Centre for Internet and Society

Dataset: Patent Landscape of Mobile Device Technologies in India

rohini — 2016-05-03T20:06:43Z

Patent landscape of mobile technology patents and patent applications held by 50 companies operating in India. Licensed CC-BY-SA 4.0.

Dataset: Patent Landscape of Mobile Device Technologies in India

This dataset contains a landscape of 23,569 patents and patent applications registered in India and relevant to the domain of mobile technology. These patents and patent applications are held by 50 Indian and non-Indian companies operating in the country. The patent landscape has been released under the Creative Commons-Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 (CC-BY-SA 4.0) License as a part of the ongoing Pervasive Technologies research project.

For the detailed methdology used for drawing up this landscape, read: Methodology: Patent Landscaping in the Indian Mobile Device Marketplace

A paper titled "Patents and Mobile Devices in India: An Empirical Survey" published on SSRN in March 2016 presents an analyis of this patent landscape.

For queries regarding the dataset or its reuse, write to rohini@cis-india.org.

Using this dataset:

Assignee: The assignee is one of 50 companies specified in Annexure 4 of the methodology document. Where two assignees are mentioned, the patent was transferred from the second assignee to the first on account of sale of the patent, company merger, etc. For example, "Huawei|NEC" indicates that a patent that belonged to NEC was transferred to Huawei.

Patent Number: This column contains the patent number in the case of granted patents and the application number in case of patent applications. Patent numbers have been coded in the Thomson Reuters database as IN<6 digit number>B. For example, the patent number 247760 in the Indian Patent Office database is coded as IN247760B in this dataset. The application number is coded as well. However, there is a separate column (Column R) for the application number as given in the Indian Patent Office database.

Level 1: Patents and patent applications in the landscape have been categorised into: Body Design, Communication, Connectable Interfaces, Display, Energy Storage, Memory, Operational Blocks, Sensors, Software, and Sound, image and video.

Level 2: Almost all categories have further been divided into sub-categories, i.e., Level 2 categories.

Infrastructure/ UE: Refers to whether the patent pertains to infrastructure and the user equipment (IUE) or only the user equipment (UE).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dataset-patent-landscape-of-mobile-device-technologies-in-india

Dataset for "Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products: An Empirical Assessment of India's Form 27 Practice and Compliance"

rohini — 2017-09-10T15:11:38Z

Dataset of the first comprehensive and systematic analysis of 4,916 valid Statements of Working (Form 27) corresponding to 3,126 patents pertaining to mobile technology in India. Licensed CC-BY-SA 4.0.

Dataset for "Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products: An Empirical Assessment of India's Form 27 Practice and Compliance" (.xlsx)

Dataset for "Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products: An Empirical Assessment of India's Form 27 Practice and Compliance" (.ods)

The dataset has been released under the Creative Commons-Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 License (CC-BY-SA 4.0) as a part of the Pervasive Technologies project.

For the detailed methdology used for this study, refer to Methodology: Statements of Working (Form 27) of Indian Mobile Device Patents. For information on how to read this dataset, refer to the section "Detailed legend and process of logging the results" in the methodology.

A paper titled Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products: An Empirical Assessment of India's Form 27 Practice and Compliance authored by Prof. Jorge Contreras and Rohini Lakshané, published in July 2017 presents an analysis of the dataset.

The patents chosen to be included in this dataset are a subset of the patents found in another study by the same authors, Patents and Mobile Devices in India: An Empirical Survey [PDF]. The dataset for the patent landscaping study is available under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license.

License terms

Data is provided AS-IS, without warranty as to accuracy or completeness.

All uses of the accompanying data and modifications and derivatives thereof must contain the following attribution: "Data provided by Jorge L. Contreras and Rohini Lakshané (2017)"

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dataset-for-patent-working-requirements-and-complex-products-an-empirical-assessment-of-indias-form-27-practice-and-compliance

Data Xgen launches paid Hindi email service

praskrishna — 2016-08-30T02:35:03Z

Jaipur based Enterprise email provider Data Xgen Technologies has launched a paid email service in Hindi Devnagari script. This is especially for .bharat domain names, but can also be used for other domains. As of now, the company offers email packages starting at Rs 99, Rs 499, Rs 999 and Rs 1,499, which look like monthly plans.

The blog post by Sneha Johari was published in Medianama on August 29, 2016.

Ajay Data, the company’s founder and CEO told MediaNama that it plans to launch an app for sending free email in Indic language, starting with Hindi. Data said that he was hopeful about Hindi email adoption given the vast majority of the population in India was rural and did not understand English. “People get left out of communication streams because they do not understand English. But they can still get onto the internet and communicate with all of us. Mobile companies are also selling phones in Indian languages, marketing as Hindi phones.. And this is the right time (for Indic email) since the segment is being created,” he added.

Earlier this month, the Indian government told email service providers to provide users with addresses in Indian languages, starting with Hindi. It also wanted ‘sufficient local language content and tools to access it’ in order to increase internet penetration and push higher rural adoption. This was needed because English speakers and readers in the country were low (10.35%), according to Rajiv Bansal, Joint Secretary at the Ministry of Electronics and IT.

Wikipedia Indic efforts

About 3 weeks ago, Wikipedia launched in Tulu, the 23rd Indian language Wiki. In September 2013, the Goa University had entered into a 3 year MoU with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) for building the Konkani Wikipedia, which was launched 6 months later. In August 2014, former Bihar CM Nitish Kumar launched the ‘Bihar on Wikipedia’ campaign inviting people of the state to write about their villages, towns, culture, history, development over the years, etc. Note that in 2012, Wikipedia editors were digitizing Indian language, out-of-copyright texts online, trying to address the comparative paucity of Indic language texts online.

As of June 2016, Wikipedia had 16 million page views per month on the Hindi wiki, with overall 106,844 articles. This is not a significant increase. According to this August 2011 report, there were 0.1 million Hindi articles on the platform, and 9 million overall views.

Indian mobile handsets need to support Hindi: BIS

In June, the Bureau of Indian Standards reportedly said that mobile handsets in India would need to support typing in Hindi and English, and reading in all 22 official Indian languages. We’d pointed out at the time that this was essential for growth of access to the internet for handsets in order to access content in users’ local languages.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/data-xgen-launches-paid-hindi-email-service

Darshana Mandrekar speaks on Konkani Wikipedia

nitika — 2013-12-31T10:38:07Z

The Centre for Internet and Society's Access to Knowledge team (CIS-A2K) in collaboration with the Goa University is working to build Konkani Wikipedia. As part of this program it organised the Konkani Vishwakosh Digitization Program recently.

Darshana Mandrekar a participant at the Konkani Vishwakosh Digitization Program speaks about her inspiration to edit Konkani Wikipedia.

Video


Above: Darshana Mandrekar speaks about Konkani Wikipedia

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/darshana-mandrekar-on-konkani-wikipedia

Darshan Kandolkar on Konkani Vishwakosh Digitization Process

nitika — 2013-12-31T10:47:46Z

Darshan Kandolkar, talks about his experience with Konkani Vishwakosh Digitization Process and Konkani translation sprint.

Video


Above: Darshan Kandolkar's interview on Konkani Wikipedia

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/darshan-kandolkar-konkani-vishwakosh-digitization-process

CUSAT Workshop: "Rethinking IPR: Fourth Annual National Workshop for Law Students"

praskrishna — 2017-03-29T10:59:29Z

The workshop was organized by the Inter University Centre for IPR Studies in association with Cochin University of Science and Technology from February 8 to 10, 2017 in Cochin. Pranesh Prakash was the resource person for a copyright workshop for LL.M. students.

Pranesh led and guided student discussion on:

P2P File Sharing - Based on analysis of the Copyright Act I haven't yet written about.
Technological Protection Measures: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment
Benefits of Piracy: http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/handle/10625/46491
Misrepresentations of copyright industry: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/fallacies-lies-and-video-pirates + http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/calling-out-the-bsa-on-bs + http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301
John Doe orders: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/john-doe-orders-isp-blocking-websites-copyright-1 (3-part series) + http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/delhi-high-court-orders-blocking-of-websites-after-sony-complains-infringement-of-2014-fifa-world-cup-telecast-rights

See the event brochure
See the programme agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/rethinking-ipr-fourth-annual-national-workshop-for-law-students

Cultural knowledge needs to be more open

praskrishna — 2015-03-12T16:41:05Z

Subhashish Panigrahi is an educator and open source activist based in Bangalore, India. He is currently working at the Centre for Internet and Society's Access To Knowledge program where he builds partnership with universities, language researchers, and GLAM organizations.

The blog post by Jen Wike Huger was published on the website of OpenSource.com. It can be read here.

Their goal is to bring more scholarly and encyclopedic content under free licenses. During his work at the Wikimedia Foundation's India Program, Subha was involved in designing community sustaining and new contributor cultivation models.

For his effort to share and spread open source far and wide, this year he was awarded a 2015 Opensource.com People's Choice Award.

His most recent articles include: Digitize any book in the public domain, on his work to with Indian poetry important to the culture. Books and more are relicensed to Creative Commons, about news from the Wikimedia Foundation. Mozilla brings Indian communities together, about the Indic FirefoxOS L10n Sprint 2014. And, Open access platform to save the Odia Indian language, on his work to preserve his native culture.

The Basics

Name: Subhashish Panigrahi ("Subha")
Opensource.com username: psubhashish
Location: India (Bengaluru and Odisha)
Occupation/Employer/Position: Programme Officer, Centre for Internet and Society
Favorite open source tool or application: Audacity
Favorite Opensource.com channel: Education

Open up to us

I was away from home for my studies and was longing to read and write more in my native language of Odia. That led me to co-found eOdissa.com, a portal to tell stories to the rest of the world about my language, history, and cultural heritage. I was a sporadic editor on Wikipedia; anonymously since 2006. Then, in 2011, I was introduced to editing for Odia Wikipedia by my mentor Shiju Alex and friend Asutosh Kar.

That was my entry point to the free software movement. And it was a trap I could never get out of!

I thankfully began a full-time job with the Wikimedia Foundation in 2012 for its India Program. The program is now housed with their Indian movement partner, Centre for Internet and Society, under the Access To Knowledge program. I work in the Bengaluru office but mostly travel to work with the communities. I work on building capacity for the Indian language Wikimedia communities, building institutional partnerships for long term outreach engagement, negotiating with publishers and copyright holders to bring more content relicensed under Creative Commons licenses, and taking part in policy level discourses around open access and enforcing free software for governance.

What open tools and data help you get things done?

For my day job, I solely rely on Wikimedia Stats to collate data related to Wikimedia projects. I use some Python programming, jQery.ime, and JavaScript for other data-related work. But, I am a people's man and my interaction is mostly with humans rather than tools.

What do you wish were more open?

GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives and museums) and many other cultural institutions have historically been the keepers of cultural knowledge. But I see possessiveness in not opening up their archival for public consumption. I wish more policy level negotiations and open collaborations were happening to open up cultural data.

What are the biggest challenges to openness that you encounter, either at work or in your life?

Community and its growth. Working in a developing nation with historical, cultural, economic, and political hindrances pulls volunteerism down. It's is a huge challenge for me. Tapping into many existing networks and communities, and leveraging ongoing activities for the betterment for the free and open source movement, is something I am struggling for.

Why choose the open source way?

I would like to quote a good friend and activist Michelle Thorne who says, "Human civilization has everything free and open from the beginning, but slowly the problems of restriction start beginning." Furthermore filmmaker Nina Paley says, "Knowledge is not created by us, rather shared by us."

If we are here to share knowledge, why to restrict its free flow?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/opensource-feburary-18-2015-jen-wike-huger-cultural-knowledge-needs-to-be-more-open

Cultural Interests vs. Modernization: Robert Shapiro on IPR & Innovation in India

samantha — 2014-04-03T10:54:08Z

Last Friday March 28, 2014, prominent economist and chairman of Sonecon, llc, Dr. Robert Shapiro, lead a discussion on the roles of IPR and FDI in innovation. Within his research findings, Shapiro argues for India to adopt a stricter IP regime in order to attract higher rates of FDI in pharmaceuticals and other industries, and in turn, to spur a more successful economy.

The closed door round-table discussion had been organized by policy research and advocacy organization, T he Takshashila Institute, and hosted by Cobalt, a recently opened co-working space in Bangalore. The event's speaker, Robert Shapiro, has advised U.S. President Bill Clinton, British Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and U.S. Vice President Albert Gore, as well as AT&T, Exxon-Mobil and Google, on economic policy and security matters. Recently he co-authored an economic research paper, titled, How India Can Attract More Foreign Direct Investment, Create Jobs and Increase GDP, which can be accessed here.

Within this paper, Shapiro and Dr. Aparna Mathur of the American Enterprise Institute argue that the most effective way for India to attract “further investment and job creation for improving the innovation environment in India” is by respecting the intellectual property rights of foreign investors—specifically within the pharmaceutical sector. The main points made by Shapiro within his session and research paper will be looked at closer to follow.

FDI to spur innovation

Shapiro started the session by introducing the controversy over the role of innovation in economic processes. Contrary to the belief that the majority of economists share—that innovation happens outside the economy incidentally “because someone happens to have a bright idea”—Shapiro suggests that innovation plays a much more integral role within an economy, and even goes as far as considering innovation the most powerful underlying factor (possibly more so than education). Shapiro asserts that without innovation, “every economy has to stall out,” and what prevents this is new capital changing productivity and growth rates; and in India's case: through foreign direct investment (FDI).

With reference to China's manufacturing sectors, Shapiro depicts the immense benefits stemming from FDI. As a direct effect, he states that not only do new technologies come in but new ways of financing and management are brought in as well. The bulk of the impact of FDI, however, is an indirect function, resulting from a “spillover effect” at a regional level as more and more companies begin to adopt the ways of the new enterprises. The impact of innovation, however, is an exclusive function of how effectively it is applied. In order to maximize foreign investment, Shapiro stresses the need to eradicate any barriers to new businesses so that they may adopt and adapt to the new incoming technologies.

On several occasions within his address and the accompanying discussion, Shapiro had asserted India as being an outlier in terms of FDI, with emphasis on India's FDI rates being half of those of Malaysia and Thailand (countries implied to be incomparable to India in an economic sense). He admits that he does not understand the reasons for this discrepancy, as standard economic factors alone cannot explain this; such as a country's market size, availability of labour, and quality of infrastructure (despite India's room for improvement here).

In order to understand India's FDI rates then, Shapiro offers the importance of considering the political factors at play to the same extent as the economic ones (if not, more) with some of such factors being: the state's attitudes towards property rights, bankruptcy regime, levels of corruption, and the enforcement of contracts and intellectual property rights.

And it is supposedly here, at this last factor, where the central issue lies for India.

IP as a product of cultural decisions

As new ideas continue to dwarf the value of physical capital, economies are increasingly composite of these intangible assets (intellectual property)—such as patents, copyright, software and name brands—or at least within the US economy anyway. These intellectual asset-intensive economies are not limited to industries such as pharmaceuticals, software, and IT hardware (as one might initially suspect); rather, those of media, automobiles, beverages and tobacco and other consumer goods. In 2011, Shapiro states, half of US industries equalled or exceeded the three former industries in intellectual assets. These industries, which had formerly been sectors based on production, have now outsourced their production schemes to India and China.

Shapiro explains these economic trends as a function of a repeated set of choices in support of American values of growth, prosperity, and individualism. He continues in saying that cultural values are also important to consider when trying to undergo modernization. A country with more traditional values would be wrong to strive to modernize at the same rate as that of the US, for example. In such a case, modernizing at a much slower rate is advisable, and if this is unfavourable, Shapiro alternatively suggests that “you can sometimes change culture by changing the law.”

But how are US and Indian industries comparable, then, if India's economy is arguably a platform for production of US-owned intellectual assets? What are the odds that Indian companies will actually own their resulting innovations stemming from foreign investments? Presumably not very high.

And what sets of choices has India made to reflect its own sets of cultural values and principles in contrast to those of the US?

Consequences of a weak IP regime and over-regulation

Within his recent research paper, Shapiro recounts Indian laws related to IPR over the years and how the country's weak international IP regime has paved the way for its thriving generic pharmaceutical industry. Through enforcing restrictions on patent filings, shorter patent terms, and compulsory licensing, the Indian Patent Office enabled the manufacturing of domestic pharmaceutical products without having to pay outgoing royalty (or to a lesser degree) in promotion of increased access to medicines for Indians at much more affordable prices.

Shapiro argues that this disregard for foreign IPR discourages foreign companies from wanting to enter the Indian market in the future for fear of imitation products coming about to their detriment. Shapiro argues that if India adopted stronger IP rights and enforcement, FDI to the country's pharmaceutical industry would increase drastically; more so, if India adopted an IP system comparable to the US, FDI flows could even rise by 83 per cent per year, making it a centre for innovative pharmaceutical R&D. Just as well its access to new innovative drugs would increase by 5 per cent, contributing to a higher life expectancy and a larger work force (Shapiro, p. 3, 2014).

An IP regime comparable to the US and Europe, Shapiro suggests, promotes both endogenous and exogenous growth while bringing about competitive markets “with pockets of monopolies throughout.” Such [patent] regimes have evolved over decades and “simply work well,” he states. Also, in requiring patent applicants to publish all secrets—that which makes the invention novel—others are given the ability to benefit from such knowledge.

So then, is India wrong in making decisions in accordance with its own set of cultural values and principles if they are not necessarily in accordance with those of the US?

Arguably not. However, as Shapiro demonstrates, such decisions may bare consequence in India's pursuit to modernize as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) that is not exactly in compliance with Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) standards. India may also be missing out on greater importation of technologies if foreign companies fear that their products will be imitated by local companies. According to Shapiro, India's services sector (including banking, insurance, outsourcing, R&D, courier and technology testing services) contribute to 60 per cent of the country's GDP, yet have declined in FDI for several reasons including the country's weak IP regime, as well as government regulations capping the maximum investments of foreign companies (Shapiro, p. 37, 2014).

Which brings us to the notion of market deregulation as a mechanism of promoting FDI. Shapiro suggests this to be essential for India to enable a more even playing ground for new and emerging players to compete. A regulatory issue arises when new companies are up against companies receiving government subsidies. In this way, such regulations may also prohibit companies from reorganizing to implement new technologies or practices, undermining the spillover effects that FDI can bring about.

IPR adoption vs. innovation

Shapiro stresses the importance in not only allowing companies to implement new technologies, but to encourage them to do so as well. A common mistake developing countries make, he says, is trying to be the source of innovation: “Although it's nice to be the source of innovation, what is more important is to adopt innovation of others.” In response, a contribution to discussion made by a fellow attendee commented on the inclination of developing countries to first duplicate, then adapt, and then innovate for themselves.

So what is India left to do then? How do Indian companies navigate along the fine line distinguishing between adopting new technologies and duplicating them? And if innovation is so integral to a country's economy, will merely adopting and adapting to emerging foreign technologies suffice for the country's economy? Or can India only progress away from “duplication” with stricter IPR enforcement?

While citing studies based in Europe, Shapiro illustrates the relationship between IP regimes and inventions. The study's findings displayed that while there is no relationship between IPR and occurrences of inventions, there is correlation between IPR and the kinds of inventions. Jurisdictions with strict IP laws and greater IP protection were likelier to bring about inventions with significant business value, while the inventions of other jurisdictions without IPR did not entail the same level of business value—one cannot simply reverse-engineer a food invention for study, he says.

This is not as to say that Indian companies cannot innovate. “India has a lot of innovators,” Shapiro says, “but they're in California and New York and Washington.” Even in these hubs for innovation, the Indian demographic is highly disproportionate, and estimated to be 20-40 per cent of the workforce, suggesting the potential of Indians in terms of innovation. Shapiro poses the question: “Why are they leaving?” and stresses the importance in India understanding this phenomenon.

The modernization tradeoff

Is the departure of some of India's innovators another consequence of the country's path to modernization whilst maintaining cultural values? Just as some foreign pharmaceutical companies may stay far away from the Indian market?

If so, is India truly better off in striving for redemption from under the close watch of the US and in pursuit of foreign direct investment? What opportunities or cultural values might be abandoned within the domestic market in favour of foreign bodies, then? And more specifically, what would a stricter IP regime mean for the future of the generic pharmaceutical industry, and in turn, the cost of access for medicines that are presently only affordable through the bypassing of international IP standards?

Just as Shapiro gives importance to the consideration of political and cultural factors at play within one's economy, it is, then, essential to look beyond what the US wants for India economically to factor in what India wants for its own economy and the cultural and political reasons for such. I think we can both agree on the significance of India considering the consequences of resulting economic decisions (i.e., regarding market regulating and IP enforcement) from proxies inclusive of Indian consumers, as well as international bodies to the extent of the global systems that India is implicated in.

But what about the question of innovation for India's economy? In the tradeoff between innovation (and prosperity) versus duplication (and accessibility), is a country of 1.2 billion people with different cultural values and economic needs really fair game to be idealized as “comparable to the US” in terms of its economic laws? Economist Robert Shapiro seems to think so.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cultural-interests-v-international-economy-robert-shapiro-on-ipr-innovation-in-india

Cultural institution AKA GLAM for more OER

praskrishna — 2016-06-09T12:51:46Z

The OER conference was held in Edinburgh, Scotland on April 19 and 20, 2016. Subhashish Panigrahi gave a talk at the event organised by the University of Edinburg.

The vision for the conference was to focus on the value proposition of embedding open culture in the context of institutional strategies for learning, teaching and research. The conference was chaired by Melissa Highton, Director of Learning, Teaching and Web Services at the University of Edinburgh, and Lorna Campbell, OER Liaison at the University of Edinburgh and EDINA Digital Education Manager. The OER 16 conference primarily focused on:

The strategic advantage of open and creating a culture of openness.
Converging and competing cultures of open knowledge, open source, open content, open practice, open data and open access.
Hacking, making and sharing.
The reputational challenges of openwashing.
Openness and public engagement.
Innovative approaches to opening up cultural heritage collections for education.

Subhashish Panigrahi - Cultural Institution aka GLAM for More OER (OER16, 19-20.04.2016) from The Centre for Internet and Society

Resources

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/cultural-institution-aka-glam-for-more-oer

Cultural institution AKA GLAM for more OER

subha — 2016-02-27T06:00:20Z

My submission titled "Cultural institution AKA GLAM for more OER" under the theme of "Innovative approaches to opening up cultural heritage collections for education" has been selected for the OER16 conference to be held in Edinburg, Scotland from 19 to 20 April 2016.

GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums) is a global initiative for making cultural data open targeting galleries, libraries, archives and museums in particular. GLAM projects are run in collaboration with these cultural institutions where the artifacts and other institutional collections get all sorts of digital treatment, from digitizing manuscripts and books to creating meta data and developing tools to automate and ease the life of contributors, building and 3D models of artifacts and creating multilingual virtual museum experience by using Wikipedia.

These institutions historically being the reservoir of knowledge need more attention with more digital innovation coming in day by day. There being a synergy between the fundamental focus of OER and GLAM initiative, it leaves scholars and GLAM and/or OER practitioners to explore this area that is currently not widely covered. GLAM projects are centered around data mining, digitizing and publishing the work in both machine and human readable forms. The output of all the GLAM projects could directly contribute to creating OERs classifying and customizing the OERs for different age groups and people with accessibility needs. This, in return will also benefit the GLAM projects and institutions for both expanding their reach and replicating these initiatives. The presentation will be around the best practices of several GLAM initiatives and how these projects could lead to create useful OERs. I will also shed some light on the methodology of creating OERs during the development of a GLAM project.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cultural-institution-aka-glam-for-more-oer

Creative Commons comes to India

subha — 2013-07-17T06:49:55Z

Creative Commons team visited four Indian cities to spread the word about CC free licenses and CC affiliate program. Wikimedia India chapter was approached to join hands with Creative Commons for research and community building.

Jessica Coates, Global Network Manager and Jane Hornibrook, Regional Coordinator, Asia-Pacific, Creative Commons recently visited India. The Access to Knowledge team from the Centre for Internet and Society got a chance to join them for three of their meetings: one in Pune and two in Bengaluru.

Ceative Commons is a not-for-profit organization and the base for the free licenses. More than 400 million work in the world are in Creative Commons license as of today. The foundation is looking to expand its wing of voluntary affiliates in India who would support for more outreach, community building and research. "We are excited to see the wikipedians in India and their passion to contribute to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons is the largest Creative Commons license use and we are looking for joining hands with the Indian wikipedians and the Wikimedia India chapter", says Jessica Coats.


Jessica Coates and Jane Hornibrook from Creative Commons at Centre of Internet and Society, Bengaluru

Jane Hornibook, who looks after Creative Common's operation in Asia-Pacific said, "Creative Commons has many users in India. It would be exciting for us to collaborate with more academicians, wikipedians and organizations like Wikimedia India Chapter and CIS for peer research and outreach and grow our affiliate network in India.

Video

Note: This blog post is a combination of events organized in Pune by Pune Linux/Unix User Group and Symbiosis Institute of Computer Studies & Research, and CIS and the Wikimedia India Chapter in Bangalore.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/creative-commons-comes-to-india

Creating Free Software Environment at Andhra Loyola College

rahim — 2015-05-27T00:54:42Z

Andhra Loyola college has signed an MoU with CIS-A2K and as part of it CIS-A2K team has provided a free and open software environment at Andhra Lyola College's Computer Center. Thirty machines have been installed with free software Operating system and some useful applications such as GIMP, Inkscape, firefox, libreoffice, etc.

Principal, Vice-principal, management and faculty at Andhra Loyola College expressed interest in upgrading their lab computers to latest software without having the glitches of piracy issues. The obvious solution to this was to install Linux based free OS like Ubuntu/Debian

Program Director of CIS-A2K advised to have this process done in a pilot manner instead of forced imposition on faculty and students to use a totally new working environment. So, 30 machines from PG lab were selected for this purpose.

These machines were installed with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS edition. In addition to the default available Libre office, firefox and terminal, Tools like Gimp, inkscape, apache web server were also installed.

Each of the faculty and students present at the installation time were evangelized about Free Software and its wise uses in the long term.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/creating-free-software-environment-at-alc

Course Packs for Education Ruled Legal in India

sinha — 2017-07-14T04:05:00Z

On 9 May 2017, a five year court battle between publishers and universities finally came to an end when the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal by the Indian Reprographic Rights Organization (IRRO) challenging an earlier judgment of Delhi High Court that ruled course packs in India legal for educational purposes.

The article was published by EIFL on July 12, 2017.

In a case that gained wide international attention, issues such as the cost of textbooks in India were raised, students agitated for fair access to educational materials, and the jurisprudence on copyright in India has taken a leap forward. In this guest blog, Anubha Sinha, Programme Officer on Openness and Access to Knowledge at the Centre for Internet and Society India, discusses the judgment in the case known as the ‘Delhi University photocopy’ case, and what it means for access to educational materials in India.

The facts of the case

In 2012, three academic publishers, Oxford University Press (OUP), Cambridge University Press (CUP) and Taylor & Francis, sued the University of Delhi (DU) and Rameshwari Photocopy Service (based at the university) for copyright infringement for photocopying parts of their textbooks and distributing them in course packs - collections of assigned reading materials – exclusively to students for a fee.

The publishers sought to compel Delhi University to enter into a licensing agreement with the Indian Reprographic Rights Organization (IRRO), that manages certain rights on behalf publishers and other rightsholders in India.

The course packs in question comprised excerpts from textbooks on course syllabi at Delhi School of Economics (part of the University of Delhi). The court analyzed the content of four packs that included works such as Transforming India: Social and Political Dynamics of Democracy (OUP), New Cambridge History of India (CUP) and Political Philosophy (Routledge/Taylor & Francis).

The court found that on average 8.8% of the textbooks, that each cost on average 39 USD (2,500 INR), were used in the course packs. Students and faculty were charged a nominal fee of one US cent (40 paise) per page to buy the course pack.

The court’s judgment – no infringement, no licence required

In an interim order in 2012, the court issued a temporary injunction restraining the sale of course packs by Rameshwari. However, the order was overturned when in subsequent judgments (in September 2016 and an appeal judgment in December 2016) the court ruled in favour of the University.

On whether the making of the course packs was a copyright infringement, the court found no infringement because the activities fell under the education exception in Indian copyright law (specifically section 52(1)(i)).

Section 52(1)(i) of the Indian Copyright Act (1957) allows any work to be reproduced by a teacher or pupil for the purposes of instruction. In a liberal interpretation of the provision, the court held that the reproduction of a work is not limited to reproduction by an individual teacher or pupil, it also extends to the action of multiple teachers and students. Further, the court held that the phrase ‘course of instruction’ embraces any instruction for the duration of an entire course or teaching programme, it is not limited only to teaching in the classroom.

On whether the university must obtain a licence to photocopy from IRRO, the court held that no licence is required because the activities are covered by Section 52(1)(i).

The court also found there to be no commercial exploitation of copyright in the works.

During the case, the publishers tried to impute a profit motive on the part of the defendants. They argued that by selling chapters of the books, the defendants were in direct competition with publishers thereby creating an adverse effect on the publishers’ market.

The court rejected the argument holding that students are hardly potential customers for multiple books used in the course packs. For example, post-graduate students might have 35-40 reading assignments per subject.

Without the course packs, students would simply look elsewhere for the material, including the university library. In fact, the court noted that increased access to education has the potential to expand the customer base for such books in the future.

Primacy of purpose

Importantly, the court said fairness of use is to be judged only by its intended purpose i.e. education, and not from any qualitative or quantitative uses (such as which parts of the text are used or the number of copies made).

The court’s judgment on appeal, that references case law from Canada, the USA the UK and New Zealand, emphasizes that the determination of ‘fairness’ of a use rests solely on the “touchstone of the purpose of the use and/or other limitations expressly built in each of these clauses”. Thus there is no requirement to introduce other tests or factors when applying Section 52(1)(i) and so a general fair use principle is to be read into all such provisions in the law.

The case concludes

The High Court remained undecided on two points of fact: whether the works included in the course packs were necessary for educational instruction, and whether the photocopying of entire books is allowed under Indian law. It decided to refer these issues for determination to a trial court.

However, the trial court hearing never proceeded because in March 2017 the publishers decided to withdraw from the case, in a move that surprised observers. A joint statement issued by OUP, CUP and Taylor & Francis acknowledged the important role that course packs play in education, and looked forward to working “even more closely with academic institutions, teachers and students to understand and address their needs”.

In a further twist in April 2017, the Indian Reprographic Rights Organization (IRRO) filed an appeal to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s judgment.

On 9 May 2017, the Supreme Court summarily dismissed IRRO’s appeal.

Impact of the Delhi University case

The ruling in the Delhi University case is a huge triumph for access to educational materials in India over the interests of private copyright holders.

The case shone a light on the socio-economic context of university level education in India, in particular the cost of textbooks. Students became advocates for access to knowledge, and the law on access to educational materials in India has been advanced.

Book prices in India are an issue

A study submitted to the court showed that consumers in the global South often have to commit significantly higher proportions of their income to buy books because absolute book prices are far higher than in the global North. For example, if consumers in the US had to pay the same proportion of their income to purchase the Oxford English Dictionary, it would cost a ludicrous 941.20 USD!

Not even university libraries can afford these prices. While libraries do purchase multiple copies of textbooks, they cannot cater for the entire student population that can ran into hundreds of students enrolled on an individual course.

In addition, the latest editions are not always available to purchase in India. So the absence of course packs would seriously compromise access to education.

“While foreign publishers claim that almost all educational titles have lower priced Indian editions, our empirical research shows this to be false. The vast majority of legal and social science titles that we surveyed had no equivalent Indian editions, and had to be purchased at prices equivalent to or higher than in the West. The lower priced Indian editions were often older and outdated.” - Shamnad Basheer, writing in SpicyIP, one of India’s leading blogs/repositories on intellectual property (IP) and innovation law/policy.

Students, faculty and authors mobilized

The case resonated strongly with the student and academic communities. Two new groups were formed, the Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge (ASEAK) and the Society for Promotion of Equitable Access to Knowledge (SPEAK). Both groups were admitted as interveners in the case in support of the defendants.

Student engagement has continued, increasing awareness among the next generation for fair access to knowledge.

In addition, over three hundred academics from all over the world, including 33 authors whose works were listed in court documents as being included in the course packs, wrote to the three publishers asking them to withdraw the lawsuit. The letter was submitted to the court in pleadings by the defendant.

Copyright jurisprudence advanced

The case has advanced copyright jurisprudence in India.

The making of course packs for educational purposes is allowed by law.

The court’s reasoning in the judgments was based on the socio-economic context of India, the realities of the education system, and the progress afforded by modern technology. These are welcome developments that will enable the law to adapt to new situations and current needs of Indian society.

Timeline

August 2012: Oxford University Press (OUP), Cambridge University Press (CUP) and Taylor & Francis issue legal proceedings against Delhi University and Rameshwari Photocopy Service

October 2012: Interim injunction issued against Rameshwari Photocopy Service restraining sale of course packs.

March 2013: 33 authors of works cited in court documents write to publishers asking them to withdraw the case.

September 2016: judgment issued by Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Delhi High Court; injunction on Rameshwari Photocopy Service lifted.

October 2016: Publishers file appeal against Justice Endlaw’s decision.

December 2016: Appeal rejected by Delhi High Court Division Bench Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Yogesh Khanna.

January 2017: Oxford students and academics urge OUP not to appeal to the Supreme Court.

March 2017: Publishers announce their withdrawal from the case.

April 2017: Indian Reprographic Rights Organization (IRRO) (that intervened in the lower case) files appeal to the Supreme Court.

May 2017: IRRO appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/eifl-anubha-sinha-july-12-2017-course-packs-for-education-ruled-legal-in-india

Countering US pressures on India’s IP regime

praskrishna — 2014-12-07T12:20:36Z

Anubha Sinha attended a meeting organized by Lawyer's Collective on "Countering US pressures on India’s IP regime" on November 16, 2014.

Medecins Sans Frontieres, Third World Network, Zakir Thomas, Mira Shiva and a few others also participated. One of the action points was responding to the call for comments issued by the DIPP on formulating a National IPR Policy. All Civil Society members present agreed to make submissions based on their sectoral area of expertise. CIS will also make a submission in this regard.

The tentative date for the next meeting is December 6, 2014. Minutes of the meeting can be downloaded here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/countering-us-pressure-on-indias-ip-regime

Copyrights and Copywrongs Why the Government Should Embrace the Public Domain

pranesh — 2013-09-06T04:56:42Z

Each of you reading this article is a criminal and should be jailed for up to three years. Yes, you. "Why?," you may ask.

This article by Pranesh Prakash was published in Yojana, Issue: August 2013.

Have you ever whistled a tune or sung a film song aloud? Have you ever retold a joke? Have you replied to an e-mail without deleting the copy of that e-mail that automatically added to the reply? Or photocopied pages from a book? Have you ever used an image from the Internet in presentation? Have you ever surfed the Internet at work, used the the 'share' button on a website, or retweeted anything on Twitter? And before 2012, did you ever use a search engine?

If you have done any of the above without the permission of the copyright holder, you might well have been in violation of the Indian Copyright Act, since in each of those examples you're creating a copy or are otherwise infringing the rights of the copyright holder. Interestingly, it was only through an amendment in 2012 that search engines (like Google and Yahoo) were legalized.

Traditional Justifications for Copyright

Copyright is one among the many forms of intellectual property rights. Across differing theories of copyright, two broad categories may be made. The first category would be those countries where copyright is intended to benefit society, the other where it is intended to benefit the author. Within the second category, there can again be two subcategories: those that see the need to benefit the author due to notions of natural justice and those that see the need to provide incentives for authors to create. Incentives to create are necessary only when the act of creation itself is valuable (and more so than the creator). The act of creation is valued highly as it directly benefits society. Thus, it is seen that the second sub-category is closer to the societal benefit theory than the natural justice sub-category. In the United States, the wording of the Progress Clause makes things clear that copyright is for the benefit of the public, and the author is only given secondary consideration. It is in light of this that the U.S. Supreme Court said,
"The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired."

Economic theories of copyright see copyright as an incentive mechanism, designed to encourage creators to produce material because they would be able to recover costs and make a profit due to the exclusionary rights that copyright law grants. Thus, the ideal period of copyright for any material, under the economic theory would be the minimum period required for a person to recoup the costs that go into the production of that material. Allowing for the great-grandchildren of the author to benefit from the author’s work would actually go against the incentive mechanism. Even if the author is motivated enough to put in even more hard work to provide for her great-grandchildren, her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren wouldn’t have any incentive to create for themselves (as the incentive is seen purely in terms of economics, and not in terms of creative urge, etc.), as they are already provided for by copyright. Thus, in a sense, the shift towards longer periods of copyright terms that we are seeing today can be seen as a shift from the incentive-based model to a rewards-based model of copyright.

The other standard theory of copyright justification is the natural rights theory, which deems intellectual property the fruit of the author’s labour, thus entitling them to complete control over that fruit. This brings us to the conception of property itself, and the Lockean and Hegelian justifications for personal property is what is most often used to back such an argument up.

There are many problems with the natural rights theory of intellectual property. If that theory were to hold water, copyright law would accord greater precedence to authors than to publishers. Yet, we see that it is publishers primarily, and not authors, who get benefit of copyright. The "work for hire" doctrine, embodied in Section 17 of the Copyright Act, holds that it is the employer who is treated as the owner of copyright, not the author. This plainly contradicts that natural rights theory. And it also raises the question of why we should protect certain kinds of knowledge investments in the first place. Publishing is a business, and all risks inherent with other businesses should come along with publishing. There is no reason that the State should safeguard their investment by vesting in them a right while safeguarding the investments of any other business only occasionally, and that too as an act of munificence. This problem arises because of the free transferability of copyright. This leads us to the larger problem, which is of course that of treating knowledge as a form of property. Property, as we have traditionally understood it, has a few features like excludability. Knowledge, however, does not share that feature with property. Once you know something that I created, I can’t exclude you from that knowledge that (unlike my ability to take back an apple you have stolen from me). This analysis also has the pernicious effect of excluding free speech analysis of copyright laws. An incorrect analogy is often drawn to explain why free speech analysis doesn’t work on property: you may wish to exercise your right to free speech on my front lawn, yet the State may decree that I am in full right to throw you off my property, without being accused of abridging your right to freedom of speech. So, the argument goes, enforcement of property rights is not an affront to freedom of speech. The problems with this analogy are obvious enough: the two forms of “property” cannot be equated. If you take the location of speech away, I can still speak. If, on the other hand, you restrict my ideas/expression, then I can no longer be said to have the freedom of expression.

One Size Doesn't Fit All

It is easy to see that copyright is an ill-fit for all the things that it now covers. Copyright in its present form is a historical accident, which evolved into the state it is in a very haphazard fashion. It is a colonial imposition on developing countries. It does not value that which we often value in Indian culture: tradition. Instead, copyright law values modernity and newness. It can also be seen as a trade issue imposed on us through the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Agreement (TRIPS Agreements) as part of the World Trade Organization.

Importantly, copyright is not a single well-planned scheme. In some cases — for literature, visual art works, lyrics, musical tunes, etc. — it provides rights to the artist, while in other cases — for recordings of those musical tunes, and for films — it provides rights to the producers. What are the legal reasons for this distinction? There aren't any; the distinction is a historical one (with sound recordings and films getting copyright protection after literature, etc.). At one point of time only exact copies were governed by copyright law. Hence, translations of a work were considered not to be infringement of that work (or a "derivative work"), but new independent works, since after all it takes considerable artistic effort to create a good translation of a work. However now even creating an encyclopedia based on Harry Potter (as the Harry Potter Lexicon was), is covered as infringement of the exclusive rights of the author. At one point of time photographs were not provided any copyright, being as they are, 'mere' mechanical reproductions. They were seen as not being 'creative' enough. However, around the turn of the twentieth century, that position changed, and hence every photograph you've taken of your dog is now copyrighted. According to a recent Supreme Court decision, merely adding paragraph numbering to court judgments is considered to be 'creative' enough to merit copyright protection! At one point of time, copyright existed for 14 years. Now, with the international minimum being "fifty years after the death of the author", it lasts for an average of more than a century! Once upon a time, copyright was only granted to those who wanted it and applied for it. That has now changed, and you have copyright over every single original thing that you have ever written, recorded, or otherwise affixed to a medium.

Copyright in the Digital Era

All digital activities violate copyright, since automatically copies are created on the computer's RAM, cache, etc. Because now everything is copyrighted, and copyrighted seemingly forever, each one of us violates copyright on a day-to-day basis. It is a mockery of the law when everyone is a criminal. The US President Barack Obama violated copyright law when he presented UK's Queen Elizabeth II an iPod filled with 40 songs from popular musicals like West Side Story and the King and I. When even presidents, with legal advisers cannot navigate copyright law successfully, what hopes have we ordinary people?

There is no shortage of similar examples to show that copyright law has gone out of control.

Take extradition, for instance. Augusto Pinochet was extradited, Charles Shobraj was sought to be extradited. Added to their ranks is the pimply teenager who runs TVShark, who British courts have cleared for extradition to the USA for potential violation of copyright law. The extreme injustice of copyright is easily observable if one sees the contorted map depicting net royalty inflows available on Worldmapper.org: there are a sum total of less than a dozen countries which are net exporters of IP; all other countries, including India, are net importers of IP. IP law is one area where both those who talk about social justice and those who talk about individual liberties find common ground in the monopolistic or exclusionary rights granted under copyright law. Copyright acts as a barrier to free trade, thus allowing Nelson Mandela's autobiography to be more expensive in South Africa than the United Kingdom because South Africa is prohibited by the UK publisher from importing the book from India. Mark Getty, the heir to the Getty Images fortune, once presciently observed that "IP is the oil of the 21st century".

Government Copyright

In the ivory towers of academia, there has in recent times been a clarion call that's resounding strongly: the call for open access. As the Public Library of Science states, "open access is a stands for unrestricted access and unrestricted reuse". Why is it important? "Most publishers own the rights to the articles in their journals. Anyone who wants to read the articles must pay to access them. Anyone who wants to use the articles in any way must obtain permission from the publisher and is often required to pay an additional fee. Although many researchers can access the journals they need via their institution and think that their access is free, in reality it is not. The institution has often been involved in lengthy negotiations around the price of their site license, and re-use of this content is limited." Importantly, the writers of articles (scholars) do not get paid by the publishers for their articles, and most developing countries are not able to afford the costs imposed by these scholarly publishers. Even India's premier scientific research agency, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, recently declared that the costs of scientific journals was beyond its means.

Why is this important? Because apart from establishing the idea of informational equity and justice, it also establishes the idea that taxpayer-funded research (as most scientific and much of academic research is) ought to belong to the public domain, and be available freely. This principle, seemingly uncontroversial, is very unfortunately not embodied in the Indian Copyright Act. Most public servants do not realize that that which they create may not be freely used by the public whom they serve.

Under the Indian Copyright Act, all creations of the government, whether by the executive, judiciary, or legislature, is by default copyrighted. This does not make sense under either of the two theories of copyright that we examined above. The government is not an 'author' who can have any form of 'natural rights' over its labour. Nor is the government incentivised to create more works if it has copyright over them. Most of the copyrighted works, such as various reports, the Gazette of India, etc., that the government creates are required to be created, and the cultural works it creates are for cultural promotion and not for commercial exploitation. Hence it makes absolutely no sense to continue with the colonial regime of 'crown copyright', when countries like the USA have suffered no ill effects by legally placing all government works in the public domain.

While there are a limited set of exceptions to government copyright provided for in the law, those are very minimal. This means that even though you are legally allowed to get a document through the Right to Information Act, publicising that document on the Internet could potentially get you jailed under the Copyright Act. This is obviously not what any government official would want. If instead of the four sub-sections that form the exception, the exception was merely one line and allowed for "the reproduction, communication to the public, or publication of any government work", then that itself would elegantly take care of the problem. This would also remove the ambiguities inherent currently in the Data.gov.in, where the central government is publishing information that it wants civil society, entrepreneurs, and other government departments to use, however there is no clarity on whether they are legally allowed to do so.

Recently, the member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization passed a treaty that would facilitate blind persons' access to books. On that occasion, at Marrakesh, I noted that intellectual property must not be seen as a good in itself, but as an instrumentalist tool which may be selectively deployed to achieve societally desirable objectives. I said: It is historic that today WIPO and its members have collectively recognized in a treaty that copyright isn't just an "engine of free expression" but can pose a significant barrier to access to knowledge. Today we recognize that blind writers are currently curtailed more by copyright law than protected by it. Today we recognize that copyright not only may be curtailed in some circumstances, but that it must be curtailed in some circumstances, even beyond the few that have been listed in the Berne Convention. One of the original framers of the Berne Convention, Swiss jurist and president, Numa Droz, recognized this in 1884 when he emphasized that "limits to absolute protection are rightly set by the public interest". And as Debabrata Saha, India's delegate to WIPO during the adoption of the WIPO Development Agenda noted, "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." When copyright doesn't serve public welfare, states must intervene, and the law must change to promote human rights, the freedom of expression and to receive and impart information, and to protect authors and consumers. Importantly, markets alone cannot be relied upon to achieve a just allocation of informational resources, as we have seen clearly from the book famine that the blind are experiencing. Marrakesh was the city in which, as Debabrata Saha noted, "the damage [of] TRIPS [was] wrought on developing countries". Now it has redeemed itself through this treaty.

The Indian government needs to similarly redeem itself by freeing governmental works, including the scientific research it funds, the archives of All India Radio, the movies that it produces through Prasar Bharati, and all other tax-payer funded works, and by returning them to the public domain, where they belong.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/yojana-august-2013-pranesh-prakash-copyrights-and-copywrongs-why-the-govt-should-embrace-the-public-domain