Centre for Internet and Society

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

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷା ପାଇଁ ଅନ୍ତର୍ଜାତୀୟ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ

subha — 2015-01-31T04:51:15Z

This is an op-ed I authored for Odia newspaper the "Samaja" that got published on January 30, 2015. Through this post I intend to highlight the needs for taking the Odia language to international fora instead of keeping it confined within the books. I have covered the focus area of 3 free and open source projects: Odia Wikipedia, Odia Wikisource and Global Voices Odia in the column highlighting the need for more people to contribute.

The Unicode version of the post is below. Interestingly 10 new accounts got created on Odia Wikipedia so far which seem to be an impact of the portion explaining about Wikipedia.

ଭାଷାଟି ଆମର ଏ ଦେଶର ମୋଟ ୬୦୦ରୁ ଅଧିକ ଭାଷା ଓ ତହିଁରୁ ୬ଟି ପୁରୁଣା ଭାଷା ଭିତରୁ ଗୋଟିଏ ବୋଲି ମାନ୍ୟତା ପାଇଲା । ଆମ ଭାଷା ମୂଳ ବିଶାଳ କଳିଙ୍ଗ ଭୂଖଣ୍ଡର ସତ୍ତାକୁ ଧରି ରଖିଥିବା ବୋଧେ ଏକଇ ଭାଷା । ଏତେ ସବୁ ପରେ ମଧ୍ୟ ଆମ ଭାଷା ଆନ୍ତର୍ଜାତିକ ସ୍ତରରେ କେତେ ପରିଚିତ, ତାହା ନକହିବା ଭଲ । ଯେଉଁଠି ନିଜ ରାଜ୍ୟର ଲୋକେ ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ କଥା ହେବାକୁ ନାରାଜ ସେଠି ଦେଶବିଦେଶରେ ପତିଆରା କଥା କହିବା ତୁଚ୍ଛା ପାଗଳାମି ବୋଲି ପାଠକେ ହୁଏତ ଭାବୁଥିବେ । ତେବେ ଏ ପ୍ରସଙ୍ଗ ଆଲୋଚନା କରିବା ପଛରେ ରହିଛି ଆମ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଜାତିର ମାନସିକତା ବିଦେଶରୁ ଆସିଥିବା ଲୋକଟେ ଅଧିକ ଆଦର ପାଏ, ନିଜ ଲୋକେ ବିଦେଶ ଯାଇ ବାହୁଡ଼ିଲେ ଅଧିକ ସମ୍ମାନର ଅଧିକାରୀ ହୁଅନ୍ତି, ଏମିତି ଲୋକେ ମଦ ପିଇଲେ ବିଦେଶୀ ଭାଷାରେ ବକନ୍ତି ବୋଲି ଶୁଣାଯାଏ! ଏଣୁ ନିଜ ରାଇଜ ଆଉ ଦେଶରେ ଯେବେ ଆମ ଭାଷାଟି ଗାଁ କନିଆଁ, କାଳେ ବିଦେଶରେ କାଟ୍‍ତି ବଢ଼ିଲେ, ଭାଷାଟି ଏକ ଅନ୍ତର୍ଜାତୀୟ ଭାଷା ବୋଲି ବିଖ୍ୟାତ ହେବ ଆଉ ନିଜ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ତା' ପ୍ରତି ଆଦର ବଢ଼ି ।ରେ ବୋଲି ବିଚାରିବା । କେଇଦିନ ତଳେ ଇଟାଲିରୁ ଜଣେ ସାଙ୍ଗ ଜଣାଇଲେ "ଓଡ଼ିଆ' ଶବ୍ଦଟି (ସେମାନେ, ପର୍ତ୍ତୁଗୀଜ ଓ ସ୍ପାନିସ ଭାଷାଏ "ଓଦିଆ' ବୋଲି ଉଚ୍ଚାରଣ କରନ୍ତି) ଘୃଣା କରିବା ପାଇଁ ବ୍ୟବହାର ହୁଏ । ମୁହଁରେ କହିଲି ନାହିଁ, ହେଲେ ମନରେ ଭାଜିଲି ଆମ ଲୋକେ ନିଜ ଭାଷାକୁ କ'ଣ କମ ହୀନିମାନ କରନ୍ତି! ଯଦି ଆମ ଭାଷା ଜଗତର ଛାମୁଆଁ ଭାଷା ଭିତରୁ ଗୋଟେ ହୋଇପାରନ୍ତା ତା'ହେଲେ ଏ "ଘୃଣାର ଭାଷା' ହୋଇ ଆଉ ରହନ୍ତା ନାହିଁ । ତେବେ ଆମ ଭିତରୁ କେତେଜଣ ଜଗତର ଆଉ ଭାଷା ଗବେଷାଳିଙ୍କ ସଙ୍ଗେ ନିଜ ଭାଷା କଥା ପକାଉଛୁ? ଓଡ଼ିଶା ସୀମା ଡେଇଁଲେ ଓଡ଼ିଆମାନେ ଏତେ ଅନର୍ଗଳ ହିନ୍ଦୀ କହିବେ ଆପଣଙ୍କୁ ବୋଧ ହେବ ବୋଧେ ଏମାନେ ମାଆ ପେଟରୁ ହିନ୍ଦୀ ଶିଖିଥିଲେ । ଅଧିକ ଭାଷା ଶିଖିଲେ ଭଲ, କାମରେ ଆସେ । ହେଲେ ନିଜ ଭାଷାକୁ ତୁଚ୍ଛକରି କିଏ ନୂଆ ଭାଷାରେ ଏତେ ପାରଙ୍ଗମ ହୁଏନା । ଆଜି ଯାଏ ଆମ ଭାଷାର ଏତେ ସାହିତ୍ୟ ଯେ ଗଢ଼ା, ତା'ଭିତରୁ କେତେ ଅନ୍ୟ ଭାଷାରେ ଅନୁବାଦ ହୋଇଛି? ଯେଉଁମାନେ ଆମ ସାହିତ୍ୟର ମୁଖିଆ ବୋଲାଇ କାଳକାଳ ଧରି ଗାଦି ମାଡ଼ି ବସିଛନ୍ତି, ସେମାନଙ୍କୁ ପୁଚ୍ଛିବାର ବେଳ ଆସିଛି କାହିଁକି ଆମେ ଖାଲି ଅନ୍ୟ ଭାଷାରୁ ଅନୁବାଦ କରୁଛୁ, କାହିଁକି ଆମର କାଳଜୟୀ ଲେଖାମାନ ଦେଶ ଓ ଦେଶ ବାହାରେ ପଢ଼ାଯାଉନାହିଁ? ଭାରତୀୟ ଭାଷା ଭିତରୁ କେବଳ ତାମିଲ ଭାଷା କଥା ଚର୍ଚ୍ଚା ହୁଏ ଦେଶବିଦେଶରେ । କାରଣ କ'ଣ ଜାଣନ୍ତି? ବାକିସବୁ କାରଣ ବାଦ୍‍ ସବୁଠୁ ବଡ଼ କାରଣଟି ହେଲା ସେ ଭାଷାର ପୁରୋଧାମାନେ ରାଜ୍ୟ କି ଦେଶ ଭିତରେ ବାନ୍ଧି ନହୋଇ ନିଜ ଭାଷାକୁ ସାରା ଜଗତକୁ ନେଇଛନ୍ତି । ଖାଲି ପଇସାର ଟାଣରେ ଏ କାମ ହୋଇନାହିଁ, ଏଥିରେ ଧନ, ରାଜନୀତି ଆଉ କୂଟନୀତି ଲାଗିଛି । ଆମ ସାହିତ୍ୟିକମାନେ ଥରୁଟେ ବିଦେଶ ଗଲେ ସେଠି ନିଜ ଭାଷା, ରାଇଜ କଥା କେତେ ଯେ ଗପନ୍ତି ତା ମା' ଗଙ୍ଗେଇଙ୍କି ଜଣା । ଗପୁଥିଲେ ତାଙ୍କ ପରିଚିତ ମହଲରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷା ବାବଦରେ ମଞ୍ଜିଟିଏ ପୋତା ହୋଇଥାନ୍ତା, ଅନ୍ତତଃ କିଛି ଭାଷାରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବହି ଅନୁଦିତ ହୋଇଥାନ୍ତା, ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାର ପୁରୁଣାପଣ ବାବଦରେ ବିଦେଶୀ ବ୍ଲଗରେ, ଖବରକାଗଜରେ, ଟେଲିଭିଜନରେ ଚର୍ଚ୍ଚା ହୋଇଥାନ୍ତା । ହୋଇଛି କି ଏଥିରୁ କାଣିଚାଏ? ଆଜିର ପିଢ଼ି ଯାହାଦେଇ ଶିଖୁଛନ୍ତି, ତାଙ୍କୁ ସେଇ ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ଶିଖାଇପାରିଲେ ସିନା ସେମାନେ ଶିଖିବେ । ଖାଲି ଏବର ପିଢ଼ିକୁ ଦୋଷ ଦେଇ ଭାଷା ମରିଯାଉଛି ବୋଲି କୁମ୍ଭୀର କାନ୍ଦଣା କାନ୍ଦିଲେ କି ହେବ କି ଆମେ ନିଜ ଭାଷାର ବିଶ୍ୱବିଦ୍ୟାଳୟ କଥା ବିଚାରୁଛୁ, ହେଲେ ଆକାଶ କଇଆଁ ସ୍ୱରୂପ "ଶାସ୍ତ୍ରୀୟ ମାନ୍ୟତା କେନ୍ଦ୍ର ଅନୁଦାନ ରାଶି' ଆସିବାକୁ ନଚାହିଁ ବିଦେଶରୁ ରାଶି କେମିତି ଆସି ଏ କାମରେ ଲାଗିବ ତା ପାଇଁ ବାଟ ତିଆରୁଛୁ କି? ତେବେ ଏ ଦୁଃଖ ବଖାଣିଲେ ନସରେ । ଚୋରକୁ ମାନ ମାରି ଖପରାରେ ଖାଇଲେ ଏଠି ଘରବୁଡ଼ି ଆଣ୍ଠୁଏ ହେବ । ତେଣୁ ବେଳ ଥାଉଁଥାଉଁ କିଛି ନିଅଁ ପୋତା ଚାଲୁ, ତେଣିକି ଘର ଯେବେ ଗଢ଼ାଯିବ ଏ ସାହା ହେବ । ଓଡ଼ିଆର ପରିଚିତି ଦେଶବିଦେଶରେ ଯେତିକି ଉଣା, ଜଗତର ବାକି ଭାଷା ପାଇଁ ତିଆରି ହୋଇଥିବା ବିଭିନ୍ନ ଜ୍ଞାନର ଭଣ୍ଡାରରେ ମଧ୍ୟ ସେତିକି ଅଜଣା । ଇଂରାଜୀ ବାଦ୍‍ ଅନ୍ୟାନ୍ୟ ଭାଷାର ଲେଖାର ପ୍ରକାଶନ ପାଇଁ ଅନେକ ସ୍ଥାନ ରହିଛି । ତେବେ ଏମିତି କେତୋଟି ଜାଗତିକ ସ୍ଥାନରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆର ଚିହ୍ନଟେ ଯେ ରହିବା ଲୋଡ଼ା ତା କହିବା ବାହୁଲ୍ୟ । କାନ୍ଦିବୋବାଳି ରାମମୋହନ ଲାଇବ୍ରେରି ସକାଶେ କେଇଶହ ବହି ଛାପି ଯେଉଁମାନେ ନିଜର ବା ଭାଷାର ଉନ୍ନତି କରିବେ ବୋଲି ସାଧି ବସିଥିବେ ତାଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ନାକରା ଖବର- ଆଉ ପିଲେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ପଢ଼ୁନାହାନ୍ତି । ଓଡ଼ିଆ କଥା ଛାଡ଼ନ୍ତୁ, ପିଲେ ବହି ପଢ଼ୁନାହାନ୍ତି । ତାଙ୍କୁ ଆଜିକାଲି ଲୋଡ଼ା ଭଳିକି ଭଳି ଗେମ, ଆନିମେସନ ଆଉ ଗ୍ରାଫିକ୍‍ ନଭେଲ (କମିକ୍ସ ଭଳି ଛବି ସମ୍ବଳିତ ବହି) । ପୁଣି ପିଲାଏ ମୋବାଇଲ ଆଉ କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରୁ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଖୋଜି ବସିୁଛନ୍ତି ନୂଆନୂଆ କଥା । ଆଜିର ପିଢ଼ି ଯାହା ଦେଇ ଶିଖୁଛନ୍ତି ତାଙ୍କୁ ସେଇ ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ଶିଖାଇପାରିଲେ ସିନା ସେମାନେ ଶିଖିବେ । ଖାଲି ଏବର ପିଢ଼ିକୁ ଦୋଷ ଦେଇ ଭାଷା ମରିଯାଉଛି ବୋଲି କୁମ୍ଭୀର କାନ୍ଦଣା କାନ୍ଦିଲେ କି ହେବ? ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ: ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ପହଞ୍ଚôଲେ କୌଣସି ବିଷୟ ଖୋଜିବାକୁ ପ୍ରଥମେ ଖୋଲାହୁଏ ଗୁଗୁଲ କି ୟାହୁ ଭଳି ସର୍ଚ୍ଚ ଇଞ୍ଜିନ । ଖୋଜିଲାପରେ ଯାହା ପ୍ରଥମ ଲିଙ୍କ୍‍ରେ ଆସେ ସେ ହେଲା ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ । ଏଇଟି ଜଗତର ବିଶାଳତମ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ । ୨୦୦୧ରେ ଇଂରାଜୀ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆରେ ପରେ ପ୍ରଥମ ଭାରତୀୟ ଭାଷା ଭାବେ ପଞ୍ଜାବୀ ଓ ଅହମିୟା ସହ ଯେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଏଥିରେ ସ୍ଥାନ ପାଇଲା ତା' ଅନେକ ଜାଣିନଥିବେ । ୨୦୦୨ରେ ତିଆରି ସିନା ହୋଇଗଲା । ହେଲେ ଏଥିରେ ଲେଖିବ କିଏ? ଇଂରାଜୀର ପାଠକ ଓ ଲେଖକ ଅଧିକ । ଆଉ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆରେ ଲେଖିଲେ କଉଡ଼ିଟିଏ ମିଳେନାହିଁ । ସ୍ୱେଚ୍ଛାରେ ଲେଖିବାକୁ ବିଦେଶରେ ଯେମିତି ଲୋକ ବାହାରନ୍ତି ଆମର ସେ ଅବସ୍ଥା ନାହିଁ । ତଥାପି ୨୦୧୧ ବେଳକୁ ଓଡ଼ିଶା ବାହାରେ ଥିବା କିଛି ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଏ ତିମିରରେ କିଛି ଆଲୁଅ ଜଳାଇଲେ । ଧୀରେଧୀରେ ଓଡ଼ିଶାରେ ଥିବା ଓଡ଼ିଆମାନେ ମଧ୍ୟ ସେଥିରେ ଯୋଡ଼ିହେଲେ । ଆଉ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାର ବିଶାଳତମ ଅନଲାଇନ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ । or.wikipedia.org ରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଏ ଏନସାଇକ୍ଲୋପିଡ଼ିଆ ସୀମିତ ସ୍ୱେଚ୍ଛାସେବୀଙ୍କ ଦେଇ ସମ୍ପାଦିତ ହେଉଥିବାରୁ ସେତେ ବିଶାଳ ନୁହେଁ ସତ, କିନ୍ତୁ ଏହା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ବିଶାଳତମ ୱେବସାଇଟ । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆର ମାସିକ ପାଠକ ୫ ଲକ୍ଷରୁ ଅଧିକ । ବହିର ପାଠ ବହି ବାହାରେ ବ୍ୟବହାର ହେବାରେ ପୁଣି ଟାଇପ କରିବାର ଯେଉଁ ବାଧକ ତା' ଏଥିରେ ନାହିଁ । ମଜାର କଥା ଯେ ଅନେକ ସମୟରେ ବିଭିନ୍ନ ଭାଷାଭାଷୀ ଉଇକିଆଳିଗଣ (ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆର ସମ୍ପାଦକ) ବେଳେବେଳେ ଆପୋଷରେ ଏକ ଆଉଜଣଙ୍କ ଦେଶ-ଭାଷା-ଚଳଣି-ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିତ୍ୱଙ୍କ ସମ୍ବନ୍ଧରେ ଲେଖିବା ଦେଖାଯାଏ । ୨୮୮ରୁ ଅଧିକ ଭାଷାଭାଷୀ ଏମିତି ଅଗଣିତ ଲୋକ ଯେଉଁଠି ମିଶି ଲେଖନ୍ତି ସେଠି ଭାଷାଟିଏ ଯୋଜନଯୋଜନ ଡେଇଁ ଜଗତର କୋଣ ଅନୁକୋଣ କେଡ଼େ ସହଜରେ ପହଞ୍ଚିପାରେ ଏ ତା'ର ଏକ ଉଦାହରଣ । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାର: ଆମ ଭାଷାରେ ଏଯାବତ୍‍ କେଇ ଲକ୍ଷ ବହି ଛପାଯାଇସାରିବଣି । ହେଲେ ଏ ସବୁ ବହି କ'ଣ ସଭିଁଏ ପଢ଼ିବାର ସୁଯୋଗ ପାଆନ୍ତି? କାହାପାଖରେ ପାଠାଗାର ଯିବାପାଇଁ ବେଳ ନାହିଁ ତ ହାତପାହାନ୍ତାରେ ବହି ନଥିବାରୁ କିଏ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଛାଡ଼ି ବାକି ଭାଷାର ଲେଖାପଢ଼ା ଆଦରୁଛି । ଆମ ଭାଷାର ପାଠକ କମିକମି ଯାଉଛନ୍ତି । ସମାଧାନର ପନ୍ଥା କ'ଣ ହୋଇପାରେ? ଆମ ଭାଷା ଖାଲି କ'ଣ ସାହିତ୍ୟ ଆଉ ସାହିତ୍ୟକଙ୍କ ଭାଷା କି ଲୋକମୁଖର କଥିତ ଭାଷା ହୋଇ ରହିଯିବ? ଆଜିର ପିଢ଼ି ପାଖରେ ପହଞ୍ଚôବାଲାଗି ତାକୁ ମନ ପଢ଼ିବାକୁ, ଜିଣିବାକୁ ହେବ । ଏଥି ।ଇଁ ପ୍ରାଥମିକ କାମଟି ହେଲା ବିରଳ ଓ ଛପା ହେଉନଥିବା ଅନେକ ପୁରାତନ ବହି ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଜରିଆରେ ପାଠକମାନଙ୍କ ନିକଟକୁ ନେବା । ଯଦି ପାଠାଗାରରୁ କୌଣସି କାରଣରୁ ବହିଟି ଚୋରିହୁଏ କି ପୋକ ଖାଇଯାଏ ତା'ହେଲେ ଲେଖକର ଶ୍ରମର ଦେଉଳ ଭୁଶୁଡ଼ି ଡ଼େ । ତାକୁ ସାଇତିବାର ସବୁଠୁ ବଡ଼ ବାଟ ହେଉଛି ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ୍‍ । ପୁରୁଣା ଓ ବିରଳ ବହିମାନ ଛପାଇବାରେ ଭୁବନେଶ୍ୱରର ସୃଜନିକା ଅନୁଷ୍ଠାନର କାମ ଏକ ଐତିହାସିକ ପଦକ୍ଷେପ । ୧୮୪୦- ୧୯୪୦ ଭିତରେ ପ୍ରକାଶିତ ପତି୍ରକା, ୨୫ରୁ ଅଧିକ ଅଭିଧାନ ତଥା ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣଚନ୍ଦ୍ର ଭାଷାକୋଷ ଭଳି ପୋଥିକୁ ମିଶାଇ ୭୪୦ରୁ ଅଧିକ ବହିକୁ ଡିଜିଟାଲ ରୂ ଦେବାରେ ସେମାନଙ୍କ ଅବଦାନ କାହିଁରେ କେତେ । ହେଲେ ଏ ବହିର ଲେଖାସବୁ ଆଉଥରେ ବ୍ୟବହାର ହେବା, ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ୍‍ରେ ଖୋଜିପାଇବା ତଥା ମୋବାଇଲ ଆଦିରେ ପଢ଼ିବା ପାଇଁ ଆଉଥରେ ଟାଇପ ହେବା ଜରୁରୀ । ସବୁଯାକ ବହିକୁ ଟାଇପ କରିବା ସମ୍ଭବ ନୁହେଁ, ହେଲେ କିଛିକିଛି ବହି ଧୀରେଧୀରେ ଟାଇପ ହୋଇପାରିବ । ସେ କାମଟି ଅଧୁନା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିାଠାଗାରରେ ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇଛି । ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ or.wikisosurce.org ରେ ପାଠକେ ଏହାକୁ ଖୋଲି ପଢ଼ିପାରିବେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଗବତଠୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ଭଞ୍ଜ ସାହିତ୍ୟ ଏବଂ ଗୋପବନ୍ଧୁଙ୍କ ପରି ଏ ଯୁଗର ମହାନ ସାହିତ୍ୟିକଙ୍କ ରଚନାବଳୀ । ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପଟି ଅଣଲାଭକାରୀ, ଆଉ କପିରାଇଟ ନଥିବାରୁ ବହି ସବୁ ଖୋଲାରେ ପାଠକଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ।

ଗ୍ଲୋବାଲ ଭଏସେସ: ଉପର ଦୁଇ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ତ ଗଲା ବହିର ରକ୍ଷଣାବେକ୍ଷଣ ଆଉ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ ବା ଏନସାଇକ୍ଲୋପିଡ଼ିଆ ଗଢ଼ିବାର କଥା । ହେଲେ ଘଟୁଥିବା ଘଟଣା ଆଉ ଜନମତର ମହତ ମଧ୍ୟ ଊଣା ନୁହେଁ । ଘଟୁଥିବା ଘଟଣାବଳୀ ଓ ତହିଁରେ ଜନ-ଅଭିମତକୁ ଭରିବା ଲକ୍ଷ୍ୟରେ ଏକ ବିଶ୍ୱବ୍ୟାପୀ ଆନ୍ଦୋଳନ ହେଉଛି ଗ୍ଳୋବାଲ ଭଏସେସ । ସୌଭାଗ୍ୟର କଥା ଯେ ହିନ୍ଦୀ ଓ ବଙ୍ଗଳା ପରେ ଏଥିରେ ୩ୟ ଭାରତୀୟ ଭାଷା ଭାବେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ସ୍ଥାନୀତ । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ପାଠକଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଖବର ବୋଲି ଯାହା ଖବରକାଗଜରେ ଆସେ ତା ବାହାରେ ଘଟୁଥିବା ଘଟଣା ସହ ପରିଚିତ ଲାଭ ପାଇଁ ଏ ଏକ ବଡ଼ ମାଧ୍ୟମ ହୋଇପାରେ । ଏହା or.globalvoicesonline.org ରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ । ଏ ମଧ୍ୟ ଏକ ସ୍ୱେଚ୍ଛାସେବୀ ପରିଚାଳିତ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ଯାହାର ଦୁଆର ଭାଷା ଦକ୍ଷତା ଥିବା ଲେଖକଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଖୋଲା ।

Click to read a copy of the original article published by the Samaja here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/op-ed-samaja-jan-2015

Poesis in the Information Age: Language and its Limit[ation]s

praskrishna — 2015-01-26T13:57:34Z

Alec Schachner, an independent scholar, translator, multi-genre musician and sound artist will give a talk on the limits/limitations of languages at the Centre for Internet & Society's office on January 30, 2015 at 5 p.m.

The Talk

An examination of the limits/limitations of language(s) through the lens of contemporary Vietnamese poetics and print culture, aiming to open a deeper dialogue on the nature of self/state expression and censorship in the age of internet connectivity.

Alec Schachner

Alec graduated from Columbia College with a degree in Sociocultural Anthropology, English & Comparative Literature, Creative Writing and Music Theory/Composition. Alec currently resides in Vietnam, where he has served as lecturer on literature for 5 years with the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature at the Vietnam National University of Social Sciences and Humanities HCMC. He is working on English translations of several anthologies of Vietnamese poetry, one of which - the purification festival in April - just went to print across VN earlier this month. He is also pursuing research into contemporary Saigonese print culture and the social/cyber mileus surrounding literary circles/movements in the post-Socialist cultural sphere.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/poesis-in-the-information-age

January 2015 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2015-02-26T17:02:23Z

Our newsletter for the month of January can be accessed below.

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) welcomes you to the first issue of the newsletter (January 2015). Archives of our newsletters can be accessed at: http://cis-india.org/about/newsletters.

Highlights

Forbes India in an article titled “Minds that (should) matter” names Sunil Abraham as one of the Thinkers who best explain a rapidly-changing India to the world (and the world to India).

Subhashish Panigrahi won the 2015 Opensource.com Community Awards under the category 'People's Choice Awards'.
Sumandro Chattapadhyay has joined CIS team as Research Director. Sumandro has replaces Nishant Shah who stepped down from the position.
Rishika on behalf of CIS prepared an analysis of the disability exceptions in Copyright Legislations . The blog post provides in detail the country-wise exceptions in copyright legislations.
NVDA team conducted a training programme on Malayalam eSpeak with NVDA in Thiruvananthapuram on January 24 and 25, 2015. Chakshumathi's main trainer Akhil M. took eSpeak Malayalam classes and Dr. Homiyar took classes on NVDA and accessible equipment.
The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India invited comments on the First Draft of India's National IPR Policy. CIS made its submission.
As part of the Pervasive Technologies project, Nehaa Chaudhari has produced a research methodology document which maps the existing literature around questions of competition law intersecting with intellectual property law on the specific issue of enabling access to sub hundred dollar mobile devices .
Maggie Huang, an intern at CIS as part of the Pervasive Technologies project has written a blog entry which documents, synthesizes, and analyses learnings from attending various music industry trade conferences.

CIS-A2K team on December 28, 2014 organized a MediaWiki hackathon event for Telugu Wikimedia community members to enhance their skills and understanding of technical matters related to MediaWiki usage. The theme of the workshop was “Mediawiki, its extensions and tools to work around” and it aimed at allowing Wikipedians to use MediaWiki tools more effectively.

Subhashish Panigrahi authored an op-ed that highlights the need for taking Odia language to the international fora instead of keeping it confined in the books. The op-ed was published in the Samaja on January 30, 2015.

A journal article by Subbiah Arunachalam, Perumal Ramamoorthi and Subbiah Gunasekaran the steps taken by scientists and librarians in the West to reclaim ease of access to research findings with what is happening in India along with a few suggestions was published by the Indian National Science Academy Journals.
The Supreme Court, in Sabu George v. Union of India and Ors. (WP (C) 341/2008), is looking into the presence of material regarding pre-natal sex determination on search engines such as Google, Bing, and Yahoo that has been falling foul of section 22 of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 as amended in 2002. Geeta Hariharan and Balaji Subramanian analyse this in their blog post.
As part of its Making Methods for Digital Humanities project, CIS-RAW organized two consultations on new figures of learning in the digital context. For a proposed journal issue on the theme of 'bodies of knowledge' which draws upon these conversations, participants were invited to write short sketches on these figures of learning. Tejas Pande wrote an abstract which examines the figure of the visual designer, and emerging practices of mapmaking.

Accessibility and Inclusion

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

NVDA and eSpeak

Monthly Update

January 2015 Report (Suman Dogra; January 31, 2015).

Event Organized

Training of Malayalam eSpeak with NVDA (Co-organized by CIS, DAISY Forum of India and Chakshumathi Assistive Technology Centre; Thiruvananthapuram; January 24-25, 2015).

Other

Blog Entries

Disability Exceptions in Copyright Legislations (Rishika; January 12, 2015).
Response to RTI Applications from Different States on Accessibility (Anandhi Viswanathan; January 31, 2015).

Access to Knowledge

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

Pervasive Technologies

As part of the Pervasive Technologies project, Maggie Huang conducted interviews with fabless semiconductor industry professionals in Taiwan. The findings from the samples are highlighted in four part series. The third and fourth parts have been published:

Blog Entries

Pervasive Technologies Project Working Document Series: Document 2 Literature Review on Competition Law + IPR + Access to < $100 Mobile Devices (Nehaa Chaudhari; January 1, 2015).
Relationship between App Developers and App Platforms: An Intellectual Property Perspective (Anubha Sinha; January 7, 2015).
Beyond Alcohol and Angel Investors: Building Business Models in an Age of Mobile Music Streaming (Conference Learnings) (Maggie Huang; January 20, 2015).
National IPR Policy Series: The Development of the National IPR Policy (Nehaa Chaudhari; January 22, 2015).
RTI Responses - MHRD IP Chairs: Details of Funding & Expenditure (Nehaa Chaudhari; January 31, 2015).
National IPR Policy Series: CIS Comments to the First Draft of the National IP Policy (Nehaa Chaudhari; January 31, 2015).

Participation in Events

Global Intellectual Property Convention (Organized by ITAG Solutions; Mumbai; January 15 - 17, 2015). Rohini Lakshané attended the event.
Library and Information Professionals Summit (LIPS) 2015 (Organized by Society for Library Professionals, National Law University Delhi with UN Information Centre for India & Bhutan and Special Library Association (USA), Asian Chapter; January 23 - 24, 2015; New Delhi). Nehaa Chaudhari was on a panel discussing Internet Technology and Challenges for Libraries in IPR Regime. She made a presentation on Technology (Internet?), Libraries and the Law (?).

Upcoming Event

Announcing the Institutional Partner for the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2015 (Organized by the National Law School of India University; New Delhi; December 2015).

Wikipedia

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

Op-ed

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷା ପାଇଁ ଅନ୍ତର୍ଜାତୀୟ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ (Subhashish Panigrahi; The Samaja, January 31, 2015).

Blog Entries

Telugu Wikimedia Hackathon 2014 (Rahmanuddin Shaik; January 31, 2015).

Telugu Wikimedia Hackathon 2014 (Rahmanuddin Shaik; January 31, 2015). The event was conducted on December 28, 2014. However, the blog post was published in January 2015.

News and Media Coverage

CIS-A2K team gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Works of Veerasalingam Pantulu on web (Hans India; January 1, 2015).
Centre should partner local communities in 'Digital India': Expert (IANS and mirrored in Zee News; January 9, 2015).
Musician donates Gwalior Gharana songs to free e-library (Times of India; January 20, 2015).

Announcement

2015 Opensource.com Community Awards : Every year, Opensource.com awards people from our community who have excelled in contributing and sharing stories about open source. Subhashish Panigrahi from the CIS-A2K team won the award under the category 'People's Choice Awards'.
CIS-A2K team also published the Telugu Wikipedia Stats tables. Most metrics have been collected from a partial dump (aka stub dump), which contains all revisions of every article, meta data, but no page content.

Participation in Event

Citizen Media Summit 2015 (Organized by Global Voices; January 24 - 25, 2015). Subhashish Panigrahi was a speaker.

Openness

Journal Article

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose: The Intransigenc of STM Publishers (Subbiah Arunachalam, Perumal Ramamoorthi and Subbiah Gunasekaran; Indian National Science Academy Journals, Proc Indian Natn SciAcad 80 No. 5 December 2014 pp. 919-929).

Internet Governance

Articles and Blog Entries

Indians Plead for #NetNeutrality as Airtel Raises Data Charges (Subhashish Panigrahi; Global Voices; December 30, 2014). The article was published in the month of December but mirrored on CIS website in January.
Indian Netizens Criticize Online Censorship of 'Jihadi' Content (Subhashish Panigrahi; Global Voices; January 6, 2015).
Security and Surveillance - Optimizing Security while Safeguarding Human Rights (Elonnai Hickok; January 19, 2015).
Search Engine and Prenatal Sex Determination: Walking the Tight Rope of the Law (Geetha Hariharan and Balaji Subramanian; January 29, 2015).

Event Co-organized

Security, Governments, and Data: Technology and Policy (Organized by CIS and Observer Research Foundation; January 8, 2015, New Delhi). Sunil Abraham, Pranesh Prakash, Elonnai Hickok, Bhairav Acharya and Nehaa Chaudhari participated in this event.

Participation in Events

Symposium on Human Rights and the Internet in India (Organized by the Center for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi in collaboration with the UNESCO Chair on Freedom of Communication and Information at the University of Hamburg; New Delhi; January 17, 2015). Bhairav Acharya was a panelist.
Winter School on Privacy, Surveillance and Data Protection (Organized by the Centre for Communication Governance (CCG) in collaboration with the UNESCO Chair on Freedom of Communication and Information at the University of Hamburg and the Hans Bredow; Delhi; January 19 - 23, 2015). Bhairav Acharya was a facilitator.
ASSOCHAM National Council on IT / ITes (Organized by ASSOCHAM; New Delhi; January 30, 2015). Geetha Hariharan participated in the event.

Blog Entries

Overview of the Constitutional Challenges to the IT Act (Pranesh Prakash; December 15, 2014).
Reply to RTI filed with BSNL regarding Network Neutrality and Throttling (Tarun Krishnakumar; December 22, 2014).

News & Media Coverage

CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Government blocks 32 websites to check ISIS propaganda (Kim Arora; The Times of India; January 1, 2015).
Internet users fume as govt blocks 32 sites (Jaison Lewis; Mumbai Mirror; January 1, 2015).
India 'jihadi' web blocking causes anger (BBC; January 2, 2015). This was also mirrored in Puffington Post.
Govt cracks down on cyber jehad network, blocks access to 32 websites (India Today, January 1, 2015).
Indian Government still blocks 20+ websites - Indian Censorship on Internet (Times of Assam; January 2, 2015).
350% surge in Cyber crimes in last 3 years (Devanik Saha & Indiaspend.org; Hindustan Times; January 20, 2015).
TOI literary festival kicks off today (The Times of India; January 31, 2015).

Digital Humanities

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

Staff Movement

Sumandro Chattapadhyay has joined CIS as Research Director. His academic interests span over topics of history and politics of informatics in India, new media and technology studies, and data infrastructures and economies. He is also keenly interested in questions and techniques of digital humanities. Recently, Sumandro has completed a study on policy and practices of open data in India as part of the Open Data Research Network managed by the World Wide Web Foundation. He is an involved member of DataMeet, a leading community of open data and data science enthusiasts from India. Sumandro studied economics in Visva-Bharati, Shantiniketan, and in Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He has variously worked on topics of urban development, information technology in governance, data visualisation, and early electronic governance in India with MOD Institute, Azim Premji University and the Sarai Programme at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies.

Blog Entry

Figures of Learning: The Visual Designer (Tejas Pande; January 30, 2015).

About CIS

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

► Follow us elsewhere

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

► Support Us

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

► Request for Collaboration:

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

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

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/january-2015-bulletin

Sumandro Chattapadhyay

praskrishna — 2015-01-15T01:41:40Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/sumandro-chattapadhyay.pdf

Government blocks over 60 websites including github & sourceforge on anti-terror advisory

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T14:22:58Z

Over 60 websites and links, including popular online tools like Github and Sourceforge used by thousands of programmers have been blocked in India, triggering angry protests by Internet users.

The article by P.K. Jayadevan and Neha Alawadhi was published in the Economic Times on December 31, 2014. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

The websites were blocked for hosting content that is pro terrorist group ISIS and not cooperating with government investigations, officials said.

Arvind Gupta, the head of IT Cell, BJP Tweeted: "The websites that have been blocked were based on an advisory by Anti Terrorism Squad, and were carrying Anti India content from ISIS. The sites that have removed objectionable content and/or cooperated with the on going investigations, are being unblocked."

Based on an order issued by the country's telecom department, in a letter dated December 17 and a subsequent letter on December 19, over 60 websites have been blocked by various internet service providers in the country.

While some internet service providers are yet to block these websites, many users have been reporting frequent outages in these web services over the last two weeks.

Websites like Pastebin don't host any content but are a platform for users to paste text. Popular video networks like Vimeo and Dailymotion are among the websites that have been blocked.

Officials from the department of Information Technology and the department of telecom were not available for comment. "These are all providing very dangerous kind of cut and paste services..You can take code, cut it, paste it, remove it, delete it," said one government official who requested anonymity.

The government has invoked section 69A of the Information technology Act (2000) and Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules ("Blocking Rules") to ban these websites.

Many websites have been blocked in India from time to time on various grounds. In September, following the Muzaffarnagar riots, over 80 websites and links on social media were blocked.

However, the inclusion of services like Github and Sourceforge that host code for open source software are causing much anger among the developer community. "Sometimes they might need to block specific URLs, but blocking the entire website is wrong or they haven't thought through it," said Thejesh GN, the co-founder of Datameet and an open source developer.

"There is also a lack of transparency where people don't get to know why their sites were blocked," he added.

"We're aware of reports of connectivity issues in India. We're looking into it, and will update with more information when we have it," a Github spokesperson said.

In June 2014, the Delhi High Court ordered a block of 472 file sharing websites including Google Docs and Pirate Bay following a complaint filed by Sony Entertainment. The entertainment company was hacked and contents from its servers were shared by hackers on various file sharing websites. In earlier instances, many websites have been blocked for copyright infringement as well.

"Courts unfortunately are not exercising restraint and are indulging ignorant copyright lawyers," said Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director at the Centre for Internet and Society. Prakash said that most of the sites on the list don't host copyrighted material themselves and a case can not be made against them.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-december-31-2014-jayadevan-neha-alawadhi-december-31-2014-govt-blocks-over-60-websites

Internet users fume as govt blocks 32 sites

praskrishna — 2015-01-02T13:46:25Z

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has ordered Internet service providers to block 32 websites, in cluding popular video-sharing plat forms such as Dailymotion and Vimeo, reportedly over concerns that they are being misused by Islamic State jihadists.

The article by Jaison Lewis was published in Mumbai Mirror on January 1, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

The ban has angered free-speech proponents who allege that the Narendra Modi government is using national security as a pretext to censor online content. On Wednesday, tweets criticising the restrictions were trending on #GOIBlocks. Senior lawyer Karuna Nandy said that she would challenge the DoT order in the Supreme Court.

Apart from Dailymotion and Vimeo, Internet service providers have also been ordered to block Github and Pastebin, which are popular among programmers; Weebly, a free website creator; and Archive.org, a non-profit digital library.

Some Internet users, however, were able to access some of the sites. This could be because their Internet service providers have not yet implemented the DoT order or because the government has lifted restrictions on some web addresses, according to activists monitoring the blockage of the websites.

The order was issued under Section 69A (procedure for blocking public access) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The section allows authorities to block websites without giving any formal reason or making any public announcement.

However, Arvind Gupta, BJP's national head for information and technology, tweeted that the sites had been blocked over security concerns. "The Web sites have been blocked based on an advisory by Anti-Terrorism Squad, and were carrying Anti India content from ISIS.The sites that have removed objectionable content andor cooperated with the ongoing investigations, are being unblocked," he wrote.

Gupta, however, did not explain how the sites were being misused by terrorists. Some of the sites are mostly frequented by programmers looking for open-source software and codes.

Nandy, a Supreme Court lawyer who specialises in human rights litigations, criticised the ban. "I will challenge the order in the Su preme Court this week. I will seek directions to lift the secrecy surrounding such bans and also request for a right to appeal," she said.

She added that censoring the Internet was against the idea of free expression guaranteed under the Constitution. "Such steps are not good for a healthy society," she said.

Pranesh Prakash, a policy director with the Centre for Internet and Society and one of the most vocal opponents of the blockage, said that the people had the right to know why the websites had been blocked.

"We still don't know why these blocks were issued: was it an overzealous copyright lawyer who found an indulgent judge to issue an overbroad and baseless order? Or was it a public servant who wrongly directed the Department of Electronics and IT to block the sites under the IT Act? We have no idea," said Prakash, who tweeted a picture of the DoT order on Wednesday.

He added that websites were frequently blocked without clear evidence of wrongdoing. "These laws must be changed," Prakash said.

Internet users also voiced their anger over the DoT order. "This only proves ATS is an idiot. If terrorists use buses, phones & Whatspp, you'll block whole system? #GOIBlocks," Poonam Sharma tweeted.

Some users retweeted a Modi post from August 2012: "As a common man, I join the protest against crackdown on freedom of speech!"

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/mumbai-mirror-jaison-lewis-jan-1-2015-internet-users-fume-as-govt-blocks-32-sites

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose: The Intransigenc of STM Publishers

subbiah — 2015-02-12T00:28:14Z

A few commercial publishers dominate provision of access to scientific and technical information sought after by researchers around the world. Increasing subscription prices of journals at rates higher than general inflation caused librarians to think of forming consortia, but publishers started selling online journals as bundles, and libraries ended up with many journals their researchers have very little use for. Scientists and librarians adopted open access, but publishers came up with hybrid journals and article processing charges to beat any adverse effect on their profits caused by the fast-spreading open access movement. We compare the steps taken by scientists and librarians in the West to reclaim ease of access to research findings with what is happening in India. We end with a few suggestions.

The article by Subbiah Arunachalam, Perumal Ramamoorthi and Subbiah Gunasekaran was published in the Indian National Science Academy Journals, Proc Indian Natn SciAcad 80 No. 5 December 2014 pp. 919-929.

Introduction

Scientists in India, as elsewhere, will be happy if their libraries provide them access to thousands of journals. Librarians, even in the most affluent institutions, have only limited budgets and they have to balance between journals on the one hand and books, monographs and reference material on the other, and can subscribe to only a limited number of journals. In the past decade and a half, thanks to generous funding by several government agencies (e.g., UGC, CSIR), librarians formed consortia so they could access online journals at more attractive prices and in large numbers. Also, during the same period, many open access (OA) journals became available and some subscription journals came forward to make articles OA if the authors paid a fee. There also came up a large number of repositories, both institutional (such as the ones at Indian Institute of Science and Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute) and subject-based central repositories (such as PubMed Central). As a result, scientists now have much easier access to a much larger volume of current literature. But, it appears that publishers seem to profit far more than scientists. They keep increasing the subscription prices at a rate higher than general inflation. Even affluent institutions like Harvard University are forced to cut down the number of journals they subscribe. The Association of Research Libraries (ARL), a group of about 125 research libraries in North America, is concerned about this crisis in scholarly communication (or ‘serials crisis’ as they call it) and is working to promote open access as one way to counter it. The publishers continue to make their unusually large profits unmindful of the hardship researchers are put to. In business circles, publishing scientific, technical and medical (STM) journals is considered to be one of the most profitable businesses. Efforts made by groups of researchers to make scholarly communication more cost effective have not met with expected success levels. For example, entire editorial boards of a few commercial journals resigned and started new journals in the same field. But this happened only in a handful of cases and not all of them succeeded. In this paper, we look at what is happening currently in India in the context of the unusually large influence wielded by journal publishers.

Click to download the full text article.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/indian-national-academy-journals-december-2014-subbiah-arunachalam-perumal-ramamoorthi-subbiah-gunasekaran-heads-i-win-tails-you-lose

Pervasive Technologies Project Working Document Series: Document 2 Literature Review on Competition Law + IPR + Access to < $100 Mobile Devices

Amulya Purushothama and Nehaa Chaudhari — 2015-09-03T02:02:51Z

This note is the second document in the series of Working Documents that I will be creating for my research under the Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Marketplace (“PT Project”).

View the first document here. Note: The research was for this blog post was done by Amulya Purushothama which wasn't acknowledged earlier.

Preliminary

This note will serve as the literature review for my research paper under this project. This note- to be revised periodically- maps the existing literature around questions of competition law intersecting with intellectual property law on the specific issue of enabling access to sub hundred dollar mobile devices; which might be impaired as a result of intellectual property protections, particularly standard essential patents.

This note will explore the literature around the relationship between intellectual property and competition law; with a specific focus on the antitrust/competition concerns that arise around the licensing of standard essential patents. This note will study the approach adopted in other jurisdictions in the employment of existing mechanisms in competition law as possible solutions to issues with the licensing of standard essential patents.

Literature Review

Smartphones and Access to knowledge.

The Avendus Capital report[1] on mobile data usage in India provides important information about mobile internet users in India. Particularly the striking fact that more than half of the internet users in India use it on their low cost mobile phone and that access to these phones therefore becomes a step toward access to the internet. John Harmen Valk and others [2] have through their report demonstrated how mobile phones with internet access have been used to further educational outcomes in India and Asia and underscores the idea that access to such technology is important.

Competition Law and Intellectual Property

Academic writing around the nexus between intellectual property law and competition law presents varied perspectives; particularly on the question of whether they each acted as incentives for innovation, or whether competition law hindered innovation that intellectual property (seemingly) promoted. This narrative does not question a more fundamental concept; of whether intellectual property protections necessarily incentivized innovation; but takes that as the underlying assumption that they do.

Gitanjali Shankar and Nitika Gupta have noted that antitrust law and intellectual property have in the past seen to diverse and work against each other with different approaches to monopoly and that the two have also been viewed as related to each other in so far as intellectual property has been viewed as one of the tools to regulate competition in the market place. they propose that if the latter approach is taken and the two branches of law are seen to converge, two guidelines must be followed in to balance the various interests and ensure clarity, first that IP laws must only be extended by legislation and not through judicial interpretation, the second that when two interpretations are available during the enforcement of any intellectual property, that interpretation must be chosen which is in line with encourages the free market and promotes fair competition.

They have argued that both antitrust law and intellectual property have separate operational areas and their functions must be kept independent of each other. They argue that the domain of intellectual property concerns the assignment and defense of intellectual property rights and the domain of antitrust deals with the use and exercise of such rights within the market. They argue that competition law does not call into question that basis of IPRs that it doesn't question the exclusivity of legal rights, merely their abuse which results in unfair trade practices. They argue that the distance between economic and legal monopolies should be maintained and these fall within the domains of antitrust law and intellectual property respectively. They further argue that antitrust law exists to ensure that the IPR owner does not abuse his rights and thus bolsters intellectual property rights. [3]

Robert Pitofsky while reviewing a work of Prof. Mark Lemley explains that while anti-trust laws and intellectual property laws have the same long term goals of incentivizing innovation and investment in innovation, they are bound to conflict with each other in the short term as anti-trust law seeks to achieve this goal via limiting the possibilities of a monopoly and further ensuring that monopolies do not abuse the power they enjoy in the market place. Antitrust policies assume that the free market will fairly allocate resources and thereby encourage innovation efficiently. Pitofsky goes on to state that intellectual property on the other hand believes in rewarding innovation and thereby incentivizing investing in innovation, intellectual property is basically a grant of limited monopolies to ensure that costs of innovation are recovered and product quality is maintained. He argues that it is critical to ensure that patents are granted after thorough analysis to ensure a balance between anti-trust policies and intellectual property rights and to ensure that the larger goals of incentivizing innovation are achieved.[4]

Katrina Perehudoff and Sophie Bloemen have argued that anti-competitive strategies such as defensive patenting (the creation of weak and frivolous patents around their main patent) and vexatious litigation (the use of litigation as a threat to smaller and medium enterprises who cannot afford costs of litigation) have ensured that the bestselling originators medicine dominates the market for artificially long periods of time ensuring that the company therefore profits at the expense of public interest and obstructs widespread access, it is argued that such practices go against the aims of the patent system which were to ensure that the innovator could recoup costs of invention and in fact hamper incentives to invent. [5] It is submitted that while in this instance the discussion of defensive patenting as well as holding out is in the context of healthcare, similar trends have been witnessed in the space of technological patents as well. With standard essential patents for instance, there exists a very real danger of frivolous litigation and hold-outs ensuring market dominance by larger players, forcing out smaller and medium sized enterprises.

While acknowledging that intellectual property law and competition law might both seek to achieve a common goal of incentivizing innovation, Daniel Ravicher and Shani Dilloff have argued that the scrutiny of intellectual property exploitation from an antitrust perspective lacks economic and political merit. They argue that governments and courts have time and again preferred to enforce antitrust policy at the expense of enforcing intellectual property rights as evidenced by the cases of International Salt Co. v. United States[6], United States v. Lowe's Inc. [7], and Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc.[8] among others. They argue that the law depends on the flawed assumption that intellectual property confers upon the rights holder some kind of market power through creation of monopolies as evidenced by Jefforson Parish Hospital District No.2 v. Hyde[9] and the U.S. Department of Justice Guidelines on licensing of intellectual property[10] and is therefore in the wrong.

They argue that no such power is conferred on the rights holder because intellectual property rights do not confer monopolies so much as they ensure that a certain standard of uniqueness is assured, and that this standard of uniqueness falls short of the uniqueness required to obtain monopoly power within a market. They argue that IPRs do not grant the ability to raise prices above the competitive level and do not grant the right to exclude a rival or to exclude new entrants in the field, they only grant a right to prohibit others from exploiting their creation in an unfair manner and provide for sufficient limitations and exceptions to ensure that fair exploitation of their works is still allowed. And therefore while sound economic theory that ensures free marketplace through government regulation underlies most of antitrust policy, scrutiny of intellectual property through an antitrust point of view is economically flawed.

In a departure from other perspectives, the authors in this paper also argue that the factors affecting the employment of antitrust policies are not entirely legal; and that this preference is often a reflection of non-meritorious factors such as arguable predictions for the future, difference in financial stability of the competing parties, the political persuasion of the decision maker or the posturing of the parties and the courts being simply hostile to intellectual property rights and is unfair to intellectual property owners. They further argue that this preference is politically indefensible as it undermines the intent of the legislature. They argue that because of these things the case law so far that deals with this conflict is unreliable, unpredictable and not credible. They lastly argue that the solution out this conflict is to ensure economic efficiency by exempting intellectual property rights from scrutiny based on antitrust policies.[11]

Robert Anderson argues that IPRs do not inherently confer market power on rights holders and that in many cases restrictions on licensing could encourage competitive behavior and economic efficiency while not losing sight of the fact that IPRs can result in anti-competitive behavior in certain circumstances, particularly in context of network industries and that competition law must respond to these issues. This paper also makes a reference to the Trade Related Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS Agreement"), and the provision that it makes that allow member countries to curb anticompetitive practices through Article 8.2 and Article 40 and thus catering to the interests of developing nations. The paper also notes that the TRIPS Agreement does not set out a specific list of practices that should be treated as abuses. Further, this paper goes on to analyse intellectual property regimes in the US, Canada, Japan and the EU and concludes that the US has maintained a liberal environment for granting of intellectual property rights while being cautious of abuse of IPRs for anticompetitive purposes, that Canada on the other hand has been suspicious of legislative efforts to curb the proper use of IPRs that the EU has adopted a far stricter approach to the issue to achieve market integration, and that Japan has chosen a somewhat middle path by providing for a case by case evaluation of practices. It is argued that certain restraints on international trade such as the restriction on parallel importation due to IPRs segment markets and is harmful to trade and collective innovation and some mechanism for exhausting of these rights must be considered. [12] This cross jurisdictional analysis is particularly useful, and will be examined in detail in my research paper.

Elieen Mc Dermott, in a discussion on FTC public hearings in December 2008 to discuss the overlap between intellectual property laws and antitrust and competition laws, identifies that Innovation Alliance, an organization that represents technology patent owning companies put forward three principles to govern antitrust policies, the first to define antitrust policy to promote consumer welfare and to limit its role to conduct that has "a demonstrable anticompetitive effect", second to bring on board the diverse range of interests and business models involved and third to ensure that principles behind patent law have evolved before allowing antitrust enforcement agency involvement in patent cases.[13] This submission by Innovation Alliance will now be studied in greater detail while attempting a submission on India's stance on competition law issues in the licensing of standard essential patents.

Herbert Hovenkamp has argued that for most of history, antitrust law and intellectual property law have undermined their own purpose of encouraging innovation by protecting too much, whether it is the shielding of inefficient business from competition or the shielding of IPRs beyond what is necessary to incentivize innovation, in both cases the consumer is harmed and the costs of innovation increases. He argues that while it is good that we have lately come to view patents as a kind of property as opposed to a kind of monopoly, since there is no real proof that patents lead to market power, we haven't extended to patents the same kind of conditions we extend to other kinds of property, like the obligation to define the boundaries of ownership another being the obligation to ensure that notice of the claim to property is rendered in time, neither of these obligations, he says, are imposed upon patent holders. He states that this leads to over protection and wastage of state resources.

He goes on to offer a few principles for antitrust in innovation intensive markets that involve exercise of patent rights; the first being that the purpose of antitrust must not be to fix defects in other regimes, but only to correct private markets, second that any antitrust or intellectual property intervention is justified only when congress or a tribunal has a reason for thinking that such an intervention is necessary to ensure more competition or more innovation, third is that many IP practices do not conflict with antitrust laws and antitrust policies shouldn't intervene in such cases, fourth that innovation provides society with more gains than simple production and trading under constant technology and therefore, when we have to choose between innovation and competition, we must choose innovation, fifth that innovation is more than what is simply defined under intellectual property law and at times, when practices seem clearly anti-competitive and IP statutes do not provide us with answers, we should consider antitrust policies as guidelines, sixth that IP protections can at times protect competition more efficiently than antitrust legislation, seventh that IP law must constantly examine its roots as antitrust legislation has and ensure that any expansion of IPR is well thought out.[14]

John Barton examines antitrust treatment of oligopolies that use IPRs defensively to block new entrants into the market. These oligopolists each have substantial patent portfolios that are infringed by its competitors but never a matter of litigation as there is the fear of counter litigation. Therefore there is an implied licensing of patent portfolios among the oligopolists. It is further argued that under systems like this, while there is an incentive for firms to acquire more patents to build defensive portfolios, there is no incentive to actually carry out new research therefore firms will obtain patents on existing research base and therefore this stunts innovation. Further oligopolists holding cross-infringing patents may put up entry barriers for new entrants and thereby dis-incentivize innovation. Due to all of these reasons, the paper argues for patent law reform and appropriate application of antitrust analysis to ensure that the IP system encourages innovation.[15]

Essential Facilities Doctrine

This section of the note looks at the literature surrounding the Essential Facilities Doctrine- an aspect of antitrust law that is employed in order to adjudge behavior as anticompetitive or the lack thereof.

Essential facilities doctrine is an aspect of antitrust law that imposes a duty upon firms that have patents/ copyrights or trade secrets with regard to an essential facility to ensure that they do not put in place a monopoly and make the facility available to their rivals. In the context of IPRs, an essential facilities doctrine functions in a way that is equivalent to compulsory licensing regimes. Different jurisdictions adopt different standards and approaches to the employment of this doctrine. By tracking the literature around this doctrine, these different approaches across jurisdictions will be studied, including landmark cases, and submissions made in the research paper on whether this doctrine may be employed in India - specifically to adjudge whether there was a case to be made out for anti -competitive behavior in the smartphone wars on standard essential patents.

MCI Communications Corporation v. AT&T[16] is the landmark case with regard to the essential facilities doctrine, in this case MCI argued that AT&T's switching equipment was an essential facility and access to such an essential facility was necessary to conduct telemarketing business. The court in this case laid down the necessary elements to establish a claim to essential facilities:

a) Control of an essential facility by a monopolist

b) Competitors inability practically or reasonably to duplicate the essential facility

c) The denial of the use of the facility to a competitor and

d) The feasibility of providing the facility.[17]

Richard Gilbert and Carl Shapiro have argued that a unilateral refusal to deal (which is often one of the conditions that needs to be met before the essential facilities doctrine is employed) can be justified in the context of profit-maximizing firms in certain cases such as: cases where the owner of the facility wants to ensure a certain level of service quality with his facility, cases where the owner wants to prevent free riding, prevent new entrants into the market, cases where the owner wants to promote price discrimination in the sale of the final product, and cases where the owner is not adequately compensated for licensing out his essential facility. These justifications it is argued increase economic efficiency in the market, ensure quality of services rendered, increase incentives for investment and innovation etc. It is further argued that in the long run, it is more economically efficient for companies to refuse to deal rather than to set higher prices, simply because in a system where one cannot refuse to deal, the incentive for firms to misrepresent their actual costs to obtain licenses etc., and further that an obligation to license can have negative effects on economic welfare, it can reduce welfare in the short run by forcing inefficient licensing, it can also reduce welfare in the long run by reducing incentives for innovation and investment and creation of intellectual property.[18]

Robert Pitofsky, Donna Patterson and Jonathan Hooks on the other hand have argued in support of the essential facilities doctrine and supported the use of this doctrine in cases concerning intellectual property rights, the authors here argued that the harshness of the anticompetitive effects of denial of access take precedence over business justifications, especially when specific animus to injure a rival has been proven. The authors argued that while it was important to ensure that the doctrine was not expanded to include a vague and amorphous set of rights, it was important to ensure that the monopolists arguments against the doctrine should not succeed regardless of the nature of the essential facility, whether it is intellectual property or even if the case did not involve vertically related markets.[19]

Paul Maquardt and Mark Leddy in their response to Pitofsky, Patterson and Hooks argued that it is not anticompetitive behavior if the normal enforcement of an intellectual property right results in market power is getting skewed in favor of the rights holder, and the intellectual property rights should not be limited by compulsory licensing. They have argued that the essential facilities doctrine should only apply in cases where the rights holder attempts to leverage his exclusionary rights from the market in which the innovation competes into a related market or in cases of abuse of those rights because in cases where the rival is competing directly with the facility incorporating the intellectual property protection, the rights holder would not be damaging incentives to innovate as he would in cases of abuse or in cases of leveraging the protection to attain profits in a related field. They argue that to force compulsory licensing in other cases where the rival is in direct competition to the right holder would harm incentives to innovate and create intellectual property, a goal that both intellectual property rights and anti-trust laws are supposed to achieve. [20]

Martin Cave and Peter Crowther have argued that the European Commission seems to have embraced the essential facilities doctrine quite well despite not properly codifying the criteria used to determine whether a facility is essential and access to this facility should be mandatory. They have found that in the U.S., a) the courts have decided the question of whether or not a facility is "essential" on the basis of whether new entrants to the field would be able to duplicate the facility as evidenced by the cases of MCI Communications Corporation v. AT&T[21] and Hecht v. Pro Football Inc It is as yet undecided at what point a refusal to deal in a facility will render the rival without an alternative option. In Camco Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Bldg.[22]it was decided that a facility was essential insofar as alternatives were inferior. There is no requirement of a duplication of the facility to be impossible as evidenced from Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States[23] . They have also found that as per Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. [24], there is no general duty to deal on the monopolists. They have also found that liability under the essential facilities doctrine can be found in the presence of the following conditions: a) control of an essential facility by a monopolist, b) a competitor's inability to duplicate the facility, c) the denial of the use of the facility to the rival, and d) the feasibility of providing the facility

Under analysis of the law in Australia, they found that section 46 of the Trade Practices Act, 1974 proscribes taking advantage of a substantial degree of market power for the purpose of a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor, b) preventing the entry of a person into a market or c) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in a market. They found two important cases in Australian law, Queensland Wire, the first Australian case to consider adopting the US essential facilities doctrine which ruled that the monopolistic firm couldn't refuse to sell facilities to the smaller firm if had been subject to competition in the supply of that product while not actually mentioning the essential facilities doctrine, the second case of importance would be Pont Data litigation where Pont Data wanted to supply stock exchange information which the Australian Stock Exchange had a monopoly on, the court on appeal held that ASX should be ordered to supply information but "on terms designed to obtain a broad and substantial justice between parties"

They have further argued that there is even less certainty in respect of the price at which access to an essential facility should be made available. This is evidenced by their study of the laws in New Zealand. They found that in New Zealand the landmark judgment to study would be the Privy Council judgment in Clear Telecommunications Ltd v. Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd. This case arose out of a dispute between the state owned telecom which monopolized the public telecommunication system and Clear a new entrant into the market after Telecomwas privatized. The dispute mainly concerned about the price which Clear should pay Telecom for providing access to the Telecom network, while Clear argued that it should only be required to pay Telecom for the direct costs of providing access, Telecom held that Clear should pay the equivalent of profits which telecom would lose by granting access- the opportunity costs. The Privy Council agreed with Telecom in that insofar as Clear had not proved that it would be forced to pay monopoly prices because it was paying opportunity costs, it had not been proved that there were any entry barriers to the market.

In their analysis of the European Union, these authors found that Article 86 prohibits the abuse of the dominant position within a common market by under takings that consist in particular of a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or unfair trading conditions, b) limiting production markets… to the prejudice of consumers, c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions. The European Court of Justice has already decided that dominance can be assessed by a reference to the dependence of the consumer on the supplier inCommercial Solvents v. Commission. [25] And in Hugin v. Commission[26] The court first mentioned essential facilities in the United Brands case[27] where the ECJ held that the charging of discriminatory prices against and the refusal to supply a longstanding customer and distributor who had taken part in a sales campaign on behalf of a competitor had infringe article 86. Therefore if a firm acts in such a way that it could possibly affect rivals by precluding access to an essential facility, it would be an abuse of intellectual property.[28]

Albertina Albors-Llorens has reported on the recent judgment of the ECJ in Oscar Bronner CmbH and Co. KG v.Mediaprint Zeitungs -und Zeitschriftenverlag CmbH & Co. KG and others[29], the ECJ in this case has defined "essential facilities" as a "facility or infrastructure without access to which competitors cannot provide services to their customers"[30] under the doctrine, any dominant undertaking that owns or controls an essential facility and refuses without an objective justification [31] to make the facility available to its competitors or makes it available under discriminatory terms abuses its position of dominance. The court here distinguished the case from earlier case law including the case of Commercial Solvents and from the Magill case[32] where the court held that copyright holders who published guides of television programmes for their channels refused to license an independent company which wanted to publish a comprehensive television program guide had based their position of dominance and prevented a the emergence of a new beneficial product to the consumer and therefore it was not objectively justified and that it was otherwise impossible for Magill to obtain the information that was essential to carry on its business. She reports that the court in Bronner held that this case was distinguished from the precedent as there were less advantageous methods of distribution available and it wasn't impossible forBronner to set up their own home delivery system.[33]

Gregory Gundlach and Paul Bloom have analyzed the history of the essential facilities doctrine and cases refusals to deal , they have noted the refusal by Microsoft to deal with firms seeking to provide compatible software products and share its knowledge of its key operating systems for IBM compatible computers and its investigation by the Federal Trace Comission (FTC). They trace back the essential facilities doctrine from the case of United States v. Grinnel Corporation[34] which held that monopolization necessarily had to include the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and the acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of superior product, business acumen or historic accident. Preventing a rival from accessing an essential facility was held to be evidence suggestive of intent to monopolize and a challenge to the Sherman Act. They argue that this doctrine presents a challenge to marketers as they now have to ensure that they don't compete themselves into antitrust challenges, ensure that rivals don't attempt to free ride on their research and investment, they argue that while forcing firms to enable their rivals to access their essential facilities is at odds with the idea of competitive behavior, prudent application of this doctrine may ensure that welfare is substantially enhance and innovation is encouraged. They propose that the duty to deal be imposed only when commercial viability of the rival is at stake as a measure of protecting the rights of the firms. They also propose that new modes of competition such as strategic alliances, long term partnership be kept in mind before when forming future policy development in the area. [35]

Spencer Weber Waller and William Tasch have compared the law in the US with the law in the European Union and several other countries, and argue that there is a growing international consensus that it is sometimes appropriate to require a regime of nondiscriminatory access to infrastructure and related facilities. They have pointed out that common law countries and civil law countries have responded to the issue in different ways, for example, Germany has dealt with the issue by passing the German Act Against Restraints that contains provisions regarding abuse of dominant position in refusal to allow other undertakings access to essential facilities without proper justification. South Africa, they note has adopted a two pronged approach to unilateral refusal to deals, one through the South African Competition act that prohibits refusals to deal and another through the same legislation that prohibits refusal to supply scarce goods to a competitor when supplying those goods is economically feasible. They argue that since the essential facilities doctrine has become an accepted law in most competition jurisdictions, the US must work to harmonize their laws with the rest of the world to ensure better trade practices. [36]

Daniel E Troy has argued that post the Hecht v. Pro-Football, Inc. case, jurisprudence in competition law shifted from intent to the actions of the monopolists. He argues that there are no clear rules regarding when the essential facilities doctrine should be invoked or a consensus as to what the doctrine requires once invoked. He proposes that the resulting confusion be resolved by ensuring that the essential facilities doctrine cover all arbitrary refusals to deal when such a refusal threatens the commercial viability of the rival party, or when access to the facility is necessary for entry into the market or when duplication of the facility exceeds the standard cost of entry.[37]

Howard Shelanski has argued that unilateral refusal to deal must be susceptible to antitrust scrutiny, he argues that neither economics not IP policy considerations provide a sound basis for exempting refusals to supply IP from antitrust laws on unilateral refusals to deal. He argues that while there may be a case for treating IPRs different on some occasion that should be based on logical links between IP and the considerations that weigh against antitrust mandates to deal in any property: deterrence of innovation, investment or precompetitive conduct.[38]

Royalty Stacking in Smartphone Industry

Ann Armstrong, Joseph J Mueller and Timothy D Syrett[39] have collected and analysed data on the royalty burdens to be faced by a standard smartphone supplier and the adverse effects royalty stacking might have on competition in the smart phone industry. It is an article rich in detail and carefully explains the costs of each of the components that make up a smartphone, in doing so they also trace the mobile phone Standard Essential Patents (SEP) litigation occurring in United States of America (USA). They conclude that royalties demands on a smartphone could exceed the cost of the devices components, and that due to royalty stacking, costs of patent royalties act as an entry barrier for many suppliers thereby limiting competition in the market. They have argued that in calculating the royalty for a component, licensees, advocates and courts should base their conclusions on the price of the component and not on percentage of sales price of the entire smartphone which is the current practice. They have argued that this valuation is even more important for standardized technologies because patent holders usually only have a small slice of the declared patents for a particular standard and where that standard is just one of the many supported by the device. They present data to prove that when royalties are so vigorously calculated, they turn out to be a fraction of what patent-holders claim. This article was used mostly for background information on how royalty stacks work and how FRAND prices must ideally be calculated, and as a source of information on litigation surrounding royalty stacking in USA.

Damien Geradin in his articles[40] on pricing abuses by SEP holders in SSOs in EU and USA documents the evolution of competition law in these courts and the work of the Federal Trade Commission in this regard. He examines the role of the FTC in quite some detail, and this article provided important background information on the question of the potential role of the CCI.

Bouthenia Guermazi and David Satola[41] have argued that in creating a right enabling environment for the ICT, one of the goals of regulation is to create a stable, open and future-proof environment that encourages access and doesn't limit it.

Tracing Mobile Phone SEP Litifation:Treatment by European Commission and Federal Trade Commission

Damien Geradin and Miguel Rato[42] have inquired into the question of whether SSOs provide for an environment of exploitation and abuse due to royalty stacking, weak enforcement of FRAND terms, and hold-ups. They have identified three criteria for the establishment/adoption of an industry standard - first, that it is a set of technical specifications; second, that these technical specifications provide a common design; and third, that the common design provided may be for a product or a process. These criteria have been used in the paper.

Michael A Carrier in his article[43] focuses on the smartphone industry and the ongoing patent and FRAND licensing litigation wars. He traces court rulings on holdups and injunctions granted on SEPs and discusses EC investigations into Motorola and Samsung in detail. This article was useful in that it provided for a good resource on recent judgments surrounding FRAND Licensing and SEP litigations focusing on the smartphone industry.

Mark A Lemley and Carl Shapiro[44] in their article demonstrate that even a threat to obtain a permanent injunction enhances the patent holders negotiating power, leading to royalty rates that exceed a natural benchmark based on the value of the patented technology and the strength of the patent. They argue that such overcharging occurs more noticeably in the case of weak patents covering a minor feature of the product with a sizeable price/cost margin. They present data to show that these holdup problems are reduced if courts regularly grant stays to permanent injunctions. , that they are magnified in the presence of royalty stacking, and that royalty stacking can become a huge problem especially in a standard setting context. This article was useful in understanding the holdup issues with regard to SEPs and the effect of royalty stacking.

Lemley and Shapiro in another article[45] have argued that one method of efficiently settling FRAND disputes would be to impose an obligation on the SEP owner to entire into a binding final offer decided in arbitration with any willing licensee to determine the royalty rate. This article provided important insights into the holdup problem and possible solutions that could be considered.

Phillipe Baechtold in his presentation[46] makes the argument that the central problem with the approach to solving the issue of ensuring Standard Setting organisations achieve interoperability and allow for licensing on FRAND terms is that a problem with patent laws is being solved in a manner that focuses other legal systems such as competition law, health law etc. He argues that there is a need to address these issues within the patent system itself. This article has been used to understand different solutions to the issue that have been proposed so far.

Richard Schmalensee[47] in his article argues that competition policy should not favour patent holders who would use their patents to stop innovation and that SSOs should determine standards based on lower post-standard royalty rates. The claim of interest in his article is that in the absence of a deceptive act, it would be difficult to prove in a case that a differing standard could have been adopted had there been a full disclosure of patent.

Gertjan Kuipers[48] has provided a useful resource on the Apple v Samsung cases in Netherlands and this has been useful to understand non-disclosure of patents as an anti-competitive practice within SSOs. Leon Greenfields article that surveys non-US decisions on SEP disputes also makes for a useful resource in the same regard. [49]

In their article, Damien Neven and Miguel de la Mano[50] discuss the activities of the Directorate General for Competition at the European Commission during the course of one year and discuss cases and policy developments during that time. It served as a useful resource on cases relating to violation of FRAND Commitments and in understanding the functioning of SSOs.

Bjorn Lundgvist[51] has analysed EU and US antitrust/competition law, and argued that Orange Book Standard case where it was held that abuse of dominant position is a valid claim if a patentee refuses to conclude a license agreement on non discriminatory and non-restrictive terms, is problematic as the potential licensee only has the option of paying the customary royalty rate or accepting the rate that the patentee offers by applying "reasonable excercised discretion" and that this doesn't give much leeway for licensees to question the validity of the rate.

James Abell[52] documents cases in the US federal courts regarding standards development organisations, antitrust law and fraud his analysis of the Broadcom Corp v. Qualcomm Inc., was particularly well done and proved to be useful in tracing SEP litigation in the US. Koren W Wong Ervin [53] in her important article traces SEP litigation across the world in various countries. This makes for an important resource on the subject as it serves as a primer on SEP litigation in many jurisdictions including China, Japan, India, EU and the US among others.

Mobile Phone SEP Litigation in India

Ravikant Bharadwaj in his article[54] provides a broad overview of standard setting in India and the competition and IPR issues associated with it. He makes the important argument that once an industry standard has been set, and since the goal is to ensure inter-operability, denial of access to these standards on FRAND terms could become barriers to trade.

Anubha Sinha[55] in her report on Spicy IP traces the Ericsson- Micromax dispute at the Competition Commission of India (CCI), this has been used as a background document to trace the timeline in the dispute while tracing mobile phone SEP litigation in India.

Prashanth Reddy in his article [56] argues against interim injunctions stating that these injunctions should be used as an exception and not as a matter of a rule. He argues that in many cases courts either don't provide reasoning or provide insufficient reasoning behind orders granting injunctions. He argues that protection of IPRs cannot be a convincing reason on its own in this context particularly because patent infringement cases are complicated and can only be decided after a full trial and appreciation of evidence. In this context, he argues that issuing interim injunctions as a matter of course is a harmful practice that must be done away with.Vaibav Choukse makes a very similar argument in his article as well.[57]

John E Matheson in his article[58] seeks to understand how standards must be developed and what best practices can be followed by India in forming its IPR policy. He specifically argues that the litigation costs that invariably occur during hold ups and reverse hold ups ensure that smaller companies and newer start-ups ultimately give in to patentees who enjoy more market power and can bear the litigation costs for as long as it takes.

Pankaj Soni and Satyoki Koundinya in their article[59] outline the questions at the heart of the mobile phone FRAND disputes and focus on the disputes in India including Ericsson-Micromax, Intex, Vringo and Asus and ZTE disputes providing a fairly comprehensive timelines of the same. They argue that the threat of injunctions often bring licensees to the discussion table which otherwise would not have happened and that disallowing this would disincentivise patentees from disclosing their patents. This article makes important arguments in terms of what would incentivize pro-competitive behavior and how policy surrounding holdups could influence anti-competitive behavior.

Abuse of Dominance and Competition Law and Policy in India

The Competition Commission of India Guide to Abuse of Dominance[60] lays out in clear simple terms what constitutes abuse of dominance under competition law in India, while it does not refer to case law on the matter, it does make for a great source for interpreting and understanding Indian competition law and was used for the same purposes.

Samir Gandhi[61] in his article analyses trends in enforcement of competition law in India. He provides data to prove that the CCIs decisions seem to want to establish a greater familiarity with complex tools of assessments like including economic measures etc. He argues that the CCI is eager to make up for lost time and therefore doesn't shy away from issuing judgments quickly and imposing severe penalties. This is useful in understanding whether or not the CCI is the appropriate and competent authority to deal with cases that are likely to come up involving the smartphone industry.

Pratibha Jain and others[62] conduct a fascinating study of how competition law is enforced in the country, in a fairly comprehensive report with individual case studies. They demonstrate quite clearly that the CCI refrains from laying down broad principles and restricts its rulings to the facts of a particular case. It also provides important data on how many cases are dismissed and in how many cases the CCI has found anti-competitive behavior. This data helps understand how effective or otherwise the CCI has been.

Archana Shanker and Shraddha Singh[63] in their article have argued that competition law and IP must both be used in a harmonious manner. In doing so they have analyzed relevant legislation and important cases such as Micromax and Intex, They have analysed how capable the CCI or courts in India are when it comes to determining FRAND terms in the context of SSOs and SEPs. They argue that the CCI has shown a lack of understanding of the IP aspects in these cases and have focused on competition law to their exclusion. While this is a well written and informative article on mobile phone SEP litigation in India, it is important to point out that the article does not deal with how courts in India have failed to appreciate concerns regarding hold-ups while issuing stays or ex-parte orders.

Kanika Chaudhary[64] has written about jurisdictional issues that the CCI might face due to the wording of the Competition Act that states that the act is applicable to anti-competitive behavior notwithstanding other laws and yet another section stating that competition law must be harmonized with existing laws. She argues that there is a need to restructure competition law in this regard to avoid conflicts.

The CUTS International report on the CCI[65] provides for an important resource on comments about the CCI and its judgments and media reactions to the CCI. The report submits that while the CCI is generally seen to be doing well in the media, several academics have argued that the CCI is riddled by legal lacunae, that it lacks teeth and that because most of its orders have been appealed in courts, and it lacks autonomy due to rules of procedure, it is not an effective or efficient forum and needs to be improved by further legislation. The same has been corroborated by a report in the Indian Express that speaks of new bills that were in the offing in 2012 that were aimed at giving the CCI more teeth. [66]

Peter Alexiadis[67] in his outlines general principles of ex post and ex ante intervention and how the two disciplines come into tension with each other when competition law is involved in a dispute along with any other legal regime such as IPR laws. He explores ways in which these two disciplines must be balanced. This article was used to understand how the ex-post decisions involving competition law inevitably are backward looking and adopt a narrow view of the product, looking largely at its demand side-substitutability. This helps explore the argument that a sector specific regulatory body could better address complex technical and economic questions specific to the industry, as opposed to litigation merely being played out in the courts.

George Cary and Mark W Nelson[68] have delved into the question of the role of antitrust in policing abuse by patent holders with royalty stacks in standard setting organisations. They have argued that it is important for a legal tool to police this abuse because while other areas of law may prove capable of addressing these issues, these disputes are, at their core antitrust disputes. And only antitrust law can ensure that private parties and government enforcement authorities can seek redress where there is harm to competition.

Suzanne Michael in her article[69] argues that SEP holders who have their patent incorporated as a standard stand to gain by increasing royalty rates beyond RAND terms and beyond their actual economic value as they hold a monopoly simply because they own the standard. She argues that this will harm consumer interest and slow innovation. She further argues that an ex-ante approach should therefore be taken in ordering remedies in these cases to protect consumer interest. She also looks into the question of holdups and injunctions in cases involving RAND commitment. But her argument about ex ante remedies in RAND cases is an interesting point relevant to the paper.

Anne Layne-Farrar, A Jorge Padilla and Richard Schmalensee[70] in their article delve into the question of what exactly would constitute FRAND terms in the context of licensing terms for essential IP in a standards setting organization. They have also analyzed the Georgia-Pacific guidelines and extending it to a standard setting organization and the numeric proportionality method proposed by courts in EU. They conclude that the Georgia-Pacific guidelines might work in FRAND disputes, that while this would leave FRAND basically undefined, it would be made an enforceable promise with an SSO and that these guidelines would provide sufficient direction and predictability in litigation. This article has been used to understand what kind of guidelines a regulatory body could be expected to codify for patent remedies in India.

Rahul Singh in his article[71] analyses how due to its nature, the CCI is not sector specific and is supposed to look at "anti-competitive behavior" in all sectors most of whom already have their own sector specific regulator. He argues that unlike sector specific regulators, the CCI can privately enforce orders and pursue claims for damages and that this makes the CCI better situated to deal with consumer welfare areas. He further argues that to reduce transaction costs, enhance legal certainty and predictability, enforcement of such disputes must be left in the hands of the CCI. This argument has been extended to argue that courts enforcing IPRs would be less suited to handle these matters and more likely to cause inefficiencies and unpredictability and a re-imagined, empowered CCI would be the best suited judge of these issues.

K.D.Raju in his article[72] analyses broadly the connection between IP laws and competition law in India. He argues that while the jurisprudence behind IPR and competition law has traditionally been viewed as incompatible with each other, in effect, they seek to further the same goals. He argues that the competition laws as they exist in India currently cannot effectively deal with the nexus with IPR and suggests that the CCI come out with IPR specific guidelines to deal with upcoming litigation in the area.

Apoorva and Shreeja Sen[73] in their report trace the stay orders in courts across India holding up CCI investigations and how this is symptomatic of the fact that courts do not understand concerns regarding hold-ups and reverse hold-ups in IP related cases where time is of the essence.

Karthik Jayakumar[74] has written about the Bhatia International case regarding arbitration, we use this to merely draw parallels with IPR laws in that just as in Bhatia the court held that arbitrations having their seat outside India were still within the jurisdiction of Indian courts and this was overruled in the BALCO case , the role of the CCI also has to be made clear through legislative reform or judicial pronouncement for the regulator to address questions of competition law across different sectors without a threat of stay orders from courts.

Nick Robinson in his article[75] speaks of good governance courts, and of how courts in India have used good governance and right to life to become essentially second governments regulating everything from encouraging the use of natural gas to regulated encroachment on preservation of public forests to guidelines for school safety at the expense of government and independent regulators. While Nick Robinson makes a larger argument about good governance courts, it is used only for the limited purpose of supporting the argument made in the paper about judicial interventions allowing for anti-competitive behavior.

[1] Avendus Capital, India's Mobile Internet: The Revolution Has Begun: An Overview of How Mobile Internet Is Touching the Lives of Millions, Avendus Capital Private Limited, September 2013, available at http://www.avendus.com/Files/Fund%20Performance%20PDF/Avendus_Report-India's_Mobile_Internet-2013.pdf (last accessed 14 May, 2015).

[2] John-Harmen Valk et.al, Using Mobile Phones to Improve Educational Outcomes: An Analysis of Evidence from Asia, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, Vol 11, No 1 (2010), available at http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/rt/printerFriendly/794/1487 (last accessed 10 May, 2015);

[3] Gitanjali Shankar & Nikita Gupta, Intellectual Property and Competition Law: Divergence, Convergence and Independence, NUJS Law Review, Vol.4, (2011), pp.113-132.

[4] Robert Pitofsky, Comments on Lemley: An Introduction to IPR and Antitrust, Southwestern Journal of Law & Trade in the Americas, Vo.13, (2006-07), pp.257-263

[5] Katrina Perehudoff & Sophie Bloemen, Anti-Competitive Strategies Hamper Access to Medicines in Europe, Amsterdam Law Forum,Vol.3, 2011, pp 81-87.

[6] 332 U.S. 392 (1947)

[7] 371 U.S. 38 (1962)

[8] 448 F.2d 43 (9th Cir. 1971).

[9] 466 U.S. 2 (1984).

[10] Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property, U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, Available at: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr.public.guidelines.ipguide.htm (Last Accessed: 1/12/14)

[11] Daniel B Raviche & Shani C Dilloff, Antitrust Scrutiny of Intellectual Property Exploitation: It just don't make no kind of sense, Southwester Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas, Vol.8, (2001-02), p.83-158

[12] Robert D Anderson, The Interface Between Competition and policy and Intellectual Property in the Context of the International Trading System, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.1, (1998), pp.655-680.

[13] Eileen Mc Dermot, Managing Intellectual Property, No.187, March 2009

[14] Howard Hovenkamp, Antitrust and Innovation: Where we are and where we should be going, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.77, (2010-11), p.749-759

[15] John H Barton, Antitrust Treatment of Oligopolies with Mutually Blocking Patent Portfolios , Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 69, No. 3 (2002), pp. 851-882

[16] 708 F.2d 1081(7th Cir.) Cert. Denied. 464 U.S.955 (1983

[17] Id.

[18] Richard J Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, An Economic Analysis of Unilateral Refusals to License Intellectual Property, Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vo.93, No.23 (Nov.12, 1996), pp.12749-12755.

[19] Robert Pitofsky, Donna Patterson & Jonathan Hooks, The Essential Facilities Doctrine under U.S. Antitrust Law, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.70, No.2, (2002), pp.443-462

[20] Paul D Marquardt & Mark Leddy, The Essential Facilities Doctrine and Intellectual Property Rights: A response to Pitofsky, Patterson and Hooks, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol.70, No.3, (2003), pp.847-873

[21] 410 U.S. 366 (1973)

[22] 436 U.S. 585 (1985)

[23] 194, F. 2d, 484,487 (1st Cir), cert. denied, 344, U.S. 817 (1952

[24] 326 U.S. 1 (1945).

[25] 472, U.S. 585.

[26] Ref. Case 6 and 7/1973, Commercial Solvents v. Commission 1974 ECR 223.

[27] Case 22/1978 (1979), ECR, 1869.

[28] Ref. C. 27/1976, United Brands v. Commission (1978) , ECR 207.

[29] Martin Cave & Peter Crowther, Competition Law Approaches to Regulating Access to Utilities: The Essential Facilities Doctrine, Rivisita Internazionale Di Scienze Sociali, Anno 103, No.1, Interconnection Pricing Workshop (Milan April 7-8 , 1995), pp. 141-157

[30] Case C-7/97, (1999) 4 CMLR 112

[31] B&I Line plc. V. Sealink harbors Ltd, a Commission of 11 June 1992, (1992), C.M.L.R 255 at paragraph 4.

[32] Objective justifications such as shortage of the product were accepted in Case77/77 Benezine en Petroleum Handlesmaatschappij BV v. British Petroleum (1978) ECR 1513

[33] Case T-69/89 Radio Telefis Eireaan v. Commission (1991) ECR II-485 on appeal Cases C-241P and 242/91P RTE and ITP v. Commission (1995) ECR I-743.

[34] Albertina Albros -Llorens, The Essential Facilities Doctrine in EC Competition Law, the Cambridge Law Journal, Vol.58, No.3 (Nov.,1999) , pp. 490-492.

[35] 1966, p. 570-71

[36] Gregory T Gundlack & Paul N Bloom, The Essential Facility Doctrine: Legal limits and Antitrust Considerations, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol.12, No.2 (Fall,1993), pp.156-169.

[37] Spencer Weber Waller & William Tasch, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 76, No. 3 (201), pp. 741-767.

[38] Daniel E Troy, Unclogging the Bottle neck: A New Essential Facility Doctrine, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 83, No.2, (Mar., 1983), pp.441-487.

[39] Ann Armstrong et al., The Smartphone Royalty Stack: Surveying Royalty Demands for the Components Within Smartphones, available at http://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_Content/Editorial/Publications/Documents/The-Smartphone-Royalty-Stack-Armstrong-Mueller-Syrett.pdf (last accessed 15 May, 2015);

[40] Damien Geradin, Pricing Abuses by Essential Patent Holders in A Standard Setting Context: A View from Europe, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 76, No. 1 (2009), 329-357; Damien Geradin, Ten Years of DG Competition Effort to Provide Guidance on the Application of Competition Rules to the Licensing of Standard Essential Patents: Where Do We Stand?, http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/programs/searlecenter/workingpapers/documents/Geradin_DG_Competition.pdf (last accessed 19 May, 2015).

[41] Bouthenia Guermazi and David Satola, Creating the "Right" Enabling Environment for ICT, in ROBERT SCHWARE (ED.), E-DEVELOPMENT: FROM EXCITEMENT TO EFFECTIVENESS (2005, World Bank Publications).

[42] Damien Geradin and Miguel Rato, Can Standard-Setting Lead to Exploitative Abuse? A Dissonant View on Patent Hold-up, Royalty-Stacking and the Meaning of FRAND, 3 Eur. Competition J. 101,103 (2007).

[43] Michael A. Carrier, A Roadmap to the Smartphone Patent Wars and FRAND Licensing, Competition Policy International, CPI Antitrust Chronicle April 2012 (2) at 2.

[44] Mark A Lemley and Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, Texas law Review, Vol.85, 2007, 1991-2050.

[45] Mark A Lemley and Carl Shapiro, A Simple Approach to Setting Reasonable Royalties for Standard Essential Patents, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol.28, 2013 at 1136-1137

[46] Phillipe Baechtold, IPRs and Standards Setting: Some Issues, available at http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sme/en/wipo_smes_ge_07/wipo_smes_ge_07_www_81604.ppt (last accessed 19 May, 2015) at 1

[47] Richard Schmalensee, Standard-Setting, Innovation Specialists and Competition Policy, 57(3) THE JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, 526-552 (September, 2009).

[48] Gertjan Kuipers et.al, A Further Perspective on Apple v. Samsung: How to Successfully Enforce Standard Essential Patents in the Netherlands, Berichten Industriele Eigendon, Aug. 2012, available at http://www.debrauw.com/News/Publications/Documents/artikel1_Kuipers-Groeneveld-Lamme.pdf (last accessed 21 May, 2015) at 222

[49] Leon Greenfield, et al., SEP Enforcement Disputes, Beyond the Water's Edge: A Survey of Recent Non US Decisions, Antitrust, Vol.27, No.3, 2013 at 3.

[50] Damien Neven and Miguel de la Mano, Economics at DG Competition, 2009-2010, 37(4) REVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION, 309-333 (December, 2010).

[51] Björn Lundqvist, Standardisation under EU Competition Rules and US Antitrust Laws, (2014).

[52] James E Abell, Setting the Standard: A Fraud-based approach to Antitrust pleading in standard development, 75(4) UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW 1601-1631 (2008).

[53] Koren W. Wong-Ervin, Standard-Essential Patents: The International Landscape, available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/key-speeches-presentations/standard-essential_patents_the_intl_landscape.pdf (last accessed 22 May, 2015) at 14.

[54] Ravikant Bharadwaj, Standard Setting in India: Competition Law and IP Issues, IMJ, Vol.5, 2013 at.1, 2.

[55] Anubha Sinha, Micromax Files Complaint: CCI Orders Investigation into Ericsson's FRANDLY Licensing, SpicyIP, 29 November 2013, available at http://spicyip.com/2013/11/micromax-files-complaint-cci-orders-investigation-into-ericssons-frandly-licensing.html (last accessed 22 May, 2015).

[56] Prashanth T Reddy, Interim Justice: Troubling Trend, Business Standard, 30 March 2013, available at http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/interim-justice-troubling-trend-113033000223_1.html (last accessed 23 May, 2015).

[57] Vaibhav Choukse, The Debate on Essentials, BUSINESS LINE, (March 29, 2015).

[58] John E Matheson, Patents and Standards, FRAND Challenges for India's ICT Sector, SpicyIP Discussion paper series, Paper no. 201401, 2014, available at: http://spicyip.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FRAND-Challenges-for-Indias-ICT-Sector.pdf (last accessed 21 May, 2015) at 7

[59] Pankaj Soni and Satyoki Koundinya, Taking the FRANDLY Approach, a First Look at FRAND Battles in India, Remfry and Sagar, available at http://www.iam-media.com/Intelligence/IAM-Yearbook/2015/Country-by-country/Taking-the-FRAND-ly-approach-a-first-look-at-FRAND-battles-in-India (last accessed 21 May, 2015).

[60] Competition Commission of India, Guide to Abuse of Dominance, available at http://www.cci.gov.in/images/media/Advocacy/Awareness/Abuse_Dominance.pdf (last accessed 21 May, 2015).

[61] Samir Gandhi et al., Enforcement Trends in India under Competition Act 2002, Practical Law, 1 June 2013, available at http://uk.practicallaw.com/2-532-3777?q=&qp=&qo=&qe=#a456237 (last accessed 11 May, 2015).

[62] Pratibha Jain et.al., Competition Law in India, A Report on Jurisprudential Trends, Nishit Desai and Associates, available at http://www.nishithdesai.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Research%20Papers/Competition_Law_in_India.pdf

[63] Archana Shanker and Shraddha Singh Chauhan, How to use Patent and Competition Law Effectively in Tandem, 1 September 2014, Managingip, available at http://www.managingip.com/Article/3382427/How-to-use-patent-and-competition-law-effectively-in-tandem.html (last accessed 20 May, 2015).

[64] Kanika Chaudhary Nayar, India: Jurisdiction of the CCI: Navigating Through Muddy Waters, 28 April 2015, Mondaq, Available at: http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/392738/Antitrust+Competition/Jurisdiction+Of+The+CCI+Navigating+Through+Muddy+Waters

[65] CUTS International, Competition Commission of India Through the Eyes of the Media: Doing Well!, 17 September 2012, available at http://www.cuts-ccier.org/pdf/Competition_Commission_of_India_through_the_eyes_of_the_media-Doing_well.pdf (last accessed 13 May, 2015) at 13.

[66] Bureau, Bill Aimed at Giving CCI More Teeth Tabled, Indian Express, 11 December 2012, Available at: http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/bill-aimed-at-giving-cci-more-teeth-tabled/1043320/

[67] Peter Alexiadis, Balancing the application of ex post and ex ante disciplines under community law in electronic communications markets: square pegs in round holes? RIGHTS AND REMEDIES IN A LIBERALISED AND COMPETITIVE INTERNAL MARKET (2012).

[68] George S Cary, Mark W Nelson et al, the case for Antitrust law to police the patent holdup problem in standard setting, 77(3) ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL 913-945 (2011).

[69] Suzanne Michel, Bargaining for RAND Royalties in the Shadow of Patent Remedies Law, 77(3) ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL 889-911 (2011).

[70] Anne Layne-Farrar, A Jorge Padilla and Richard Schmalensee, Pricing Patents for Licensing in Standard-Setting Organisations: Making Sense of FRAND Commitments, 74(3) ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL 671-706 (2007).

[71] Rahul Singh, The Teeter Totter of Regulation and Competition: Balancing the Indian Competition Commission with Sectoral Regulators, Washungton University Global Studies Law Review, Vol.8, Issue 1, January 2009 at 97-102.

[72] K D Raju, The Inevitable Connection Between Intellectual Property and Competition Law: Emerging Jurisprudence and Lessons for India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol.18, No.2, 2013, at 111-122.

[73] Apoorva, Shreeja Sen, Multiple Court Stays Hold UP CCI Investigations, Livemint, 28 November 2014, available at http://www.livemint.com/Politics/5Lm7tjIuogbBsm6qRb4exH/Multiple-court-stays-hold-up-CCI-investigations.html (last accessed 23 May, 2015).

[74] Karthik Jayakumar, Bhatia v. Balco, Who Should Stand?, 18 August 2013, available at http://blog.athirtyeight.com/2013/08/bhatia-v-balco-who-should-stand.html (last accessed 22 May, 2015).

[75] Nick Robinson, Expanding Judiciaries: India and the Rise of the Good Governance Court, Washington University Global Studies Law Review, Vol.8, Issue 1, January 2009 at 21.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-working-document-series-document-2-literature-review-on-competition-law-ipr-access-to-100-mobile-devices-1

December 2014 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2015-01-12T16:56:54Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) wishes you a very happy new year and welcomes you to the twelfth issue of the newsletter (December 2014).

Highlights

CIS prepared a policy brief that identifies the problem areas with the current work flow being used to publish documents and proposes suitable modifications to make them easy to locate, authentic and accessible.
NVDA team conducted two workshops. The first one was held at the Hyderabad Central University for reading and writing in Telugu. The second one was held at the Blind Empowerment Foundation in Kolkata for reading and writing in Bangla.

Nehaa Chaudhari participated in the 29^th WIPO-SCCR held in Geneva from December 8 to 12, 2014 and on behalf of CIS gave statements on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations , Limitations and Exceptions for Education, Teaching, Research Institutions and Persons with Disabilities , made a brief pointed intervention on the Broadcast Treaty , and briefly interviewed Prof. Crews on his Updated Study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives .
Nehaa Chaudhari analyses the broadening of definitions/concepts in the Proposed Broadcast Treaty versus those in pre-existing international instruments.
Maggie Huang, an intern at CIS as part of the Pervasive Technologies projects conducted interviews with fabless semiconductor industry professionals in Taiwan. The findings are highlighted in two separate blog entries. The first one explores some of their views on the current intellectual property system and the second explores the tension between market forces and governmental intervention in providing access to mobile technology .
Tejaswini Niranjana, a distinguished fellow at CIS wrote an op-ed in the Hindu telling readers to see the ongoing Sanskrit versus German controversy as a welcome opportunity to discuss the real and persistent problems of our education system.
Vidushi Marda and Bhairav Acharya have co-authored a white paper that seeks to identify aspects of privacy in Islamic Law and demonstrate that the notion of privacy was recognized and protected in traditional Islamic law.
Ashna Ashesh and Bhairav Acharya have produced a white paper seeks to locate privacy in Classical Hindu Law, and by doing so, displace the notion that privacy is an inherently 'Western' concept that is the product of a modernist legal system.
Vipul Kharbanda authored a white paper establishing the relationship between privacy and confidentiality.
Geetha Hariharan in a blog entry examines the constitutional validity of Section 69A and the Blocking Rules.
Shyam Ponappa in an article published by the Business Standard writes that India's current policies for telecommunications don't serve our interests and tells readers what must change.

Accessibility and Inclusion

►NVDA and eSpeak

Monthly Update

December 2014 Report (Suman Dogra; December 30, 2014).

Events Organized

Telugu eSpeak Training with NVDA (Organized by NVDA team; Hyderabad Central University, Hyderabad; December 1-2, 2014).
Bangla eSpeak training with NVDA (Organized by NVDA team; Blind Empowerment Foundation, Kolkata; December 19-20, 2014).

Upcoming Event

Training in Use of eSpeak with Malayalam (Co-organized by CIS, DAISY Forum of India and Chakshumathi Assistive Technology Centre; Trivandrum; January 24 - 25, 2015, Trivandrum).

►Other

Blog Entry

Availability and Accessibility of Government Information in Public Domain (Sunil Abraham, Nirmita Narasimhan, Beliappa, and Anandhi Viswanathan; December 9, 2014).

Participation in Event

First meeting of the high level committee on National Policy on Universal Electronic Accessibility (Organized by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology; December 30, 2014; New Delhi). Sunil Abraham participated in this meeting.

Media Coverage

When technology is able but the mindset is not (Governance Now; December 1-15 issue). Sunil Abraham and Nirmita Narasimhan gave their inputs.

Access to Knowledge

►Pervasive Technologies

Blog Entries

[Open] Innovation and Expertise > Patent Protection & Trolls in a Broken Patent Regime (Maggie Huang; December 26, 2014).
"Copyright Management in the Age of Mobile Music" - Living Methodology Document (Maggie Huang; December 26, 2014).

►Other

Blog Entries

Nehaa Chaudhari attended the 29^th WIPO-SCCR held in Geneva from December 8 to 12. The following are the outputs:

29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS Intervention on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Nehaa Chaudhari; December 9, 2014).
29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS- 2nd (brief) Intervention on the Broadcast Treaty (Nehaa Chaudhari; December 11, 2014).
The Broadening of Definitions in the Proposed Broadcast Treaty Compared to Other International Conventions (Nehaa Chaudhari; December 11, 2014).
29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS Intervention: Questions to Prof. Kenneth Crews on his Updated Study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives (Nehaa Chaudhari; December 14, 2014).
29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: Statement on the Limitations and Exceptions for Education, Teaching, Research Institutions and Persons with Disabilities (Nehaa Chaudhari; December 20, 2014).
Protection of Broadcasting Organisations under the Proposed Treaty as Compared to Other International Conventions (Nehaa Chaudhari; December 21, 2014).

Participation in Event

Save the Date - 10 December 2014: The Broadcasting Treaty: A Solution in Search of a Problem? (Organized at WIPO; December 10, 2014). Nehaa Chaudhari was a speaker at this side event. The details were originally published by Knowledge Ecology International.

Media Coverage

SCCR 29: Public Interest Organizations Statements regarding the Broadcasting Treaty (Knowledge Ecology International; December 9, 2014).
SCCR 29 Libraries, Archives and Public Interest NGOs in Q&A with Dr. Crews (Knowledge Ecology International; December 11, 2014).
At WIPO, Study On Copyright Exceptions Stimulates Broad Discussion With Author (Catherine Saez; December 18, 2014).
WIPO Delegates Hear Concerns of NGOs on Exceptions for Libraries (Catherine Saez; IP Watch ; December 19, 2014).

►Wikipedia

Newspaper Article

Beyond the Language Tussle (Tejaswini Niranjana; The Samaja, November 17, 2014).

Blog Entries

Odia Wikisource campus project at Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences (Subhashish Panigrahi; December 3, 2014).
Several Publications Now Available under Creative Commons License (Subhashish Panigrahi; December 28, 2014).
Odia Wikisource workshop at New Delhi (Subhashish Panigrahi; December 30, 2014). The event was organized by CIS in collaboration with "The Intellects" on December 14.

News and Media Coverage

CIS-A2K team gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Odia Wikipedia (Dhatri; December 1, 2014).
Odia Wikipedia (Odiapua; December 1, 2014).
Access to Rare Books Made Easy (Diana Sahu; Indian Express; December 5, 2014).
Tulu Wikipedia gets some push (Hindu Businessline; December 13, 2014).
Tulu Wikipedia (Kannada Prabha; December 14, 2014).
Tulu Wikipedia (Vijaya Karnataka; December 15, 2014).
Tulu Wikipedia (VijayaVani; December 27, 2014).
Works of Veerasalingam Pantulu on web (Hans India; December 31, 2014).
Wiki Winter Camp - Coverage in Sakshi (Sakshi; December 31, 2014).
Wiki Winter Camp - Coverage in Eenadu (Eenadu; December 31, 2014).

Event Co-organized

Odia Wikisource Sabha 2014 (Co-organized by CIS-A2K and Odia Wikimedia Community; November 28, 2014). Subhashish Panigrahi participated in the event.

Participation in Events

ICT for Development (Organized by Christ University; December 3, 2014). Dr. U.B. Pavanaja was a speaker at this event.
Swatantra 2014: Fifth International Free Software Conference, Kerala (Organized by ICFOSS, Govt. of Kerala; Hotel Hycinth by Sparsa, Trivandrum; December 18 - 20, 2014). T. Vishnu Vardhan chaired a session on Wikimedia and Access to Knowledge in India and Rahimanuddin Shaik co-presented on Making DLI Accessible.

►Openness

Blog Entry

Department of Science and Technology & Department of Biotechnology adopt Open Access Policy (Anubha Sinha; December 29, 2014).

Participation in Events

Tech for Citizen Engagement 2014 (Organized by Omidyar Network; New Delhi; December 11, 2014). Sunil Abraham was a speaker in the session "Rules of Engagement: Emerging Trends in Citizen Outreach".
Swatantra 2014: Fifth International Free Software Conference, Kerala (Organized by ICFOSS, Govt. of Kerala; Hotel Hycinth by Sparsa, Trivandrum; December 18 - 20, 2014). Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam was a speaker and made a presentation on Open Science.

Internet Governance

►Privacy

As part of our Surveillance and Freedom: Global Understandings and Rights Development (SAFEGUARD) project with Privacy International we are engaged in enhancing respect for the right to privacy in developing countries. During the month we published the following blog entries:

White Papers

Locating Constructs of Privacy within Classical Hindu Law (Ashna Ashesh and Bhairav Acharya; December 29, 2014).
Relationship between Privacy and Confidentiality (Vipul Kharbanda; December 30, 2014).

Blog Entry

Identifying Aspects of Privacy in Islamic Law (Vidushi Marda and Bhairav Acharya; December 14, 2014).

Upcoming Events

Security, Governments, and Data: Technology and Policy (Co-organized by CIS and the Observer Research Foundation; January 8, 2015; New Delhi).
CPDP 2015 : The eighth international conference on computers, privacy and data protection will be held in Brussels from January 21 to 23, 2015. CIS is a moral supporter of CPDP.

Event Organized

Security and Surveillance: A public discussion on Optimizing Security while Safeguarding Human Rights (CIS; December 19, 2014).

►Free Speech

Under a grant from the MacArthur Foundation, CIS is doing research on the restrictions placed on freedom of expression online by the Indian government and contribute studies, reports and policy briefs to feed into the ongoing debates at the national as well as international level. As part of the project we bring you the following outputs:

Blog Entries

ICANN reveals hitherto undisclosed details of domain names revenues (Geetha Hariharan; December 8, 2014).
Revolving Door Analysis: IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (Lakshmi Venkataraman; December 10, 2014).
Is India's website-blocking law constitutional? - I. Law & procedure (Geetha Hariharan; December 11, 2014).

►Other

Participation in Event

National Seminar on Cyber Security & Cyber Laws - Issues and Concerns (Organized by the Advanced Centre for Research, Development & Training in Cyber Laws & Forensics; National Law School of India University, Bangalore; December 27 - 28, 2014). Sharath Chandra Ram was part of a plenary session on "Multi-Disciplinary Challenges in Ensuring Cyber Security".

Blog Entries

Overview of the Constitutional Challenges to the IT Act (Pranesh Prakash; December 15, 2014).
Reply to RTI filed with BSNL regarding Network Neutrality and Throttling (Tarun Krishnakumar; December 22, 2014).

---------------------------------
News & Media Coverage
---------------------------------
CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

India sees biggest improvement in Internet freedom, says report (Moulishree Srivastava; Livemint; December 5, 2014).
Are Cab Apps safe? (IBN Live; December 8, 2014).
FrndiNeed; an app for passengers' safety (Athira A. Nair; Economic Times; December 10, 2014).
Thank You To Our 2014 Sponsors (Medianama; December 22, 2014).
Why did India fail to discover the ISIS Twitter handle? (Anita Babu; Business Standard; December 26, 2014).
Targeting surveillance (Ajai Sreevatsan; The Hindu; December 28, 2014).
Centre blocks 32 websites for security reasons, restores some later (S. Ronendra Singh; Hindu Businessline; December 31, 2014).
DoT Reportedly Orders Blocking of 32 Websites Including GitHub, Archive.org, SourceForge (NDTV; December 31, 2014).
Govt blocks 32 websites, including Vimeo and Github (Moulishree Srivastava; Livemint; December 31, 2014).
Vimeo, DailyMotion, Pastebin Among Sites Blocked In India For 'Anti-India' Content From ISIS (Jeff Stone; IB Times; December 31, 2014).
Pastebin, Dailymotion, Github blocked after DoT order: Report (Anupam Saxena; The Times of India; December 31, 2014).

Telecom

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

Newspaper Column

A Road Map for Digital India (Shyam Ponappa; Business Standard; December 3, 2014 and Organizing India Blogspot; December 4, 2014).

Digital Humanities

Blog Entry

The Spaces of Digital (P.P.Sneha; December 30, 2014).

About CIS

► Follow us elsewhere

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

► Support Us

► Request for Collaboration:

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

Department of Science and Technology & Department of Biotechnology adopt Open Access Policy

sinha — 2014-12-29T10:17:52Z

This post discusses the newly adopted Open Access Policy of the Department of Science and Technology & the Department of Biotechnology.

The Ministry of Science and Technology and Earth Sciences approved the Policy on Open Access to Department of Biotechnology(“DBT”) and the Department of Science (“DST”) funded research last week. The DBT and DST Open Access Policy(“Policy”) is a laudable step towards implementing open access to publicly funded research and is also in sync with other open access initiatives by Government funded institutions such as the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research(“CSIR”), Indian Council of Agricultural Research(“ICAR”) and Institute of Mathematical Sciences(“IMSc”).

You may access the approved policy here.

CIS participated in developing the policy and made various submissions with the goal of formulating a stringent open access policy. The drafting committee comprised of members of the DST and DBT. The drafting began in June 2014 and subsequently underwent two rounds of public consultation. You may access and read about the first draft here. I blogged about CIS' comments and the resultant draft policy here and here.

While the CSIR and ICAR present outlines of their open access policies, the IMSc provides access to a digital repository containing digital theses/dissertations, matscience reports and other publications of institute members. CIS also sent comments to the ICAR upon release of ICAR’s draft policy.

Key insertions and amendments to the final draft of the Policy

The initial draft of the Policy did not mandate depositing literature in a repository. The approved Policy requires researchers to compulsorily archive their research and provides access to the same. Requests for embargoed papers deposited in a repository may be forwarded to the authors by use of a Request Button made available in the repository software. To ensure timely dissemination of research the embargo period has been further shortened and the Policy now recommends “.. the embargo should be no longer than 6 months for Science, Technology and Medicine (STM) disciplines and 12 months for Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences.” CIS strongly recommended an embargo period of one year, and making deposits in repositories mandatory, regardless of the open access routes ( Gold OA or Green OA) adopted by the researcher.

To encourage making publications open access, the Policy also states that extrinsic metrics such as Journal Impact Factors should not be the criteria to assess a researcher's work. Thus, the Policy seeks to create a level playing field for assessment of quality of publications by making the title of the journal irrelevant. However, to this end, some concerns remain. The Policy does not address the legal position of copyright vesting with the government and the latter retaining rights to reproduction of the work in order to issue free copies of the work to the public. The Policy apparently relinquishes the its rightful ownership of the Government in the research by stating that it does not intend to override the agreements between the researchers and publishers, however, it recommends the authors to bring to the notice of publishers their obligations under the Policy. This is a cause for grave concern because the bargaining power still rests in the hands of the publishers, who may impose unfair terms on researchers to make the publication open access. Furthermore, the Policy fails to establish a time period for compliance and setting up of required infrastructure, thereby leaving obligations and duties of various stakeholders undefined.

Nonetheless, the policy is a welcome step in the field of Indian scientific research. It stands to impact approximately 18,000 papers published since 2013 under the aegis of the DBT and DST. As pointed out earlier, in the recent past many scientific research institutions have implemented open access policies. It is hoped that the move shall be emulated across all disciplines, including arts, humanities and social sciences.

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

Swatantra 2014: Fifth International Free Software Conference, Kerala

praskrishna — 2014-12-28T02:44:19Z

ICFOSS, Govt. of Kerala organized the fifth international Free Software Conference at Hotel Hycinth by Sparsa, Trivandrum from December 18 - 20, 2014. The Centre for Internet and Society was one of the organizations supporting the event. Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam was a speaker and made a presentation on Open Science.

Click to download Prof. Arunachalam's presentation on Open Science here. For more details see the ICFOSS web page. T. Vishnu Vardhan chaired a session on Wikimedia and Access to Knowledge in India and Rahimanuddin Shaik co-presented on Making DLI Accessible. The programme schedule can be seen here.

Theme: Free Software for a Free World

About Swatantra 2014

After India's first-ever Free Software event, “Freedom First!” that was convened in Trivandrum in 2001, Kerala had organized international Free Software conferences in 2005, 2008, and 2011. These conferences were an occasion to highlight Kerala's achievements in the domain of Free Software, as well as to bring together the community to discuss priorities and action items.

ICFOSS is proud to present the fifth international Free Software conference of Kerala, Swatantra 2014, scheduled during 18-20 December 2014 at Thiruvananthapuram.

The theme of the conference is “Free Software for a Free World”. This reflects emerging concerns that citizens and communities face vis-a-vis privacy, online rights & freedoms, and security at the global level. Free Software provides a viable alternative to proprietary software which often compromises on these aspects. Further, Free Software also provides a technologically robust and cost effective alternative to other genres of software for all public uses, notably in Academia, Government, and personal computing, and even in the Arts & Culture domains.

International dignitaries participating at the Conference include Dr. Richard Stallman and Ms. Nina Paley. Several luminaries from the FOSS world within the country are also expected to take part.

About 150-200 Free Software enthusiasts, including practitioners, developers, researchers, academics, students, as well as representatives from civil society institutions, industry and the Government are expected to participate in the three-day conference.

Supported by

FSF-India
Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
SFLC.IN, Delhi
Swathanthra Malayalam Computing
FOSSEE, IIT-B
SPACE
DCBB, Kerala University
Spoken Tutorials, IIT-B
IEEE Kerala Section

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/swatantra-2014-icfoss-december-18-20-2014-fifth-international-free-software-conference-in-kerala

Access to Rare Books Made Easy

praskrishna — 2014-12-27T01:56:57Z

Rare Odia books that are out of print and not easily accessible on the internet, will now be available at the click of the mouse. In a bid to make them available online, the Odia Wikipedia community last week launched WikiSource, an Odia e-library and a sister project of Odia Wikipedia that has been trying to popularise use of Odia language on the Internet since 2002.

The article by Diana Sahu was published in the New Indian Express on December 5, 2014

The online library has 69 books by authors Jagannath Mohanty, Upendra Bhanja, Fakir Mohan Senapati, Gopabandhu Das, Baladeva Rath and Ram Das. Besides, the complete volume of Bhagwad Gita in Odia language is available on WikiSource.

The project has been implemented by Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society’s Access to knowledge programme. Odia Wikipedian Subhashish Panigrahi, also a programme officer of the Centre for Internet and Society, said work on digitisation of the books was started in April this year by a team of 12 Wikipedians, comprising mostly students and working professionals.

Apart from them, 50 tribal students and nine faculty members of Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences (KISS) helped them with the digitisation job. As most of the books were typed in Akruti font - a proprietary Indian Script Code for Information Interchange (ISCII) compliant font - the font was converted to Unicode text type to make the books searchable and accessible universally in all mobile and web platforms.

In the first phase, 11 books focusing on children’s literature, travelogue and biographies of noted people from Odisha by eminent Odia author Jagannath Mohanty were digitised. Subsequently, works of other authors were added to the e-library and made available on the internet with open access through free licence.

Subhashish said the WikiSource project was started in 2013 as an incubator project. It went through a tough process of being accessed by the Wikimedia Language Committee and Wikimedia Foundation’s board before being released last week. “There are several precious books that are out of print and not easily accessible on the internet. So we thought of digitising them and taking them to the masses. Apart from the 69 books, 81 of seven Odia authors that were already scanned and digitised by Bhubaneswar-based voluntary organisation, Srujanika, have been re-licensed and added to the library,” he said. Srujanika has digitised 740 old Odia magazines and books so far.

Generally a technique called Optical Character Recognition (OCR) is used for digitising scanned books, which currently is in testing phase in Odia. “Faculty member of ITER in Bhubaneswar Ajit Nayak along with his students have rectified the bugs and made character recognition more accurate.

But because of problems with OCR, the books had to be re-typed by the students of KISS on Odia Wikisource, Subashish added. Old books apart, books by contemporary authors like Debiprasanna Pattanayak, Ramakrushna Nanda, Subrat Prusty, Bharat Majhi and Nirmala Kumari Mohapata, and many other authors have been taken up for digitisation by Odia WikiSource team. Odia WikiSource is now live at or.wikisource.org.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/new-indian-express-december-5-2014-diana-sahu-access-to-rare-books-made-easy

[Open] Innovation and Expertise > Patent Protection & Trolls in a Broken Patent Regime (Interviews with Semiconductor Industry - Part 3)

maggie — 2014-12-26T13:19:46Z

This is the third of a four-part blog series1 highlighting findings from a small sample of interviews with fabless semiconductor industry professionals in Taiwan. These industry insiders was approached for the intent of understanding expert knowledge on the process of integrated circuit design. However, the conversations resulted in leanings far beyond that scope. This post explores some of their views on the current intellectual property system.

The intellectual property framework is meant to provide a temporary monopoly so those taking the risk to invest time, money, and resources into research and development can reap the returns for that investment without having to worry about others undercutting their price and competing for market share. Registration of patents supposedly encourages the dissemination of ideas and overall greater knowledge contribution for public access and eventual public domain. The interviewees were asked about their thoughts on this system of protection, incentivization, and knowledge-share, resulting in five broad themes:

1) Expertise trumps patent ownership

Particularly today in a digital world where innovative ideas and concepts can be easily shared, the first thing many people think about when discussing innovation, is the need to protect via patents. A vast amount of literature attempts to review the implications of patents' on technological innovation and economic development.

However, one interviewee noted that this emphasis on patent protection often overshadows what is much vital to the success of a technology business or industry - the people: the expertise and experience of the companies, their engineers, and their management. A lot of knowledge and 'intellectual property' lies in the procedures and processes which have resulted in effective application of standards and high level of performance for ones' products. The value of these skills and intelligence of human resources far outweigh the importance of protecting and owning patents.

2) Broken patent system

There was a clear consensus that the number one intellectual property concern is the need to revamp the current patent regime, with all interviewees agreeing that "useless patents" were being filed. Some suggestions for improvement included international standardization regarding the definition of a patent, the process of patent applications, and the scope of what a patent should cover. One interviewee believed that currently, the patent system actually prevents technological innovation, because one single patent can cover many ways of achieving something. The Apple patent entitled ' Method for providing human input into computer' which patents nearly every single possible human-computer interaction is an example of this.

"Patents today are trivial, and don't contain information regarding HOW to make something; there are too many process and design patents, and not enough functional patents...merely competitive differentiations rather than fundamental technological changes" .

This quote expressed the perception that only inventions that affect functionality in a fundamental way should be patented. A patent should not be claimed for something you cannot do, or does not show any kind of knowledge for how to solve a problem. One interviewee suggested that if a patent is granted without use for 3 years either by the owner or through licensing, the patent should be considered invalid.

Another industry expert explained that numerous patent applications are entered into the system without enough resources and competencies in the government to review them well. Albeit suggested in a joking manner, there may be truth to his claim that a knowledgeable intellectual property tech expert would opt to work for the more lucrative law firm over the government. He observed over the years a cycle where patents are easily approved, in which if a lawsuit arose, the patents are assessed more carefully again, resulting in massive inefficiencies for the system.

3. Patent Trolls

The poor execution of the patent system has resulted in the phenomenon of 'patent trolls', or what is more neutrally termed as non-practicing entities ("NPEs")[1] or patent assertion entities ("PAEs").[2] As explained by one interviewee, the business models of these entities often begin by conceiving of future technologies which may be necessary or foreseeable in the near future. Then, they seek to patent those ideas with no intention of actually producing producing or manufacturing the product. The main purpose is to profit through litigation and licensing. An example given of a patent trolling company was "Intellectual Ventures", which describes themselves as an "invention capital company" that "owns some of the world's largest and fastest growing intellectual property portfolios"[3]

The difficulty is that patent trolls are virtually indistinguishable from aspiring inventors and engineers, who may seek to manufacture and scale up their products through outsourcing and licensing. In addition, the lack of actual production makes valuation, legislation, and enforcement around this practice extremely difficult.

"The problem is, the guys who have patents think it's worth this much money… and the company that wants to license think it's worth another amount. From a regulatory or legal point of view, it's very difficult to legislate these things… you can't legislate a value right? In the end, it's how much the customer is willing to pay for it. It doesn't matter how many years someone's been working on it, if no one wants to buy it, it's not worth anything."

Robert L Stoll, former USPTO Commissioner of Patents says the most effective way to reduce predatory behavior is to ensure bad patents don't get issued in the first place, highlighting a legislation in the America Invests Act of 2011 which allows third parties to challenge granted patents on basis of former prior art, and non-technical financial or product patent.[4] Increased collaboration shown through standards and cross-licensing

The development of standards is very "fashionable" at the moment, according to one interviewee, who expressed his desire for his own company to be more involved in the process. However, another interviewee stated that more could be done to enhance collaboration within industry so that technologies could be provided free of licensing and ultimately benefit society at large through greater interoperability. Although there are signs of partnerships through cross-licensing agreements, particularly amongst larger firms, there are limitations because not everyone, including small firms, can afford it.

Most interviewees also expressed the need for greater emphasis on knowledge and research, rather than relying on proprietary technologies, which may actually hinder technological innovation. Examples given for companies doing this were Google and IBM, who both have more of a research background, and potentially have more research and development resources to engage in this kind of work.

5) Need for more openness

One interviewee who had extensive experience in the hackerspace community was an advocate for openness within the industry, and believed many companies had the option to become more open and effectively 'outsource' their research and development to the larger community.

Some successful projects he suggested was an open-sourced graphics processing unit ("GPU"), which does not exist even for the largely open Rasberry Pi. Even the development of a lower quality open sourced GPU in the market would result in tremendous demand, in his opinion. The ARM technology, the most popular CPU in the market is also currently semi-closed, and could in his opinion have benefited from more openness.

One interviewee expressed disappointment that all of the chips in his company was proprietary, even those that were no longer in production due to fear that competitors would be able to anticipate future developments from past projects. He suspected that many things were protected simply because the legal department assumed confidential and proprietary, without necessarily a coordinated long-term vision from head management. It is this normalized culture in industry that is, in his opinion a great hindrance to innovation, development, and accessibility of technology.

https://www.patentfreedom.com/about-npes/background/

http://www.ftc.gov/policy/studies/patent-assertion-entities-pae-study

http://www.intellectualventures.com/about

http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2014/02/article_0007.html

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-semi-conductor-industry-part-3

Security, Governments, and Data: Technology and Policy

elonnai — 2014-12-24T08:06:59Z

The Centre for Internet & Society and the Observer Research Foundation invite you to a one day conference on January 8, 2015 in New Delhi.

About the Conference

The conference will focus on the technologies, policies, and practices around cyber security and surveillance. The conference will reach out to a number of key stakeholders including civil society, industry, government, and academia and explore the present scenario in India to reflect on ways forward.

Conference Context

Ensuring the security of the India’s cyber space is a complex, challenging, and ever changing responsibility that the government is tasked with. Doing so effectively requires a number of factors to come together in a harmonized strategy including: laws & policies, technical capabilities, markets, and a skilled workforce. It also requires collaboration on multiple levels including with foreign governments, domestic and foreign industry, and law enforcement. The first of these is particularly important given the ability of attackers to penetrate across borders and the global nature of data. Any strategy developed by India must be proactive and reactive – evolving defences to prevent a potential threat and applying tactics to respond to a real time threat. To do so, the government of India must legally have the powers to take action and must have the technical capability to do so. Yet, many of these powers and technical capabilities require a degree of intrusion into the lives of citizens and residents of India through means such as surveillance. Thus, such measures must be considered in light of principles of proportionality and necessity, and legal safeguards are needed to protect against the violation of privacy. Furthermore, a principle of optimization must be considered i.e, how much surveillance achieves the most amount of security and how can this security be achieved with the optimal mix of technology, policy and enforcement.

Panel Descriptions

Challenges & Present Scenario

Protecting and enhancing the cyber security of India is a complex and dynamic responsibility. The challenge of securing cyber space is magnified by the demarcated nature of the internet, the multiplicity of vulnerabilities that can be exploited at the national level, the magnitude of infrastructure damage possible from a cyber attack, and the complexity of application of a jurisdiction’s law to a space that is technologically borderless. A comprehensive ‘cyber security’ ecosystem is required to address such challenges – one that involves technology, skills, and capabilities – including surveillance capabilities. The Government of India has taken numerous steps to address and resolve such challenges. In July 2013, the National Cyber Security Policy was published for the purpose of creating an enabling framework for the protection of India’s cyber security. In February 2014, the 52^nd Standing Committee on Information Technology issued a report assessing the implementation of this policy – in which they found that a number of areas needed strengthening. The Government of India has also proposed the establishment of a number of centres focused on cyber security – such as the National Cyber Coordination Center and the National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre. CERT-IN, under the Department of Electronics and Information Technology is presently the body responsible for overseeing and enforcing cyber security in India, while other bodies such as the Resource Centre for Cyber Forensic and TERM cells under the Department of Telecommunications play critical roles in overseeing and undertaking capabilities related to cyber security.

Law & Policy

India has five statutes regulating the collection and use of data for surveillance purposes. These laws define circumstances on which the government is justified in accessing and collecting real time and stored data as well as procedural safeguards they must adhere to when doing so. The Department of Telecommunications has also issued the Unified Access License which, among other things, mandates service providers to provide technical support to enable such collection. The Indian judicial system has also provided a number of Rulings that set standards for the access, collection, and use of data as well as defining limitations and safeguards that must be respected in doing so. The draft Privacy Bill 2011, released by the Department of Personnel and Training, also contained provisions addressing surveillance in the context of interception and the use of electronic video recording devices. In the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the AP Shah Committee found that the legal regime for surveillance in India was not harmonized and lacked safeguards. Furthermore, in the era where the direct collection of large volumes of data is easily possible, there is a growing need to re-visit questions about the legitimate and proportionate collection and use (particularly as evidence) of such data. Questions are also arising about the applicability of standards and safeguards to the state. At a global level, catalyzed by the leaks by Edward Snowden, there has been a strong push for governments to review and structure their surveillance regimes to ensure that they are in line with international human rights standards.

Architecture & Technology

India is in the process of architecting a number of initiatives that seek to enable the collection and sharing of intelligence such as the CMS, NATGRID, and NETRA. At a regional level, the Ministry of Home Affairs is in the process of implementing ‘Mega Policing Cities’ which include the instalment of CCTV’s and centralized access to crime related information. Globally, law enforcement and governments are beginning to take advantage of the possibilities created by ‘Big Data’ and ‘open source’ policing. The architecture and technology behind any surveillance and cyber security initiative are key to its success. Intelligently and appropriately designed projects and technology can also minimize the possibility of intrusions into the private lives of citizens. Strong access controls, decentralized architecture, and targeted access are all principles that can be incorporated into the architecture and technology behind a project or initiative. At the same time, the technology or process around a project can serve as the ‘weakest link’ – as it is vulnerable to attacks and tampering. Such possibilities raise concerns about the use of foreign technology and dependencies on foreign governments and companies.

International and Domestic Markets

Globally, the security market is growing – with companies offering a range of services and products that facilitate surveillance and can be used towards enhancing cyber security. In India, the security market is also growing with studies predicting that it will reach $1.06 billion by 2015. Recognizing the potential threat posed by imported security and telecom equipment, India also develops its own technologies through the Centre for Development of Telematics –attached to the Department of Telecommunications, and the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing – attached to the Department of Electronics and Information Technology. At times India has also imposed bans on the import of technologies believed to be compromised. Towards this end, the Government of India has a number of bodies responsible for licensing, auditing, and certifying the use of security and telecommunication equipment. Though India has recognized the security vulnerabilities posed by these technologies, as of yet it has not formally recognized the human rights violations that are made possible. Indeed, though India has submitted a request to be a signing member of the Wassenaar agreement, they have yet to be accepted.

Agenda

11.00	Registration & Tea
11.30	Key Note Speech
12.00	Challenges & Present Scenario
13.00	Law & Policy
14.00	Lunch
15.00	Architecture & Technology
16.00	International & Domestic Markets
17.00	Tea
17.30	Conclusion & Closing Remarks

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/security-governments-data-technology-policy