Centre for Internet and Society

Navigating the Digitalisation of Finance: User experiences of risks and harms

2025-04-10T05:49:23Z

Our study unpacks the experiences of marginalised users navigating the digitalisation of finance. Through a survey of 3,784 users, 18 interviews and 7 focus group discussions, our study’s findings highlight user experiences of risks and harms while accessing digital financial services, unpacking experiences specifically of persons with disabilities, transgender persons, gender and sexual minorities, elderly persons, women, regional language-first users, and persons facing digital and economic vulnerabilities.

Read the full report here

Executive Summary

The last couple of decades have seen significant changes in the financial ecosystem in India, both within the fintech sector and with respect to digital financial inclusion. The rapid growth in the reach of banking services to previously unbanked citizens through the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana has been followed by digitalisation in financial and public services.

However, a commensurate increase in digital and financial literacy has not followed, and rates of access to digital devices and the internet are still growing for many user groups, like rural women and regional language speakers. From the proliferation of fraudulent schemes and cybercrime to regulatory loopholes and inadequate consumer protections, the landscape of online financial services in India presents numerous risks. Factors such as weak cybersecurity measures, data breaches, lack of awareness among users, and the absence of comprehensive regulations create a fertile ground for financial scams. Simultaneously, rapid digitalisation of financial services, especially post demonetisation and the COVID-19 pandemic, has also brought to the fore concerns around omissions and exclusion of sections of users from databases, and a steep learning curve in adapting to this new digital ecosystem.

These combined factors open up users to a range of potential financial risks and harms, with differential impact on specific marginalised and vulnerable groups. With this understanding, we use the term digital financial harms to refer to adverse financial outcomes and other related detrimental consequences in the use of digital financial services.

Through this study, we aim to situate these experiences in a continuum of harms within a rapidly digitalising financial ecosystem. By exploring questions of access, accessibility and language we hope to bring aspects of cybersecurity, digital and financial literacy and design justice into conversation with each other. While some research has aimed to understand technology-facilitated gender based violence, financial fraud, misinformation, and other forms of digital risks in siloes, the correlations between these risks online remain severely understudied. In this report, we focus on the experiences of groups long marginalised within the financial system, to recommend that their needs are centred in shaping digital financial services.

Key questions guiding our research were:

How were digital financial risks understood and experienced by users of digital financial services across groups? What factors have amplified risks for marginalised and at-risk user groups?
What potential vulnerabilities, risks and harms have emerged relating to digital financial services around device and internet access, accessibility, challenges with use, exclusions from digitalised social protection, and forms of social engineering and digital financial fraud?
How accessible were digital financial service providers’ and governments’ reporting and grievance redressal systems?
What role should fintech platforms, social media platforms, banking and financial institutions, government, and regulatory bodies play in reducing digital financial risks across the ecosystem?

This was a mixed methods study, consisting of a review of available literature in the field, followed by quantitative and qualitative data collection through surveys and in-depth interviews. The report highlights the experiences of persons with disabilities, gender minorities, the elderly, low income users, and regional language first users; to better understand how discrimination, exclusion or slow redressal processes may increase their risk or cause disproportionate harm when using digital financial services. It discusses users’ experiences of fraud in the context of an evolving regulatory ecosystem, as well as practical challenges users face with redressal systems.

Key findings include:

Access to digital financial services, still requires improving access and accessibility of physical and phygital banking services, and good internet connectivity.
Even among mobile phone owners, many users still rely on shared devices, particularly among women and persons with disabilities.
There is a high need for support in utilising net banking services, with 60% of surveyed netbanking users mentioning that they sought help to conduct online banking transactions. Migrating to digital financial services is not a purely digital journey for users who are still building comfort with digital interfaces, or those whose languages are deprioritised in the development of digital financial platforms.
Age, gender, and income were significant factors in the access to the internet, and adoption of digital financial services. For instance, women and transgender persons over 45 years were less likely to have a Unified Payments Interface (UPI) account. Women, transgender persons, and disabled users of UPI were also more likely to be infrequent users compared to the rest of the sample.
Over reliance on digital platforms for the administration of direct benefit transfer programmes results in challenges and risks of exclusions for beneficiaries.
While awareness of common forms of fraud is high, awareness of security protocols, Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements and markers of trustworthy banking and non-banking institutions is low.
Irrespective of the amount of money lost during frauds, it caused significant financial and emotional burden, especially for low-income persons.
In the absence of monitoring frameworks, bad actors within the financial system are able to exploit vulnerabilities like the dependence of account holders on banking correspondents.
Gender and sexual minorities, and women face disproportionate impacts of harm in the event of financial loss, including the consequences of image-based sexual abuse, victim blaming, domestic violence and limits on financial independence.
Ineffective grievance redressal for cybercrimes is a major deterrent to reporting.
Digitalisation and the use of assistive technology have allowed some persons with visual impairments to gain relative levels of independence in managing their own finances and conducting transactions. However, implementation of accessibility policies and features remains uneven, and is marred by the continued exclusion and discrimination within traditional banking services.

Based on these findings, this report offers a set of recommendations addressed to stakeholders within the financial ecosystem such as banking and other financial institutions, regulatory bodies, fintech companies, cybersecurity professionals, as well as social media platforms and civil society organisations working on digital inclusion, safety and literacy. The recommendations offer nuanced perspectives on how digital financial harms can be prevented and mitigated based on our interactions with various stakeholders during the research process.

Key recommendations emerging from the study are:

Create meaningful connectivity and access to digital platforms by improving public infrastructure and addressing the challenges associated with shared devices and mediated use.
Improve platform design to engender trust; increase accessibility and usability through assessment and better implementation of available technologies, regular design audits and facilitate availability in Indian languages.
Building awareness and capacity across user and stakeholder groups through customised and inclusive programming, working in partnership with communities.
Centre consumer protection in regulatory interventions and approaches to law enforcement, by implementing robust time-sensitive reporting and redressal mechanisms, placing accountability on financial institutions, and monitoring and curbing fraudulent activity.
Encourage transparent governance and public oversight by measuring and evaluating digital public infrastructures to maximise their public value.

Contributors

Research design and/or report writing: Amrita Sengupta, Chiara Furtado, Garima Agrawal, Nishkala Sekhar, Puthiya Purayil Sneha, and Vipul Kharbanda

Research advice and/or review: Antara Rai Chowdhury, Janaki Srinivasan, Nayantara Sarma, Palak Gadhiya, Pallavi Bedi, Sameet Panda, Semanti Chakladar, Shashidhar K J, Shweta Mohandas, and Taranga Sriraman

Research and/or data analysis support: Chetna V M, Pallavi Krishnappa, and Yesha Tshering Paul

Data analysis: Chiara Furtado, Garima Agrawal, and Nishkala Sekhar

Research tool translation: Aravind R (Kannada), Balaji J (Tamil), Bhaskar Bhuyan (Assamese), Nettime Sujata (Bangla), and Suresh Khole (Marathi)

Research tool pilots: Raveenaben (Megha Cooperative, SEWA), Sunaben (Megha Cooperative, SEWA), and Raja Mouli N

Data collection (survey): D-Cor Consulting

Data collection (focus group discussions): D-Cor Consulting; Jnana Prabodhini, Pune; Transgender Rights Association, Chennai; and Subodh Kulkarni

This work is shared under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/navigating-the-digitalisation-of-finance

Navigating the 'Reconsideration' Quagmire (A Personal Journey of Acute Confusion)

Padmini Baruah and Geetha Hariharan — 2016-11-30T13:48:41Z

An earlier analysis of ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy already brought to light our concerns about the lack of transparency in ICANN’s internal mechanisms. Carrying my research forward, I sought to arrive at an understanding of the mechanisms used to appeal a denial of DIDP requests. In this post, I aim to provide a brief account of my experiences with the Reconsideration Request process that ICANN provides for as a tool for appeal.

Backdrop: What is the Reconsideration Request Process?

The Reconsideration Request process has been laid down in Article IV, Section 2 of the

ICANN Bylaws. Some of the key aspects of this provision have been outlined below^{^[1]},

ICANN is obligated to institute a process by which a person materially affected by ICANN action/inaction can request review or reconsideration.

To file this request, one must have been adversely affected by actions of the staff or the board that contradict ICANN’s policies, or actions of the Board taken up without the Board considering material information, or actions of the Board taken up by relying on false information.
A separate Board Governance Committee was created with the specific mandate of reviewing Reconsideration requests, and conducting all the tasks related to the same.
The Reconsideration Request must be made within 15 days of:
- FOR CHALLENGES TO BOARD ACTION: the date on which information about the challenged Board action is first published in a resolution, unless the posting of the resolution is not accompanied by a rationale, in which case the request must be submitted within 15 days from the initial posting of the rationale;
- FOR CHALLENGES TO STAFF ACTION: the date on which the party submitting the request became aware of, or reasonably should have become aware of, the challenged staff action, and
- FOR CHALLENGES TO BOARD OR STAFF INACTION: the date on which the affected person reasonably concluded, or reasonably should have concluded, that action would not be taken in a timely manner

.The Board Governance Committee is given the power to summarily dismiss a reconsideration request if:
- the requestor fails to meet the requirements for bringing a Reconsideration Request;
- it is frivolous, querulous or vexatious; or
- the requestor had notice and opportunity to, but did not, participate in the public comment period relating to the contested action, if applicable

If not summarily dismissed, the Board Governance Committee proceeds to review and reconsider.
A requester may ask for an opportunity to be heard, and the decision of the Board Governance Committee in this regard is final.

The basis of the Board Governance Committee’s action is public written record information submitted by the requester, by third parties, and so on.
The Board Governance Committee is to take a decision on the matter and make a final determination or recommendation to the Board within 30 days of the receipt of the Reconsideration request, unless it is impractical to do so, and it is accountable to the Board to make an explanation of the circumstances that caused the delay.
The determination is to be made public and posted on the ICANN website.

ICANN has provided a neat infographic to explain this process in a simple fashion, and I am reproducing it here:

(Image taken from https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/reconsiderationen)

Our Tryst with the Reconsideration Process

The Grievance
Our engagement with the Reconsideration process began with the rejection of two of our requests (made on September 1, 2015) under ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy. The requests sought information about the registry and registrar compliance audit process that ICANN maintains, and asked for various documents pertaining to the same^{^[2]}:

Copies of the registry/registrar contractual compliance audit reports for all the audits carried out as well as external audit reports from the last year (20142015).
A generic template of the notice served by ICANN before conducting such an audit.
A list of the registrars/registries to whom such notices were served in the last year.
An account of the expenditure incurred by ICANN in carrying out the audit process.
A list of the registrars/registries that did not respond to the notice within a reasonable period of time.
Reports of the site visits conducted by ICANN to ascertain compliance.
Documents which identify the registries/registrars who had committed material discrepancies in the terms of the contract.
Documents pertaining to the actions taken in the event that there was found to be some form of contractual noncompliance.
A copy of the registrar selfassessment form which is to be submitted to ICANN.

ICANN integrated both the requests and addressed them via one response on 1 October, 2015 (which can be found here). In their response, ICANN inundated us with already available links on their website explaining the compliance audit process, and the processes ancillary to it, as well as the broad goals of the programme none of which was sought for by us in our request. ICANN then went on to provide us with information on their ThreeYear Audit programme, and gave us access to some of the documents that we had sought, such as the preaudit notification template, list of registries/registrars that received an audit notification, the expenditure incurred to some extent, and so on .

Individual contracted party reports were denied to us on the basis of their grounds for nondisclosure. Further, and more disturbingly, ICANN refused to provide us with the names of the contracted parties who had been found under the audit process to have committed discrepancies. Therefore, a large part of our understanding of the way in which the compliance audit process works remains unfinished.

What we did

Dissatisfied with this response, I went on to file a Reconsideration request (number 1522) as per their standard format on November 2, 2015. (The request filed can be accessed here).As grounds for reconsideration, I stated that “As a part of my research I was tracking the ICANN compliance audit process, and therefore required access to audit reports in cases where discrepancies where formally found in their actions. This is in the public interest and therefore requires to be disclosed...While providing us with an array of detailed links explaining the compliance audit process, the ICANN staff has not been able to satisfy our actual requests with respect to gaining an understanding of how the compliance audits help in regulating actions of the registrars, and how they are effective in preventing breaches and discrepancies.” Therefore, I requested them to make the records in question publicly available “We request ICANN to make the records in question, namely the audit reports for individual contracted parties that reflect discrepancies in contractual compliance, which have been formally recognised as a part of your enforcement process. We further request access to all documents that relate to the expenditure incurred by ICANN in the process, as we believe financial transparency is absolutely integral to the values that ICANN stands by.”

The Board Governance Committee’s response³

The determination of the Board Governance Committee was that our claims did not merit reconsideration, as I was unable to identify any “misapplication of policy or procedure by the ICANN Staff”, and my only issue was with the substance of the DIDP Response itself, and substantial disagreements with a DIDP response are not proper bases for reconsideration

(emphasis supplied).

The response of the Board Governance Committee was educative of the ways in which they determine Reconsideration Requests. Analysing the DIDP process, it held that ICANN was well within its powers to deny information under its defined Conditions for NonDisclosure, and denial of substantive information did not amount to a procedural violation. Therefore, since the staff adhered to established procedure under the DIDP, there was no basis for our grievance, and our request was dismissed..

Furthermore, as a postscript, it is interesting to note that the Board Governance Committee delayed its response time by over a month, by its own admission “In terms of the timing of the BGC’s recommendation, it notes that Section 2.16 of Article IV of the Bylaws provides that the BGC shall make a final determination or recommendation with respect to a reconsideration request within thirty days, unless impractical. To satisfy the thirtyday deadline, the BGC would have to have acted by 2 December 2015. However, due to the timing of the BGC’s meetings in November and December, the first practical opportunity for the BGC to consider Request 1522 was 13 January 2016.”⁴

Whither do I wander now?

To me, this entire process reflected the absurdity of the Reconsideration request structure as an appeal mechanism under the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy. As our experience indicated, there does not seem to be any way out if there is an issue with the substance of ICANN’s response. ICANN, commendably, is particular about following procedure with respect to the DIDP. However, what is the way forward for a party aggrieved by the flaws in the existing policy? As I had analysed earlier, the grounds for ICANN to not disclose information are vast, and used to deny a large chunk of the information requests that they receive. How is the hapless requester to file a meaningful appeal against the outcome of a bad policy, if the only ground for appeal is noncompliance with the procedure of said bad policy? This is a serious challenge to transparency as there is no other way for a requester to acquire information that ICANN may choose to withold under one of its myriad clauses. It cannot be denied that a good information disclosure law ought to balance the free disclosure of information with the holding back of information that truly needs to be kept private.^{^[3]}^{^[4]} However, it is this writer’s firm opinion that even instances where information is witheld, there has to be a stronger explanation for the same, and moreover, an appeals process that does not take into account substantive issues which might adversely affect the appellant falls short of the desirable levels of transparency. Global standards dictate that grounds for appeal need to be broad, so that all failures to apply the information disclosure law/policy may be remedied.⁶ Various laws across the world relating to information disclosure often have the following as grounds for appeal: an inability to lodge a request, failure to respond to a request within the set time frame, a refusal to disclose information, in whole or in part, excessive fees and not providing information in the form sought, as well as a catchall clause for other failures.⁷

Furthermore, independent oversight is the heart of a proper appeal mechanism in such situations^{^[5]}; the power to decide the appeal must not rest with those who also have the discretion to disclose the information, as is clearly the case with ICANN, where the Board Governance Committee is constituted and appointed by the ICANN Board itself [one of the bodies against whom a grievance may be raised].

Suggestions

We believe ICANN, in keeping with its global, multistakeholder, accountable spirit, should adopt these standards as well, especially now that the transition looms around the corner. Only then will the standards of open, transparent and accountable governance of the Internet upheld by ICANN itself as the ideal be truly, meaningfully realised. Accordingly, the following standards ought to be met with:

Establishment of an independent appeals authority for information disclosure cases
Broader grounds for appeal of DIDP requests
Inclusion of disagreement with the substantive content of a DIDP response as a ground for appeal.
Provision of proper reasoning for any justification of the witholding of information that is necessary in the public interest.

[1] Article IV, Section 2, ICANN Bylaws, 2014 available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylawsen/#IV

[2] Copies of the request can be found here and here.

[3] Katherine Chekouras, Balancing National Security with a Community's RighttoKnow: Maintaining

Public Access to Environmental Information Through EPCRA 's NonPreemption Clause, 34 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev 107, (2007).

[4] Toby Mendel, Freedom of Information: A Comparative Legal Study 151 (2nd edn, 2008).

Id, at 152

³4 Available here. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reconsideration1522cisfinaldetermination13jan16en.pdf

[5] Mendel, supra note 6.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/navigating-reconsideration-quagmire-a-personal-journey-of-acute-confusion

National workshop on Web Accessibility - Thiruvananthapuram (Report)

radha — 2011-08-17T08:45:16Z

The third National Workshop on Web Accessibility for Web developers was organised by CIS at Thiruvananthapuram in collaboration with SPACE.

(CIS) and Society for Promotion of Alternative Computing and Employment (SPACE) organized a workshop on web accessibility for web developers from the public and private sector on September 25 to 26, 2009. The workshop took place at Christ Nagar International School, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram.

About the Host Organizations

The Centre for Internet and Society
The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a Bangalore based non-profit, bringing together a team of practitioners, theoreticians, researchers and artists to work on the emerging field of Internet and Society in order to critically engage with concerns of digital pluralism, public accountability and pedagogic practices, with particular emphasis on South-South dialogues and exchange. We focus on areas such as Anonymity/Privacy, Censorship, Surveillance, Free and Open Source Software, Open Standards, Open Access, Family, Sexual practices, Addiction, Intellectual Property Rights and Trade, Piracy, ICT4D, Digital and Participation Divide and Digital Communities and Movements.

Society For Promotion of Alternative Computing and Employment
Society For Promotion of Alternative Computing and Employment (SPACE) is a registered society that has members from academia, the IT industry, professional societies such as IEEE and Computer Society of India, and the IT Administration of the Government of Kerala. The vision of SPACE is to promote the use of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in academics, governance, corporate and individual use, and to support the use FOSS for employment generation in Kerala. The primary thrust are of the intervention are:

Promote the use of FOSS in the public, private, and governmental sectors as well as for personal/home use
Develop a model for FOSS- based employment generation that is appropriate to Kerala's context, by identifying appropriate business opportunities and providing support services including training and micro business incubation
Carry out R & D activities for the development of essential prototypes that bridge existing gaps in software, so as to enable widespread use of FLOSS
Ensure that Kerala is able to develop sufficient numbers of high-quality human resources in the FLOSS domain

Kerala State IT Mission

Kerala State Information Technology Mission (KSITM) is a Society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific & Charitable Societies Registration Act. It is an autonomous nodal IT implementation agency for Department of Information Technology, Government of Kerala which provides managerial support to various initiatives of the Department.

About the Resource Persons

Rahul Gonsalves
Rahul has been building accessible websites since 2005 (sample work at http://rahulgonsalves.com/projects/ [1] ). He has been activiely involved in promoting web and accessibility standards. He spoke at the first international accessibility and technology conference in India, Techshare 2008, where he made out a case for accessibility and conducted a workshop on retrofitting accessibility to existing websites, a concern for most large institutions with an existing online presence (slides available at http://www.barrierbreak.com/events-conference/techshare_presentations200... [2])

In September 2008, he presented a paper examining ways in which People with various impairments - both physical and mental - engage with online content, and demonstrated practical ways in which authors can make online content accessible at the National Conference on ICT for Differently Abled People. He is a supporter of the push for having a national policy for governing electronic accessibility in India.

Srinivasu Chakravartula
Srinivasu Chakravarthula - graduated in Computer Science and is certified in 'assistive technologies'. He started his career as Head of the Braille Production Unit at National Association for the Blind, Bangalore. He then moved on and taught Computer Science at the Manik Public School, Bidar and also set up the Computer Training Centre at Hyderabad and Maniknagar, Bidar.

In the year 2005, he began to specialize in accessibility and started working for Net Systems Informatics and its subsidiary - BarrierBreak Technologies, Mumbai. During his stint at Net Systems, he was instrumental in setting up an accessibility process, imparting accessibility training to Corporates, creating awareness about accessibility and assistive technologies. Srinivasu played an innovative role in organizing Techshare India 2008 - India's 1st Accessibility and Assistive Technologies Conference and Exhibition. He was also Program Coordinator for Magazine, a3 that talked about Ability, Accessibility and Adaptability.

Srinivasu is currently working for Yahoo! India as Accessibility Manager and is responsible to lead and evangelize accessibility and its initiatives across Yahoo! India and South East Asia. He is also a member of the core committee for Yahoo! Employee Foundation India (YEFI). Srinivasu is associated with the social sector through the National Association for the Blind, India; Enable India, Shri Manik Prabhu Sikshan Samiti and Success World. His hobbies include blogging, tweeting, listening to classical music, playing chess and swimming.

Schedule of the Workshop

Day I

Introductory Session

Disability - 5 major types
The W3C and the WCAG
How people with disabilities use computers

Group Exercise/Discussion

Split participants into small groups and give them questions/problems to talk about and solve
Example: If your friend is deaf, how do you make sure that she/he understands what a video is about? OR How does someone who can't see or hear answer/check their email? OR X lost his hands in a car accident. How does he do a Google search?

Session 1 - Building an Accessible Website

Laying Accessible Foundations
Table-less layouts
Well-structured markup
Valid Code

Lecture/Demonstration of Accessibility Features under GNU/Linux by Arky

Lecture/Demonstration of NVDA Screen Reader

Lunch

Session 2 - Building an Accessible Website

Removing Barriers
Guideline 1 - Perception
Non-text content
Audio/Visual content
Adaptability
Contrast

Group Exercise: Guideline 1 - Translate a offline newspaper into an online one, and ensure that structure and information are retained when the content is adapted.

Wrap Session - Feedback and Clarifications

Day II

Lecture/Demonstration of ARIA features on selected websites

Session 3 - Guideline 2

Operable
Keyboard Access
Enough Time
Seizures
Navigable

LUNCH

Session 4 - Guideline 3 and 4

Understandable
Natural Language
Predictable
Input Assistance
Robust
Compatible

Session 5 - Accessibility Testing

Automated Testing + Tools
Manual Testing

Wrap Session - Feedback and Clarifications

Participants List

1. Mr. Vibeesh P - Team Leader, Rainconcert

2. Mr. Sunil S - Computer Programmer, ANERT

3. Mr. Vineet Pratap - Parallel Programmer, NIIST

4. Mr. Binsun N T - Software Engineer, Keltron

5. Mr. M.L. Antony - Manager (Software/Web Services), Keltron

6. Mr. Rojilal M. L - Programmer, KSEB

7. Ms. Dhanya Balakrishnan - Graduate Apprentice, Kerala State IT Mission

8. Ms. Indu Reghunath - Developer, SPACE

9. Mr. Jithin Babu B - Web Programmer, Freelance

10. Mr. Hareesh Mohan - Developer, SPACE

11. Mr. Sujith Sureshan - Developer, SPACE

12. Mr. Vinu C R - Web Programmer, IT@School

13. Mr. Cherian P Thomas - Programmer, KSEB

14. Mr. B Vijayakumar - Programmer, KSEB

15. Mr. Sunil Kumar - Governement Employee, Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board

16. Mr. Anil Kumar - Akshaya, PA-MIS

17. Mr. Shanavas Khan - Programmer, Freelance

18. Ms. Shatti Raj - Scientist 'C', National Informatics Center

19. Ms. Rameena M - Developer, SPACE

20. Ms. Gita Brajesh - PSA, National Informatics Center

21. Ms. Indusekhar M S - System Analyst, National Informatics Center

22. Ms. Somi P Thomas - Scientist 'B', National Informatics Center

23. Ms. Nissy George - System Analyst, National Informatics Center

24. Ms. Susy M - Software Development, National Informatics Center

25. Ms. Jisy V K - Technical Apprentice, Kerala State IT Mission

26. Ms. Sandhya Devi T - Project Associate, IT@School

27. Ms. Saritha D R - Project Associate Executive, IT@School

28. Mr. Shaik Mohamed - System Analyst, National Informatics Center

29. Mr. Shibin Shah K J - Student, RSCS

30. Mr. Aneesh Bhadran - Student. RIT

31. Mr. Thomas K S - Assistant Manager, Camputec

32. Mr. Anil S - Member, SDS

33. Mr. John Panicker - Website Designer

34. Ms. Teenamol L - Information Kerala Mission

35. Mr. Shine A R - Information Kerala Mission

36. Mr. Jayahari K V

37. Mr. Naveen P L

38. Mr. Jijo Mathew

39. Mr. Antony Rodrugues

40. Mr. Satheeh S

41. Mr. Sajeevan C - Student, INSIGHT

Feedback

Session I

Title: Building an Accessible Website

Topics Covered: Laying Accessible Foundations, Table-less layouts, Well-structured markup, Valid Code

Content

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Covered Useful Materials	11	12	0	1
Practical to my needs and interest	9	11	3	1
Well Organized	12	9	1	2
Presented at the right level	14	9	0	1
Use Visual Aids	12	10	0	2

Presentation

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Instructor's Knowledge	20	3	0	1
Instructor's Presentation Style	16	7	0	1
Instructor Covered Materials Clearly	12	11	0	1
Instructor Responded Well to questions	18	5	0	1

Title: Lecture/Demonstration of Accessibility Features under GNU/Linux by Arky

Content

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Covered Useful Materials	12	8	1	3
Practical to my needs and interest	7	13	2	2
Well Organized	12	10	0	2
Presented at the right level	11	11	0	2
Use Visual Aids	9	11	1	3

Presentation

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Instructor's Knowledge	13	10	0	1
Instructor's Presentation Style	9	14	0	1
Instructor Covered Materials Clearly	9	14	0	1
Instructor Responded Well to questions	13	10	0	1

Title : Lecture/Demonstration of NVDA Screen Reader

Content

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Covered Useful Materials	7	14	1	2
Practical to my needs and interest	7	10	3	4
Well Organized	8	11	2	3
Presented at the right level	8	10	3	3
Use Visual Aids	7	12	3	2

Presentation

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Instructor's Knowledge	10	12	0	2
Instructor's Presentation Style	9	11	1	3
Instructor Covered Materials Clearly	7	14	1	2
Instructor Responded Well to questions	11	10	0	3

Session II

Title : Building an Accessible Website

Topics Covered : Removing Barriers, Guideline 1 - Perception, Non-text content, Audio/Visual content, Adaptability, Contrast

Content

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Covered Useful Materials	12	10	1	1
Practical to my needs and interest	11	11	1	1
Well Organized	12	9	2	1
Presented at the right level	15	8	0	1
Use Visual Aids	12	10	1	1

Presentation

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Instructor's Knowledge	15	7	0	2
Instructor's Presentation Style	11	11	0	2
Instructor Covered Materials Clearly	11	11	0	2
Instructor Responded Well to questions	13	9	0	2

Session III

Title :Guideline 2

Topics Covered: Operable, Keyboard Access, Enough Time, Seizures, Navigable

Content

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Covered Useful Materials	11	10	0	3
Practical to my needs and interest	10	11	0	3
Well Organized	9	12	0	3
Presented at the right level	8	12	1	3
Use Visual Aids	9	11	1	3

Presentation

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Instructor's Knowledge	12	9	0	3
Instructor's Presentation Style	10	11	0	3
Instructor Covered Materials Clearly	9	11	1	3
Instructor Responded Well to questions	11	10	0	3

Session IV

Title : Guideline 3 and 4

Topics Covered : Understandable, Natural Language, Predictable, Input Assistance, Robust, Compatible

Content

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Covered Useful Materials	10	11	2	1
Practical to my needs and interest	9	13	0	2
Well Organized	12	11	0	1
Presented at the right level	14	8	0	2
Use Visual Aids	12	10	1	1

Presentation

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Instructor's Knowledge	13	8	0	3
Instructor's Presentation Style	11	10	0	3
Instructor Covered Materials Clearly	12	9	0	3
Instructor Responded Well to questions	13	8	0	3

Session V

Title :Accessibility Testing

Topics Covered: Automated Testing + Tools, Manual Testing

Content

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Covered Useful Materials	15	9	0	0
Practical to my needs and interest	14	9	1	0
Well Organized	13	11	0	0
Presented at the right level	13	11	0	0
Use Visual Aids	14	9	1	0

Presentation

	Excellent	Good	Need Improvement	Not Applicable
Instructor's Knowledge	17	7	0	3
Instructor's Presentation Style	14	10	0	3
Instructor Covered Materials Clearly	14	9	0	1
Instructor Responded Well to questions	16	7	1	3

Workshop Organizers

Ms Nirmita Narsimhan (Programme Manager)
The Centre for Internet and Society
No. D2, 3rd Floor, Sheriff Chambers
14, Cunningham Road, Bangalore,
Karnataka 560052,
India

Phone: (+91)-080-4092-6283‎
Fax: (+91)-080-4114-8130
Email: nirmita@cis-india.org

Mr. Thomas Abraham (Training Coordinator)
Society for Promotion of Alternative Computing and Employment
C-11, Elankom Gardens,
Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala, India

Mobile: +91 94964 13317 Office Phone: +91 47123 18997
Email: tomuhs@gmail.com, contact@space-kerala.org

Consolidated Expenses of Web Accessibility Workshop, Trivandrum

Budget Head		Amount (Rs.)

Rent of lab and set up		15200
Accomodation		4963
Stationery		10285
Communication		507
Food		7535
Travel		6235
Coordination		10000
Total		54725

Please click here for the complete report.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/workshop-thiruvananthapuram-report

National Telecom Policy, 2012

snehashish — 2013-03-15T06:00:26Z

The National Telecom Policy, 2012 was approved by the Union Cabinet on May 31, 2012.

The vision of the policy is, “to provide secure, reliable, affordable and high quality converged telecommunication services anytime, anywhere for an accelerated inclusive socio-economic development”. The policy also aims at recognizing telecom as infrastructure in order to realize the potential of ICT for development.

The main components of the policy are:

Broadband Rural Telephony and Universal Service Obligation Fund
R&D, Manufacturing and Standardization of Telecommunication Equipment
Licensing, Convergence and Value Added Services
Spectrum Management
Quality of Service and Protection of Consumer Interest
Security

Vision of the National Telecom Policy, 2012

The vision of the Policy is, “to provide secure, reliable, affordable and high quality converged telecommunication services anytime, anywhere for an accelerated inclusive socio-economic development”. The vision is to transform the country into an empowered and inclusive knowledge based society through telecommunication as the platform. Information and access to information is a major part of any development scheme, better communication systems can help in increasing awareness and knowledge about various issues in the society.

Background

The growth of telecommunication in rural areas has been slow, with only 34 per cent of the total connections. There is an urgent need to bridge this digital divide and communication gap by providing better and advanced telecommunication services in the rural and remote areas. The current National Telecom Policy, 2012 also aims at an investor friendly policy. It also seeks to generate employment in various telecom sectors through this policy. One of the salient features of the policy is to make available broadband on demand and use of telecom infrastructure which in turn would enable businesses in urban as well as rural areas to engage in the web-economy and e-commerce for inclusive development.

Mobile Devices as an Instrument of Social Empowerment (e-Governance, m-Governance)

The Policy endeavours at making mobile devices as tools for social empowerment. This will be achieved through enabling participation of citizens in e-governance and m-governance projects in key sectors such as health, education, skill development, employment, governance and banking on mobile devices. Cloud-computing will be also used to enable social networking and participative e-governance. One Nation-Full Mobile Number Portability to be implemented and work towards One Nation Free Roaming.

Mobile devices are not only to be used for communication but also to be used as devices to authenticate proof of identity and facilitate secure financial transactions, multilingual services and other capabilities which will assist in increasing the literacy rate in the country.

Strategies

Broadband Rural Telephony and Universal Service Obligation Fund
The Policy dictates for a robust and secure telecommunication service in the rural and remote areas. In order to bridge the digital divide the Policy also mandates affordable and high quality broadband connectivity and telecom service throughout the nation. This will be achieved through combination of technologies viz., optical fibre, wireless, VSAT and others. Optical fibre networks to be laid down to the village panchayats, using USOF funding. It also aims at high speed broadband access to all the village panchayats by 2014 and access to all villages and habitation by 2020. It also aims at increasing the rural tele-density from 29 to 70 by 2012 and 100 by 2020. With high quality voice, data and multimedia and broadcasting services on converged networks,[1] it is expected to render better service to the user.

The policies formulated with respect to access to broadband are:

Develop an “eco-system for broadband” and also work towards a “right to broadband”. It also endeavours to recognize telecom and broadband service a basic necessity in the field of education and health.
Provide affordable and reliable broadband on demand by 2015, 175 million broadband connections by 2017; 600 million by 2020 at a minimum speed of 2 Mbps download speed and also to make available higher speeds of at least 100 Mbps on demand.
Revise the existing broadband download speed from 256 Kbps to 512 Kbps and 2 Mbps by 2015 and speed up to at least 100 Mbps thereafter. The policy also encourages use of FTTH (fibre to the home) to create a “always connected” society.
Set up an agency, to co-ordinate with different government departments in order to efficiently lay optical fibre cables across the nation and help in rapid expansion of broadband services in the country.
Use broadband along with other government agencies for the implementation of e-governance, e-panchayats MNREGA, NKN, AADHAR, AAKASH tablet. It will also help in facilitating secure financial transactions online.
Stimulate interest with respect to utility of broadband by promoting regional and local content with the help of the Department of Information Technology. This will help in generating investment for All-Internet Protocol (IP) Networks including Next Generation Networks (NGN)

R&D, Manufacturing and Standardization of Telecommunication Equipment

The Policy directives for encouraging R&D are:

Encourage indigenous manufacturing and R&D, entrepreneurship and IPR creation in the field of telecom products and service under the 12th 5 year plan.
Preference to be given to domestically produced telecom products in case of those telecom products which have security implication for the country or which will be put to government use. Moreover, the policy in order to promote indigenous R&D in telecommunication technology will provide for fiscal and financial incentive will be granted for indigenous R&D.
Focus on production and R&D of telecom equipment as well as address the issues of security and strategic concerns. It also aims to focus on a green policy and use of renewable sources of energy in the telecom sector.
Set up a council with experts from sectors of the telecom industry including telecom service providers, telecom manufacturing industry, government, academia and R&D institutions. The functions of the Council would be to (a) forecast on technology change and product development; (b) update the national programme for technology/product development; (c) to act as a nodal group to ensure implementation of the recommendations made for R&D and IPR creation.
Promote collaboration between telecom service providers, manufacturers, R&D centres, academia and other stakeholders for development and introduction of new products in the market which are more suitable for Indian environment and security needs.
Assist entrepreneurs by creating funds and promoting indigenous manufacturing, R&D and intellectual property creation.

The Policy also addresses issues with regards to standards in the telecom sector. The main policy directives for standardization of telecom in India are:

Set up new standards to meet national requirements and participate in the standard making process carried out by international standardization organizations and also contribute in formulation of global standards.
Implement platform neutral services in e-governance and m-governance in the sector of health, education and agriculture. The Policy objective is also to encourage development of mobile phone based on open platform standards.
Mandate to use common platform for interconnection of various networks for non-discriminatory and non-exclusive access.
Create a road-map for aligning technology, demand, standards and regulations for the purpose of promoting competition in the market.
Set up a Telecommunication Standard Development Organisation (TSDO) as an autonomous body to build consensus about standards to meet national requirements including security requirements. The Organisation will also oversee participation of government, industry, R&D centres, service providers and academia in such setting of standards.

In order to promote domestic manufacture of telecom equipments, the Policy seeks to support electronic design and manufacturing clusters for design, development and manufacture of telecommunication equipment. The Policy aims to provide incentive for export of telecom equipment and also give fiscal incentives for domestic manufacturing of telecom equipments under the Modified Special Incentive Package Scheme (M-SIPS). It will also lay down mechanism for testing and certification with respect to conformance, performance, interoperability, health, safety, security, EMF/EMI/EMC (electromagnetic compatibility).

Licensing, Convergence and Value Added Services

The policy regarding licensing:

Simplify the licensing framework in order to facilitate converged high quality services.
Strengthen institutional and legal and regulatory framework and to bring more transparency and efficiency in decision making process and also implement web-based e-governance solution for online application, processing and issuance of licence by Department of Telecommunication.
Convergence of technology, for the purpose of enabling a single network for voice data and video, internet telephony (VoIP), value added services and broadcasting services.
Move towards convergence between telecom, broadcast, IT service, networks, platforms, technologies. It is also imperative to overcome hurdles such as “existing segregation of licensing, registration and regulatory mechanisms in these areas to enhance affordability, increase access, delivery of multiple services and reduce cost.”
Use of fixed mobile convergence in order to optimize the delivery of services to the consumers irrespective of the device or the location.
Support from USOF for telecom services, including converged communication services for providing services in commercially unviable rural and remote areas.

Spectrum Management

The Policy aims at creating a framework for increasing the availability of spectrum for the purpose of telecom services. It also seeks to implement a transparent process for allocation of spectrum as well as ensure availability of spectrum. The Policy wishes to make available additional 300 MHz for IMT (4G) services by 2013 and another 200 MHz by 2020.

The government will also promote efficient use of spectrum and will conduct periodical spectrum usage audit. It will also de-licence un-used and additional frequency bands for public use. It will also conduct periodic audit of spectrum use, to ensure optimum use of spectrum.

The policy directives for spectrum management are:

Liberalise spectrum for the purpose of enabling use of spectrum for providing any service through any technological medium. Such liberalisation policy will also allow spectrum pooling, sharing, and later trading to effect optimum use of spectrum. This will be done through appropriate regulatory framework.
Re-farm spectrum to allot alternate frequency bands to service providers and also to make available spectrum for the introduction of new technologies in the telecom market.
Devise a roadmap for the purpose of making available additional spectrum in the next five years. It also seeks to make available globally harmonised IMT spectrum in 450 MHz, 700 MHz, 1800 MHz, 1910 MHz, 2.1 GHz, 2.3 GHz, 2.5 GHz, 3.5 GHz bands and other bands to be identified by ITU for commercial mobile services.
Provide small chunks of frequency bands for the purpose of research and development indigenous technologies and products.
Optimize spectrum allocation by reviewing the existing geographical unit of allocation of spectrum.
Promote use of white spaces with low power devices, without causing harmful interference to the licensed applications in specific frequency bands by deployment of Software Defined Radios (SDRs), Cognitive Radios (CRs), etc.
Establish Institute of Advanced Radio Spectrum Engineering and Management Studies (IARSEMS) which will carry out policy research in radio spectrum engineering, management/radio monitoring and related aspects.

Quality of Service and Protection of Consumer Interest

The main policy mandate is to further empower TRAI (independent regulator) for the purpose of ensuring that the prescribed performance standards and quality of service parameters are complied with, by the service provides and also provide support to the sector regulator in creating awareness about services, tariff and quality of service. It also seeks to balance the interests of the consumer and the service provider.

The Policy objectives with respect to protection of consumer interests:

Informed consent;
Transparency;
Accountability in quality of service, tariff, usage and;
Strengthen grievance redressal mechanisms

The strategies adopted for ensuring quality of service and protections of consumer interest are:

Formulate code of practices of sales and marketing communication.

Mandate web-based disclosure of area coverage by the telecom service providers.

Establish National Mobile Property Registry to deal with issues of security, theft and other concerns such a reprogramming of mobile handsets.

Undertake legislative measure to include dispute between telecom consumers and service providers within the jurisdiction of consumer forums.

Security

The objective of the policy is to formulate a strategy to address the concerns related to communication security and network security. AADHAR based authentication framework would be crucial in providing service such as m-payment.

The strategy adopted to implement security measures are:

Telecom service providers must take adequate measures; to ensure security of the communication send and received through their networks. The service provider will adopt contemporary network security standards

Telecom service providers must provide communication assistance to law enforcement agencies. Telecom service providers must assist law enforcement agencies within legal framework and also keeping in view the individual privacy and also following international practices to the extent possible for fulfilling national security needs.

Regulatory measures to ensure that safe to connect devices are inducted on to the network. To build national capacity around security standards, security testing, and interception and monitoring capabilities.

[1].Multiple communication service on a single network; See, http://bit.ly/zEA4wa

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/resources/national-telecom-policy-2012

National Telecom Policy 2012 — Issues and Concerns

Snehashish Ghosh — 2013-03-25T10:22:04Z

Snehashish Ghosh throws light on some of the issues and concerns surrounding the recently passed National Telecom Policy 2012.

The National Telecom Policy, 2012 (NTP’ 12) was approved by the Cabinet on May 31, 2012.[1] The primary objective of the Policy is to provide reliable and affordable converged telecommunication services, across the whole nation. It aims at transforming mobile devices into instruments of social empowerment by implementing e-governance and m-governance, and has emphasized on security of networks and secure services to consumers.

The Positives

The Policy has exempted additional frequency bands from licensing for public use. It aims to provide small chunks of frequency bands for the purpose of research and development of indigenous technologies and products. NTP’12 further seeks to promote use of white spaces with low power devices, without causing harmful interference to the licensed applications in specific frequency bands by deployment of software defined radios, cognitive radios, etc.
On the issue of transforming mobile devices into instruments of social empowerment, the Policy aims to encourage development of mobile phones based on open platform standards.
The Policy also wishes to implement measures to include disputes between consumers and telecom service providers within the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums.
The NTP '12 will allow spectrum pooling, sharing and later trading of spectrum under the supervision of appropriate regulatory authority. The Policy also dictates regular spectrum audit to ensure efficient and optimum use of spectrum.

Despite the above mentioned positives, the NTP’ 12 has certain issues.

Access to Telecom Services including Broadband

The Policy has ambitious goals with respect to telecommunication coverage throughout India. It aims to increase the teledensity in rural and remote areas from 39 to 70 in the next five years and 100 by the year 2020. In case of broadband, it wishes to provide affordable and reliable broadband-on-demand by 2015 and 175 million broadband connections in the next two years at a minimum speed of 2 Mbps and 600 million by 2020. However, the policy fails to mention any framework for implementation of such policy mandate. Formerly, the National Broadband Plan, 2004 [2] aimed at providing broadband (minimum speed of 256 Kbps) to 20 million households by 2010 but only 13 million households have broadband connectivity as on May, 2012. The target which the policy wishes to achieve is commendable. But the previous experience with such policy implementation could have been taken into consideration before setting such targets.

Research and Development (R&D), Manufacture and Standards

The World Trade Organization (WTO) mandates national treatment wherein a member country cannot discriminate between domestic and foreign products.[3] The Draft Policy ran into conflicts with this particular WTO obligation with regards to giving preference to domestically manufactured telecom products and equipments. However, this has been revised and now the policy only seeks to prefer indigenous telecom equipment in case of government and place where national security is involved. This is a good move as it provides better security in case of confidential government communication. However, it fails to give any directive as to production of such secure telecom equipment as well as security standards of such equipment. Moreover, we don’t have any uniform security standards in place.[4]

The NTP’12 aims at transforming India into a ‘global manufacturing hub’. However, it neither mentions deadlines for achieving such goals nor it lays down any framework to achieve such goals.

Unified Licensing Regime

The NTP’12 aims at moving towards unified licensing regime. Under unified licence, the licensee has the right to provide converged services. But if a service provider wishes to render any specific service only (for example internet service providers), then such service provider does not have any option but to procure licence for converged services i.e. a unified licence. In order to implement such unified licensing regime, the Policy needs to further clarify the terms and conditions of such licence.[5] A better approach would be to provide unified licence as well as licence for specific independent services, so that a service provider has the option to provide converged services or selected services

Concerns regarding Security and Privacy of the Consumers

Implementation of voice over protocol (VoIP) is one of the policy directives of NTP ’12. VoIP can be used for anonymous communication which poses a threat to security of the State. The Policy has been criticised by the Home Ministry on this ground and the Ministry asked the Department of Telecom to consult with them before implementing such policy.

The Policy wants to mandate and enforce telecom service providers to take adequate measures to ensure security of the communication sent or received through the networks. The Policy dictates that this will be achieved through ‘contemporary security standards’. The term ‘contemporary security standards’ has not been defined in the Policy. The Policy might have referred to any of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) approved standards to define 'contemporary security standards'.

Another concern with security and privacy is that the Policy mentions that Unique Identification (UID) will become an integral part of electronic authentication framework. UID has been widely criticised on various grounds including privacy. It is important to note that UID can be easily misused, and therefore it should be avoided for authentication purposes.

Missed Opportunities

NTP’12 does not include any policy mandate for providing accessibility for person with disabilities. The Policy should mandate implementation of systems that would enable better accessibility for persons with disabilities. This could have included formulation of a Code of good practice for manufactures and service providers, conduct surveys and gather statistics on use of telecommunication services by persons with disabilities, etc.

Conclusion

The NTP’12 is an ambitious policy, it would be a daunting task for the Government of India to fulfill the objectives within the deadline prescribed by it.

Notes

[1].See New Telecom Policy, Department of Telecom, Ministry of Communications & IT available at http://tinyurl.com/cwqf3br, last accessed on June 30, 2012.
[2].See the Broadband Policy, 2004, Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Telecommunications http://tinyurl.com/7e52tbq, last accessed on June 29, 2012.
[3]See generally, National Treatment available at http://tinyurl.com/yg2kkc5
[4].See Elonnai Hickok, Encryption Standards and Practices at http://tinyurl.com/6prhl4q, last accessed on June 30, 2012.
[5].Shalini Singh, Policy promises broadband for all with minimum download speed of 2 megabits, The Hindu, June 1, 2012 available at http://tinyurl.com/bqc6sgr, last accessed on June 30, 2012.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/national-telecom-policy-2012

National Strategy on Blockchain

aman — 2021-03-22T05:33:44Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/national-strategy-on-blockchain

National Resource Kit: The Jharkhand Chapter (Call for Comments)

Manojna Yeluri — 2013-11-07T06:14:16Z

The National Resource Kit team is pleased to bring you its research on the state of laws, policies and programmes for persons with disabilities in the state of Jharkhand.

Executive Summary

According to the 2001 Census, the number of persons with disability i Jharkhand amounted to about 4,48,377 which is roughly 3% of the total population of Jharkhand.[1] The largest section of the disabled population in Jharkhand is visually impaired, constituting about 41.53%. Statistics indicate that Jharkhand houses approximately 2.04% of the total disabled population of the country.

Quick Statistics:

Capital: Ranchi
Population: 32,966,238 (2011 Census)
Population of Persons with Disabilities: 448,377 (2001 Census)
Literacy: 67.63%

The Nodal Department in charge of the implementation and enforcement of the Rules and Acts concerning Persons with Disabilities is the Department of Social Welfare, Women and Child Development. The Jharkhand State Policy on Disability Rights seeks to ensure, inter alia, Participation, Inclusion, Barrier free environment, Empowerment and Self Advocacy.

Legal Provisions

The Jharkhand State Policy on Disability has been formulated under the provisions enshrined in the Central Policies and laws.

The State Policy seeks to facilitate the inclusion of disability rights in the strategies of the Government, to develop an integrated management system for the coordination of disability planning and its implementation, and finally, to develop a comprehensive plan of action that will include among other things, a strong public education system and awareness raising programmes. The Policy focuses mainly on the following areas:

Public Education and Awareness Raising
Prevention of Disabilities through Early Identification and Intervention, immunisation, healthy lifestyle promotion and so on.
Health Care and Nutrition
Community Based Rehabilitation
Barrier Free Access
Accessible and Flexible Public Transport System
Inclusive Education
Employment and Economic Empowerment
Participation in Public Life
Skill Development through special vocation training services
Human Resource Development to ensure access to the necessary rehabilitation services
Social Security
Housing
Cultural and Creative Activities and Sports
Data Gathering and Research on Persons with Disabilities
Special Focus areas: Mental Illness, Sensory and Multiple Disabilities, Women and Girls with Disabilities and Certification

Additionally, a new policy is set to be passed which will ensure a three per cent fund allotment in the State’s annual budget, for the upliftment of people with disability.[2]

Accessibility

The Department of Social Welfare, Jharkhand has not made any schemes under this category except for the following:

Concessions on Tickets: For persons with blindness, physical or mental disability, 75% concession on the price of tickets is given in sleeper class and 3^rd AC compartment while 50% concession is given in 2^nd and 1^st AC. For persons who are hearing and speech impaired, a 50% concession is provided. A concession is also provided for any helper traveling with the person with disability.[3]

Tricycles and Wheelchairs: Tricycles, wheelchairs and other aids and appliances are to be provided to the physically challenged, however there is no specific scheme for the same.[4]

No other provisions have been made with regard to travel allowances.

Education

The state government provides for scholarships, reserevations and other facilities for stidents with disabilities. The benefits provided are as follows:

Scholarships and Stipends for students with disabilities:

Class 1- 8 in Govt schools: Stipend of Rs. 50/- per student per month.

Class 9 to Undergraduate degree in Govt school/ college: Stipend of Rs.250/- per student per month.

Postgraduate degree in a Govt college: Stipend of Rs. 260/- per student per college.

Boarders from Class 1-8 in a Govt school: Stipend of Rs. 100/- per student per month.
Additionally, if any registered Non Governmental Organisation sets up a school for children with disabilities, students of that school are also to be taken care of. It is to be ensured that the schools have trained teachers and the necessary equipments.[5]

Reservation in Educational Institutions: As per Section 39 of the PWD Act, reservation of 3% is provided in government educational institutions as well as educational institutions funded by the government for persons with disabilities.

Non Formal education: 5^th class dropout students with disabilities are to be given Non Formal education and children over the age of 16 are to be given special books, desired equipments and are to be taught through open schools and universities in order for them to attain functional literacy.[6]

Grants in Aid Schemes: The Department of Social Welfare runs various bodies and institutions through grants in aid to Non Governmental Organisations for the welfare of its target groups. Few of such schemes are as follows.

Establishment of Schools for Spastic Children: The scheme for the spastic children is being implemented in this State through Non Governmental Organisations in different blocks of the State. For this scheme funds are provided to those Non Governmental Organisations that wish to open special schools for the benefit of spastic children.
Schools for the Blind, Hearing and Speech Impaired: The State government has set up construction and renovation work for schools for the blind, hearing and speech impaired. In addition to these, 3 new schools and hostels have been completed. It is proposed to run these institutions with the help of capable Non Governmental Organisations.

Employment

Reservation in Government Jobs: As per Notification No. 728 dated 01/11/2007 read with Notification No. 5776 dated 10/10/2002 and Notification No. 5795 dated 10/10/2002, 3% of Government jobs have been reserved for persons with disabilities in the State.[7] Within this 3%, 1% of the jobs is reserved for persons with partial or complete blindness, 1% for people with hearing disability and 1% for people who are orthopaedically disabled.[8]

Health and Rehabilitation

No health and rehabilitation schemes have been formulated except for provision of equipment and aids and appliances.

Equipments for persons with disabilities: Equipments such as crutches, hearing aids, tricycles are being provided by the State government to persons with disabilities.

Social Protection

Swami Vivekananda Nisshakta Svawalamban Protsahan Yojana: This is a flagship scheme promulgated by the Jharkhand State Government with regard to the welfare of persons with disabilities in the State. Since the financial year 2006-07 the Government has started this scheme where an amount of Rs. 200/- per month is given to every person with disability living in the State and is above the age of 5 years as a stipend through Anganwadi workers. This amount has now been increased to Rs. 400/- per month.[9]

Minor Disability Sector scheme: Apart from the scheme of Swami Vivekananda Nisshakta Svawalamban Protsahan Yojana there are a few minor schemes relating to disability which are run by the Department of Social Welfare. They are as follows:

Special Equipment for Disabled

Scholarship to Handicapped

Economic & Social Survey of the Disabled

Workshop for the Disabled[10]

Reservation in Poverty Alleviation Programmes: Notification No. 3260 dated 06/06/2003 provides that any poverty alleviation programme of the Government must have a 3% reservation for persons with disabilities.[11]

Workshop for the Disabled: Under this scheme funds are provided to Non Governmental Organisations for conducting workshops, seminars etc. on disability, and also for organizing Abilympics and related events.[12] Abilympics is a vocational skills competition on the lines of the Olympics, held for persons with disabilities to showcase their talents.

Central Schemes

Cash Transfer Scheme: Jharkhand government has decided to bring all 24 districts of the state under Direct Cash Transfer scheme of the Central Government by May 2013. The Direct Cash Transfer scheme will start in four districts of Jharkhand- Ranchi, Ramgarh, Hazaribagh and Saraikela Kharsawan. The scheme would provide cash directly to persons with disability, in addition to scholarships and pensions for the elderly and other welfare schemes of Central Government through Aadhar cards.

Deendayal Disabled Rehabilitation Scheme to promote Voluntary Action for Persons with Disabilities: This is an umbrella scheme by the Central Government for the effective rehabilitation of persons with disabilities. The Jharkhand Government, under this scheme, provides assistance to Non Governmental Organisations for provision of a wide range of services to the disabled such as early intervention, programmes for pre school, vocational training, special education, community based rehabilitation, manpower development and so on.[13]

Assistance to Disabled Persons for Purchase/Fitting of Aids/Appliances (ADIP) Scheme: This scheme of the Central Government has been implemented by the Jharkhand Government. Funds are provided to the state notionally which are then allocated to Implementing Agencies for the purpose of assisting persons with disabilities to promote their physical, social and psychological rehabilitation by helping them.[14]

Scheme for providing Employment to Persons with Disabilities in the Private Sector: Incentives are being provided by the Government to the private sector employers in order to promote employment in the private sector as well.[15]

[1].http://www.jharkhand.gov.in/new_depts/socwf/Social%20Welfare%20Annual%20Plan%2009-10.pdf

[2].http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-09-05/ranchi/33614847_1_state-disability-commissioner-pwd-act-disability-act

[3].Directory for the Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities through Government and Non Governmental Organisations, pp.25-26.

[4].http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130302/jsp/jharkhand/story_16623167.jsp#.UYc8tLW7KAg

[5].http://socialwelfarejhar.com/ap12-13.pdf, p.5.

[6].Section 27 of the PWD Act.

[7].Directory for the Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities through Government and Non Governmental Organisations, p. 33.

[8]. Office Memorandum No.36035/3/2004-Estt.(Res.) dated 29.12.2005.

[9].http://socialwelfarejhar.com/

[10].http://www.jharkhand.gov.in/new_depts/ap201011/Social_welfare201011.pdf

[11].Supra, n.7.

[12].http://www.jharkhand.gov.in/new_depts/socwf/Social%20Welfare%20Annual%20Plan%2009-10.pdf

[13].http://socialjustice.nic.in/ddrs.php?pageid=6

[14].http://socialjustice.nic.in/adipjh.php

[15].http://socialjustice.nic.in/incentdd.php

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/national-resource-kit-jharkhand-call-for-comments

National Resource Kit - Tamil Nadu Chapter

praskrishna — 2013-01-23T10:58:50Z

The Tamil Nadu chapter draft is put up for comments.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/national-resource-kit-tamil-nadu-chapter

National Policy on Universal Electronic Accessibility – An Analysis

anandi — 2013-12-27T07:49:47Z

Electronics and Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are widely used in all areas of life such as education, health care, employment, entertainment, banking and finance management and other aspects of daily living.

They not only make life easier for people in general, but have the potential to revolutionise the lives of persons with disabilities through larger inclusion and participation in these areas and by enabling independent living through use of appropriate assistive technologies (ATs).

In the year 2010, the erstwhile Department of Information Technology, Government of India circulated a draft consultation paper on the National Policy for Electronic Accessibility that sought to regulate the provision of accessible Electronics and ICTs services and products and universal design concepts for persons with disabilities. Post consultation and deliberation, the Government of India has passed the National Policy on Universal Electronic Accessibility (National Policy) in 2013. This is a brief analysis of the policy and the provisions therein.

The draft consultation paper had clearly identified the requirements of persons with disabilities that had to be kept in view while designing electronic accessibility solutions:

Eliminating discrimination on the basis of disabilities and facilitating equal access to Information and Communication Technologies and Electronics (ICTE)
Understanding the diversity of persons with disabilities and creating solutions for their specific needs
Ensuring that accessibility standards and guidelines and universal design concepts are adopted and adhered to.

While the draft consultation paper only sought to provide equal access to ICTE products and services to persons with disabilities, the objective of the National Policy has been expanded to include not just equal but also barrier free access. The category of disabilities has also been expanded to include mental disabilities. Further, the policy seeks to facilitate local language support and sync universal access with barrier free access that should be usable without adaptation.

The scope of the National Policy continues to cover access to ICTE products and services to persons with disabilities in the areas of universal design, assistive technologies and independent living aids as in the draft consultation paper, but the National Policy expands on the broad roles and functions of the major stakeholders.

The National Policy clearly defines the following points that were not discussed in the Draft Consultation Paper:

The Department of Electronics and Technology is named as the nodal authority for monitoring the implementation of the policy.
Recommends constitution of a high level advisory committee of multiple stakeholders – central and state. ministries and department, industry, academia, disabled persons organisations and persons with disabilities for guiding and implementing the policy.
Recommends an amendment in the Information Technology (IT) Act to protect persons with disabilities who inadvertently break the law.
Lays emphasis on providing support in local languages to accessible Electronics and ICTs.

The strategy and Action Plan defined in the Draft Consultation Paper have been augmented and restructured to include the following points described in the National Policy:

Creating awareness on universal electronics accessibility and universal design

The National Policy specifically provides that the Department of Electronics and Information Technology will play the lead role.
Other central and state ministries, departments and agencies will also be responsible.
Carried out through Media, campaigns, conferences, workshops and seminars.
Will also include available and emerging assistive technologies and independent living aids and schemes.
Information to be made available in public domain in local languages in accessible format.

Capacity building and Infrastructure Development

The National Policy requires that schemes for capacity building on accessibility and assistive technologies be taken up within the government and for persons with disabilities.

Education and Assistive Technologies Centres

Accessibility standards and guidelines and universal design concepts to be included in the curriculum of Electronics and ICTs education.
Assistive technologies and independent living aids to be included in the curriculum of Special Education and Rehabilitation.
Model Electronics and ICTs centres to be set up to provide training and demonstration to special educators and persons with disabilities including persons with mental disabilities.

Conducting research and development

To develop assistive technologies and independent living aids based on accessibility standards and guidelines and universal design concepts
To provide incentives for the research and development of such products
To formulate schemes to support research and development organisations for developing such products
To include persons with disabilities and rehabilitation professionals in formulation, implementation and monitoring the schemes.

Accessibility Standards

The draft consultation paper provides that the accessibility standards and guidelines be taken or modified from existing standards and guidelines in accessibility
The National Policy specifically names existing accessibility standards and guidelines such as the following as examples

W3C Accessibility Standards
ATAG (Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines)
WCAG 2.0 (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines)
UAAG (User Agent Accessibility Guidelines)

Accessibility compliance would be monitored for government websites, websites for disability issues, general citizen centric websites and important websites with high traffic or high consumer transaction.

Accessible format for content

Content published in electronic format including text books, journals, publications, multimedia etc are required to be published in accessible format
Support in local languages to be provided for all content

Developing programmes and schemes

The National Policy lays emphasis on schemes for women and children with disabilities

Developing procurement guidelines for Electronics and ICTs for accessibility and assistive needs

The draft Consultation Paper merely states that ICTE procurement guidelines and processes should include accessibility standards and guidelines.
The National Policy requires that Electronics and ICTs procurement policies be evolved to confirm to the requirements of the National Policy.
Higher cost of accessibility compliant hardware and software to be budgeted for at procurement.
Incentives to be provided by the government to assist with the procurement of such products.
Any scheme formulated by the central or state governments for persons with disabilities should be linked with ongoing schemes for universal electronic accessibility.

Affordable Access

The Draft Consultation Paper requires that schemes be formulated to provide access to ICTE services and products to persons with disabilities at affordable costs.
Information about these schemes to be made available in the public domain in local languages in accessible format.
The National Policy promotes open source usage to meet affordable access requirements.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/national-policy-on-universal-electronic-accessibility-analysis

National Policy on Software Products

praskrishna — 2016-12-11T03:30:25Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/national-policy-on-software-products.pdf

National IPR Policy: Mapping the Stakeholders’ Response

Akshath Mithal — 2015-11-24T15:02:17Z

The first draft of the National IPR Policy was released last December. Following that, a plethora of comments and suggestions was submitted to the DIPP on the same. In this post, I will focus on the comments that were available online and analyse the trends that I was able to find in the same and also highlight the many suggestions put forth by the stakeholders.

Nehaa Chaudhari provided inputs and feedback and also edited this post.

I. Introduction

On 24^th December 2014, the IPR Think Tank constituted by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) officially released the first draft of the National IPR Policy. Following this, in a press release dated 30^th December, 2014, the DIPP called for comments and suggestions on the draft from all stakeholders. CIS, through an RTI, asked the DIPP to disclose all the comments received by it. However, the DIPP’s reply, rather vague, stated that it is not in the position to provide the same. (Further details here).

II. Research Methodology

In this post, I have compiled and compared the various submissions that I was able to find online in a SpicyIP post and will provide an analysis of the same.

The spreadsheet that I have created contains a compilation of the many issues that were raised by 15 stakeholders of various affiliations (organisations/scholars/unions). This spreadsheet was put together after reading each submission carefully, and summarizing the same. After dividing the contents of the submissions into the various issues, they were put under certain heads in this sheet. Though there were a few ideas covered by certain submissions that have not been tabulated, all the major and important ones have been covered, in my opinion.

On the basis of this spreadsheet, the following observations have been made on the feedback of the many stakeholders on the various aspects of the draft.

III. Stakeholders - A Statistical Analyis

A total of 15 submissions were taken into consideration for the purpose of this post, and all of them applauded the government for recognizing of the need for a comprehensive policy on IP and the DIPP’s efforts to give the public a chance to play a role in the process of formation of a policy that would affect the country and its economy significantly. However, each submission had its own set of criticisms and suggestions to the various aspects dealt with by the policy. In my analysis there are three broad categories that the stakeholders can be divided into:

Research organisations/NGOs.
Industrial representative bodies/Political organisations.
Scholars/Academia.

A representation of the stakeholders and the categories that they belong to has been produced below.

Categories	Stakeholders
Research organisations/NGOs	Centre for Internet and Society (CIS); Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS); Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC); Centre for Law & Policy Research (CLPR).
Industrial representative bodies/Political organisations	Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO); National Association of Manufacturers (NAM); International Trademark Association (INTA); IP Federation – UK; ICC’s Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP); Swadeshi Jagaran Manch (SJM); American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham – India).
Scholars/Academia	Centre for Intellectual Property and Technology Law – O.P. Jindal Global University (CIPTEL); S. Ragavan, B. Baker, S. Flynn; Adv. Ravindra Chingale – NLU Delhi; Prof. N.S. Gopalakrishnan & Dr T.G. Agitha – CUSAT.

Out of the comments studied, the largest chunk of stakeholders (46.67%) belonged to the industrial/manufacturing sector, with the other two categories comprising only 26.67% each. This could be attributed to the fact that a country’s IPR policy has a very vital role to play in influencing an industrial firm’s strategy and an unsatisfactory policy could have a serious and adverse effect on the profit-making abilities of an industry.

IV. IP - Innovation / Growth Nexus

There are a total of 13 themes that have been identified in the spreadsheet, and out of these 13, the one that the largest number of stakeholders has commented on is the question of there being nexus between intellectual property, innovation and growth. Eleven out of the fifteen stakeholders have given their opinion on this issue.

The opinion on this theme is not very uniform. Some organisations are of the opinion that there is a strong correlation between robust IPR protection mechanisms and innovation in a country, and thus there is a resultant benefit to the economy of the country. For example, the IP Federation of UK claimed that with a strong IPR regime, there is a greater inflow of FDI and R&D expenditure in countries, thus benefitting the country’s economy. On the other hand, there are some stakeholders who believe that there is no nexus and that the underlying assumption made by the draft policy is not backed by any research or evidence. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), for example, even cites evidence in its submission to oppose this assumption. The smallest chunk of stakeholders suggests to the Think Tank that in the current draft, there is not enough authority cited by them, and thus, there should be some research that must be done in order to give this assumption some backing. CIPTEL, a research centre based in OP Jindal Global University, stated that there should be a transparent survey conducted on this issue by a neutral agency.

The figure below would give the reader a comparative analysis of the responses from the stakeholders on this particular theme.

All the research organisations/NGOs that presented their views on this assumption are in opposition to the same and have proposed to the Think Tank that it should amend the contents of the policy after taking this incorrectly-made assumption out of the mix.

A majority of the industrial bodies have supported the existence of a nexus and have stated that by enforcing stronger IPR protection laws, the innovative/inventive environment of a country develops and this in turn encourages investors, which culminates into a rise in the growth of the economy.

Scholars and academia have a difference of opinion amongst themselves and there is no uniform pattern that can be seen in their responses to this issue.

The only political organisation in this analysis, the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch opposes the assumption and states that the policy has turned a blind eye to the development of the country and that there is no analysis on whether there is any effect of the proposed strengthening of IP protection on the various sectors of the economy.

V. International Treaties

The policy, in its introduction states the following stance on negotiation of international treaties and agreements – “In future negotiations in international forums and with other countries, India shall continue to give precedence to its national development priorities whilst adhering to its international commitments and avoiding TRIPS plus provisions.”

On this general theme, 9 out of 15 stakeholders have submitted their comments to the Think Tank. Out of these 9, the category-wise division of the stakeholders is represented by the diagram below.

The opinion of the stakeholders on this issue varied and there were broadly 3 kinds of responses that were found in the analysis. More than half of these responses (56%) suggested that all negotiations of treaties must be done transparently, with proper consultation of all stakeholders. CUTS, for example, recommended that to increase the confidence of the people in the country’s IP regime, the negotiations must be done with the opinion of all stakeholders being taken into consideration. They also cautioned the government to make sure that any future agreements do not contain any TRIPS-plus provisions. The second category applauded the policy’s pro-global stance towards IPR developments, and has recommended certain treaties that India must sign in order to strengthen its regime (details in spreadsheet). Only one stakeholder, the National Association of Manufacturers of the USA suggested that India’s stance of avoiding TRIPS-plus agreements is in contravention to its objective of keeping up with global IP developments. This point of view is clearly in favour of the USA as TRIPS-plus provisions have always been more beneficial to developed countries than developing countries like India.

Thus, it can be said that almost 90% of stakeholders, from across categories, are satisfied with India’s pro-international stance, and only want the government to be cautious and consult the public before signing treaties on IPR.

VI. Utility Models

A provision to legalise utility model protection was also a part of the draft policy. Utility models or petty patents are suggested by the policy in order to protect parties like MSMEs and their many innovations which may not satisfy the requirements of regular patent protection and thus losing out from IPR protection, leading to benefits not being reaped properly from these inventions.

This provision was commented on by eight of the 15 stakeholders, making it a little above half of the total. A category-wise division can be found below.

The opinion on utility models was majorly negative across categories, with 75% of the stakeholders believing that utility model protection must be given a second thought and many drawbacks were pointed out such as frivolous litigation, uncertainty in the market, and a drop in the quality of innovation registered in the country. A review of how effective utility model laws are in other countries was suggested before making any final decision. Only 2 out of the 8 stakeholders supported the provision for petty patents and stated that this would give a good means of protection to ‘jugaad’ innovations that are very popular in India and thus believed that such laws would help increase the innovation levels in the country.

VII. Public Funded Research Labs and Universities

Only four stakeholders had a say on the issue of grants to Government labs and universities, these organisations being Indian research organisations and academia. The opinion varied from party to party and the Centre for Internet and Society argued that if there was a rise in IP protection for government funded research, it would be against the vision of free and open access to research funded by taxpayers’ money.

The other three stakeholders, namely CIPTEL, CUTS and Adv. Ravindra Chingale emphasised on the importance of merit-based funding instead of funding on the basis of whether an organisation is Government-owned or not. Two of these also suggested that there must be a system of contact between industry and academia to incentivise and utilize innovation properly.

VIII. Limitations and Flexibilities

A very important aspect of any IPR regime is the presence of limitations, exceptions and flexibilities on the rights protected by IP laws, as it allows for the appropriate amount of information being shared for free or at reasonable costs, for furtherance of public interest.

On this vital issue, most stakeholders had a say and the trends of the feedback on the limitations and flexibilities on IP protection were as expected. There were two broad sets of opinions that could be gathered from the analysis, and while there was a majority (62.5%) of organisations and people who believed that the government must keep up its efforts of providing a good framework for exceptions to IPR protection with measures like compulsory licensing being put in place in order to protect broader interests of the country such as access to reasonably priced medicines and other necessities. The only recommendation that they had was that these measures should be decided after a careful analysis of what the economy really needed in order to develop further.

The opposition, quite understandably came from international industrial bodies representing manufacturers and intellectual property owners who argued that the policy of limitations to IPR protection is discouraging those who want to invest in the country and that it hurts the business of foreign-based companies that operate in India or want to do so in the near future as their intellectual property may not be protected adequately with such a policy in place.

The figure above clearly points out that none of those against limitations being placed on IP protection had an Indian background and all those in favour of the same were primarily Indian-based organisations and academics, with the exception of the American scholars – S. Ragavan, B. Baker, and S. Flynn.

IX. Trademarks

Only a single stakeholder, the International Trademark Association, was interested in the issue of trademarks. This can be attributed to the fact that this is the only association out of all the stakeholders having a direct interest in trademark law and policy. The organisation suggested that there should be a greater amount of clarity in the trademark examination process and also suggested that there should be an increase in the number of examiners to make the process of trademark registration quicker.

X. Trade Secrets

In objective 3 of the draft policy, the Think Tank suggests that to strengthen the IP framework of the country, trade secret protection must be introduced as a formal law. India, today, does not have a law to protect sensitive trading information and there needs to be a formalised contract for there to be any relief for leaking of such information.

The stakeholders supporting the enactment of trade secret legislation were interestingly all industrial bodies representing international companies and firms. Only 2 parties expressed their worries about such a law, and argued that there must be more backing to make this recommendation more convincing. A graphical representation of the stakeholders is given below to provide a clearer picture of the responses.

This chart portrays clearly that international bodies are insistent on the enactment of a trade secret law as this would help incentivise knowledge sharing in the country. In many countries, trade secret protection is formalised legally and these stakeholders argue that for foreign multinationals to feel confident while sharing sensitive information with others in India, the government must follow in the footsteps of such countries and legislate on this matter soon.

XI. On Specialised Courts

A common suggestion found across 5 of the 15 stakeholder responses was for the creation of a specialised IP judiciary that would be formed by widening the patent bench that was proposed in the draft policy. Such a court would deal only with issues of intellectual property and would consist of judges having special knowledge in the various branches of IP law.

XII. Conclusion

The draft policy was released almost a year ago, and since then, much discussion has taken place on the same, with many contradictory opinions and suggestions on the various aspects of the policy. It can be observed from this compilation that industrial bodies have been insistent on stronger IP protection and more incentives to multinationals to invest in India in the form of trade secret legislations, keeping limitations such as compulsory licensing to a minimum, et al.

On the other hand, a trend could be seen of research organisations and academia having a view that was more in the interest of the public and with the Indian scenario taken into consideration, with the criticism of utility models, TRIPS-plus agreements, and by raising the question of whether the assumption underlying the draft of there being a link between IP protection and a rise in innovation had any basis whatsoever. This post, however, is only a glimpse of the stakeholders’ responses owing to the fact that the DIPP has not officially released the submissions made to it and only the ones that were available online have been taken into consideration.

It is only a matter of time that the Think Tank releases the final policy and one shall hope that this tedious process of seeking comments and suggestions will bear any fruit with the policy being a balanced one and being aimed ultimately towards the benefit of the country as a whole.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-mapping-the-stakeholders2019-response

National IPR Policy Series: Quick Observations on the Leaked Draft of the National IPR Policy

nehaa — 2015-11-19T05:13:14Z

Earlier this week, the “Don’t Trade Our Lives Away” blog leaked the supposed final draft of India’s National IPR Policy (“leaked draft”). This article presents quick comments on this leaked draft.

The leaked draft (which is not final) is available here. The only official document that the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“DIPP”) has released so far is the First Draft of the National IPR Policy (“First Draft”).

CIS has tracked these developments since the beginning. We have submitted preliminary comments, critical comments to the First Draft, sent multiple requests under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI requests”) to the DIPP and published their responses, discussed the IPR Think Tank as a public authority under the RTI Act, analysed the process compared to recommendations by the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”), compared the First Draft to an earlier National IPR Strategy[N1] , written a letter to the Think Tank and have now begun to track the work being done by the Sectoral Innovation Council on IPR, also established under the DIPP. At the time of writing this post, we have been unable to locate comments to the First Draft made available by the DIPP.

Since the release of the First Draft in December, 2014, this leaked document has been the first look at an updated IPR Policy for India. Not much seems to have changed since December, 2014 and this new leaked draft (which is dated April, 2015), barring the inclusion of some Special Focus Areas.

Perhaps one of the strongest criticisms of the First Draft had been that it supposed a nexus between IP and innovation, and various stakeholders had been quick to point this out as problematic, and fallacious. Unfortunately, since the language of the new draft has barely changed (I have managed to count only two-three additions), this remains the underlying issue in the new draft as well.

What continues to be worrying in both drafts is sweeping references of benefits of IP to India’s socio-economic development. What constitutes this development and how IPR, and specifically the IPR Policy will achieve it is anyone’s guess, given that there are no references to studies undertaken to assess how IPR contributes to socio-economic development, specifically in India.

Here are some other quick comments:

In the first objective on IP Awareness and Promotion, the new draft includes an additional recommended step – that of engaging with the media to ‘sensitize them on IP issues’ (sic.). Given that this is under a broader objective of encouraging IP promotion, I am inclined to believe that this could be interpreted as telling the media to print positive things about intellectual property and refrain from criticizing intellectual property (that seems to be the theme of this entire document!). What does it mean to ‘sensitize’ the media about intellectual property?
In the second objective, on IP creation, the leaked draft contains a recommendation to conduct a study to assess the contribution of various IP based industries to the economy – including employment, exports and technology transfer. No other details have been provided in the draft.
Also in the second objective, the new draft makes a mention of improving the IP output of universities, national laboratories etc. The new draft proposes to encourage and facilitate the acquisition of intellectual property rights by these labs and institutions, whereas the earlier draft recommended the protection of IPRs created by them.
In the covering letter to the leaked draft, Justice Sridevan states that the final draft includes a discussion on key focus areas – creative industries, biotechnology, ICT, energy, agriculture, health, geographical indications (“GIs”) and traditional knowledge (“TK”). These have been discussed at the end of the new draft.
Limitations and exceptions remain confined to an area of future study/research for future policy development. The ‘Creative Industries’ section of the leaked draft makes a mention of the significance of limitations and exceptions to safeguard access to knowledge and information; and the need to balance user rights and property rights. One would have liked to see this discussed more substantively in the policy and not confined only to a paragraph in the section on ‘Creative Industries’.
In a welcome move, the policy draft (new) seeks to promote the adoption of free and open standards and free and open software in the ‘Information and Communication Technology and Electronics’ section.

With the DIPP Secretary’s latest update that the new policy draft will be released in about a month’s time, one will have to wait and see what the final draft looks like.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-quick-observations-on-the-leaked-draft-of-the-national-ipr-policy

National IPR Policy Series : India's National IPR Policy - What Would WIPO Think?

nehaa — 2015-07-02T17:47:58Z

As part of the National IPR Policy Series, CIS is evaluating how India's National IPR Policy framework and process holds up to WIPO's suggestions. In this note, Varun Baliga and Nehaa Chaudhari examine in particular, the functioning of the IPR Think Tank and the first draft of the National Policy in light of the WIPO framework and the principles it encapsulates.

This note is a brief overview of the approach set out by the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") for the development of National IPR Strategies by various countries. This note also compares WIPO's approach to the approach adopted by the IPR Think Tank ("Think Tank") in the formulation of India's National IPR Policy This note is only an academic exercise and is not to be construed as a recommendation of the procedure set out by WIPO for the development of National IPR Policies/Strategies.

An Overview of WIPO's Approach

WIPO's suggested model of a National IPR Policy operates at three levels - The Process, Baseline Questionnaire and Benchmarking Indicators. [1] On process, WIPO suggests an 8-step procedure in developing a National IP Strategy that lays clear emphasis on both continuous consultation and methodological rigour in data collection. The initial 'Assessment Mission' is aimed at preparing the ground for the formulation of the policy, and includes meetings with stakeholders so as to involve interested entities from the very beginning. [2] Given that an IPR policy is necessarily a political exercise, WIPO recommends that the mission be used to secure the political capital and commitment that would be necessary to see the exercise through. Then, a 'project (national) team' is constituted for an IP audit and develop an understanding of the economic, social and political infrastructure as context for the formulation of the policy. It is also stated that, in most instances, the team will include an international consultant. This is further complemented by 'Desk Research' and 'Data Collection' using the 'Baseline Survey Questionnaire', an integrated data collection tool developed by WIPO. The desk research is an assessment of the existing IP policies coupled with the country's broader goals - developmental, economic and social, so as to conceptualize a policy that is in conformity with the goals.

The data collection through the Baseline Survey Questionnaire is meant to complement the IP audit to understand the "weaknesses, strengths and potential" of "the current IP situation in the country". This audit and data collection drive is then buttressed with 'National Consultations' to validate the data and conclusions reached thus far. WIPO is unambiguous that the aim of these consultations is to enable a wide range of parties to exercise meaningful ownership and agency over the process of conceptualizing a national IPR policy. With the inputs received from the process so far, WIPO recommends that the drafting of the strategy commence on the basis of the "suggestions, opinions and recommendations received during the national consultation process". The drafting should operate at the level of each sector and the country as a whole. This is followed by a 'second round of stakeholder consultations'. These serve a dual purpose: to validate the findings of the first draft and to verify whether the first round of inputs are reflected in the draft itself. Finally, an 'implementation framework' including "implementation structures, a resource mobilization strategy, and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms".

Assessing the First Draft of India's National IPR Policy:

Now, we look at the National IPR Policy in India in light of the WIPO framework outlined above. First we look at the Assessment Mission or process followed prior to the announcement of any IPR policy. Then, we look at what assessment was undertaken of the existing IP laws in the country. Finally, the stakeholders meetings conducted so far are analysed in comparison to the purpose of such consultations that WIPO envisages.

Assessment Mission: There are no reports of an initial meeting having been held to explain the scope and methodology of the process. However, the IPR Think Tank invited comments before the release of the draft national policy in order to seek suggestions on the tentative policy. It should be noted that these comments have not been published.
Assessment of existing IP framework: The overview of the existing IP system in the draft policy covers just the various IP legislations and the relevant government departments. It then proceeds to underscore elements in Indian law that enhance and incentivize stricter standards for IP protection. For example, it illustrated the future challenge in copyright law as being enforcement on digital platforms. It identifies a need for concerted action to increase patent filings by Indians as over "75% of patent filings are by foreign entities". Further, even when it mentions India's ratification of the 2013 Marrakesh Treaty ensuring access to copyrighted works for persons with visual impairment, it is in the context of further reinforcement of copyright.Therefore, it is clear that the perspective of the draft policy towards India's existing framework downplays provisions ensuring access and protecting the public interest and focusses on more expansive IP protection, narrower exceptions and an overall priority for IP rights over the public interest in accessing knowledge. The purpose of the IP audit and desk research, "to obtain a clear picture of the current IP situation…, its weaknesses, strengths and potential.", has not been done justice by this audit weighted in favour of rightsholders. Finally, the Baseline Survey Questionnaire -an integrated tool for extensive data collection - has no mention in the draft policy. There is no indication that it has been utilized for the purpose of data collection, if any.
On stakeholder meetings: The Draft National IP Policy was released on 24 December 2014. A DIPP Press Release called for comments and suggestions to the First Draft to be sent in by January 30^th, 2015.[3] The first set of stakeholder meetings were only held on February 5^th and 6^th, 2015.[4] This is at odds with what the WIPO recommends. The very first step in the WIPO framework is the 'Assessment Mission' which involves meetings with stakeholders that explains the scope and methodology of the process, presumably to elicit views. There is no publicly available information that suggests that this has taken place. Second, the national consultation precedes the drafting of the strategy with the explicit goal of validating the IP audit findings and eliciting views on the drafting of the strategy. This is not intended to be a merely formalistic exercise but meaningful involvement of stakeholders in the whole process of conceptualizing a national IPR policy. Now, the DIPP has solicited comments prior to the publication of the first draft. However, mere solicitation of comments without meaningful consultation is a mere shadow of the objective of the WIPO recommendation of national consultations - "..to actively participate in the validation of the IP audit findings and the formulation of the National IP Strategy..to enhance a wide a range of IP stakeholders' ownership of the process of developing and eventually implementing a national IP strategy." Therefore, the principled objective of the consultation process as outlined by WIPO - enabling stakeholders to exercise a sense of agency over the policy document and drafting process - was severely undermined. Furthermore, WIPO suggests that the drafting of the policy should be based on the findings and suggestions submitted by the stakeholders. Given that comments have been solicited before the policy was drafted, it is incumbent upon the Think Tank to make comments submitted public. [5]

The following table summarizes the comparison in the WIPO approach to that of the IPR Think Tank. Apart from the procedure outlined thus far, the table touches upon other points of comparison that are sure to inform the continued functioning of the Think Tank in the road towards a National IPR Policy.

WIPO Suggestion	India's National IP Policy Framework - Comparison
WIPO has also suggested a number of justifications that may be advanced for the development of a national IP strategy. [6] These justifications will help in grounding the policy in a clear, lucid set of objectives. These are: Need to consolidate sectoral policies National long-term development agenda Benchmarking and best practices International trade obligations Strengthening the national IP office	India's Draft National IP Policy provides for the following objectives:[7] Create awareness of the economic, social and cultural benefits of IP (IP Awareness and Promotion) Stimulate the creation and growth of IP (Creation of IP) Strong and effective laws that protect IP rights in a manner consistent with national priorities and intl obligations and that balance the interests of the rights owners and the public (Legal and Legislative Framework) Strengthen IP administration and management of IP rights (IP Administration and Management) Augment Commercialization of IP rights; valuation, licensing and technology transfer (Commercialization of IP) Strengthen enforcement and adjudicatory mechanisms to protect and combat against IP rights violations ( Enforcement and Adjudication) Human Capital Development in IP
The second prong of WIPO's suggestions is devoted entirely to the Baseline Survey Questionnaire. There are seven clusters identified: IP Administration and Management Generation of IP by universities, research organizations, business, industry, SMEs and individuals Commercialization of IP and technology transfer by universities, research organization, business, industry, SMEs and individuals Copyright and copyright industries Plan breeders; rights (plant variety protection) Enforcement of IP rights IP and public policy	While there are elements of these clusters in the draft policy, there is no mention of them in the context of the method of a Baseline Survey Questionnaire. This means that the data collection was not undertaken in compliance with WIPO's recommendations and means that there was either no data collected or the results are undermined.
Finally, the WIPO framework places great emphasis on the implementation of the policy.[8] It has elements of this in all three prongs. It requires the policy to have an effective framework for its implementation that includes resource mobilization and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.[9]	The issue of implementation is covered by the draft policy at two levels: 1. Implementation of IP rights - This includes a) Placing the burden on individuals to protect their IP rights as IP is an "essentially private rights [sic]". [10] The state merely plays the role of the facilitator for protection. b) Enacting rules and setting up institutions. Examples include the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules 2007 framed to implement border control measures as well as the Copyright Enforcement Advisory Council. [11] Further, strengthening enforcement mechanisms includes the establishment of a centralized 'Multi-Agency Task Force' for coordination between the raft of agencies that India has. [12] c) Facilitate IP dispute resolution through the designation of a specialized patent bench in select High Courts. It also calls for the creation of regional benches of the IPAB in all five regions where IPOs are located as well as an increase in the powers of the IPAB. [13] 2. Implementation of the Policy itself -[14] a) It suggests that the integration of the policy with stated government programmes such as 'Make in India' and 'Digital India' would enable its implementation. b) The establishment of IP Promotion and Development Council (IPPDC) which will open IP Promotion and Development Units (IPPDU) for promoting IP awareness, protection and utlilization. c) IP support to MSMEs. d) Technology Acquisition and Development Fund under the Manufacturing Policy for licensing or procuring patented technologies. e) Manufacturing units will be encouraged to set up IP cells in their own units and make IP a part of their corporate strategy. f) Integrate with government initiatives.

Conclusion: Testing Times Ahead

The IPR Think Tank has not been consistent with WIPO's recommendations on drafting a National IPR Policy. In terms of data analysis, the Think Tank has not displayed an iota of the analytical rigour and data collection that WIPO believes is necessary to understand both the state of IP in the country and devise effective means of responding to lacunae. Further, while consultations have been held with civil society, these have been lacking in two respects. They have not followed the timelines prescribed by WIPO insofar as consultations have happened only after the release of the first draft. As a result, the Think Tank has failed in actualizing the raison d'etre behind national consultations - "enhance a wide range of IP stakeholders' ownership of the process of developing and eventually implementing a national IP strategy". Finally, this piece is not an endorsement of WIPO or its recommendations but a mere acknowledgement of the role WIPO has played in this exercise. In the final analysis, India has fallen short of adhering to the principles reflected in the WIPO framework.

[1] http://www.wipo.int/ipstrategies/en/methodology/

[2] The stakeholders that WIPO mentions are "..inter alia, the national IP office(s), relevant government departments, universities and research institutes, SMEs, inventors, creators, legal practitioners, non-governmental organizations (NGOs)".

[3] http://www.dipp.nic.in/English/acts_rules/Press_Release/pressRelease_IPR_Policy_30December2014.pdf

[4] http://spicyip.com/2015/01/examining-the-draft-national-ip-policy-stakeholder-meetings-to-be-held.html

[5] http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-cis-comments-to-the-first-draft-of-the-national-ip-policy

[6] Methodology for the Development of National Intellectual Property Strategies, Tool 1: The Process, p. 11.

[7] National IPR Policy (First Draft), p. 6-23.

[8] Methodology for the Development of National Intellectual Property Strategies, Tool 1: The Process, p. 9.

[9] Ibid .

[10] Ibid , p. 20.

[11] Ibid , p. 20.

[12] Ibid , p. 21.

[13] Ibid , p. 22.

[14] Ibid , p. 25-26.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-indias-national-ipr-policy-what-would-wipo-think

National IPR Policy Series : Comments on the Proposed Intellectual Property Rights Policy to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion

nehaa — 2015-04-12T11:39:16Z

On 13 November, 2014, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion had released a Call for Suggestions for India's proposed National IPR Policy. This is the Centre for Internet and Society's (CIS) submission for the same.

Submitted by CIS with inputs from Pranesh Prakash, Director, Nehaa Chaudhari, Programme Officer, Anubha Sinha, Programme Officer and Amulya P., Intern. Click to view the PDF.

I. Preliminary

I.1. This submission presents comments from the Centre for Internet and Society ("CIS")[1] on the proposed National Intellectual Property Rights Policy ("National IPR policy") to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. ("DIPP").

I.2. CIS commends the DIPP for this initiative, and appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the National IPR Policy. CIS' comments are as stated hereafter.

II. Principles

II.1.1. The characterization of intellectual property rights may be two- fold- first, at their core, intellectual property rights, are temporary monopolies granted to inter alia, authors and inventors; and second, they are a tool to ensure innovation, social, scientific and cultural progress and further access to knowledge. This dual nature and purpose of intellectual property protection is particularly critical in developing economies such as India. Excessive intellectual property protection could result in stunted innovation and negatively impact various stakeholders. [2] It is therefore our submission that the development of the IPR Policy be informed by broader principles of fairness and equity, balancing intellectual property protections with limitations and exceptions/user rights such as those for research, education and access to medicines.

II.1.2. These comments will evaluate the recent developments in the intellectual property regime in India and point out instances for possible reform.

II.1.3. These comments have been divided into five sections, dealing with patents, openness, open access to scholarly works, copyright, and negotiating free trade agreements in that order.

III. Detailed Comments

III.1. Patents

III.1.1. Key Issues Regarding Patents

III.1.1.1. The key issues involving patents in India include compulsory licensing, uncertainty in software patenting, slow pace of examination of patent applications, inter alia.

III.1.1.2. CIS submits that the Indian intellectual property regime contains numerous safeguards to ensure that monopolies of intellectual property are not exercised to the detriment of the public and that the National IPR Policy should continue to reflect these ideals.

III.1.2. Software Patents and Dual Monopoly

III.1.2.1. Presently, software in India may be copyrighted and computer related inventions are patentable. CIS is of the opinion that this results in an ambiguity that could potentially result in a dual monopoly over the same subject matter. This ambiguity around the legality of software patents and the scope of patents on computer related inventions has existed since the Parliament introduced the term "per se" to section 3(k) through the Patent (Amendment) Act, 2002, persisting despite repeated attempts[3] to bring about clarity in the law (the most recent one being the Draft Guidelines on Computer Related Inventions, released in 2013 by the Indian patent office).

III.1.2.2. CIS believes that software is currently adequately protected under copyright, and does not merit patent protection. The software industry in its infancy grew by leaps and bounds in the absence of patents, and imposing twenty year monopolies is stunting the development of software, especially, in an industry where technology changes every two to five years.

III.1.2.3. Therefore, CIS is of the opinion that the National IPR Policy should recognise the danger of software patenting, and encourage the adoption of and development of alternatives to a strict intellectual property regime, for instance, Free/Open Source/Libre Software.

III.1.3. Compulsory Licensing of Patents

III.1.3.1. CIS believes that the current regime allowing for compulsory licensing of patents in India helps achieve a balance between the two concerns of rewarding inventions and making them available to the public during times of need, of the rights of the patent holder with his obligations to ensure availability of products at a reasonable price by allowing third parties who do not own the patent to license the use of the patent during the term of protection.[4] CIS believes that such a balance cannot be arrived at merely by market mechanisms. CIS further believes that achieving such a balance is important for a developing country like India as we have special concerns regarding access to healthcare and access to technologies that will protect our national interest.[5]

III.1.3.2. Therefore CIS submits that the National IPR policy should continue to make positive allowances for government involvement in this space, through the compulsory licensing of patents in certain situations.

III.1.4. Alternative Licensing Mechanisms

III.1.4.1. CIS believes that government participation in the patenting regime ensures that all interests are taken on board and the social costs of patents are kept in mind. CIS is of the opinion that the National IPR policy should be formed after careful consideration of alternative patent licensing mechanisms that could help achieve a balance between the interests of different stakeholders particularly because as a developing economy we have greater needs for access to medicines and technologies to ensure economic development.[6]

III.1.4.2. On patent pools: In the interests of ensuring development of technology and innovation while balancing the social costs of patents, CIS submits that the National IPR Policy should consider alternative licensing mechanisms such as patent pools which present an efficient legal arrangement to the different problems that arise when companies have complementary intellectual property rights and these rights are essential to new technologies being used and employed[7]. Such a licensing could be done with government participation to ensure standard royalty rates and standard agreements.

III.1.4.3. On tailoring patent strengths: Our patent system provides for a one size first all approach to patent terms. CIS believes that the National IPR Policy could suggest the adoption of a more studied approach to differential patent strengths that properly balances out the benefits of the innovation against social costs of patents both in the form of monopoly pricing and threats to subsequent pricing is required to ensure that our patent system is fair equitable and in our national interest.[8]

III.1.4.4. On royalty caps: CIS believes that the National IPR policy could encourage bringing back royalty caps for certain sectors as a means of regulating the market and ensuring that access to technologies is unharmed. CIS believes that this will serve the larger national interest and ensure technological development.[9]

III.2. Openness

III.2.1. Free and Open Source Software

III.2.1.1. Free and Open Source Software ("FOSS") has emerged as a key agent in information technology policy making in India. There has been an increased importance of free and open source software in education, governmental agencies, as recently demonstrated by the Indian Government's decision to shift to open source software, in sync with the Digital India initiative.[10]

III.2.1.2. CIS believes that the IPR policy should encourage free and open software in education, governmental agencies etc. CIS believes that this shift in open source software is necessary to keep our IPR policy in sync with developments in the digital world.

III.3. Open Access to Scholarly Works

III.3.1. Open Access Policies and Scientific and Scholarly Works

III.3.1.1. The benefits of implementing an open access policy with regard to scientific and scholarly works are manifold. Providing open access to scholarly research will ensure percolation of cutting edge research into the society. It has been often argued that restricted access to government funded research is unethical, since scientific research conducted by government agencies is partly, if not entirely, funded by the taxpayers' money.

III.3.1.2. Government Initiatives Towards Open Access

III.3.1.2.1. CIS believes that the steps taken in this regard by the Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science to make scientific research publicly available by developing an open access policy are laudable, especially from the view of increasing access to research undertaken at these institutions.

III.3.1.2.2. There are several other government agencies which have implemented open access policies, namely, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Institute of Mathematical Sciences. CIS believes that this is step in the right direction

III.3.1.2.3. Copyright is the key instrument to effect open access policies. CIS believes that the work should be appropriately copyrighted to allow for free and open access to any interested person.

III.4. Copyright

III.4.1. Exceptions for Fair Dealings

III.4.1.1. The 2012, Amendment Act extended fair dealing exceptions in several ways; to sound recordings, videos, to the making of three dimensional works from two dimensional works,[11] to storing of electronic copies at non-commercial public libraries, [12] to rights of commercial rental.[13] While the Act touched upon some of the burning issues with regard to limitations and exceptions to copyright, CIS believes that it did miss out on laying down clear rules for issues like exceptions for educational institutions, libraries and archives which is currently being negotiated at the standing committee of the WIPO as an international instrument,[14] parallel importation of books for non-commercial libraries, and extending the current exceptions for education to distance education and digital education. CIS is of the opinion that while this was a step in the right direction the IPR policy should continue the trend of extending exceptions for fair dealing and should encourage forming general guidelines for fair dealings as it would help achieve goals of education and scientific and cultural progress.

III.4.1.2. CIS believes that it would be beneficial if general guidelines for fair dealing were provided for. These guidelines must not take away from existing fair dealing exceptions under the law, but should act as a framework to understand what constitutes fair dealing. CIS submits that this coupled with support for the International Treaty for Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives[15] and for International Treaty for Limitations and Exceptions for Educational and Research Institutions [16]would help serve national interest as it would help reduce the freezing effect by reducing the costs of using copyrighted work legitimately and ensure social and cultural progress. CIS submits that the National IPR policy should encourage the international instruments aimed at providing for exceptions and limitations for fair dealings.

III.4.2. Exceptions for Government Produced Works

III.4.2.1. CIS believes that the current exceptions for use of government produced works are far too limited and taxpayers must be free to use the works that they have paid for.[17] CIS submits that the National IPR policy should encourage the broadening of exceptions with regard to government produced works.

III.4.3. Compulsory Licensing

III.4.3.1. The Act allowed for compulsory licensing of foreign works[18] and put in place statutory licenses for broadcasters[19] CIS believes that this was a positive step that will encourage cultural and scientific education in India. CIS submits that compulsory licenses for copyrighted works help achieve goals of education, of scientific and cultural progress. CIS submits that the National IPR policy should encourage compulsory licensing of copyrighted works in certain situations for the promotion of access to knowledge and information.

III.4.4. Protection of Authors/ Performers Rights

III.4.4.1. The Act allowed for protection of author's rights regarding storing of their work in electronic medium[20] and for protection of rights of performers both commercial [21] and moral.[22] CIS believes that while this is in itself a positive step, there is need to ensure that such moral rights are not abused by authors or rights holders to stop discourse or to stop fair use and adequate measures to ensure the same must be put in place to avoid excessive intellectual property rights. CIS submits that the National IPR policy should discuss limitations to moral rights of authors and performers to make room for fair dealings.

III.4.5. Users Rights Regarding Cover Versions Of Songs

III.4.5.1. The Act allows for users to make cover versions of a sound recording required provided they comply with rules regarding notices and royalties. CIS believes that this is potentially problematic as even recording companies have acknowledged that the non-commercial cover versions help in increasing the popularity of the original and therefore help in the growth of the film and music industry and this new law could possibly stop individuals from making such cover versions due to fear of violating the law and therefore harm the film and music industry. Therefore, CIS believes that the National IPR policy should consider measures to provide more rights to the users in order to ensure development of the music and film industry; CIS believes that this is an instance of excessive intellectual property and is harmful to all stakeholders involved.

III.4.6. Relinquishment of Copyright and Creative Commons

III.4.6.1. The amended Section 21 of the Act now only requires a simply public notice from the author to relinquish his copyright as opposed to an application to the registrar of copyrights. CIS believes that this is a positive step as now the requirement under the rules can easily be satisfied by using a Creative Commons Zero license.[23] CIS submits that the National IPR policy should undertake similar steps to encourage the usage of creative commons licenses and thereby facilitate access to knowledge.

III.4.7. Term of Protection of Copyrights

III.4.7.1. The Act provided for an extension of term of copyright for photographs to almost double its earlier duration, [24] CIS believes that this is possibly harmful as it could lead to copyrighted works not entering the public domain for unnecessarily long periods of time and thereby harm progress in science and culture. In this regard CIS further believes that since the term of protections provided under our copyright law for all works extends beyond our international obligations, The National IPR policy should try to ensure that scientific and cultural development are not hindered by excessive terms of protection that go beyond the minimum owed under our international obligations.

III.4.8. Protection Of Rights Management Information

III.4.8.1. The amendment Act provided for protection of rights management information (RMI) and provided for both criminal and civil remedies in instances of unauthorised alteration or removal of RMIs.[25] CIS believes that these provisions are unnecessary as India does not have obligations to do so under international treaties and there is no actual demand for these rights as it is yet unclear how these rights help authors or performers. CIS submits that these provisions increase the costs for users who want to legitimately break these digital locks to obtain accessible formats for the information and that so long as the rights holder does not have an obligation to ensure that their works are accessible, provisions such as these cripple creativity and stunt industry growth.[26] Therefore CIS submits that the National IPR policy should help achieve a balance of concerns of users who want to legitimately break these digital locks on the one hand and the need to prevent digital piracy on the other.

III.4.9. Intermediary Liability

III.4.9.1. CIS submits that due to the IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011, there is a freezing effect on free speech on the internet as these rules are procedurally flawed and go against the principles of natural justice.[27] CIS believes that such a restraint on free speech harms creativity and innovation, to this end CIS submits that the National IPR policy should ensure free speech is not unfairly hindered by rules regarding copyright infringement.

III.4.10. Criminalization of Copyright Infringement

III.4.10.1. Individual non-commercial infringement of copyright is a crime under Section 63A of the Copyright Act [28] and is punishable by imprisonment which can extend to three years or a fine that can extend up to rs. 2,00,000/- CIS believes that this is an instance of excessive intellectual property protection; CIS is of the opinion that the civil remedies available for copyright enforcement are enough for copyright protection and that the criminal remedies under the Copyright Act, 1957 function only to ensure that there are obstacles to free and legitimate use of copyrighted material. CIS believes that such provisions are harmful for innovation within India and impose unnecessary costs on users.[29] Therefore CIS believes the National IPR policy should reconsider the question of criminalisation of copyright infringement and should ensure that any penal consequences are proportional to the act committed.

III.4.11. Concluding Remarks on Copyrights

III.4.11.1. In conclusion while India has what some call the most balanced approach to intellectual property law in the world today, [30] one that balances both the interests of the author and the copyrights holder as well as the end user and the overall public interest, there is room for improvement as far as adapting to the internet age is concerned, especially considering the easy appeal of forming an intellectual property regime that is excessive and in the end harms all the concerned stakeholders.

III.5. Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)

III.5.1. Need for Transparency Regarding FTA Negotiations

III.5.1.1. India has lately been negotiating Free Trade Agreements with several developed nations, these are closed door negotiations and the texts of the meetings are not available to the public. CIS believes that these texts should be made available to the public to ensure transparency and to ensure all stakeholders know of any developments, CIS believes that public knowledge of the positions of various actors in any negotiation process will help ensure that such positions are taken keeping in mind the interests of all stakeholders and will ensure that any outcome from such negotiations will be in national interest.[31] CIS therefore submits that the National IPR policy should encourage transparency with regards to negotiations for free trade agreements.

III.5.2. FTAs with Developed Nations and TRIPS Plus Standards

III.5.2.1. Leaked drafts of the European Union- India FTA negotiations have revealed that provisions on intellectual property protection were extensive and affected the pharmaceuticals sector, these provisions, if agreed upon, could go well beyond India's obligations under the WTO and under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. In fact, developed countries including the US [32] and EU[33] have tried time again and again to encourage developing countries to adopt standards of IP protection in bilateral or regional trade investment agreements that go beyond TRIPS [34]

India has repeatedly indicated to the WTO that it was not willing to commit to an agreement beyond TRIPS.[35] These commitments could include data exclusivity protection measures, ever-greening of patents etc. [36]

CIS believes that despite the growing pressure from developed nations regarding various FTAs,[37] India must hold its ground and ensure that concerns about India's national interest and the difference in the development levels of the European Union or other developed countries and developing countries like India are kept in mind while negotiating obligations under international agreements. Therefore CIS believes that the National IPR policy should ensure that TRIPS plus standards are not acceptable to India as they will undermine our national interest and hinder development at the national level.[38]

III.5.3. Shift from Multilateral Forums to Bilateral FTA negotiations

III.5.3.1. CIS believes that the trend of shift in negotiations from a multilateral forum such as the WIPO or the WTO to a bilateral or a regional forum [39] is harmful as certain flexibilities are built into the TRIPS and therefore multilateral negotiations based on TRIPS will help pursue India's interests better. And therefore when possible, India must prefer negotiations at multilateral forums as opposed to bilateral or regional treaties, CIS believes that the National IPR policy should reflect the same preferences. [40]

IV. Concluding observations

IV.1. On patents, CIS submits that the National IPR policy reconsider software patenting, that encourage open source software, continue and strengthen that compulsory licensing and consider and study alternative licensing mechanisms as means to achieve a balancing of the interests of different stakeholders.

IV.2. On openness, CIS submits that the IPR policy should encourage free and open software in education, governmental agencies etc.

IV.3. On open access to scholarly work, CIS commends the work done by government agencies so far and submits that the IPR policy should encourage open access to scholarly works.

IV.4. On copyright, CIS submits that the IPR policy work toward strengthening and extending fair dealings provisions, supporting international instruments that strengthen fair dealing, encourage compulsory licensing. CIS submits that the IPR policy should work towards ensuring that protections for copyright such as terms of protection, intermediary liability, protection of rights management information, criminalisation of copyright infringement etc., do not harm other legitimate interests of users or unnecessarily restrict free speech.

IV.5. On FTAs, CIS submits that the IPR policy encourage transparency with regard to FTA negotiations, ensure that TRIPS plus standards are not accepted as they would harm national interest and to encourage multilateral negotiations over bilateral free trade agreements.

IV.6. CIS welcomes the initiative of the DIPP to form a National IPR policy, CIS believes that it is essential that such an IPR policy avoid excessive intellectual property rights protection and is formed keeping in mind goals of development and national interest.

IV.7. CIS is thankful to the DIPP for the opportunity to provide comments on the National IPR policy and would be privileged to work with the government on this and other matters in these areas.

[1] www.cis-india.org (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[2] The Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and Public Interest concluded after the Global Congress on Intellectual property and Public Interest in August 2011 attended by over 180 experts from 32 countries articulate this position perfectly. Available at: http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Washington-Declaration.pdf (Last Accessed:29/11/14)

[3] Shashank Singh, Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions: Mapping the Stakeholders' Response, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[4] N.S. Gopalakrishnan, Compulsory License Under Indian Patent Law, MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Vol.22, 2015, pp.11-42.

[5] Raadhika Gupta, Compulsory Licensing under TRIPS: How Far it Addresses Public Health Concerns in Developing Nations, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol.15, September 2010, pp.357-363. Available at: http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/10211/1/JIPR%2015(5)%20357-363.pdf (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[6] Id.

[7] Nehaa Chaudhari, Pervasive Technologies: Patent Pools, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patent-pools (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[8] One of the measures along which we could have differential patent strengths could be the time for the invention to reach the market, see, Benjamin N Roin, The case for Tailoring Patent Awards Based on the Time-to-Market of Inventions, UCLA Law Review, Vol.61, 2013, Available at: http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/10612849/Case%20for%20Tailoring%20Patent%20Awards%203-15-13.pdf?sequence=1 (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[9] Sunil Abraham, Patented Games, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/patented-games (Last Accessed: 30/11/14.

[10] See Nabi Hasan, Issues and Challenges in Open Source Software Environment with Special Reference to India, Available at: http://crl.du.ac.in/ical09/papers/index_files/ical-43_144_317_1_RV.pdf (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[13] Zakir Thomas, Overview of Changes to the Indian Copyright Law, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vo.17, July 2012, pp.324-334.

[14] See conclusions of the chair at the 23^rd session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights at the WIPO, Available at: http://www.eifl.net/wipo-sccr23-conclusions (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[15] For draft proposal of the treaty see IFLA, Treaty proposal on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, Available at: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_27/sccr_27_2_rev.pdf (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[16] See The Draft WIPO Treaty on Exceptions and Limitations for the Persons with Disabilities, Educational and Research Institutions, Libraries and Archives, proposal by the African Group (document SCCR/22/12).Available at: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_22/sccr_22_12.pdf (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[17] See Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

[21] Id.

[23] CIS, Comments on Draft Copyright Rules, 2012, available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/feedback-to-draft-copyright-rules-2012 (Last Accessed: 29/11/14).

[24] See Pranesh Prakash, Analysis of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2012, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/analysis-copyright-amendment-bill-2012

[26] Pranesh Prakash, Technological Protection Measures in the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment (Last Accessed: 29/11/14).

[27] Rishabh Dara, Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet, 2011, Available at: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf (Last Accessed: 30/11/14).

[28] Section 63A, Copyright Act 1957.

[29] See Right to Share: Principles on Freedom of Expression and Copyright in the Digital Age, Article19, Available at: http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/3716/en/ (Last Accessed: 29/11/14).

[30] V Premanath, S Sivaram, Intellectual Property Systems in India: Progressing towards Greater Maturity and Diversity, Available at: http://iimahd.ernet.in/users/anilg/files/Articles/Emerging%20IPR%20Consciousness,%20vikalpa.pdf (Last Accessed: 29/11/14).

[31] Jan Wouters, Idesbald Goddeeries, Bregt Natens etc, Some Critical Issues in the EU -India Free Trade Agreement Negotiation, Working Paper No.102,KU Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, https://ghum.kuleuven.be/ggs/publications/working_papers/new_series/wp101-110/wp102-wouters-goddeeris-natens.pdf , February 2013, p.16.

Monika Ermert, Lack of Transparency in EU-India FTA Talks Spurs Requests for Halt, ip-watch, Available at: http://www.ip-watch.org/2010/09/03/lack-of-transparency-in-eu-india-fta-talks-spurs-requests-for-halt/ .

[32] The current policy of the US Trade Representative is seen to be reflected in the 2002 Trade Act available here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr3009enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr3009enr.pdf See HR3009.

[33] The current trade strategy for the EU can be found here http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/july/tradoc_152643.pdf .

[34] Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy, Available at: http://www.iprcommission.org/papers/pdfs/final_report/ciprfullfinal.pdf , p.174.

[35] C. Correa, 'Negotiation of a Free Trade Agreement European Union-India: Will India Accept Trips-Plus

Protection?', (2009) Oxfam Deutschland and Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst Analysis,

http://www.oxfam.de/files/20090609_negotiationofafreetradeaggrementeuindia_218kb.pdf .

[36] S. Sharma, 'the EU-India FTA: Critical Considerations in a Time of Crisis', (2009) Centad Working Paper.

[37] Asit Ranjan Mishra, India to negotiate FTAs with emerging market nations, Livemint, Available at: http://www.livemint.com/Politics/RlJNxUXovjNVaRzQt9KXmO/India-to-negotiate-FTAs-with-emerging-market-nations.html .

[38] Sisule F Musungu and Graham Dutfield, Commission Multilateral Agreements and a TRIPS -Plus Word: the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), Available at: http://www.iprsonline.org/ictsd/docs/WIPO_Musungu_Dutfield.pdf.

[39] For Trends, See Beginda Pakpahan, Deadlock in the WTO: What is next? Available at: http://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/public_forum12_e/art_pf12_e/art19.htm .

[40] See Amit Sengupta, Do not trade away our lives, Vo.9, No.2, Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 2012, Available at: http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/88/1047 .

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-proposed-ip-rights-policy-to-dipp

National IPR Policy Series : CIS Comments to the First Draft of the National IP Policy

nehaa — 2015-02-09T00:59:10Z

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India invited comments on the First Draft of India's National IPR Policy. The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) made this submission. The comments were prepared by Nehaa Chaudhari, Pranesh Prakash and Anubha Sinha. We also thank our intern, Varnika Chawla for her assistance.

The press release from the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion in which it invited comments is here. The First Draft of India's National IPR Policy is here. Click to view the PDF. Note: In some places there might be references to paragraph/page numbers (of the document) and for that readers should refer to the PDF since the formatting in HTML is slightly different.

Preliminary

This submission presents comments from the Centre for Internet and Society, India ("CIS")¹ on the proposed National Intellectual Property Rights Policy ("the Policy") to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India.("DIPP").
This submission is made in response to the requests and suggestions from stakeholders sought by the DIPP in its Press Release. ²
CIS commends the DIPP for this initiative, and appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the National IPR Policy. CIS' comments are as stated hereafter.

About CIS

CIS³ is a non-profit research organization that works on among others, issues of intellectual property law reform,⁴ openness,⁵ privacy, freedom of speech and expression and internet governance,⁶ accessibility for persons with disabilities,⁷ and engages in academic research on digital humanities⁸ and digital natives. ⁹
CIS is an accredited Observer¹⁰ at the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO"), enabling us to attend formal meetings of member states and participate in debates and consultations on various issues. CIS has been attending meetings of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights since 2010. At these sessions, CIS has actively participated through various interventions, emphasizing the adoption of an approach balancing the rights holders' perspective with public interest. CIS has also attended sessions of some other committees at WIPO, made interventions wherever applicable, produced reports of these meetings, and profiled the work of other non-governmental organizations engaging in similar work on intellectual property law and policy reform. ¹¹
CIS undertakes research in other fields of intellectual property, in addition to WIPO-related work. Over the past five years since our inception, some of our key research has included analyses of intellectual property issues of the proposed Indo-EU Free Trade Agreement¹² and other free trade agreements,¹³ the US Special 301 Report,¹⁴ the (2010) amendment to the Copyright Act, 1957,¹⁵ the (draft) Science, Technology and Innovation Policy,¹⁶ parallel importation, ¹⁷ the (draft) Patent Manual and the subsequent Guidelines for Computer Related Inventions,¹⁸ royalty caps,¹⁹ copyright exceptions and limitations for education, ²⁰ and the preparation of the India Report for the Consumers International IP Watch List.²¹

Structure of this Submission

This submission is divided into 4 parts. The first part gives a preliminary overview of the suggestions submitted by CIS. The second part highlights the principles that should be followed in the formulation of a National IPR Policy, the third part provides detailed comments and recommendations for the National IPR Policy and the last part provides certain concluding remarks.

Principles

The characterization of intellectual property rights may be two-fold - first, at their core, intellectual property rights, are temporary monopolies granted to inter alia, authors and inventors; and second, they are a tool to ensure innovation, social, scientific and cultural progress and further access to knowledge. This dual nature and purpose of intellectual property protection is particularly critical in developing economies such as India. Excessive intellectual property protection could result in stunted innovation and negatively impact various stakeholders.²² It is therefore our submission that the development of the IPR Policy be informed by broader principles of fairness and equity, balancing intellectual property protections with limitations and exceptions/user rights such as those that promote freedom of expression, research, education and access to medicines, cultural rights, data mining, use of governmental works, etc.

Detailed Comments

This section will detail CIS' submissions on various aspects of the National IPR Policy. Submissions have been categorised thematically.

On the Vision

It is submitted that the Vision of the National IPR Policy ("Vision") in encouraging growth for the 'benefit of all' and in accepting the philosophy that knowledge owned 'is transformed into knowledge shared' ²³ is commendable.However, the vision is at odds with the methods proposed in the document. True advancement in science and technology, arts and culture, protection of traditional knowledge as well as bio-diverse resources and the true sharing of knowledge would be impaired by a system centred only around the development and maximization of intellectual property.
An attractive social culture would be one where citizens had access to a cornucopia of ideas and information, thereby fostering an environment of cultural diversity, which would enable individuals to shape themselves. Indeed, this is not just an ideal, but is a right recognized under Article 27(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 15 of the .²⁴ However, an IP maximization approach, which the draft stategy seems to embrace, hinders the growth of such a culture, creating a protectionist environment while preventing access to various resources which may be of use for further innovations.
The question of whether IP rights given to innovators are the most effective tools to promote innovation in society has been widely discussed in economics, politics and law, especially in the last four decades.²⁵ Traditional arguments in favour of temporary monopolies incentivising innovation have been effectively questioned as creating monopolies on innovation, contributing to increasing prices and a distorted allocation of resources, inefficiency and a net loss of welfare. ²⁶ It has also been effectively established that most innovation is incremental and cumulative, necessitating the access to pre-existing data and works.²⁷ It would be welcome if the huge amount of academic literature on these matter were taken into consideration by the expert group. While intellectual property rights are not per se antithetical to innovation, creativity, and cultural development, an IP-maximalist policy and law has been shown to harm those very objectives.
CIS therefore submits that the vision of the policy also reflect the commitment to the creation of a holistic and balanced framework of intellectual property rights in the nation with the recognition that an intellectual property-centric system would not necessarily be the best means of promoting creativity, innovation and access, the promotion of which are part of the stated desire of the policy.
Further, we believe that the principles of freedom of expression and of due process of law, both of which are constitutionally-recognized rights in India, should be recognized in the vision as principles that any intellectual property rights regime should respectively seek to promote and respect.

On the Mission

CIS appreciates the commitment to establish a balanced, dynamic and vibrant intellectual property system in India.²⁸ We recommend that the mission of the policy also include a commitment tofoster access to knowledge as well as the commitment to creating asystem of intellectual property rights which serve the public interest by strengthening limitations and exceptions to IP regimes, which are aimed to provide a public interest oriented counterbalance to the monopoly rights granted under IPR laws.
We believe that preventing unreasonable and disproportionate remedies to IPR law violations are an important part of ensuring that these laws serve the public interest rather than subvert them for purely private interests. This important principle ought to find reflection in the policy's mission statement.
It is suggested that in addition to public health, food security and the environment²⁹, other areas of socio-economic and cultural importance, including inter alia,foundational scientific research, education, disability rights, and access to knowledge, be added as additional areas that warrant special protection , in the mission statement.
It is submitted that these commitments are essential to the creation and working of a balanced intellectual property framework that the Policy seeks to achieve.

On Objective 1: IP Awareness and Promotion

The first objective of the Policy lays out a detailed action plan for creating awareness about intellectual property as well as for the promotion of intellectual property. The underlying rationale for this endeavour has been identified on various levels - that there are economic, social and cultural benefits of intellectual property;³⁰ that intellectual property protection accelerates development, promotes entrepreneurship as well as increases competitiveness; ³¹ and that the global regime is one of strongly protected intellectual property rights.³²
It is submitted that the identification of this underlying rationale is not backed by sufficient evidence. These justifications, in their pursuit of a favourable intellectual property regime do not present a balanced picture of all the facts.
Current existing empirical research does not show an unambiguous nexus between the granting of IP rights and an increase in innovation and productivity, as innovation and productivity cannot not identified with the number of patents awarded. ³³ This can be seen in the US economy, where despite an enormous increase in the number of patents, there has been no dramatic acceleration in technological progress. ³⁴ In fact, studies prove the contrary to be true. In the United States, patenting increased drastically over the last few decades, quadrupling from 59,715 patents being issued in 1983, to 244,341 in 2010. However, according to the Bureau of Labour Statistics, annual growth in the total factor productivity reduced from 1.2% in 1970-79 to below 1% in 2000-09, ³⁵ whereas the annual expenditure on research and development saw hardly any change, oscillating in a band of 2.5% of the GDP for over three decades.³⁶ In relatively new industries such as software and biotechnology, still in their nascent stages of development, patenting has been introduced without any positive contributions to innovation. In fact, in their empirical work described in Patent Failure (2008), ³⁷ Bessen and Meurer have argued that increased patenting has resulted in decreased social welfare.
Further, no unambiguous connections have been found between innovation and intellectual property rights in academic studies. In a meta-study conducted in 2006,³⁸ Boldrin and Levine observed that there was weak or no evidence which suggested that strengthening the patent regime led to an increase in innovation. Similarly, it was observed by Jaffe that "despite the significance of policy changes and the wide availability of detailed data relating to patenting, robust conclusions regarding the empirical consequences for technological innovations of changes in patent policy are few. There is widespread unease that the costs of stronger patent protection may exceed the benefits. Both theoretical and, to a lesser extent, empirical research suggest this possibility." ³⁹
In his study of 60 nations over the past 150 years, Josh Lerner concluded that "the impact of patent protection-enhancing on innovation was in fact negative, thereby running counter to assumptions made by economists that incentives affect behavior and that stronger property rights encourage economic growth.⁴⁰
Even in those studies, where support is found for a positive correlation between patents and innovation, it is made clear that this correlation is not applicable to developing and least-developed countries. This, for instance, is the conclusion of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization's meta-study titled "The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Technology Transfer and Economic Growth: Theory and Evidence". ⁴¹
It is crucial that all policy be based on evidence, and not ideology.
Thus, it is submitted that any program that seeks to create awareness about intellectual property must necessarily be one that presents a balanced view, clearly stating all facts and as many diverse opinions as possible; avoiding the current situation where public interest groups and academics are sidelined in favour of rights-holders groups.
CIS submits that the nation-wide program of promotion on the benefits of intellectual property ⁴² must be based on evidence. Crucially, the importance of the public domain, for which a great deal of evidence exists,⁴³ must highlighted in any such also equally promote the importance the role of limitations and exceptions and clearly identify the issues with the intellectual property system, including the fact that it has not been proven that there is a nexus between intellectual property and innovation. The nation wide program should convey the role of different stakeholders, including libraries and archives, organizations working with persons with disabilities and educational institutions and the negative effects of a rights centric intellectual property system on such important institutions.
It is important that public-funded research organizations should be engaged in neutral - non-industry funded -research, and not campaigns (as identified in the policy).⁴⁴ This will help identify the issues of the present intellectual property system as well as the potential for reform, tailored to the Indian context. We have to ensure that campaigns - as with policymaking and pedagogic material - are based on research rather than faith or ideology. It is further submitted that course materials to be created for educational institutions at all levels as well as for online and distance learning programs ⁴⁵ should include a discussion on the drawbacks of a maximalist intellectual property system, a discussion on limitations and exceptions, alternatives to intellectual property, as well as case studies from different parts of the world highlighting the use of intellectual property as well as alternatives in a socio-economic and culture specific environment. Particularly in the case of education institutions as well as online and distance learning mechanisms, which are often faced with great challenges as a result of rights-holders centric intellectual property laws, the irony in promoting a system that only acts to their detriment would be great.

On Objective 2: Creation of IP

The second objective of the Policy seeks to stimulate the creation and growth of intellectual property through measures that encourage IP generation.⁴⁶ This objective seeks to encourage IP generation and creation across various sectors, including the introduction of the system of 'utility models' in India. There are several problems with this objective, primarily that it assumes IP generation is necessarily a means to innovation, whereas it is submitted that the emphasis should be on innovation holistically, including by incentive mechanisms other than IP.

On the IP-Innovation/ Creativity Nexus

It is submitted that similar to the earlier objective relating to the promotion and the creation of awareness about intellectual property, the underlying rationale behind this objective too seems to be the perception that there is a positive correlation between greater amounts of intellectual property and greater innovation, and the belief that intellectual property protection necesarrily promotes innovation. However, there is relatively little research to back this assumption. Illustratively, the following example may be considered. In a study conducted by Heidi L. Williams,⁴⁷ the sequencing of the human genome was used to provide an empirical context to showcase the deterioration in development due to the presence of IP. It was concluded by Williams that the presence of IP rights in the sequencing of the human genome resulted in reductions in subsequent scientific research and product development by up to 20-30%. ⁴⁸ Williams further observed that "if more socially valuable technologies are more likely to be held with IP, then the welfare costs for the same could be substantial." The presence of intellectual property rights, it is argued, stifles subsequent product development by restricting access to the data or technology required for further development. ⁴⁹
Prof. Petra Moser of Stanford has conducted a large volume of research on economic evidence on the linkages between patents and innovation. Her research, which shows that in the 19th century the majority of inventions happened outside the patent system ⁵⁰ indicates that alternative explanations might explain inventions better, including "the importance of a culture of entrepreneurship,⁵¹ experimentation,⁵² the free exchange of knowledge, ⁵³ and science.⁵⁴ In a paper titled, "How do Patent Laws Influence Innovation", she concludes that "I find no evidence that patent laws increased levels of innovative activity but strong evidence that patent systems influenced the distribution of innovative activity across industries."
Prof. Bryan Mercurio, in a paper written for the World Economic Forum and the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, concludes, "The empirical evidence suggests that increasing levels of patent protection have not resulted in increased innovation. Instead, it has limited competition, and increased the cost of business, to the detriment of the world economy. Innovation has also suffered, as increasing protection has inhibited the ability of many firms to innovate." He further recommends that we "conduct further research on the correlation or causal relationship between patents and innovation, including the indirect benefits for innovation that patent protection may provide". Petra Moser notes, "Patent laws that existed in the mid-nineteenth century had been adopted in a relatively ad-hoc manner, dependent more on legal traditions than economic considerations".⁵⁵
The empirical data collected by scholars, as provided above is goes to show that innovation is not necessarily benefitted by stronger patent regimes. Further, even the literature that asserts a positive correlation between the two acknowledge that this doesn't apply to developing countries. In addition, whilepatents may provide revenue to patent owners, it also makes further innovation more costly, thereby discouraging competitors from entering the arena due to high prices, and due to the large number of pre-existing patents. This effect, known as the
The Supreme Court of Canada, has for instance, has on multiple occasions recognized the importance of the public domain. In "2002, Justice Binne, writing for the majority in Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain inc., stated: 'Excessive control by holders of copyrights and other forms of intellectual property may unduly limit the ability of the public domain to incorporate and embellish creative innovation in the long-term interests of society as a whole (para.32).' Two years later, in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, Chief Justice McLachlin spoke of the importance that there be 'room for the public domain to flourish as others are able to produce new works by building on the ideas and information contained in the works of others (para. 23).'"⁵⁶
Lastly, there is even evidence that in multiple sectors - including fashion, finance, font design, and software - lesser IP protection in the form of patents, trademarks, and copyright, actual encourages increased innovation.⁵⁷

On Utility Models

On the question of introduction of a new on utility models⁵⁸ CIS observes that DIPP has previously considered developing a framework for granting Utility Models for 'innovations' and invited suggestions on a discussion paper on the subject.⁵⁹ Reports ⁶⁰ suggest that Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises are in favour of the Utility Model Protection system in India because developing countries such as China and Korea have demonstrated a corresponding economic growth attributable to the introduction of the system. However, there is no evidentiary data to support this hypothesis. Studies suggest that there exist only correlations and not causal links between heightened innovative activity and implementation of utility model protection. ⁶¹ Empirical evidence on the role of intellectual property protection in promoting innovation and growth in general remains limited and inconclusive.⁶² Reports also suggest that in China, the abundance of Utility Model has led to lowering of quality of innovation. ⁶³ In Australia, an "innovation patent" - the Australian version of utility model protection - was awarded for a "circular transportation facilitation device", i.e., a wheel. ⁶⁴
It is this submitted that whether the ushering of a 2nd tier of protection model for lower and incremental innovations would have a positive impact on innovation in India is extremely debatable. There have been several criticisms of utility models, inter alia, explosion in litigation of poor quality patents and legal uncertainty - which impact small business the maximum in terms of costs ⁶⁵; the system may be more utilised by foreign companies rather than local firms, in which case there is a possibility that this will lead to an increase in a flow of royalties and licensing fees to overseas producers. Utility model rights can be, and have been, used by companies to cordon off entire areas of research. ⁶⁶
CIS submits that as the policy 'intends to harness the full benefits of creation and innovation in the larger interest of society and citizens' ⁶⁷ the introduction of a law on utility models would be antithetical to this objective.

On Improving IP Output of National Research Laboratories, Universities et al

The Policy seeks to improve the output of national research laboratories, universities and technical institutions, among others.⁶⁸ It is submitted that these institutions are public funded institutions, ⁶⁹ and in effect, this recommendation of the Policy seeks to therefore promote intellectual property creation in public funded institutions.
A significant chunk of research and development occurs at public funded academic and research institutions and, excessive use of IPR as a tool to creating private ownership rights over inventions may preclude use of such innovation by the public. This may also create a barrier to access the best technologies and research- which were funded by taxpayers' money to begin with. CIS supports the principle that IPRs resulting from of publicly funded research should automatically belong to the funder.⁷⁰
Further, it is submitted that there exists a danger of public funded research institutions re-orienting their objectives focus only on areas of commercial value. This may lead to neglect of certain research areas. A stringent policy will create an unfavourable conflict between revenue generation and sharing of public good. The policy must ensure that it is flexible and compensates the inventors whilst permitting public access to research.
CIS submits that there should be no encumbrances over public funded research and inventions. The Policy must also ensure that such proposed IP creation does not prevent or interfere with dissemination of public funded research. ⁷¹
CIS strongly supports the recent steps by government agencies (including the Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Biotechnology⁷² as well as other institutions including the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research⁷³, Indian Council of Agricultural Research⁷⁴ and Institute of Mathematical Sciences ⁷⁵) in making scholarly research openly accessible. The benefits of implementing an open access policy with regard to scientific and scholarly works are manifold. Providing open access to scholarly research will ensure percolation of cutting edge research into the society.
It is thus submitted that the Policy should adopt a more nuanced, cautious and balanced take on the creation of intellectual property, particularly taking into consideration India's economic status as an emerging economy and our international position. The Policy must recognise that there is no inherent societal merit in the mere creation of intellectual property and that innovation flourishes even in the absence of intellectual property protections.

On Objective 3: Legal and Legislative Framework

According to the Policy, the objective sought to be achieved is the creation of strong and effective laws on intellectual property, consistent with national priorities as well as our international obligations, balancing the interest of the rights holders with public interest. ⁷⁶
CIS fully supports the view that the legislative framework on intellectual property must balance the rights of all stakeholders and be in public interest. CIS is also appreciates the importance of national priorities in the framing of India's legislative framework. CIS also notes with appreciation that the discussion in the Policy reiterates that India's laws are in compliance with the TRIPS Agreement ⁷⁷ as well as the stance that India will continue to utilize the flexibilities available in international treaties as well as the TRIPS Agreement⁷⁸ while creating its legal framework.
CIS also supports the acknowledgement of the fact that India's laws need to be updated periodically, depending on various factors.⁷⁹ CIS fully supports the process proposed for amendments to the law, including,inter alia, the conduction of objective and analytical studies and inputs from various stakeholders. ⁸⁰ It is submitted however, that equal weightage must be given to the inputs from all stakeholders and measures must be taken to ensure that the interests and demands of rights-holders do not outweigh the interests and demands of other stakeholders, particularly those at the other end of the spectrum, who greatly rely on the existence and guarantee of flexibilities, limitations and exceptions to intellectual property.

On Utility Models and Intellectual Property in Public Funded Research

The Policy envisages significant changes to India's intellectual property system, including the creation of a law for the protection of utility models as well as introduction of intellectual property in public funded research.
CIS recommends that it would not be advisable to introduce intellectual property in public funded research as well as cautions against the introduction of a law on utility patents. A detailed submission on these issues has been made earlier in this document, in Section 3.4.3. at page 7 for intellectual property in public funded research as well as in Section 3.4.2. at page 6 on utility models.

On the Negotiation of International Treaties and Agreements

CIS commends the recommendation of the Policy that the negotiation of international treaties and agreements will be in consultation with various stakeholders. However, CIS cautions against entering into bilateral or plurilateral international agreements which increase India's IPR obligations beyond our current obligations under multilateral agreements. It was only in 2006 that
It is submitted that FTAs often levy standards which are beyond those found in the TRIPS Agreement, and have thus been criticized. ⁸¹ A central aspect of this criticism is that TRIPS-plus-FTAs reduce policy space for the implementation of TRIPS flexibilities. This also creates the impression that TRIPS only imposes a "minimum level" of protection, which must be available in all national laws of its Member States, without any apparent limitation to a further extension of such protection or intervention which one country may impose on another. The World Health Organization enunciated that "bilateral trade agreements should not seek to incorporate TRIPS-plus protection in ways that may reduce access to medicines in developing countries.⁸² Further, WHO members were urged in the Fifty-Seventh World Health Assembly "to take into account in bilateral trade agreements the flexibilities contained in the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and recognized by the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health adopted by the WTO Ministerial Conference."⁸³
Furthermore, TRIPS-plus initiatives consequent in the dilution into a bilateral forum, as opposed to the plurality provided in multilateral fora, provided by the TRIPS. The imposition of standards by FTAs may ultimately disturb the balance of rights and obligations which are enshrined in the TRIPS Agreement,⁸⁴ and also have the potential to constrain the flexibilities provided to Member States in the TRIPS, particularly in areas which are of extreme significance to developing countries, such as transfer of technology, socio-economic development, promotion of innovation, public health and access to knowledge. Furthermore, they also tend to negate decisions which were taken multilaterally such as the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.
It is therefore submitted that the Policy must caution against entering into any international agreement that seeks to enforce TRIPS-plus standards, contrary to India's stance (as noted by the Policy itself) that its laws were compliant with international obligations.

On Limitations and Exceptions

It is observed that the Policy recommends that laws be enacted to address national needs, ⁸⁵ but the only mentions limitations and exceptions as an area of study for future policy development.⁸⁶It is submitted that while it is indeed necessary for further research to be undertaken in the area of limitations and exceptions, it is also critical to enact new laws and amend existing ones to foster a rich environment for limitations and exceptions, in order to achieve a holistic and balanced intellectual property framework. It is further submitted that this would also be in consonance with the objective of the negotiation of international treaties and agreements in consultation with stakeholders.
While the granting of exclusive rights over intellectual property is considered to be an incentive for further investments into innovative activities and the production of knowledge, allowing the exercise of the full scope of this exclusion in all circumstances may not meet the end goal of the enhancement of public welfare, using the intellectual property system. Therefore, it is essential that an intellectual property system be flexible allowing for certain limitations and exceptions in order to strike a balance between right holders, the public and third parties. The need for such flexibility in the intellectual property system of a country has also been highlighted by the World Intellectual Property Organization.
It is therefore suggested that the Policy include an additional recommendation for the inclusion, adoption and periodic renewal of limitations and exceptions in India's intellectual property laws, either be enacting new legislations or by amending existing legislations wherever applicable. It is further suggested that this recommendation also inform India's negotiations at the international level, where any agreement that India might potentially sign, not invalidate or narrow in any form any limitations and exceptions and provide for their continued exercise in the broadest possible scope and manner.

On Standard Setting

CIS commends the Policy's focus on standards in technology and standard setting organisations. CIS strongly supports the adoption of open standards as a measure that helps stimulate active competition amongst implementors of various standards, and thereby encourages innovation. The Department of IT finalized its Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance in 2010,⁸⁷ and CIS strongly supports this policy, and would encourage it be adopted by all state governments as well.
CIS strongly recommends developing and supporting the evolution of open standards. The Policy must not encourage use of IPR to limit access to standards, because these are the foundational rules any technology must adhere to enter the market or ensure quality. ⁸⁸ CIS submits that access to these standards must not be limited by making them proprietary through IPR protection. Further, the Policy must support transparent standard setting processes and procedures in national and at international for a for all participants.
CIS further appreciates the endeavor to encourage the development of global standards influenced by technologies developed in India.
CIS submits that it is also important to ensure that India emerges as a global player in the technology sector, not just in the development of indigenous standards, but also in the equally important space of manufacturing using existing standards, particularly in light of the Government's recent "Make In India" and "Digital India" initiatives. It is further submitted however, that in most instances, these standards are protected by patents; where patents essential to a standard would be standard essential patents. CIS suggests that the Policy recommend measures that might be adopted to ensure access to standards essential patents, including, for instance, the establishment of a government aided patent pool. It is submitted that addressing the question of access to standards and not just their development would be a holistic approach that the Policy should adopt.

On Objective 5: Commercialization of IP

CIS appreciates that the Policy seeks to promote licensing and technology transfer for intellectual property, and notes that the Policy also seeks to promote reasonable and non-discriminatory patent pooling to maximise the ability of smaller companies to commercialise IP and bring innovative solutions based on standards to the market.
CIS believes that the government establishing patent pools for digital technologies will promote access to knowledge and stimulate manufacturing in the information technology and electronics sectors in India, in line with the government's "Make In India" and "Digital India" initiatives. CIS has earlier urged the government to enable access to low cost access devices by establishing a government-aided patent pool of essential technologies, without which there is a high likelihood of such devices getting caught up in the 'patent wars' that have happened elsewhere around the world over smartphones.⁸⁹ CIS submits that the creation of government-aided patent pools and facilitation of cross-licensing will also be helpful in resolving issues created by patent thickets and gridlocks by reducing transaction costs for licensees and solving an economic cooperation problem.

Concluding Remarks

Debabrata Saha, the Deputy Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations, while speaking on the introduction of the Development Agenda at the World Intellectual Property Organization, with admirable clarity noted, "Let me start on a positive note by asking: with all the damage that TRIPS has wrought on developing countries could it possibly have a silver lining? Maybe - if we want to be generous. TRIPS, one might argue, did bring intellectual property to the forefront of consciousness of people everywhere, and, over time made them aware of the dangers inherent in a protective regime that takes little account of either public policy, or the state of development of a member country." It is thus imperative that when we fashion our public policy, we take account of the dangers he mentioned. He went on to note, "Intellectual property rights have to be viewed not as a self contained and distinct domain, but rather as an effective policy instrument for wide ranging socio-economic and technological development. The primary objective of this instrument is to maximize public welfare." We wholeheartedly support this position of the Indian government, and would encourage the IPR Think Tank to seek to maximize public welfare and creativity and innovation rather than maximizing IPR alone. Importantly, as Mr. Saha, speaking on behalf of the Indian government noted, IP is not an end in itself, contrary to what the current draft of the National IPR Policy seems to promote.
Flexibility is considered to be an essential characteristic in defining and shaping the intellectual property system of countries around the world. Such flexibility allows scope for further innovations and creations, thereby subserving the common good. As per Article 39 of the Constitution of India, "the State shall in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good." It is therefore submitted that the National IPR Policy of India should be contoured in such a manner that it encourages greater use of exceptions and limitations to the otherwise exclusionary use of intellectual property, encourages the expansion of the public domain, secures proportionality in enforcement of IP rights, promotes alternatives to IP - including open access to scholarly literature, open educational resources, free/open source software, open standards, open data, and aims to create a regime of intellectual property that aims to serve the public interest and not just the narrow interest of private right holders. Such an approach should not be merely rights-based, but look at interests of the general public, especially the poor, as well, in order to further the aim of the nation to create a more egalitarian society, and adopt the Directive Principles in the Constitution.

1 www.cis-india.org (last accessed 30 November, 2014).

2 http://www.dipp.nic.in/English/acts_rules/Press_Release/pressRelease_IPR_Policy_30December2014.pdf.

3 See http://cis-india.org/ (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

4 See http://cis-india.org/a2k (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

5 See http://cis-india.org/openness (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

6 See http://cis-india.org/internet-governance (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

7 See http://cis-india.org/accessibility (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

8 See http://cis-india.org/digital-natives (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

9 See http://cis-india.org/raw (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

10 See http://www.wipo.int/members/en/admission/observers.html (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

11 See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/ngo-profile-knowledge-ecology-international (last accessed 18 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/ngo-profile-third-world-network (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

12 See illustratively http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/analysis-copyright-expansion-india-eu-fta (last accessed 18 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/india-eu-fta-copyright-issues (last accessed 18 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/a-guide-to-the-proposed-india-european-union-free-trade-agreement (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

13 See illustratively http://cis-india.org/news/inet-bangkok-june-8-2013-governance-in-the-age-of-internet-and-fta (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

14 See illustratively http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/2010-special-301 (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

15 See illustratively http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/analysis-copyright-amendment-bill-2012 (last accessed 18 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/sc-report-on-amendments (last accessed 18 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/copyright-bill-parliament (last accessed 18 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/tpm-copyright-amendment (last accessed 16 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/copyright-privacy (last accessed 16 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/copyright-bill-analysis (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

16 See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/comments-on-science-technology-and-innovation-policy-draft (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

17 See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/exhaustion (last accessed 18 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/parallel-importation-of-books (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

18 See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-submission-draft-patent-manual-2010 (last accessed 18 January, 2015) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/comments-on-draft-guidelines-for-computer-related-inventions (last accessed 18 January, 2015) respectively.

19 See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/lid-on-royalty-outflows (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

20 See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/exceptions-and-limitations (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

21 See illustratively http://cis-india.org/a2k/consumers-international-ip-watchlist-report-2012 (last accessed 18 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/ip-watch-list-2011 (last accessed 18 January, 2015); http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/consumers-international-ip-watch-list-2009 (last accessed 18 January, 2015).

22 The Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and Public Interest concluded after the Global Congress on Intellectual property and Public Interest in August 2011 attended by over 180 experts from 32 countries articulate this position perfectly. Available at: http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Washington-Declaration.pdf (Last Accessed: 29 November, 2014).

23 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 5.

24 Article 27(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits."

25 Julia Brüggemann, Paolo Crosetto et al, Intellectual Property Rights Hinder Sequential Innovation - Experimental Evidence, Center for European, Governance and Economic Development Research, Number 227, January 2015.

26 Joseph E. Stiglitz, Economic Foundations of Intellectual Property Rights, Duke Law Journal, 57(6): 1693-1724.

27 Graham M. Dutfield, Uma Suthersanen, The Innovation Dilemma: Intellectual Property and the Historical Legacy of Cumulative Creativity, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2004 at 379.

28 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 5.

29 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 5.

30 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 6.

31 Id .

32 Id .

33 Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, The Case Against Patents, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 27, No.1 - Winter 2013, 3-22.

34 Id .

35 Id .

36 Id .

37 James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer, Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats and Lawyers Put Innovation at Risk, March 2008.

38 Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine Supra Note 32.

39 B.J. Jaffe, The US Patent System in Transition: Innovation and the Innovation Process, Research Policy, 29, 531-557, 2000.

40 Josh Lerner, The Empirical Impact of Intellectual Property Rights on Innovation: Puzzles and Clues, Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Growth in the Long-Run: A Discover Model (2009).

41 Rod Falvey & Neil Foster, The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Technology Transfer and Economic Growth: Theory and Evidence (UNIDO Working Paper,

42 ¶ 1.2 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 6.

43 See

44 ¶ 1.3 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 7.

45 ¶ 1.5 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 8.

46 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 8.

47 Heidi L. Williams, Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from the Human Genome, National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 16213, July 2010.

48 Id .

49 Id .

50 Petra Moser, Innovations and Patents in Oxford Handbook of Economic History (Cain et al., eds., forthcoming), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2503503.

51 See generally , David. S. Landes, The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present (1969).

52 See generally , Joel Mokyr. The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress (1990).

53 See generally , Alessandro Nuvolari Collective Invention during the British Industrial Revolution: the Case of the Cornish Pumping Engine, 28 Cambridge J. Econ. 347 (2004). See also, Robert C. Allen, Collective Invention, 4 J. Econ. Behavior & Org. 1 (1983).

54 A. Arora & N. Rosenberg, Chemicals: A US Success Story in Chemicals and Long-Term Economic Growth 71 (Arora et al., eds., 1998); see also, David C. Mowery & Nathan Rosenberg, Paths of Innovation. Technological Change in 20th-century America (1998).

55 Petra Moser, How Do Patent Laws Influence Innovation? Evidence from Nineteenth-Century World Fairs, NBER Working Paper Series 9909, http://www.nber.org/papers/w9909.

56 Meera Nair, A Short-Lived Celebration, Fair Duty (Jan. 8, 2012), https://fairduty.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/a-short-lived-celebration/

57 See generally, Kal Raustiala & Christopher Sprigman, The Knockoff Economy (2012).

58 ¶ 2.10 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 10.

59 See FICCI Suggestions on Discussion Paper on Utility Model available at http://www.ficci.com/Sedocument/20179/UM.pdf (last accessed January 28, 2015).

60 See FICCI Suggestions on Discussion Paper on Utility Model available at http://www.ficci.com/Sedocument/20179/UM.pdf (last accessed January 28, 2015).

61 See Utility Model: A Tool for Economic and Technological Development: A Case Study of Japan available at http://www.ipindia.nic.in/research_studies/finalreport_april2007.pdf (last accessed January 28, 2015).

62 U. Suthersanen, Utility Models and Innovation in Developing Countries, International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), Issue Paper No. 13 (2006), available at http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/iteipc20066_en.pdf , (last accessed January 28, 2015).

63 See China's great leap forward in patents , available at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/04/chinas-great-leap-forward-in-patents/id=38625/ (last accessed January 28, 2015).

64 Will Knight, Wheel Patented in Australia, New Scientist (July 3, 2001), http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html .

65 Keith E. Maskus, Beyond the Treaties: A Symposium on Compliance with International Intellectual Property Law, February 6, 2000.

66 U. Suthersanen, Utility Models and Innovation in Developing Countries, International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), Issue Paper No. 13 (2006), available at http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/iteipc20066_en.pdf , (last accessed January 28, 2015).

67 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 1.

68 ¶ 2.3 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 10.

69 See http://mhrd.gov.in/technical-education-1 (last accessed 30 January, 2015).

70 See 'Expert Group Report on Role and Strategic Use of IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) in International Research Collaborations' by European Commission 'available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/ipr-eur-20230_en.pdf (last accessed January 28, 2015).

71 See 'Ministry of Science makes Open Access to Research Mandatory ', available at http://cis-india.org/news/down-to-earth-july-16-2014-aparajita-singh-ministry-of-science-makes-open-access-to-research-mandatory (last accessed January 28, 2015).

72 DBT and DST Open Access Policy - Policy on Open Access to DBT and DST Funded Research, Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India.

73 Id.

74 Id.

75 Id.

76 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 11.

77 Id .

78 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at pages 10, 11.

79 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 12.

80 Id .

81 The Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health and the Contradictory Trend in Bilateral and Regional Free Trade Agreements (2004), Available at http://www.quno.org/geneva/pdf/ec onomic/Occasional/TRIPS-Public-Health-FTAs.pdf.

82 World Health Organization, Report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health, Recommendation 4.26 (2006), available at http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/ documents/thereport/CIPIHReport23032006.pdf [hereinafter WHO].

83 Fifty-Seventh World Health Assembly, May17-22,2004, (May 22, 2004), available at http:// apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA57/A57_R14-en.pdf;

84 Preamble, Articles 7, 8, TRIPS Agreement, 1994.

85 ¶ 3.2 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 12.

86 ¶ 3.6 IPR Think Tank, National IPR Policy (First Draft) at page 13.

87 See 'Open Standards Policy' , available at http://cis-india.org/news/open-standards-policy (last accessed January 28, 2015).

88 See 'The BIS, Standards and Copyright' , available at http://spicyip.com/2014/11/the-bis-standards-and-copyright.html (last accessed January 28, 2015).

89 See CIS' Letter for Establishment of Patent Pool for Low-cost Access Devices through Compulsory Licenses , available at http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/letter-for-establishment-of-patent-pool-for-low-cost-access-devices (last accessed January 29, 2015).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-cis-comments-to-the-first-draft-of-the-national-ip-policy