm Ipsos suggests that the internet giant has made some headway in rural India. Here are some pointers from the study:

■ 90% of women who have attended the training have a better understanding of the internet

■ 25% of women continue to use the internet (Gujarat is the highest at 35%)

■ 7% of women trained under the program feel that their social standing has improved

■ 33% trained women think that their economic condition has improved by learning new skills

■ 1% increase in village income in instances where training was conducted

Even though most of the women are not taught to use Facebook and WhatsApp, most of them eventually get on to social media. This is little consolation for Facebook, which has failed to mainstream itself in rural India the way Google has.

While Google gets a large number of the first-time users, some of the women have also started buying things online. Mamta Mahour of Bijpuri village bought earphones and books from Amazon and a saree from Voonik. The products are delivered at one of the shops in the village and Mamta collects it from there.

Some of the households have also started disconnecting their cable connections, said Mamta. Her’s and Deepmala’s houses are two, for instance. Deepmala watches ‘Piya Albela’ and ‘Big Boss’ on YouTube. “We can watch it anytime. There is so much (power) load-shedding that you can’t watch an entire episode on television… that’s not the case on YouTube,” she said.

Slow going

Mamta has taken a Reliance Jio connection. She watches her shows on JioTV and YouTube. “JioTV is free. I don’t see the need of having a cable connection at home. Rather I would use that money to recharge my phone,” she said.

Still, the going is grindingly slow. While Google has been successful in teaching women in these villages to use the internet, three out of four stop using the internet after the training.

When the saathi project started, internet penetration in villages was about 10%, said Barjatya. A recent report by industry lobby Internet and Mobile Association of India and market researcher Kantar IMRB shows that it has gone up to 17%.

Barjatya said Google spent a lot of time understanding the needs of the rural India. These 11.5 million women trained by Google have at least been introduced to the internet. “Over time we have seen that they have found value in going and buying a smartphone,” Barjatya is optimistic.

The data story in India is changing, especially after the launch of Reliance Jio. Google is already in talks with Reliance Jio to provide 4GB of 4G data at Rs149 a month to the saathis. Right now it is 2GB of 2G data.

The feedback from the saathis, meanwhile, is that the training module needs to change: the time is too short to train someone who had never used the internet, according to them. The saathis were given the target of training 250 women in a week, based on which they would receive a stipend from Tata Trust. It varies between Rs4 and Rs8 for each woman trained.

Barjatya said the target has been brought down to 100 women a month.

Changing data story

While Google has set up a call centre to check how many beneficiaries use the internet after training, there is no way it can ensure that women continue to use it. Call centre agents make random calls to check if the training is sufficient and if they are using the internet. Google might also contemplate returning to the same village to train more women.

Also, very few women own devices in male-dominated rural Indian society. “We haven’t really got into creating access beyond spreading awareness. However, yes, this is something we are open to and can consider. But right now it is just the literacy part,” Barjatya said, talking about subsidising mobile phones for women in villages.

In the next two years, Google will need more devices and more data. For its target of covering 300,000 villages, it will need an army of about 100,000 saathis— nearly a 10-fold jump.

Meanwhile, back at Khaula, Bhagour, the former wrestler, has started studying for the entrance test to join Delhi police. YouTube, she said, is handy for her studies. She is learning tricks to solve math problems quicker. Something else happened on Dhanteras, the festival to worship wealth, that made Bhagour proud.

“I got Rs4,211 for training the women. I got the money on the day of Dhanteras,” she said. “I gave the money to my father to get the house painted.”

This story has been published in association with FactorDaily.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/sunny-sen-livemint-november-23-2017-indias-internet-missionaries

Helping Institutions Embrace Open Access

Admin — 2017-11-27T15:11:34Z

World over, a large number of universities and institutions are making way for open access repositories. Why have Indian researchers shied away from it?

The article by Manupriya was published in the Wire on November 17, 2017

On October 28, 2017, a group of panelists in the faculty hall at Indian Institute of Science (IISc), discussed the framework of policies that can help academic institutions embrace open access in letter, spirit and action. The discussion was a part of week-long activities organised by DST Centre for Policy Research (DST–CPR) at IISc to increase awareness and acceptability for open access publishing in India.

The panel included Jayant Modak, deputy director, IISc, Satyajit Mayor, director of National Centre for Biological Sciences and inStem, Padmini Ray Murray, vice-chair, Global Outlook: Digital Humanities, N.V. Sathyanarayana, chairman and managing director, Informatics India Ltd and Madan Muthu, visiting faculty at DST–CPR at IISc. The discussion was anchored and moderated by Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society.

Open access is a form of publishing that makes the fruits of research, such as journal papers and other forms of data accessible to anyone interested in it, without a cost. World over, a large number of universities and institutions are beginning to give up the library subscription model of publishing to make way for open access, owing to the latter’s lower cost and higher visibility.

In India too, funding agencies like DBT and DST have laid out guidelines that require researchers to submit their research output in open access repositories. Ironically though, most researchers have shied away from submitting their work in the repositories. Which raises the question, why?

In fact, this was one of the first questions that the panelists debated upon. Abraham initiated the discussion by asking the panelists – What are the weaknesses of DBT–DST policy on open access? Why have a large number of scientists not followed the guidelines laid by the policy? Is it because the policy document does not talk about any punitive measures for scientists in the event of not depositing their work in the institutional repositories (IRs)? And, how can the policy be improved?

Modak opened the argument by saying that we as a nation are good at making provisions but bad with implementation. He agreed that scientists are yet to warm up to the idea of open access but was disinclined on using punitive measures to force scientists into submitting their work in IRs. Mayor, in agreement with Modak, said that the policy document is advisory in nature and sort of lacks ‘teeth’. However, he too was against the use of punitive measures.

Murray, the third academician on the panel said that though the policy talks about staying away from publisher-based metrics like impact factor to assess a scientist’s work, it does not provide any information about what alternative metrics can be used to measure it. She suggested that the accessibility of a scientist’s work and how much effort she has put in to make it easily available to non-scientists could be used as a metrics for measurement. She also drew attention to the fact that the policy completely bypasses the requirements of independent scholars and those working in languages other than English. “Which institutional repository should they deposit their work in?”

Sathyanarayana, the fourth panelist and a strong advocate of open access said, the policy document “lacks an aggressive strategy” to drive a disruptive and “fundamentally voluntary model” of adopting open access. He asked the other panelists and the audience, “why have repositories like ResearchGate become so successful and attractive for researchers? Why can’t open access IRs be modelled along the lines of such repositories? His argument was that the IRs can be fashioned in a way to make them a ‘convenient step in the process of research’”. One suggestion that he offered was that IRs can be structured as a paper submission platform. So that anybody who is interested in publishing their work first puts it up in the IR and only after that the process of going to a journal begins.

Muthu, the fourth panelist and a long-time crusader for open access in India said that scientists in India have stayed away from the open access publishing because they don’t fully realise that in traditional models of publishing, you surrender all copyrights of your work to the publisher. He added that more scientists can be encouraged to adopt the open access model of publishing by making IRs institute-managed, easier to use and as a mandatory step in the process of publishing.

Mayor added to this argument by saying that the idea of submitting (unpublished) work in an IR is quite similar to the concept of pre-print archives which are fast becoming a powerful way of sharing work. Almost all top journals accept work that has been published in a pre-print archive. In fact, in the physical sciences, people have been using pre-print archives for a long time and now slowly, even the biology community is warming up to it.

Murray emphasised on the need to talk to students about open access and making them aware of the ways to design their metadata so that it is amenable to open access repositories.

As the discussion inched closer to its final moments, it veered off towards the costs of open access publishing. Modak said that in the last year alone, the amount of money IISc has spent for publishing papers has doubled. If all researchers start opting for open access (OA) journals/hybrid-OA journals that charge the authors nearly double of what traditional journals do, then publishing papers will become unsustainable.

To this, Sathyanarayana said, it may appear that the cost of publishing in OA journals is high, but on a macro-level, when you consider the cost of publishing and accessing all the papers published in a year, then the OA model costs much lesser. He added that scientific publishing is the only business in the world where authors (creators of proprietary material) give away all their rights to publishers.”

Backing up the points made by Sathyanarayana, Murray said that in traditional models of publishing the publishers make close to 400% profits. We need to think about, “how much labour we as academics put in for publishers’ profits?”

It is authors’ inertia that is stopping open access from becoming the obvious model of publishing, said, Muthu.

In conclusion, Abraham summed up the arguments and acknowledged that there are many dimensions to open access and an institutional policy on OA cannot be framed in a vacuum. Common people need to participate in the debate to shape the direction the policy takes.

Apart from the panel discussion a poster competition and a quiz competition were organised as part of the OA-week activities. DST–CPR was joined by the student’s council at IISc, Centre for Contemporary Studies, JRD Tata Library and IndiaBioscience in organising the activities.

This article was originally published on IndiaBioscience. Read the original here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/manupriya-wire-november-17-2017-helping-institutions-embrace-open-access

35th SCCR: CIS' Question to Dr. Rostama on her Study on the Impact of the Digital Environment on Copyright Legislation

sinha — 2017-11-19T07:50:49Z

Anubha Sinha, attending the 35th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 13 November, 2017 to 18 November, 2017, posed this question on the agenda 'Other Matters' on behalf of CIS on Day 5, 17 November, 2017.

Thank you for the presentation, Dr. Rostamma.

My question relates to provisions allowing reverse engineering of computer programmes. You mentioned that 81% of member states (with the scope of your study) have exceptions for compilation and interoperability of computer programmes.

Can you comment, qualitatively, on how open/ strict you have found the limitations and exceptions to be in your study? Is there a member state that stands out in its treatment of limitations and exceptions for computer programmers, and/or users of such digital objects?

Answer: I would not like to make any qualitative comments.

Read Dr. Rostamma's study here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/35th-sccr-cis-question-to-dr-rostama-on-her-study-on-the-impact-of-the-digital-environment-on-copyright-legislation