Centre for Internet and Society

Copyright Amendment Bill in Parliament

nirmita — 2011-08-30T09:26:44Z

The Copyright Amendment Bill is expected to be presented in the Rajya Sabha by the Minister for Human Resource and Development, Kapil Sibal today afternoon. The much awaited Bill (since it has been in the offing since 2006) has undergone significant changes since its initial appearance.

Given below is a very quick first cut highlight of the Bill from a public interest perspective. A more detailed analysis will follow after the session discussions.

Parallel imports: The parallel imports clause which had been put in as sec 2(m) has now been dropped from the present draft. This is a big setback because educational institutions, libraries and archives, second hand book, etc., were looking to this provision to bring down the prices and hasten the availability of books. This also affects persons with disabilities since they will be unable to import books in accessible formats.
Persons with disabilities: There are two provisions relating to persons with disabilities which have been introduced. Section 52 (1) (zb) relates to the conversion, reproduction, issues of copies or communication to the public of any work in any accessible format, provided that these activities are meant to enable access to persons with disabilities and sufficient safeguards are taken to ensure that these materials do not enter the mainstream market. This section in a sense is broader and more encompassing than some provisions found in other countries, which relate exclusively to the blind or visually impaired. This section would adequately cover persons with other disabilities who cannot read print. A new section 31B also provides for compulsory licensing for profit entities wishing to convert and distribute works in accessible formats, provided that they are primarily working for persons with disabilities and are registered under sec 12A of the Income Tax Act or under chapter X of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
Many exceptions under 52 (1) (i) relating to fair dealing have been extended to all works except computer programmes. New sections 52 (1) (b) and (c) protect transient and incidental storage from being classified as infringing copies, which offers protection to entities such as online intermediaries.
The scope of compulsory licensing under sec 31 has been expanded from ‘any Indian work’ to ‘any work’. Three new sections 31 B, 31C and 31 D have been introduced. Section 31 B has already been described in the paragraph on persons with disabilities. Section 31 C lays down strict measures relating to statutory licensing in case of cover version, being a sound recording of a literary, dramatic or musical work. Section 31 D relates to statutory licenses for broadcasting organizations wishing to broadcast a literary or musical work or sound recording.
Non commercial public libraries can now store electronic copies of any non digital works they own (52(n)).
The new Bill introduces Technological protection measures (65A and 65B) and makes circumvention and distribution of works in which rights managements systems have been removed an offence which is punishable with imprisonment upto two years as well as fine. In addition the copyright owner can also avail of civil remedies. As such India is not really required to have these provisions in the copyright legislation since we are not yet a signatory to the WCT or the WPPT and such provisions will hamper consumer interests.
Terms of copyright have been increased significantly without reason, thus preventing works from falling into the public domain. For instance, the term of photographs has been increased from 60 years to life of the photographer plus 60 years. This is far in excess of the minimum term stipulated by international treaties.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-parliament

Converting from nonUnicode (Nudi, Baraha, ...) font encoding to Unicode Kannada

pavanaja — 2016-10-23T15:36:25Z

People have been using computers for typing and printing Kannada text for more than 25 years. Most of the usage of Kannada on computers was limited to the DTP arena.

People made use of packages like PageMaker (Version 6.5 or 7) to type and compose pages. Even now, many people still use these packages for Kannada DTP work. The text entered into these packages is stored as font glyph codes rather than character encodings. Non-Unicode truetype fonts like Nudi, Baraha, ShreeLipi, Akruti, etc, are some of the most popular fonts being used.

The system does not understand these characters as Kannada characters. Any text based operations like search, replace, sorting, spell-check, text-to-speech, etc, are not possible with this kind of text. Employing Unicode for all digitisation works of Kannada text solves this problem. Usage of Unicode for Kannada has become prominent only recently. All websites like Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, Wikisource, etc, want the text only in Unicode. There is still a large amount of text entered and stored with old non-Unicode font based encodings. These are mostly present in the form of PageMaker files. This blog post explains the process of converting the text present in PageMaker into Kannada Unicode text.

The Kannada and Culture Department of the Government of Karnataka have released Unicode complaint open-type fonts and Unicode based software for Kannada under GPL. These are available for free download on their website (http://kannadasiri.co.in/index/software). Download and
install “Ascii to Unicode Kannada Converter” from this page. This software works only in Windows. Now you are ready to convert the text from PageMaker file into Unicode.

Open the PageMaker file. Select the Text tool depicted by a big “T” shaped icon. Click anywhere in the text area. Select the entire text (Ctrl-A followed by Ctrl-C). Now open Notepad and paste this text into that (press Ctrl-V). The text will appear gibberish in Notepad. Don’t worry about it. Save the file as plain text file (.TXT file). Remember where you have saved the file.

Now run the “Kannada ASCII Unicode Converter” software. In the first textbox enter the name of the ASCII file to be converted (the file you just saved from Notepad). In the bottom textbox enter a filename for the Unicode text file that will be created by the software. Select the default “GOK (Kuvempu Nudi Baraha)”, or other encoding as the case may be, as the encoding from which the text has to be converted. Click on the button written “ಪರಿವರ್ತಿಸಿ”. It will show the progress of conversion.

Once the conversion is complete, it will display an appropriate message to indicate completion of the conversion. If you open the text file created by the software, it will have the text converted into Unicode. This text can be used in Wikisource, Wikipedia, etc.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/converting-from-non-unicode-nudi-baraha-font-encoding-to-unicode-kannada

Continuing community engagement: Communities of interest and Quarrying

Manasa Rao — 2017-05-19T15:23:28Z

In telling the stories of Indian Wikipedians, we bring to you the story of Dr. Diptanshu Das, a doctor and avid Wikipedian, working with WikiProject Medicine who recently approached CIS-A2K with a technical request.

CIS-A2K has always believed in continuing our engagement with the communities and individuals we work with. This year in particular has been special to us thanks to our Train The Trainer alumni steadily achieving the goals they set out to achieve and continuing their Wiki journeys with more vigour. It is especially significant to us when our alumni come back to our resource and idea exchange platform to help develop their pet projects. For the first time, one such alumnus, Dr. Diptanshu Das, a doctor by profession and avid Wikipedian approached us in April 2017 with a request to our technical team. He wanted to know the number of articles that were tagged in both Category:WikiProject Pharmacology and Category:All WikiProject Medicine.

To provide some context, WikiProjects are generally article development projects undertaken by groups of editors on Wikipedia whose aim it is to achieve goals on specific topics and subjects on Wikipedia. For example, WikiProject Medicine manages and helps curate medical articles on Wikipedia. Similarly, WikiProject Pharmacology states that it "coordinates the development of Wikipedia articles and lists relating to the pharmacology and science of medications and other pharmacology-related topics." Working to define clearer guidelines for WikiProject Medicine of which he is a member, Dr. Das intended to find out how many articles were listed under WikiProject Pharmacology that were also tagged under WikiProject Medicine. As these two are closely related topics, the former being a sub-specialty of the latter, he felt it could cause an overlap which would mean that most of the sub-specialty articles would get lost in the "parent" category i.e. WikiProject Medicine.

CIS-A2K ran Dr. Das' request on Quarry, a public querying interface that lets one raise queries regarding databases in addition to managing them as an SQL(Structured Query Language) software would. Dr. Das had begun discussions with fellow Wikipedians to get their thoughts on the matter and wanted to provide data-specific points but was unable to gather consensus on developing a guideline. However, when CIS-A2K reported back to him, he realized that the overlap was not as significant as he had feared. WikiProject Medicine had 34,475 articles, WikiProject Pharmacology had 10,721 articles; only 2002 of these were tagged in both. Dr. Das, while relieved, believes that sub-specialty tagging would go a long way in helping improve articles such as those of WikiProject Pharmacology, many of which are still in Start and Stub classes.

"While collaborating on wiki is always good, it is important that an organization like CIS contributes its expertize," he says. CIS-A2K's presence as an idea exchange platform hopes to generate debate and discussions in addition to the physical resources and support we provide to communities. Dr. Das is also of the opinion that domain knowledge experts could make a real difference to Wikipedia by engaging with or creating WikiProjects that are specific to their interests and collaborate with other free knowledge champions around the world. CIS-A2K has attempted to encourage such communities of interest in the past so as to find an easier way to engage members of the general public and educational institutions as they are more likely to edit Wikipedia articles based on their personal hobbies and interests.

If you have requests for us please post them here or email Tito Dutta at tito@cis-india.org.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/continuing-community-engagement-communities-of-interest-and-quarrying

Contestations of Data, ECJ Safe Harbor Ruling and Lessons for India

jyoti — 2015-10-14T14:40:08Z

The European Court of Justice has invalidated a European Commission decision, which had previously concluded that the 'Safe Harbour Privacy Principles' provide adequate protections for European citizens’ privacy rights for the transfer of personal data between European Union and United States. The inadequacies of the framework is not news for the European Commission and action by ECJ has been a long time coming. The ruling raises important questions about how the claims of citizenship are being negotiated in the context of the internet, and how increasingly the contestations of personal data are being employed in the discourse.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has invalidated a European Commission (EC) decision¹ which had previously concluded that the 'Safe Harbor Privacy Principles'² provide adequate protections for European citizens’ privacy rights³ for the transfer of personal data between European Union and United States. This challenge stems from the claim that public law enforcement authorities in America obtain personal data from organisations in safe harbour for incompatible and disproportionate purposes in violation of the Safe Harbour Privacy Principles. The court's judgment follows the advice of the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) who recently opined⁴ that US practices allow for large-scale collection and transfer of personal data belonging to EU citizens without them benefiting from or having access to judicial protection under US privacy laws. The inadequacies of the framework is not news for the Commission and action by ECJ has been a long time coming. The ruling raises important questions about how increasingly the contestations of personal data are being employed in asserting claims of citizenship in context of the internet.

As the highest court in Europe, the ECJ's decisions are binding on all member states. With this ruling the ECJ has effectively restrained US firms from indiscriminate collection and sharing of European citizens’ data on American soil. The implications of the decision are significant, because it shifts the onus of evaluating protections of personal data for EU citizens from the 4,400 companies⁵ subscribing to the system onto EU privacy watchdogs. Most significantly, in addressing the rights of a citizen against an established global brand, the judgement goes beyond political and legal opinion to challenge the power imbalance that exists with reference to US based firms.

Today, the free movement of data across borders is a critical factor in facilitating trade, financial services, governance, manufacturing, health and development. However, to consider the ruling as merely a clarification of transatlantic mechanisms for data flows misstates the real issue. At the heart of the judgment is the assessment whether US firms apply the tests of ‘necessity and proportionality’ in the collection and surveillance of data for national security purposes. Application of necessity and proportionality test to national security exceptions under safe harbor has been a sticking point that has stalled the renegotiation of the agreement that has been underway between the Commission and the American data protection authorities.⁶

For EU citizens the stake in the case are even higher, as while their right to privacy is enshrined under EU law, they have no administrative or judicial means of redress, if their data is used for reasons they did not intend. In the EU, citizens accessing and agreeing to use of US based firms are presented with a false choice between accessing benefits and giving up on their fundamental right to privacy. In other words, by seeking that governments and private companies provide better data protection for the EU citizens and in restricting collection of personal data on a generalised basis without objective criteria, the ruling is effectively an assertion of ‘data sovereignty’. The term ‘data sovereignty’, while lacking a firm definition, refers to a spectrum of approaches adopted by different states to control data generated in or passing through national internet infrastructure.⁷ Underlying the ruling is the growing policy divide between the US and EU privacy and data protection standards, which may lead to what is referred to as the balkanization⁸ of the internet in the future.

US-EU Data Protection Regime

The safe harbor pact between the EU and US was negotiated in the late 1990s as an attempt to bridge the different approaches to online privacy. Privacy is addressed in the EU as a fundamental human right while in the US it is defined under terms of consumer protection, which allow trade-offs and exceptions when national security seems to be under threat. In order to address the lower standards of data protection prevalent in the US, the pact facilitates data transfers from EU to US by establishing certain safeguards equivalent to the requirements of the EU data protection directive. The safe harbor provisions include firms undertaking not to pass personal information to third parties if the EU data protection standards are not met and giving users right to opt out of data collection.⁹

The agreement was due to be renewed by May 2015¹⁰ and while negotiations have been ongoing for two years, EU discontent on safe harbour came to the fore following the Edward Snowden revelations of collection and monitoring facilitated by large private companies for the PRISM program and after the announcement of the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).¹¹ EU member states have mostly stayed silent as they run their own surveillance programs often times, in cooperation with the NSA. EU institutions cannot intervene in matters of national security however, they do have authority on data protection matters. European Union officials and Members of Parliament have expressed shock and outrage at the surveillance programs unveiled by Snowden's 2013 revelations. Most recently, following the CJEU Advocate General’s opinion, 50 Members of European Parliament (MEP) sent a strongly worded letter the US Congress hitting back on claims of ‘digital protectionism’ emanating from the US¹². In no uncertain terms the letter clarified that the EU has different ideas on privacy, platforms, net neutrality, encryption, Bitcoin, zero-days, or copyright and will seek to improve and change any proposal from the EC in the interest of our citizens and of all people.

Towards Harmonization

In November 2013, as an attempt to minimize the loss of trust following the Snowden revelations, the European Commission (EC) published recommendations in its report on 'Rebuilding Trust is EU-US Data Flows'.¹³ The recommendations revealed two critical initiatives at the EU level—first was the revision of the EU-US safe harbor agreement¹⁴ and second the adoption of the 'EU-US Umbrella Agreement¹⁵'—a framework for data transfer for the purpose of investigating, detecting, or prosecuting a crime, including terrorism. The Umbrella Agreement was recently initialed by EU and US negotiators and it only addresses the exchange of personal data between law enforcement agencies.¹⁶ The Agreement has gained momentum in the wake of recent cases around issues of territorial duties of providers, enforcement jurisdictions and data localisation.¹⁷ However, the adoption of the Umbrella Act depends on US Congress adoption of the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) as law.¹⁸

Judicial Redress Act

The JRA is a key reform that the EC is pushing for in an attempt to address the gap between privacy rights and remedies available to US citizens and those extended to EU citizens, including allowing EU citizens to sue in American courts. The JRA seeks to extend certain protections under the Privacy Act to records shared by EU and other designated countries with US law enforcement agencies for the purpose of investigating, detecting, or prosecuting criminal offenses. The JRA protections would extend to records shared under the Umbrella Agreement and while it does include civil remedies for violation of data protection, as noted by the Center for Democracy and Technology, the present framework does not provide citizens of EU countries with redress that is at par with that which US persons enjoy under the Privacy Act.¹⁹

For example, the measures outlined under the JRA would only be applicable to countries that have outlined appropriate privacy protections agreements for data sharing for investigations and ‘efficiently share’ such information with the US. Countries that do not have agreements with US cannot seek these protections leaving the personal data of their citizens open for collection and misuse by US agencies. Further, the arrangement leaves determination of 'efficiently sharing' in the hands of US authorities and countries could lose protection if they do not comply with information sharing requests promptly. Finally, JRA protections do not apply to non-US persons nor to records shared for purposes other than law enforcement such as intelligence gathering. JRA is also weakened by allowing heads of agencies to exercise their discretion to seek exemption from the Act and opt out of compliance.

Taken together the JRA, the Umbrella Act and the renegotiation of the Safe Harbor Agreement need considerable improvements. It is worth noting that EU’s acceptance of the redundancy of existing agreements and in establishing the independence of national data protection authorities in investigating and enforcing national laws as demonstrated in the Schrems and in the Weltimmo²⁰ case point to accelerated developments in the broader EU privacy landscape.

Consequences

The ECJ Safe Harbor ruling will have far-reaching consequences for the online industry. Often, costly government rulings solidify the market dominance of big companies. As high regulatory costs restrict the entrance of small and medium businesses the market, competition is gradually wiped out. Further, complying with high standards of data protection means that US firms handling European data will need to consider alternative legal means of transfer of personal data. This could include evolving 'model contracts' binding them to EU data protection standards. As Schrems points out, “Big companies don’t only rely on safe harbour: they also rely on binding corporate rules and standard contractual clauses.”²¹

The ruling is good news for European consumers, who can now approach a national regulator to investigate suspicions of data mishandling. EU data protection regulators may be be inundated with requests from companies seeking authorization of new contracts and with consumer complaints. Some are concerned that the ruling puts a dent in the globalized flow of data²², effectively requiring data localization in Europe.²³ Others have pointed out that it is unclear how this decision sits with other trade treaties such as the TPP that ban data localisation.²⁴ While the implications of the decision will take some time in playing out, what is certain is that US companies will be have to restructure management, storage and use of data. The ruling has created the impetus for India to push for reforms to protect its citizens from harms by US firms and improve trade relations with EU.

The Opportunity for India

Multiple data flows taking place over the internet simultaneously and that has led to ubiquity of data transfers o ver the Internet, exposing individuals to privacy risks. There has also been an enhanced economic importance of data processing as businesses collect and correlate data using analytic tools to create new demands, establish relationships and generate revenue for their services. The primary concern of the Schrems case may be the protection of the rights of EU citizens but by seeking to extend these rights and ensure compliance in other jurisdictions, the case touches upon many underlying contestations around data and sovereignty.

Last year, Mr Ram Narain, India Head of Delegation to the Working Group Plenary at ITU had stressed, “respecting the principle of sovereignty of information through network functionality and global norms will go a long way in increasing the trust and confidence in use of ICT.”²⁵ In the absence of the recognition of privacy as a right and empowering citizens through measures or avenues to seek redressal against misuse of data, the demand of data sovereignty rings empty. The kind of framework which empowered an ordinary citizen in the EU to approach the highest court seeking redressal based on presumed overreach of a foreign government and from harms abetted by private corporations simply does not exist in India. Securing citizen’s data in other jurisdictions and from other governments begins with establishing protection regimes within the country.

The Indian government has also stepped up efforts to restrict transfer of data from India including pushing for private companies to open data centers in India.²⁶ Negotiating data localisation does not restrict the power of private corporations from using data in a broad ways including tailoring ads and promoting products. Also, data transfers impact any organisation with international operations for example, global multinationals who need to coordinate employee data and information. Companies like Facebook, Google and Microsoft transfer and store data belonging to Indian citizens and it is worth remembering that the National Security Agency (NSA) would have access to this data through servers of such private companies. With no existing measures to restrict such indiscriminate access, the ruling purports to the need for India to evolve strong protection mechanisms. Finally, the lack of such measures also have an economic impact, as reported in a recent Nasscom-Data Security Council of India (DSCI) survey²⁷ that pegs revenue losses incurred by the Indian IT-BPO industry at $2-2.5 billion for a sample size of 15 companies. DSCI has further estimated that outsourcing business can further grow by $50 billion per annum once India is granted a “data secure” status by the EU.²⁸ EU’s refusal to grant such a status is understandable given the high standard of privacy as incorporated under the European Union Data Protection Directive a standard to which India does not match up, yet. The lack of this status prevents the flow of data which is vital for Digital India vision and also affects the service industry by restricting the flow of sensitive information to India such as information about patient records.

Data and information structures are controlled and owned by private corporations and networks transcend national borders, therefore the foremost emphasis needs to be on improving national frameworks. While, enforcement mechanisms such as the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) process or other methods of international cooperation may seem respectful of international borders and principles of sovereignty,²⁹ for users that live in undemocratic or oppressive regimes such agreements are a considerable risk. Data is also increasingly being stored across multiple jurisdictions and therefore merely applying data location lens to protection measures may be too narrow. Further it should be noted that when companies begin taking data storage decisions based on legal considerations it will impact the speed and reliability of services.³⁰ Any future regime must reflect the challenges of data transfers taking place in legal and economic spaces that are not identical and may be in opposition. Fundamentally, the protection of privacy will always act as a barrier to the free flow of information even so, as the Schrems case ruling points out not having adequate privacy protections could also restrict flow of data, as has been the case for India.

The time is right for India to appoint a data controller and put in place national frameworks, based on nuanced understanding of issues of applying jurisdiction to govern users and their data. Establishing better protection measures will not only establish trust and enhance the ability of users to control data about themselves it is also essential for sustaining economic and social value generated from data generation and collection. Suggestions for such frameworks have been considered previously by the Group of Experts on Privacy constituted by the Planning Commission.³¹ By incorporating transparency in mechanisms for data and access requests and premising requests on established necessity and proportionality Indian government can lead the way in data protection standards. This will give the Indian government more teeth to challenge and address both the dangers of theft of data stored on servers located outside of India and restrain indiscriminate access arising from terms and conditions of businesses that grant such rights to third parties.

1 Commission Decision of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce (notified under document number C(2000) 2441) (Text with EEA relevance.) Official Journal L 215 , 25/08/2000 P. 0007 -0047 2000/520/EC: http ://eur -lex .europa .eu /LexUriServ /LexUriServ .do ?uri =CELEX :32000 D 0520:EN :HTML

2 Safe Harbour Privacy Principles Issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce on July 21, 2000 http ://www .export .gov /safeharbor /eu /eg _main _018475.asp

3 Megan Graham, Adding Some Nuance on the European Court ’s Safe Harbor Decision , Just security

https ://www .justsecurity .org /26651/adding -nuance -ecj -safe -harbor -decision /

4 Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-362/14 Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner Court of Justice of the European Union, Press Release, No 106/15 Luxembourg, 23 September 2015 http ://curia .europa .eu /jcms /upload /docs /application /pdf /2015-09/cp 150106 en .pdf

5 Jennifer Baker, ‘EU desperately pushes just-as-dodgy safe harbour alternatives’, The Register, October 7, 2015 http ://www .theregister .co .uk /2015/10/07/eu _pushes _safe _harbour _alternatives /

6 Draft Report, General Data Protection Regulation, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, European Parliament, 2009-2014 http ://www .europarl .europa .eu /meetdocs /2009_2014/documents /libe /pr /922/922387/922387 en .pdf

7 Dana Polatin-Reuben, Joss Wright, ‘An Internet with BRICS Characteristics: Data Sovereignty and the Balkanisation of the Internet’, University of Oxford, July 7, 2014 https ://www .usenix .org /system /files /conference /foci 14/foci 14-polatin -reuben .pdf

8 Sasha Meinrath, The Future of the Internet: Balkanization and Borders, Time, October 2013 http ://ideas .time .com /2013/10/11/the -future -of -the -internet -balkanization -and -borders /

9 Safe Harbour Privacy Principles, Issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce, July 2001 http ://www .export .gov /safeharbor /eu /eg _main _018475.asp

10 Facebook case may force European firms to change data storage practices, The Guardian, September 23, 2015 http ://www .theguardian .com /us -news /2015/sep /23/us -intelligence -services -surveillance -privacy

11 Privacy Tracker, US-EU Safe Harbor Under Pressure, August 2, 2013 https ://iapp .org /news /a /us -eu -safe -harbor -under -pressure

12 Kieren McCarthy, Privacy, net neutrality, security, encryption ... Europe tells Obama, US Congress to back off, The Register, 23 September, 2015 http ://www .theregister .co .uk /2015/09/23/european _politicians _to _congress _back _off /

13 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Rebuilding Trust in EU-US Data Flows, European Commission, November 2013 http ://ec .europa .eu /justice /data -protection /files /com _2013_846_en .pdf

14 Safe Harbor on trial in the European Union, Access Blog, September 2014 https ://www .accessnow .org /blog /2014/11/13/safe -harbor -on -trial -in -the -european -union

15 European Commission - Fact Sheet Questions and Answers on the EU-US data protection "Umbrella agreement", September 8, 2015 http ://europa .eu /rapid /press -release _MEMO -15-5612_en .htm

16 McGuire Woods, ‘EU and U.S. reach “Umbrella Agreement” on data transfers’, Lexology, September 14, 2015 http ://www .lexology .com /library /detail .aspx ?g =422 bca 41-2 d 54-4648-ae 57-00 d 678515 e 1 f

17 Andrew Woods, Lowering the Temperature on the Microsoft-Ireland Case, Lawfare September, 2015 https ://www .lawfareblog .com /lowering -temperature -microsoft -ireland -case

18 Jens-Henrik Jeppesen, Greg Nojeim, ‘The EU-US Umbrella Agreement and the Judicial Redress Act: Small Steps Forward for EU Citizens’ Privacy Rights’, October 5, 2015 https ://cdt .org /blog /the -eu -us -umbrella -agreement -and -the -judicial -redress -act -small -steps -forward -for -eu -citizens -privacy -rights /

19 Ibid 18.

20 Landmark ECJ data protection ruling could impact Facebook and Google, The Guardian, 2 October, 2015 http ://www .theguardian .com /technology /2015/oct /02/landmark -ecj -data -protection -ruling -facebook -google -weltimmo

21 Julia Powles, Tech companies like Facebook not above the law, says Max Schrems, The Guardian, Octover 9, 2015 http ://www .theguardian .com /technology /2015/oct /09/facebook -data -privacy -max -schrems -european -court -of -justice

22 Adam Thierer, Unintended Consequences of the EU Safe Harbor Ruling, The Technology Liberation Front, October 6, 2015 http ://techliberation .com /2015/10/06/unintended -consequenses -of -the -eu -safe -harbor -ruling /#more -75831

23 Anupam Chander, Tweeted ECJ #schrems ruling may effectively require data localization within Europe, https ://twitter .com /AnupamChander /status /651369730754801665

24 Lokman Tsui, Tweeted, “If the TPP bans data localization, but the ECJ ruling effectively mandates it, what does that mean for the internet?” https ://twitter .com /lokmantsui /status /651393867376275456

25 Statement from Indian Head of Delegation, Mr Ram Narain for WGPL, Indian statement on ITU and Internet at the Working Group Plenary November 4, 2014 https ://ccgnludelhi .wordpress .com /author /asukum 87/page /2/

26 Sounak Mitra, Xiaomi bets big on India despite problems, Business Standard, December 2014 http ://www .business -standard .com /article /companies /xiaomi -bets -big -on -india -despite -problems -114122201023_1.html

27 Neha Alawadi, Ruling on data flow between EU & US may impact India’s IT sector, Economic Times,October 7, 2015 http ://economictimes .indiatimes .com /articleshow /49250738.cms ?utm _source =contentofinterest &utm _medium =text &utm _campaign =cppst

28 Pranav Menon, Data Protection Laws in India and Data Security- Impact on India and Data Security-Impact on India - EU Free Trade Agreement, CIS Access to Knowledge, 2011 http ://cis -india .org /a 2 k /blogs /data -security -laws -india .pdf

29 Surendra Kumar Sinha, India wants Mutual Legal Assistance treaty with Bangladesh, Economic Times, October 7, 2015 http ://economictimes .indiatimes .com /articleshow /49262294.cms ?utm _source =contentofinterest &utm _medium =text &utm _campaign =cppst

30 Pablo Chavez, Director, Public Policy and Government Affairs, Testifying before the U.S. Senate on transparency legislation, November 3, 2013 http ://googlepublicpolicy .blogspot .in /2013/11/testifying -before -us -senate -on .htm

31 Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy (Chaired by Justice A P Shah, Former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court), Planning Commission, October 2012 http ://planningcommission .nic .in /reports /genrep /rep _privacy .pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/contestations-of-data-ecj-safe-harbor-ruling-and-lessons-for-india

Content Donation Sessions with Authors

subodh — 2019-04-10T01:28:21Z

CIS-A2K has adopted an integrated approach towards knowledge generation in Marathi language. With the involvement of various stakeholders in different programmes, CIS-A2K facilitated a comprehensive workshop for publishers, printers, designers and writers on 7 September 2018.

The State Govt. Language department, All India Marathi Literary Body & All India Marathi Publishers Consortium took the lead to organize this workshop. In this workshop, noted authors Sunilkumar Lawate and Laxmikant Deshmukh expressed their willingness to donate their books to Wikimedia projects. The awareness about content donation was spread among the writers' community through this workshop.

Objectives

To promote the concept of content donation in Wikimedia projects
To develop repository of reference books on Commons & Wikisource
To facilitate organizations working in developmental sector for developing open knowledge on internet

Report

To promote Marathi language, Marathi language fortnight (1-15 January) and Marathi Day (27 February) was celebrated in Maharashtra. CIS-A2K organized various events on this occasion with state government, publishers, writers and other stakeholders in knowledge business. Some of the authors responded to the appeal to donate their literature in public domain. The following content donations were received in February and March 2019.

Book on Home Composting

Kaustubh Tamhankar, an active citizen from Thane is promoting innovative home composting methods for zero garbage. He has produced some manuals and videos on the process. As the awareness about environment friendly lifestyle is increasing, the author thought of releasing the first manual on Commons. CIS-A2K community advocate (CA) trained him in basics of Wikipedia and Commons. He completed the OTRS process and uploaded the book on zero garbage. He has planned to upload some more manuals and videos in future.

Books by Sunilkumar Lawate

Pictured above: Cover page of the book 'V. S. Khandekar Biography' by Sunilkumar Lawate

Prof. Sunilkumar Lawate is an educationist, social activist and writer in Maharashtra. He participated in the FOSS & Wikimedia workshop conducted in September 2018. He approached CIS-A2K for release of his books in CC-BY-SA on the occasion of Marathi Day on 27 February. CA trained the author in copyrights, Commons upload process and OTRS process in the session held at Kolhapur on 27 February. Prof. Lawate uploaded his 21 books on Commons. These are reference value books on education, child rights, literature, autobiographies, social issues and classic literature. The newspapers covered this event as feature of Marathi day. Because of good media coverage, many responses from other authors in Maharashtra have been received for content donation.

Books by Lek Ladaki Abhiyan

We all know that vast amount of training materials and case studies are produced in development sector. But it is not available to society at large. It is restricted to NGOs, funding agencies, etc. for project period. If it is brought in Wikimedia, it will be searchable for all and will be linked to various articles also as reference resource. CIS-A2K is approaching several such organizations for content donations. CIS-A2K received positive response from Adv. Varsha Deshpande, President of Lek Ladaki Abhiyan, Satara about bridging gender gap activities on Wikimedia projects. Lek Ladaki Abhiyan (LLA) is one of the most active organizations working on Women's issues in Maharashtra. The activities cover wide range of issues viz. stopping child marriages, counselling workshops for adolescents, pre-marriage counselling, child labour issues, legal aid to women facing violence, sting operations for exposing cases of female foeticide, hostel for girls etc.

LLA organization is involved in content generation on women's issues for the last two years with the support of CIS-A2K. The process proved useful for the members and other participants. On the occasion of Women's day on 9th March, LLA re-licensed 8 books and uploaded on Commons. The convener Adv. Varsha Deshpande has authored 6 books. She has taken this noble initiative. The content is spreading across beneficiaries and getting good feedback also. The books cover all the issues mentioned above. The articles created in women's day workshop and books donated by this organization have contributed to reduction in gender gap. LLA would like to lead the movement with other like-minded organizations in urban, rural, tribal areas to facilitate the open knowledge generation on women's issues.

Books by Laxmikant Deshmukh

Laxmikant Deshmukh is former IAS and writer in Maharashtra. He was president of All India Marathi Literary Festival in 2017 at Badoda. He was co-organizer for the FOSS & Wikimedia workshop conducted in September 2018. From that event, he has been promoting open knowledge concept and Wikimedia projects. The training session at Pune was held on 16 March for re-licensing his 4 works. The books are on socio-economic issues of Maharashtra.

Link to the Wikipedia page report here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/content-donation-sessions-with-authors

Content Creation on Eastern Punjabi Wikipedia

Satpal Singh — 2021-05-15T12:24:21Z

This is a short study on the nature of content creation related to Punjab on Eastern Punjabi Wikipedia, its challenges and opportunities, and observations and potential strategies to address the same. The report has been authored by Satpal Singh, with editorial oversight and support by Puthiya Purayil Sneha, and external review by Sumandro Chattapadhyay. This is part of a series of short-term studies undertaken by the CIS-A2K team in 2019–2020.

Introduction

The objective of this study is to understand the challenges for content creation related to Punjab that exists on Eastern Punjabi Wikipedia. There are articles about Punjabi language and culture on Punjabi Wikipedia but there is a need for better understanding of the nature of this content from the perspective of the readers’ interests, coverage of topics, and quality. A large community of interested Punjabi Wikimedians have been actively working over several years to introduce Wikimedia and related projects to people across the world, including those from their own community. An important part of achieving this goal is to contribute to and build more diverse and bettergood quality content about Punjab on Wikipedia. This short study is therefore an attempt to analyse the nature of existing content, challenges in content creation/curation and outreach, and some observations and strategies to address the same.

Eastern Punjabi Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a multilingual online encyclopedia. It is available in around 290+ languages. There are two Punjabi Wikipedia editions, which are Eastern Punjabi Wikipedia and Western Punjabi Wikipedia. Eastern Punjabi Wikipedia is in Gurmukhi script and Western Punjabi Wikipedia is in Shahmukhi script. This study focuses on the Eastern Punjabi Wikipedia. The Eastern edition domain came into existence on 3 June 2002, but the first three articles were only written in August 2004. There was not much contribution made during the next six years. In July 2012, it had reached 2,400 articles. Then a group of people, largely students from Punjabi University, Patiala started contributing actively on Punjabi Wikipedia, as a result of which it became an active Wikipedia in 2013, and has stayed so until date. There are currently 35, 351 articles on the Gurmukhi Punjabi Wikipedia, with a number of registered users on Punjabi Wikipedia at 36,348. [1]

One group of people has been proactively involved in Punjabi Wikipedia for a long time, which is the Punjabi Wikimedians User Group. Apart from this, a number of people from different parts of the world also contribute to Wikipedia. Punjabi Wikimedians got affiliation as a User Group from Wikimedia Foundation in November 2015. Punjabi Wikimedians was the first affiliated user group from India, and have been involved in several activities and initiatives undertaken towards content creation. They organized WikiConference India in 2016 at Chandigarh and their members have participated in various events and conferences. They have also collaborated with other institutions in order to encourage content creation on Punjabi Wikipedia, one example is the collaboration with Punjabi Sahitya Academy. Apart from Wikipedia, this user group is also active on Punjabi Wikisource, Punjabi Wiktionary, Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons. The first meeting of the Punjabi Wiki community was organized in Patiala on 1 February 2015. After that the community conducted various monthly meetups in different parts of the Punjab. People from the community also joined various training programs and events in different parts of India and participated in various conferences in other countries.

Research Objectives and Method

This study analyses various aspects of how content related to Punjab is created on Eastern Punjabi Wikipedia. This analysis would help in understanding the gap between what kind of content presently exists and what is needed, from the perspective of Punjabi language contributors and users. The objective of this study is to understand how much content related to Punjab exists on this Wikipedia at present; what is the nature of this content, what are challenges for content creation and possible strategies to address the same. There is a broader understanding that while content is being created proactively, there is still a need to analyse its quality and prevalent gaps if any, which would encourage more contributors and readers to actively engage with Punjabi Wikipedia.

The method for this study consisted of analysis of the existing content on Eastern Punjabi Wikipedia, and conversations with selected Wikimedians on their assessment of content on topics related to Punjab. The main topics for this study were articles related to the Punjab region, including culture, literature, and politics. To understand if there are specific challenges to the creation of content on these topics, interviews with a few selected long-time contributors and administrators were conducted, with an emphasis on aspects such as sourcing Punjabi language material, finding references, digitization, tagging etc.

The objective of this study was also to understand where these conversations (undertaken as part of the study) may offer strategies to address knowledge gaps in specific areas of work. Questions were prepared and a total of five interviews of Punjabi Wiki community members were conducted. The people interviewed were chosen on the basis of their involvement and experience of working in the community.

Observations and Analysis

There are an estimated 33 million Eastern Punjabi speakers in the world,[2] and it is a widely spoken language in India especially in Punjab state. Over 70% people have access to the internet in Punjab on the phone.[3] The main objective of this study was to understand the nature of existing content on Punjabi Wikipedia, and various challenges in content creation, coverage of topics and quality. The following were some of the main observations and learnings from the study.:

Challenges with Lack of Existing Content

The conversations with selected Wikimedia contributors and users offered an insight into what Punjabi readers and online contributors think about the content available on the internet in Punjabi language, and how Punjabi Wikipedia is impactful in this scenario, especially in addressing any gaps in this area. It was found during discussions with interviewees that there are less number of Punjabi language websites in the field of language, literature, politics, and general knowledge. Most of the websites are in English language. PunjabiPedia and Punjabi Wikipedia are encyclopedic websites which are providing knowledge in Gurmukhi script. Apart from this, websites like SikhiWiki are providing knowledge in the Roman script and Punjabi newspaper websites are providing their news updates in Gurmukhi script. So, Punjabi Wikipedia is one of the few available sites that offers information on a variety of topics in the local language. As a result, it may have a good viewership, but at the same time, there is also the additional problem of not having good or reliable online sources or references.

Another important point mentioned by people interviewed was that while there are 30,000+ articles on Punjabi Wikipedia and they are categorised across different topics, there is a lack of content about Punjab itself. It was suggested that, therefore, this should be an area of priority for the community to work on. Even the most viewed articles of Punjabi Wikipedia do not meet the good article criteria of Wikipedia. For example, the article of Harmandir Sahib on Punjabi Wikipedia has not been written according to good article criteria, as it too has no category and it is without proper sections.[4] There are not many references in most of the important articles. Another example is the article of the tenth Sikh Guru, Guru Gobind Singh, which has only 2 references.[5] Apart from this, articles about cities and villages of Punjab are mostly stub articles. The total number of villages in Punjab is about twelve thousand and a good number of the articles about these villages are available on Punjabi Wikipedia. They are too small and the need is to expand those articles. There are about 7,000+ articles in the stub category. So, such articles therefore need more work and improvement in terms of quality.

Methods of Creating New Content

Most of the content on Punjabi Wikipedia is about other countries or regions apart from Punjab or India. One of the reasons for this is that most of the editors are doing content translation, from existing content on English or other regional language Wikipedias into Punjabi Wikipedia. In order to fill the content gap about Punjab there should be content creation specifically on topics related to the state. Content translation tools, while helpful, have also contributed to the fact that people prefer translation and they use Google Translate in the content tool. The tool itself is accurate and works fine with Punjabi, but the issue is that most of the people are doing only translation, as it is the easiest way to contribute. Apart from the above, it was also noted by the interviewees that editathons about other countries or cultures, while useful, are not beneficial in the immediate context. Nitesh Gill [6] observes that there should be more discussion among the community members about upcoming events or editathons. She says: “Sometimes two or more events are going on in the same time period and the same contributors take part in those activities. It should be better that with cooperation we can have one event at one time. We will grow in a better way if we do something about this.”

There is less viewership of those articles which are related to other countries or cultures apart from India, for example the article of Constantine Peter Cavafy. But articles of importance from the perspective of region and culture are not edited for a long time, such as the article about Punjabi storywriter Maninder Kang, which is smaller than the article of Constantine Peter Cavafy. For example, Stalinjeet Brar [7] notes that: “The article of former chief minister of Punjab, Prakash Singh Badal on Punjabi Wikipedia is a relevant article. He is a remarkable personality of Punjab in the history of politics. He left his position in 2017 but the article still shows that he is chief minister of Punjab. This is our major mistake. We have to work on this aspect.” [8] He also added that the statistics of cricketers like Virat Kohli, are not updated. In this regard, we can integrate Wikidata with Wikipedia articles so one change on Wikidata can provide automatically updated data on Punjabi articles.

He also added that an assessment of existing events and initiatives, such as Project Tiger would be useful to understand the challenges and opportunities for content creation on Indian language Wikipedias The first Project Tiger editathon happened from 1 March to 31 May 2018 and the second Project Tiger event was organised from 10 October 2019 to 11 January 2020, which was named “Project Tiger 2.0”. Project Tiger coordinators can assess the number of views of those articles which were created during the event and therefore arrive at a potential strategy for our target audience. It is therefore useful to undertake such an analysis and evaluation at the end of big events.

Strategies for New Content Creation

It was observed that to fill this content gap about Punjab and its culture on Punjabi Wikipedia, the community needs to approach this topic accordingly. It was suggested by every interviewee that we have to organise an editathon to edit top viewed articles. To maintain continuity in this approach, community members should cooperate with each other. Charan Gill [9] noted that we should engage students and professors in different subjects to collaborate and work on these areas with editors. This will be helpful in producing good quality articles. The community needs to engage experts from different areas or fields. Manavpreet Kaur [10] suggests that we should focus on good article criteria when we go to a college or institution to teach students how to edit Wikipedia. For example, she notes that there were very few articles about forensic science when she joined Punjabi Wikipedia and existing content was two or three line articles. She tried to fill this gap and as a professor of forensic science, she engaged her students to edit Wikipedia content related to forensic science. So, we can have this kind of approach to fill the content gap on Punjabi Wikipedia. We should encourage colleges in Punjab and teachers to participate in this free knowledge movement. Wikimedia projects are platforms for Punjabi language community to provide knowledge in their own language. Manavpreet and Nitesh also note that there are less number of women participants in this movement. To fill the gender gap we should also focus on engaging women contributors. According to Manav, the Wikidata Game was interesting for her, and noted that especially for new editors these types of games and editing techniques are so valuable in order to engage the younger generations of editors with this movement.

Hardarshan [11] shared his view that to engage the new generation with Punjabi Wikipedia or the broader free knowledge movement we should also work on basic articles related to the technological world. For example, articles on computers and other devices , mobile games etc. He also notes that while Punjabi Wikipedia has articles on advanced topics, most of them are translated, and not new content. But it does not have basic articles of good quality to offer an appropriate understanding of the topic. There is also a problem of translating technical vocabulary into the Punjabi language, which can be addressed by engaging experts and scholars as part of editathons and other initiatives for content creation . This way, the energy and interests of volunteers may also be harnessed with the right methods. Key members from the community can assign articles to newcomers, so that will help in further content creation. Nitesh shared her observation that “I was a beginner type volunteer at one time and later on with experience I have organised various events within my community. So, we should encourage our team members or volunteers. They can be good organisers or leaders of this movement.”

To engage students, there should be more syllabus oriented content on Punjabi Wikipedia. To bring a change in the structure, Stalinjeet suggested that we should not blindly follow policies of other languages like English and French or policies of the Wikimedia Foundation in India. We need to rethink these policies in the context of the needs of the local languages. Prioritization of editathons is also necessary, including coordination and working collaboratively on when to participate in which event.

In addition to the above, it has been noticed that it is difficult for communities with a small number of members to contribute collaboratively, so it is imperative to slowly increase the number of contributors as well. There are various Wikimedia projects that volunteers can join or they can contribute to any project according to their interest. They are not limited only to Punjabi Wikipedia. A good number of people are also active on Punjabi Wikisource as well. The need of the hour therefore, is to engage new people with Wikipedia or with this movement to make good changes to the modes of access to knowledge in Indian languages. Experienced Wikimedians should share their learnings, apart from training that is required for advanced editing.

Conclusion

As illustrated by observations above, content creation on (Eastern) Punjabi Wikipedia faces a specific set of challenges. The people interviewed as part of this study have offered various suggestions on what can be done to address these limitations, and improve the quality of content. . Punjabi Wikipedia is an important source of information and knowledge for Punjabi internet readers due to the lack of websites providing content in the language. So, the responsibility of its reliability to provide such content in a sustainable manner is even greater. Work on creating more content on these platforms needs to be undertaken after understanding the response and ways of engagement of the readers. People today want to read less and learn more. Punjabi Wikipedia articles therefore need to be informative and include as many references as possible. A crucial gap here is also the lack of information on how to contribute to Punjabi Wikipedia in a productive and easy way. Good documentation of help pages and more frequent training would help in addressing this shortcoming as well.

In conclusion, the main strategy to address these knowledge gaps, as illustrated by the learnings from this study, is that we should update existing articles on Punjabi Wikipedia at priority, with a focus on expanding top viewed stub articles. A focus on quality of content is therefore more important than quantity. In addition to this, knowledge-sharing by experienced Wikipedians, diverse modes of training and engaging new contributors, and working on strategies for sustainable content creation would go a long way in addressing the content gaps on Punjabi Wikipedia.

Read this report on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki here.

References:

[1] Statistics as of 09 February 2020, 05:32 PM

[2] “Punjabi, Eastern,” Ethnologue, accessed February 9, 2021, https://www.ethnologue.com/language/pan.

[3] Roy, C. Vijay. “In Punjab, over 70% people access the internet on the phone” The Tribune India, May 2, 2019. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/business/in-punjab-over-70-people-access-internet-on-phone-766809. Accessed February 9, 2021.

[4] As of 04 March 2021 09:59 AM

[5] As of 04 March 2021 09:59 AM

[6] She is a research scholar from Moga, Punjab and pursuing her Ph.D from University of Delhi in Punjabi literature. She has been contributing on Punjabi Wikipedia from 2015. Her remarkable contribution on Punjabi Wikipedia is that she has completed 1000WikiDays challenge, which means one article every day. See: https://pa.wikipedia.org/wiki/ਵਰਤੋਂਕਾਰ:Nitesh_Gill

[7] Stalinjeet Brar is from Faridkot and has been contributing on Wikimedia projects since August 2014. He is doing his Ph.D in Punjabi language and his research topic is also a comparative study of Punjabi Wikipedia and PunjabiPedia. See: https://pa.wikipedia.org/wiki/ਵਰਤੋਂਕਾਰ:Stalinjeet_Brar

[8] As of 04 March 2021, 09:59 AM

[9] Charan Gill is an experienced volunteer, aged 76 years old. He has been contributing on Wikimedia projects since 2008 He is the top contributor from Punjabi Wiki Community with more than 59,000 edits on Eastern Punjabi Wikipedia.. See: https://pa.wikipedia.org/wiki/ਵਰਤੋਂਕਾਰ:Charan_Gill

[10] Manavpreet Kaur is from Forensic science field and completed her Phd in the same subject also. She engaged with Punjabi Wikipedia in 2014 and also as a volunteer she has completed 100WikiDays challenge and has done various forms of outreach for the community. See: https://pa.wikipedia.org/wiki/ਵਰਤੋਂਕਾਰ:Manavpreet_Kaur

[11] As a student of secondary school, Benipal hardarshan is one of the youngest Wikimedians from Punjabi Wiki community. He made his first edit in 2014 but is actively contributing from 2016. He is an active administrator on Punjabi WIkisource.. See: https://pa.wikipedia.org/wiki/ਵਰਤੋਂਕਾਰ:Benipal_hardarshan

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/content-creation-on-eastern-punjabi-wikipedia

Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012 — India Report

pranesh — 2012-08-16T10:23:36Z

Pranesh Prakash prepared the India Report for Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012. The report was published on the A2K Network website.

Summary

India's Copyright Act is a relatively balanced instrument that recognises the interests of consumers through its broad private use exception, and by facilitating the compulsory licensing of works that would otherwise be unavailable. However, the compulsory licensing provision have not been utilized so far, because of both a lack of knowledge and more importantly because of the stringent conditions attached to them. Currently, the Indian law is also a bit out of sync with general practices as the exceptions and limitations allowed for literary, artistic and musical works are often not available with sound recordings and cinematograph films. There are numerous other such inconsistencies. Positively retrogressive provisions, such as criminalisation of individual non-commercial infringement also exist. India's Copyright Act is a relatively balanced instrument that recognises the interests of consumers through its broad private use exception, and by facilitating the compulsory licensing of works that would otherwise be unavailable. However, the compulsory licensing provision have not been utilized so far, because of both a lack of knowledge and more importantly because of the stringent conditions attached to them. Currently, the Indian law is also a bit out of sync with general practices as the exceptions and limitations allowed for literary, artistic and musical works are often not available with sound recordings and cinematograph films. There are numerous other such inconsistencies. Positively retrogressive provisions, such as criminalisation of individual non-commercial infringement also exist.

It is unfortunate that the larger public interest in copyright-related issues are never foregrounded in India. For instance, the Standing Committee tasked with review of the Copyright Amendment Bill has held hearings without calling a single consumer rights organization, and without seeking any civil society engagement, except for the issue of access for persons with disabilities. This was despite a number of civil society organizations, including consumer rights organizations, sending in a written submission to the Standing Committee.

This lopsidedness in terms of policy influence is resulting in greater imbalance in the law, as evidenced by the government's capitulation to a handful of influential multinational book publishers on the question of allowing parallel importation of copyrighted works. Furthermore, pressure from the United States and the European Union, in the form of the Special 301 report and the India-EU free trade agreement that is being negotiated are leading to numerous negative changes being introduced into Indian law, despite us not having any legal obligation under any treaties. Such influence only works in one direction: to increase the rights granted to rightsholders, and has so far never included any increase in user rights.

It is true that copyright infringement, particularly in the form of physical media, is widespread in India. However this must be taken in the context that India, although fast-growing, remains one of the poorest countries in the world. Although India's knowledge and cultural productivity over the centuries and to the present day has been rich and prodigious, its citizens are economically disadvantaged as consumers of that same knowledge and culture. Indeed, most students, even in the so-called elite institutions, need to employ photocopying and other such means to be able to afford the requisite study materials. Visually impaired persons, for instance, have no option but to disobey the law that does not grant them equal access to copyrighted works. Legitimate operating systems (with the notable exception of most free and open source OSes) add a very high overhead to the purchase of cheap computers, thus driving users to pirated software. Thus, these phenomena need to be addressed not at the level of enforcement, but at the level of supply of affordable works.

Source URL: http://bit.ly/QEJf5l
Click to download the report [PDF, 201 Kb]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/consumers-international-ip-watchlist-report-2012

Consumers International IP Watchlist 2011 — India Report

pranesh — 2014-05-29T05:52:28Z

Pranesh Prakash prepared the India Report for the Consumers International IP Watchlist 2011. The report was published on the A2K Network website.

The report says:

While India has not acceded to the WIPO [23] Copyright Treaty or the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty, yet a set of amendments have been proposed which would bring the Indian law in compliance with both the WCT and the WPPT. These amendments would expose India's consumers to the same problems experienced in other jurisdictions which have prohibited the use of circumvention devices to gain access to legally-acquired copyright material. These amendments also propose a substantial increase in the copyright term for photographs (from 50 years to life plus 60 years), and a conditional increase of ten years for cinematograph films to 70 years if a special agreement is entered into by the producer with the director. It is true that copyright infringement, particularly in the form of physical media, is widespread in India. However this must be taken in the context that India, although fast-growing, remains one of the poorest countries in the world. Although India's knowledge and cultural productivity over the centuries and to the present day has been rich and prodigious, its citizens are economically disadvantaged as consumers of that same knowledge and culture. Indeed, most students, even in the so-called elite institutions, need to employ photocopying and other such means to be able to afford the requisite study materials. Physically challenged persons have no option but to disobey the law that does not grant them equal access to copyrighted works.

Legitimate operating systems (with the notable exception of most free and open source OSes) add a very high overhead to the purchase of cheap computers, thus driving users to pirated software. Thus, these phenomena need to be addressed not at the level of enforcement, but at the level of supply of affordable works in a suitable format.

Over the last year, the Standing Committee tasked with review of the Copyright Amendment Bill has held hearings and presented its findings and recommendations to the HRD Ministry. However, not a single consumer rights organization was called by the Standing Committee, and no civil society engagement was sought except for the issue of access for persons with disabilities. This was despite a number of civil society organizations sending in written submissions to the Standing Committee. The government is going to re-table the Bill in this session of Parliament (February-April).

Click to download the full report [PDF, 150 kb]
Read the report published by A2K Network here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ip-watch-list-2011

Consumers International Global Meeting 2012

praskrishna — 2012-04-03T07:54:56Z

Pranesh Prakash participated in the Consumers International Global Meeting held in Kuala Lumpur on March 8 and 9, 2012. He spoke on UN Consumer Guidelines. Robin Brown, Tobias Schönwetter and Guilherme Varella were the other speakers in the session.

Wednesday 7 March

6:45pm	Anwar Fazal speech on 50th anniversary of JFK Consumer Rights
7:00pm	Dinner hosted by FOMCA

Thursday 8 March

8:30am	Registration
9:00am	Welcome (Helen McCallum)
9:30am	Introduction and overview (Jeremy Malcolm)
10:00am	Introduction to Digital Personal Property (Paul Sweazey)
11:00am	Break
11:30am	UN Consumer Guidelines (Robin Brown, Tobias Schönwetter, Pranesh Prakash, Guilherme Varella)
1:00pm	Lunch
2:00pm	Consumer Protection and IP Abuse Prevention under the WTO Framework (George Tian)
3:00pm	Internet governance and consumers (Peng Hwa Ang)
4:00pm	Break
4:30pm	Public Interest Representation in the Information Society (Norbert Bollow)
5:30pm	Consumers in the information society (Jeremy Malcolm)
6:30pm	Break
7:30pm	Cultural and culinary outing to pasar malam

Friday 9 March

8:30am	Registration
9:00am	M-Lab (Lih Shiun Goh from Google Singapore)
10:00am	Internet and human rights (Alan Finlay from Association for Progressive Communications)
11:00am	Break
11:30am	Global consumer survey on broadband (Jeremy Malcolm, Veridiana Alimonti, Elise Davidson, Marzena Kisielowska-Lipman)
1:00pm	Lunch
2:00pm	Cyber-security concerns for consumers and businesses (Raj Kumar, IMPACT)
3:00pm	Broadband nutrition label (Benjamin Lennett, New America Foundation)
4:00pm	Break
4:30pm	Reporting back – open time for member presentations
6.00 pm	Close

Abstracts and biographies

United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection

This paper provides background to the proposed amendments to update the United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection for the digital age. A soft-law instrument, the Guidelines provide an influential standard for the dissemination of good practices in consumer protection, as a mechanism to foster and promote social and economic development. They outline eight areas for developing policies for consumer protection, which are reflected by the eight consumer rights declared by the global consumer movement: rights to satisfaction of basic needs, safety, choice, information, consumer education, redress, representation and a health environment.

The paper outlines the current global regime of public policy developmment and regualtion relating to access to knowledge. Indicating that many of the issues of concern in terms of access to knowledge are essentially consumer issues it argues that amendments to the Guidelines would form the basis for progress. The paper then details the proposed amendments explaining the basis for each one.

Joining Robin Brown on the panel will be representatives from our research partners in India, Brazil and South Africa who will be contributing to our research on the Guidelines.

Robin Brown has 25 years of experience in consumer and business regulatory affairs. He spent 10 years as the chair and chief executive of Australia’s national consumer body, the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. Robin has been involved in projects to advance consumer protection and competition policy and regulation in a number of developing countries. In recent years Robin has served as a Councilor of the Australian Consumers’ Association. He holds a BA and a Master of Public Policy from the Australian National University.

Pranesh Prakash is Programme Manager at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. He is a graduate with a degree in Arts and Law from National Law School, Bangalore, with a keen interest in the law, economics, and culture of intellectual property rights. He helped found the Indian Journal of Law and Technology, and was part of its editorial board for two years. He is most interested in interdisciplinary research on IP and property law, freedom of speech, and privacy. He has worked with practising lawyers, civil society organizations, and law firms.

Tobias Schönwetter is a Senior Manager within PricewaterhouseCoopers' South African practice performing legal advisory services specifically relating to innovation, technology and intellectual property (copyright and trademarks). Tobias has studied and practised law in Germany, the US and South Africa and he has led the copyright division at UCT's Intellectual Property Law and Policy Research Unit for several years. His international experience, together with his leadership roles in a number of intellectual property-related projects and research collaborations such as the African Copyright and Access to Knowledge (ACA2K) project and the Open AIR (African Innovation Research and Training) project, has secured his place as an industry expert within the intellectual property and technology sector.

Guilherme Varella is a lawyer at Idec (Brazilian Institute for Consumer Defense) in telecomunications, Internet and access to knowledge and Master's student in public policies of culture in the Law School of Universidade de São Paulo (University of São Paulo - USP).

The event was sponsored by the Ford Foundation, the Open Society Institute and IDRC/CRDI. For more information, see here on the Access to Knowledge website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/consumers-international-meeting-2012

Consultation on Institutional Arrangements for IP managment under MHRD

praskrishna — 2014-03-12T13:17:00Z

Planning Commission and MHRD jointly are having consultations to design institutional arrangements for IP management under the MHRD between 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. on February 21, 2014 at IIC (Annexe), New Delhi 9 Lecture Hall No. 1).

Nehaa Chaudhari participated in this consultation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/consultation-institutional-arrangements-ip-management-mhrd

Consilience 2018

Admin — 2018-05-12T02:04:39Z

National Law School of India University, Bangalore organized The Future of Blockchain Technology: Evolving a Framework for its Adoption and Regulation in India on May 5, 2018. Swaraj Barooah panel on "e-Governance and Public Service Delivery using Blockchain Technology" at Consilience 2018.

Click to view the agenda
Keynote speaker profile here
Session 1 speaker profile here
Session 2 speaker profile here
Session 3 speaker profile here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/consilience-2018

Consilience 2010 Report

praskrishna — 2011-08-22T13:25:25Z

A report of the proceedings

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/consilience-2010

Connecting the Next Two Billion: The Role of FOSS

praskrishna — 2014-09-10T05:04:58Z

Sunil Abraham was a speaker at this event organized by ICFOSS at the APrIGF in Noida on August 4, 2014.

Specific Issues of Discussions & Description

Connecting the next two billion users on the Internet poses unique challenges that must be addressed. The next two billion users will have very different profiles as compared to the first billion in terms of factors such as geography, demography, gender, disability, technology access, language access, and connectivity devices. In addition, with the coming of the Internet of Things, the users of the Internet may also include devices, sensors and sensor networks. Further, the context of the Internet itself may be changing, particularly in relation to efforts by various State and non-State actors to restrict freedom of access to the Internet and freedom of expression on it.Free & Open Source Software (FOSS) has now assumed greater significance in the light of revelations related to arbitrary surveillance conducted by states. This issue highlights the need to use audited technology and infrastructure to prevent the wanton violation of privacy of citizens. FOSS can be used to build shared community infrastructure that will protect users from privacy abuses. As most of the online applications run on top of free software, there is also a need for greater collaboration between the industry and free software community to ensure security and robustness of software to prevent incidents like the heartbleed bug vulnerabilities. As the next two billion comes online, FOSS assumes great significance for building a safe and secure Internet and robust communication platforms.The panel will discuss the following issues:• Relevance of FOSS as an access enabler and source of robust, cost-effective andfreedom-preserving software• The importance of FOSS in preventing arbitrary surveillance• Co-operation among businesses and free software community to develop secure.

Building community communication infrastructure using FOSS to restrict the dependence on centralised services.

Moderator and Speakers

Moderator: Ms. Mishi Choudhary, Executive Director, SFLC.IN, New Delhi
Dr. Rahul De, IIM Bangalore (Remote)
Dr. G. Nagarjuna, Free Software Foundation of India (Remote)
Mr. Prasanth Sugathan, Counsel, SFLC.in
Mr. Satish Babu, Director, ICFOSS
Mr. Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Mr. S. Ramakrishnan, Media Lab Asia/Govt. of India

Workshop Organizer

This workshop will be jointly organised by International Centre For Free and Open Source Software (ICFOSS), an autonomous institution under the Government of Keralamandated with the objectives of co-ordinating FOSS initiatives within Kerala, as well as linking up with FOSS initiatives in other parts of the world and SFLC.IN, a donor supported legal services organisation that works to protect freedom in the digital world.The details of the contact person for the workshop is given below:Name: Mr.Satish BabuDesignation: DirectorOrganisation: International Center for Free and Open Source Software (IC-FOSS).

For more details see the APrIGF website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/apr-igf-delhi-2014-connecting-the-next-two-billion-the-role-of-foss

Conflict of interest cloud over CCI chief

praskrishna — 2015-08-23T16:27:14Z

The chairperson of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and three of the six commission members are participating in a conference organised by Assocham and sponsored by private companies like Ericsson, trade associations and two legal firms specialising in intellectual property cases. This, civil society organisations argue, raises issues of conflict of interest in a quasi-judicial body like CCI participating in a conference organised by private parties that have cases before the commission.

The article by Rema Nagarajan was published in the Times of India on August 7, 2015.

For instance, the event partner Ericsson is facing CCI investigations on matters related to standard essential patents (SEPs), one of the conference topics, and issues related to licensing of technologies on fair and equitable terms.

The vice president and head of the legal section of Ericsson also has a speaking slot in the inaugural event. The brochure clearly states that the event partner on payment of Rs 5 lakh gets several privileges including a speaker's slot in the inaugural and business sections.

Several civil society organisations including Alternative Law Forum, Centre for Internet and Society and IT for Change from Bangalore, Knowledge Commons Collective, National Working Group on Patent Laws, and Software Freedom Law Centre from Delhi have written to the CCI protesting against its participation in the conference.

In their letter to CCI chairperson Ashok Chawla, they pointed out that the day-long conference titled Interface between Intellectual property (IP) and Competition Law, being held in a five star hotel on August 7, was focusing on issues being adjudicated by CCI. While Chawla is listed in the brochure as giving the inaugural address, CCI members GP Mittal and MS Sahoo are chairing two technical sessions and a third member SL Bunker is giving a special address at the valedictory function.

Other speakers include Rajiv Aggarwal, Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, representatives of Google, Intel, Microsoft, the UK IP Office, senior advocates from three Indian law firms specialising in IP and representatives of international law firms and consultancy firms.

"It is a well-set precedent that judicial and quasi-judicial bodies never directly or indirectly discuss matters pending before them. The conference is centred on discussing issues that are currently under the investigation of CCI along with commercial entities, including one which is facing the investigation," stated the letter adding that all the judicial or quasi-judicial bodies were expected to avoid not only actual conflict of interest but also perceived conflict of interest.

The civil society signatories pointed out that the event was not an academic event but a commercial one organised by a chamber of commerce along with the industry with clear commercial objectives. "The participation of CCI in the event would compromise the credibility and independence of CCI. Therefore, CCI as a guardian of public interest should not be subject to the lobbying efforts of IP owners. Providing privileged access to lobbying efforts of private enterprises like Ericsson, Qualcomm, Microsoft and Intel would cast a dark shadow on the neutrality of CCI," stated the letter requesting Chawla not to participate in the conference and to direct CCI members and CCI staff involved in investigations to avoid participation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/the-times-of-india-august-7-2015-rema-nagarajan-conflict-of-interest-cloud-over-cci-chief

Conference on Standards Settings Organizations (SSO) and FRAND, NLSIU

rohini — 2016-04-02T18:12:41Z

Rohini Lakshané attended the Conference on Standards Settings Organizations (SSO) and FRAND held at NLSIU, Bengaluru on March 21 and 22, 2015. It was organised by the MHRD Chair on Intellectual Property Rights, Centre for Intellectual Property Rights and Advocacy (CIPRA), National Law School of India University, Bengaluru in association with Intel Technology India. This post is a compilation of notes from the conference.

Programme Schedule

Significant Takeaways
It is anti-competitive to seek to exclude competitors from the market by seeking injunctions on the basis of SEPs, if the licensee is willing to take a license on FRAND terms. In these circumstances, the seeking of injunctions can distort licensing negotiations and lead to unfair licensing terms, with a negative impact on consumer choice and prices. -- EU Competition Policy Brief, Issue 8, June 2014. This is a very important issue for India as it thinks about how it can attract foreign investments. India has a unique opportunity to learn from these lessons from around the globe and craft India-specific solutions. India has the intellectual capability and the institutions capable of crafting these solutions, and in doing that we can support Make In India. India needs to be mindful about what is happening in the [South Asian] region. China has moved aggressively to try to curb FRAND abuse. The People's Court in China ruled in Huawei vs. InterDigital that for 2G, 3G, and 4G patents, the license fees of royalties should not exceed 0.019% of the actual sale price. Apple also stated that Ericsson was calculating royalties on the sale price of the iPhone or iPad, whereas the royalty should be calculated on the value of the baseband chip that runs this technology in the mobile device. If such litigation occurs in India, what would be India's position? If a building block contains the technology pertaining to a patent, then royalty should be calculated on the smallest possible patent practising unit and not the entire product. The government of India has adopted a royalty free (RF) approach to licensing open standards. Non-essential claims are excluded from disclosure. Pending patent applications are not. Only 16% patents declared as SEPs are actually SEPs, according to a study. The Delhi High Court has passed interim orders restraining the CCI from deciding these cases. Our appeal to the courts is that these patent infringement lawsuits should not be viewed in isolation. They should not be viewed as merely contractual issues between the licensor and the licensee. They should be seen in the context of their economic effects and their adverse effect on competition. The CCI should be enabled to deal with such cases. Matheson: The phrase "compulsory license" sends a shiver down every corporate's spine every time it is used. International experience is that the judicial system has been the only forum where we have been able to have due process to enable us to construct cases properly in order to explain to the judge or to the jurors how the system works. That has produced very sensible solutions to this problem. Handing it off to the government to institute a compulsory license wouldn't be fair to the SEP holders.

SSOs and FRAND: Licensing issues

John Matheson, Director of Legal Policy (Asia Pacific), Intel

The role of licensing policy

Ensuring market access
Standards often depend on patented technology, which is accessed through the Promise to License on FRAND terms.
It is equally critical to ensure that standards can be implemented without unfair legal games.
It is essential to prevent patent hold-up.
Reasonable compensation

Patent holders remain entitled to fair compensation and benefit from the proliferation of their technologies via standardisation.

Why FRAND?

A FRAND commitment embodies certain fundamental principles that have been recognised widely by the courts and regulators.

The fundamental purpose of a FRAND commitment is widespread adoption of the standard.

Because of the peculiar nature of SEPs, the process is open to abuse.

A FRAND commitment is aimed at preventing patent holders from exploiting a hold-up value and extracting unreasonable royalties and concessions that could otherwise follow from being in a very unique position. Often, the holders of the IP have a single solution to an interoperability or connectivity conundrum that technology is facing.

Why are SEP license negotiations different from Non-SEP ones?

In the context of non-SEPs, one may be negotiating to obtain a license to a patent for a particular feature. If the licensor is being difficult, one can discard the feature to include something else. In a competitive market, this negotiation is focused on the value of the invention to be licensed. Thus one can redesign to avoid a particular claim and, in turn, avoid injunction.

On the other hand, it is necessary to either obtain a license for or infringe an SEP to manufacture the mobile device. There is no workable alternative or workaround to obtaining a license for the desired technology. With the threat of an injunction looming over the negotiations, the prospective licensee is under pressure to obtain a license. So the market negotiations for SEPs and non-SEPs are very different. One-way negotiations raise the possibility of a patent hold-up, and abuse of the standard implementer.

IP policies inevitably involve compromise.

Common areas of misunderstanding include:

Valuations or meaning of "reasonable". Valuations of IP under consideration.
Injunctive relief or exclusion orders
Discrimination or refusal to license
Patent transfer (It requires a continuation of the FRAND commitment, and shouldn't get differential treatment in the IP policy.)

Competition authorities in the US and EU have asked SSOs to reconsider policies to reduce ambiguity in the context of these areas of misunderstanding.

The ex-ante or the incremental value of the SEPs before the standard is set needs to be understood. The SSOs look at several different ways to solve a connectivity problem. The patent owners bring their patents into the standards body and claim that theirs is the best way to solve that problem. The market and consumers want an uncomplicated solution which works and is as cheap as possible. In many cases, there is one single winner, simply because we need one solution. In exchange for being the winner, the FRAND discipline is quid pro quo.

European Commission's response to two different patent lawsuits:

In the Samsung and Motorola cases, the Commission clarifies that in the standardisation context where the SEP holders have committed to:

License their SEPs
Do so on FRAND terms

It is anti-competitive to seek to exclude competitors from the market by seeking injunctions on the basis of SEPs, if the licensee is willing to take a license on FRAND terms.

In other words, if there is a bona fide commitment on the part of the licensee to agree to that test, then it is anti-competitive to seek an injunction.

In these circumstances, the seeking of injunctions can distort licensing negotiations and lead to unfair licensing terms, with a negative impact on consumer choice and prices. -- EU Competition Policy Brief, Issue 8, June 2014.

Anyone who needs access to connectivity or needs interoperability requires to get a SEP license, and if that license is required to be obtained within a time limit, it almost -- by definition -- is not going to work. Patent licenses take years to negotiate, and they're incredibly complex. For example, a patent policy may offer up to 12 months to agree on a license, but that is not the way the market works. So we cannot expect policies that put forth time limits to work in the SEP arena. What we can expect is that the implementers make a bona fide commitment to seek a license.

Motorola vs. Microsoft, Germany:

Motorola sought injunctive relief against Microsoft in Germany. Microsoft moved its distribution centre from Germany to the Netherlands. This resulted in loss of jobs, relocation costs ($11.6 million), and annual increased operating costs of $5 million for Microsoft.

Samsung vs. Apple, Germany

Similarly, on the basis of one patent, a temporary injunction was granted on the sale of the Apple iPad and iPhone. Apple was forced to agree to terms it didn't want to agree to, so that the sale of its products would resume.

This is a very important issue for India as it thinks about how it can attract foreign investments. India has a unique opportunity to learn from these lessons from around the globe and craft India-specific solutions. India has the intellectual capability and the institutions capable of crafting these solutions, and in doing that we can support Make In India.

SEP holders that make FRAND commitments should not be allowed to obtain injunctions against alleged infringers, except in limited circumstances. This formula has been adopted by the IEEE, which has solved this problem. India has the opportunity to leapfrog a lot of patent litigation by adopting the IEEE test.

Learn from what happened with Microsoft in Germany. What kind of message do you want to send to the foreign community about investing in India? Do you want to use the scare tactics of injunctions or do you want to adopt a policy that will avoid litigation?

India needs to be mindful about what is happening in the [South Asian] region. China has moved aggressively to try to curb FRAND abuse. The People's Court in China ruled in Huawei vs. InterDigital that for 2G, 3G, and 4G patents, the license fees of royalties should not exceed 0.019% of the actual sale price.

Reasonable Compensation Considerations

Royalty based on the smallest unit that practices the standard.
Technical value of patented technologies vs. alternatives.
Overall royalty that could reasonably charged for all SEPs.

Non-discrimination

A commitment to license every implementer of the relevant standard.

Transfer

FRAND commitments follow the transfer of a patent to subsequent proprietors.

Dr. Krishna Sirohi, Impact Innovator, GISFI, President, I2TB

As per the Make in India programme, we have to achieve zero imports by 2020. Product development in India by Indian companies will happen with collaborative research and development and IPR sharing through licenses. We are looking at national capacity building through product development and patent uses.

Global Information and Communication Technology Forum for India (GISFI) is a standards setting body involved with standardisation and research. It is a telecommunications standards development body (TSDO) set up with the approval of the DoT. It has peer relationships with ITU, OMA, TTC and a bunch of other SDOs. Internet of Things (IoT), mobility and security are its three major research programmes.

GISFI is working towards defining 5G in India. The 5G standardisation theme in India is called WISDOM (Wireless Innovative System for Dynamic Operating Mega Communications). GISFI is considering the perspective of the Indian user, the network capability, the network architecture, network development and the Indian revenue model, strategic and special purpose networks, inclusive growth, and network security.

However, some India-specific aspects such as illiteracy and lack of basic civic infrastructure need to be considered in the standardisation process.

GISFI plans and stages for 5G definition and adoption

Stage 1 (2014-2018): National agenda for strategic research, innovation and experimentation

Focus on Digital India and Make in India programmes.

Stage 2 (2016-2019): Standardisation

Stage 3 (2017-2021): Product Development

Stage 4 (2019-2023): Early Development

Technical understanding required for IPR issues

Enhancement applicable to general scenarios
- Traffic capacity
- Cell coverage
- Edge cell performance
- Intercell interference
- Network congestion
- Mobility
- Energy consumption
Enhancements targeting new use cases
- machine-type communication
- national security
- public safety services
Carrier aggregation
- Higher throughput owing to intra and inter-band transmission bandwidth of more than 20 MHz.
- Reduced network congestion owing to load-balancing across multiple carriers.
- Improvement in mobility and reduction in inter-cell interference.
Enhanced MIMO
- Improved spatial diversity and multiplexing
- Improved beam-forming
- Multiple access with multi-antenna transmission
Coordinated Multi-Point Operation (CoMP)
- Reduction in intercell interference owing to coordinated scheduling or beamforming (CS/CB)
- Transmission from multiple distribution points (base stations, RRH) in a coordinated way (Dynamic point selection, and Joint transmission)

What do SSOs handle IPR in different parts of the world and what are the issues they face?

GISFI has adopted ITU's IPR policy.

In SSOs, the FRAND principle works well only when participating entities have equal or almost equal IPR clout, and can reciprocate with their own patents every time other entities share their patents. It is difficult to create a balance between entities that only own IPR and those that only consume IPR.

Most of the members of SSOs are IPR owners. The entities that develop [technological] solutions without owning the IPRs are usually not a part of SSOs. However, additional strategies need to be implemented for realising the "Make in India" goal. The goal of zero imports by 2020 can only be achieved if a large number of small companies use these standards to develop products locally. So small manufacturers should be represented even at the highest levels of the standards development body. An IPR policy should be defined/ modified to factor in these needs.

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared by ETSI

Cyber Creative Institute, June 2013: http://www.cybersoken.com/research/pdf/lte03EN.pdf

A large number of LTE patents are held by a handful of companies. There is no Indian owner of any LTE SEP.

Ericsson sued Apple in the US over infringement of its LTE patents. As of January 2015, Apple countersued Ericsson in a federal court in California and claimed that it did not owe any royalties to the latter.

Apple also stated that Ericsson was calculating royalties on the sale price of the iPhone or iPad, whereas the royalty should be calculated on the value of the baseband chip that runs this technology in the mobile device. If such litigation occurs in India, what would be India's position? If a building block contains the technology pertaining to a patent, then royalty should be calculated on the smallest possible patent practising unit and not the entire product.

Dr. Kumar N. Shivarajan, CTO, Tejas Networks

TSDSI's (Telecommunications Standards Development Society of India) IPR policy states that a member's technology will become a part of a standard as long as the member licenses it on FRAND terms to other members.

By 2017, 70% of the global equipment spend will be on LTE.
TD-LTE subscriber base in India has been projected to reach 67 million by 2017.
Most of the data connections in India are still on 2.5G.
Smartphones have become affordable but 3G continues to languish in India; 4G yet to take off.
The number of 3G connections in India grew from 30 million to 33 million from 2013 to 2014.

Is 5G the answer to India's access problems?

The mobile industry is aiming to go beyond traditional 4G LTE in 2015 and there is increasing focus on adding new bells and whistles to 4G and realise 4G+.

LTE Licensed-assisted access (formerly LTE-Unlicensed)
LTE Direct/ Peer-to-peer
LTE-M for machine to machine communication
CoMP

Countries forming 5G groups to take an early lead:

China: IMT-2020 (5G) Promotion Group
Korea: 5G Forum
EU: 5G Public Private Partnership (5G-PPP)

5G in its current form is souped-up 4G.

Key India-specific requirements for 5G standard development

5G must factor in the Indian requirement for DSL-like connectivity: Always ON, low latency, affordable cost
To minimise costs, 5G must minimise the use of BTS sites and focus on spectral efficiency.
5G should allow virtual network operations enabling multiple operators to use the same physical network infrastructure.
5G must work well in Indian propagation environments: concrete buildings blocking signals, dense barriers.
5G infrastructure should be green as electricity shortfall is a problem. India has 400,000 cell towers. 10% of them are not connected to the electricity grid. More than 70% experience power outages longer than 8 hours per day, and work on diesel-powered generators. As a result, 25% of the operational costs of telcos are their energy bills. India imports 3 billion litres of diesel annually to run these cell sites.

India can try to get a headstart in owning the IPR that would eventually go into the 5G standard.

Prof. Ramakrishna, MHRD Chair, NLSIU, Bengaluru

The attitude of an SSO towards patented technology determines the objective of its IPR policy. For example, an SSO may want to:

Promote widespread implementation of a standard without unnecessary IPR implications.
Ensure transparency and certainty about the declaration of patents and patents' claims as SEPs.
Ensure that every patented technology is available at a reasonable fee, comparable to the value of the technology.

What happens when IP ownership is transferred to another owner? It continues to be a part of the SSO but things get complicated.

New owners, third parties, subsidiaries, and affiliates fall under the purview of the IPR policy, by extension.

IP and Disclosure policies of Indian SDOs

BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) and TEC (Telecommunication Engineering Centre) do not have IP policies of their own. TEC refers to the ISO/IEC IP policies wherever the technology is equivalent or the same.
GISFI disclosure requirement: Each member is required to inform GISFI in a timely manner of essential IPRs. But members are not under any obligation to conduct IP searches. GISFI's IPR policy is based on that of ETSI.
DOSTI (Development Organization of Standards for Telecommunications in India) is not functional.

IPR policy for open standards in e-governance

The government of India has adopted a royalty free (RF) approach to licensing open standards.

Mandatory Characteristics of Open Standards:

The patent claims necessary to implement the standard should be made available royalty free for the lifetime of the standard.
The standard shall be adapted and maintained by a not-for-profit organisation.
The standard shall have a technology-neutral specification.

The RF approach and the maintenance by a non-profit may be a disincentive for IP owners.

IEEE patent policy:

IEEE invites participants to disclose patent claims essential to a standard under development. Upon disclosure, the patent holder needs to submit a letter of assurance that states:

License(s) will be made available without compensation or at a RAND rate.
A commitment to enforce the essential patent claims against any entity complying with the standard.
Or state its unwillingness or inability to license its essential patent claims.

Common patent policy for ITU-T/ ITU-R/ ISO/ IEC

Recommendations/ deliverables are non-binding -- ensure compatibility of technologies and systems on a worldwide basis.

The "code of practice":

It is desirable that the fullest available information should be disclosed although ITU, ISO or IEC are unable to verify the validity of any such information.

Major types of IPR policies:

Participation-based IPR policies

These are common in small, informal bodies such as consortia.
Members are bound by the terms of membership to commit to licensing SEPs on RAND or RF terms.
SEP holders notify the standards body in case RAND or RF licenses are not available after the draft standard has been published.

Commitment-based IPR policies
- These are commonly followed large, standards setting bodies.
- These bodies identify SEPs to a draft standard through disclosure and submission of licensing commitment.
- Parties may seek alternative solutions or work on a withdrawn standard is the the alternative solutions don't work out.

Basic building blocks of commitment-based IPR policies

Disclosure policies:

Disclosure is important for
- sending requests to SEP holders to make licensing commitments
- ensuring that experts' groups make informed decisions on inclusion of patented technologies
- providing information to prospective standards implementers about the SEP owners

Two forms of disclosure:

A call for patents is made at the start of meetings. This is more informational than binding.
Later, the member states its intentions regarding licensing the patent on RAND terms.

How disclosure obligations arise (and commitments are binding):

IEEE has by-laws that are binding on members.
ITU, IEC, and ISO: It is via a resolution or recommendation.

(Indicative list)

General disclosure procedure:

The nature of disclosure rules concerning self-owned patents depends on the status or the role of the entity.

A "submitter" is a participant in the working group making a conscious decision to submit its technology to the SSO for a license or free of royalty.
A participant in a working group may submit its technology to the SSO free of royalty, on RAND terms, on RAND terms with the right to charge a fee, or with a refusal to license it. (A working group participant who discloses technology is usually a technology expert. When someone who does not have adequate knowledge of patents discloses technology, it has complicated implications.)
A non-working group participant (third-party) may also submit its technology.

ANSI has left it to the accredited SSO to decide the terms of disclosure for participants of working groups. It has not laid out a policy in this regard. Other organisations have laid out obligations on the submitter to disclose SEPs.

Nature of disclosure terms for patents owned by third-parties:

ETSI: It is obligatory.

ITU/ ISO: Obligatory only for participants of the working groups.

IEEE: Entirely voluntary

Non-essential claims are excluded from disclosure. Pending patent applications are not.

Working groups prefer early disclosure so that they may adopt or discard the claim as early as possible in the standard setting process.

ITU: Disclosure from the outset

IEEE: During meetings of the working group

ETSI: "Timely manner"

AFSI: At a sufficiently mature level

There is no mandate for updating the disclosure in case a standard evolves.

Most SSOs make disclosed patents public. Failure to disclose patents may result in accusations of abuse of monopoly or anti-trust/ anti-competitive activities.

It is difficult to identify all potentially essential patents due to the complexity of specifications.

Some SSOs don't require IP disclosure at all. The obligations to license on FRAND terms would be sufficient.

Only 16% patents declared as SEPs are actually SEPs, according to a study.

It makes sense for rightsholders to go for blanket disclosures instead of disclosure of specific patents.

Vinod Dhall, ex-chairperson of the Competition Commission of India (CCI):

Our competition law is new, so there aren't any cases pertaining to patent litigation and involving the competition law, which we can treat as precedents. In one of the mobile phone patent litigation cases in India, the implementer has approached the CCI claiming that the licensor has been abusing its dominant position in the market by charging unreasonable royalties.

The Delhi High Court has passed interim orders restraining the CCI from deciding these cases. Our appeal to the courts is that these patent infringement lawsuits should not be viewed in isolation. They should not be viewed as merely contractual issues between the licensor and the licensee. They should be seen in the context of their economic effects and their adverse effect on competition. The CCI should be enabled to deal with such cases.

Questions-answers round:

What are the criteria for declaring a patent an SEP?

T. Ramakrishnan: SSOs have no role in declaring that a patent is an SEP. The SEP holder declares that their patent is essential to a technical standard. Most of the time, the SEP may turn out to be a non-SEP at a later stage. Statistically, 16 out 100 claimed SEPs are actually SEPs. There is no way for SSOs to tell if a patent is an SEP. IP policies of most SSOs state that they don't search [if a patent is an SEP]. The members of SSOs are under no obligation to search.

The commitment to license an SEP on FRAND terms is more important to an SSO [than determining if the patent is indeed an SEP].

Can compulsory licensing be implemented with government intervention in India so that the Central Government can fix a royalty and put an end to patent litigation?

Matheson: The phrase "compulsory license" sends a shiver down every corporate's spine every time it is used. International experience is that the judicial system has been the only forum where we have been able to have due process to enable us to construct cases properly in order to explain to the judge or to the jurors how the system works. That has produced very sensible solutions to this problem. Handing it off to the government to institute a compulsory license wouldn't be fair to the SEP holders.

With respect to the "safe harbour" approach towards SEP-based injunctions, what does the licensee need to do to prove to the courts that it is a willing licensee, in the event that licensing negotiations fail or take a long time?

Matheson: It gets down to the licensee showing its willingness to negotiate. The licensee cannot make a half-hearted attempt and decline to negotiate or decline the licensor's offer and then disappear. They should physically engage in the negotiation. If and when it gets to a judicial environment, the judges know when people are telling stories and when parties are bona fide. They can tell a ruse when they see one, and I think it is one of the things you observe in practice.

Ramakrishnan: The licensee should be able to demonstrate that it is willing to pay the royalty and should deposit an amount towards royalty. One recommendation from AIPP states that instead of using the terms "willing licensee" and "willing licensor", use "good faith response". For "good faith" we have very well established criteria. The entire licensing process should end within 12 months of starting. If the negotiations fail or if the process takes longer, then they should agree upon an arbitrator to fix FRAND terms. These are indicators that demonstrate the licensee being a "willing licensee" or a "good faith" licensee.

Often technology changes before the legal action can be taken or the lawsuit completed, and the patent over which litigation has happened may no longer be relevant to the technology. How do patent holders deal with this situation?

S.K. Murthy, Research Scholar, NLSIU: Even if the technology becomes obsolete, damages can be claimed retrospectively.

Matheson: You have a commitment to a FRAND solution, so that when you enter the protracted negotiation, you know that at the end of it you will get a fair solution. That's not always the case when you are dealing outside the FRAND world. You're dealing with a FRAND incumbent, not with unlicensed patents.

Why is putting a time limit to negotiations not a good idea? Also, IEEE seems to have done well by taking the threat of negotiations out of its way. Is it practical in India, because injunction is still the most potent weapon to protect intellectual property rights in India currently?

Matheson: Licensing is incredibly complex. There can be claims to the validity of the patent, there are claim charts to be drawn, there is expert evidence to be put together. Litigation over patents can take 2 to 3 years. To say that there must be a solution [arrived at] within a smaller framework gives the licensor the opportunity to wait around till the end of that period and assert its patents through an injunction. If you're leaving injunction at the table, you will not have a fair solution. The licensee will always be at a major disadvantage. The IEEE solution is a good one because it has taken the time limit away, but at the same time the policies that would adopt that solution need to include the discipline to ensure that the negotiations are bona fide.

What percentage of the sale price should be provisioned by a product developer for royalties? Can a mechanism be drawn up for this purpose?

Justice Ratnakala: Definitely. Such a mechanism should be drawn up in the near future.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/conference-on-standards-settings-organizations-sso-and-frand-nlsiu