Centre for Internet and Society

Open Access Week Round-Up

praskrishna — 2015-12-15T08:21:01Z

Here is a round-up of events held at the University of Otago over Open Access Week. Subhashish Panigrahi made a presentation for the staff members of libraries across New Zealand. The event was organised by the University of Otago.

From 3-4pm Subhashish Panigrahi [@subhapa], based in Bangalore, described the concept of How to do Guerrilla GLAM. Given the emergence of Wikipedian in Residence projects overseas and at particular institutions in NZ (see a recent panel at NDF 2015), we were intrigued by what he had to say.

It was an interesting session which generated much discussion. For those of us in NZ where we are fortunate to have institutions where there is a relatively high rate of access to collections – I’m thinking even at the library catalogue level – the thought that guerrilla activity may be necessary to surface collection items without the intervention of institution staffers may be surprising and possibly confronting! Subhashish did stress this guerrilla activity in no way violates copyright or licencing agreements, but seeks to make cultural items in GLAMs openly available to the public, where possible by partnering with institutions. The fact that many institutions do not have the resources to digitize cultural items, he posits, leaves the door open for guerrilla activity by skilled volunteers.

One participant in the session succinctly described Guerrilla GLAM as being self-authorizing activity vs institutional authorizing activity. I understand this to mean that rather than institutions engaging their own staff or volunteers, or crowd sourcing new volunteers to digitise their content, the Guerilla GLAMers come to them. There may well be communities in NZ or small GLAMs that have no digital record of their collections. Communities and institutions in this situation may well find it helpful to engage some interested Guerrilla GLAMers to help them out.

The webinar links and chat are available here connect.otago.ac.nz/p4j21g554ny/
The slides are also available separately here http://slides.com/psubhashish/how-to-do-guerrilla-glam/fullscreen#/

Click to read the blog post published by the University of Otago.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/open-otago-october-27-2015-open-access-week-round-up

Workshop on Digital Annotation and Content Generation with research scholars in Pune

garule — 2015-12-31T07:17:02Z

The Centre for Indian Languages in Higher Education (CILHE) is conducting a two-day workshop on Digital Annotation and Content Generation with research scholars at KSP Women’s Studies Centre, Pune on October 30-31, 2015.

Day 1:

As part of this workshop, we will be working with Annotation Studio, a set of collaborative web-based and open source annotation tools that allows users to share texts and annotate them simultaneously. For the educator, it enables tracing points of engagement with the text, identifying which paragraphs generate most interest and why, and learn how readers understand the argument of the text based on marking of tags. For the student, digital annotation is an interesting exercise in close analytical reading, responding to feedback, and building an argument.

Day 2:

The second day will be spent in understanding about generating encyclopedic content on Wikipedia. We will engage the participants in annotating key Women’s Studies texts and create well-referenced entries on various Indian language Wikipedia projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/workshop-on-digital-annotation-and-content-generation-with-research-scholars-in-pune

Odia Wikisource to Celebrate Its First Anniversary in Bhubaneswar

subha — 2015-12-15T08:19:56Z

Odia Wikisource, a sister project of Odia Wikipedia and a free online Odia-language library is celebrating its first anniversary in Bhubaneswar tomorrow i.e., 25th October, 2015.

The blog post was originally published by Mybhubaneswar.com on October 24, 2015.

Available online at or.wikisource.org, the project finally went live in last year on October 20 after being incubated over two years.

In a nutshell, it not just provides free and open access to readers to access text that are out of copyright or available under free license, but also allows them to contribute in either digitizing copyright-free text or correcting mistakes made by others.

All the contributors to the project are volunteers and are fondly called “uikiali” in Odia. These volunteers follow certain guidelines to check through the content digitized by others to make sure there is no copyrighted text posing copyright violation, correct typos and other grammatical mistakes and incorrect attribution.

Authors and copyright holders are also encouraged to provide permission in re-licensing their work under free licenses like CC-BY/CC-by-SA licenses so that some of their content becomes available online and fill the large gap of the Odia books online to some extent.

Last year, the Wikimedia community in Odisha did a remarkable job in bringing as many as 141 books from multiple authors relicensed under the above mentioned licenses where we, the Centre for Internet and Society’s Access To Knowledge program, as an institution, could play a role in reaching out to many authors and convincing them for a small contribution to the society.

Pankajmala Sarangi, the most active contributor to the project elaborated saying, there is a great dearth of Odia books online. I try to buy some time from personal and office time to continue my contribution. After all, I started from an all-time Odia classic “Cha’mana Athaguntha” by Fakir Mohan Senapati”.

“The Odia language classics could now be read from phones, tablets and of course from computers”

Many important books that are out of copyright are making their appearance on the Odia Wikisource. “Wikisource is different than Wikipedia as the former is published writing republished online whereas on Wikipedia it is more of aggregating information published elsewhere in an encyclopaedic manner”, says Dr. Subas Chandra Rout, a long time Wikimedian.

Odia Wikisource’s administrator Mrutyunjaya Kar welcomes everyone taking interest in Odia library movement in particular and Odia language in general to join this event that is being held at the Institute on Management of Agricultural Extension (IMAGE), Siripura, Bhubaneswar at 5 pm tomorrow.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mybhubaneswar-october-25-2015-subhashish-panigrahi-odia-wikisource-celebrates-its-first-anniversary-in-bhubaneswar

CIS Participated in T20 Mumbai, Regional Consultation Meeting, October 19, 2015

praskrishna — 2015-10-20T13:54:39Z

This is the first time that a T20 event, which is a series of preparatory meetings towards G20 summits, is taking place in India. Sumandro Chattapadhyay represented CIS in this consultation, and was a discussant in the session on Technology, Services, and Skills.

"On 19 October 2015, over 50 experts from foreign and Indian think tanks, business leaders from India, and government representatives from the G20 countries will gather at Gateway House in Mumbai to discuss issues of global economic governance and foreign economic policy at India’s first Think20 (T20) meeting. The keynote address for the meeting, “Global Economy and Challenges for Multilateral Policies” will be delivered by Dr. Raghuram Rajan, Governor, Reserve Bank of India. This is a Think-20 (T20) regional consultation meeting. The G20 is a multilateral forum comprising the world’s 20 major economies, and is recognized as the “premier global economic governance platform”. This year, Turkey is the president of the G20 forum (2015). The T20 is an official sub-forum of the G20 process, responsible for contributing ideas and research to the G20 on global economic issues.

The T20 Mumbai event will be co-hosted by Gateway House, in collaboration with the leading Turkish think tank – Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey (TEPAV). TEPAV is the official Turkish Think Tank responsible for coordinating the activities of the T20 in 2015 with think tanks from all the G20 member countries.

India will join the T20 group for the first time, by hosting the meeting in Mumbai, and Gateway House is honoured to initiate this select event. Observations and recommendations from the dialogue will be officially submitted to the Turkish G20 presidency, and incorporated into the discourse for the G20 Leaders Summit scheduled for 15-16 November, 2015, Antalya, Turkey."

This meeting is significant for India: it reinforces India’s role as a key participant in multilateral economic fora and contributor of solutions for global economic issues...

Participants will include Gateway House members comprising business leaders and individuals from India. The Indian government will be represented by the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of External Affairs, the Reserve Bank of India, and EXIM Bank. Diplomatic representation is expected from G20 countries, SAARC countries and several multilateral financial institutions.

The sessions will commence with a keynote by Dr. Raghuram Rajan, Governor, Reserve Bank of India, followed by a joint think tank and business session on the impact of geopolitics and business. Starting at noon will be five working sessions for the think tank experts to discuss a range of global economic issues under the G20 mandate such as global trade and investments, inclusive business models, financing sustainable infrastructure and building skills for a technology and services-driven economy."

Press release: http://www.gatewayhouse.in/press-release-indias-first-think20-t20-meeting/

Event page: http://www.gatewayhouse.in/t20mumbai/

Agenda: http://www.gatewayhouse.in/t20mumbai/agenda/

Notes from Sumandro's Statement

The problem of creating meaningful and sustainable employment opportunities in today's technology-mediated global economy is not simply one of skill-enabling the existing and emerging workforce to take part in the growing service sector.
It is crucial to recognise that the contemporary growth of service sector in economies across countries is being fundamentally shaped by access to technology, and access to information and services via technological devices and networks.
A key barrier to effective access to technology in the developing world is the rent-seeking business strategies that permeate global technological industries: from technologies of communication, to those of agriculture, to those of medicine.
Apart from removing such barriers, global and national strategies towards skill development for achieving meaningful and sustainable employment must focus on two things: 1) enabling self-learning through open educational resources, and public infrastructures supporting the same, and 2) a broad-based national innovation system that incentivises businesses to create and effectively use intellectual properties, as appropriate for the local context.
Skill-enabling of new entrants to the labour market (or existing one) must not be understood in terms of special purpose vocational training, that is narrow education for presently existing job opportunities. Neither can online self-learning programmes succeed without building public infrastructures for social learning.
Various recent commentators, most famously The Economist, have flagged the ineffectiveness, and even negative impacts, of the global intellectual property rights regime. An effective and democratic national innovation system must neither treat innovation in a sector-specific manner, nor as a general strategy driven by the needs of particular industries in a particular stage of their development of operations and IP ownership.
Skilling of the existing and emerging workforce must enable them to take part in the global knowledge economy, and its technological basis, in a holistic way.
Openness in policy-making and collaborative implementation, not only between public and private agencies but also between public agencies, are absolutely essential for the success of any such initiative to develop skills of the national workforce.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/cis-participated-in-t20-mumbai-oct-19-2015

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

nehaa — 2015-11-19T05:13:14Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some other quick comments:

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

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

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

Comparison of National IPR Strategy September 2012, National IPR Strategy July 2014 and Draft National IP Policy, December 2014

amulya — 2016-03-08T01:49:07Z

This is an analysis of the first draft of India's National IPR Policy with an earlier document "India's National IPR Strategy".

Nehaa Chaudhari provided inputs, analysed, reviewed and edited this blog post.

As part of our IPR Policy Series, we have so far CIS has submitted comments to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion on the proposed IPR Policy and the first draft of the National IPR Policy, traced the development of the National IPR Policy, evaluated how the IPR Policy holds up to WIPO’s suggestions , filed RTI’s regarding the formation of the IPR Think Tank and the functioning of the Sectoral Innovation Council.

In this blog post Amulya.P compares the National IPR Strategy September 2012 prepared by the Sectoral Innovation Council, the National IPR Strategy July 2014 and the Draft National IP Policy, December 2014 to understand the commonalities and differences between the three.

Vision/ Mission

The vision stated in the IPR Strategy, July 2014 is “To develop India during the decade of Innovation into a major Innovative competitive and knowledge based economy by strategic utilization of IP as an engine for accelerated growth and sustainable and inclusive development.” This is comparable to the vision statement laid out in the Draft National IP Policy, December 2014 (Draft Policy) that states as follows: “An India where IP led growth in creativity and innovation is encouraged for the benefit of all; an India where IPRs promote advancement in science and technology, arts and culture, traditional knowledge and bio-diversity resources; an India where knowledge is the main driver of development, and knowledge owned is transformed into knowledge shared.” The Mission Statement laid out in the Draft Policy reads as follows “Establish a dynamic vibrant balanced intellectual property system in India to : foster innovation and creativity in a knowledge economy, accelerate economic growth, employment and entrepreneurship, enhance socio-cultural development and protect public health, food security and environment among other areas of socio-economic importance”

Clearly the Draft Policy strives for more balance and envisions IPRs as not only a tool to ensure social welfare alongside economic growth, but also envisions IPR as a tool to ensure the sharing of knowledge.

Objectives/ Approaches

The objectives of both the September 2012 National IPR Strategy and the July 2014 National IPR Strategy are more or less to “ Transform India into an innovative economy that would be reflected in high rankings in development and innovation indices from a global standpoint and develop, sustainable and innovation-promoting IPR management system in India while ensuring that the IP system continues to have appropriate checks and balances conducive to social and economic welfare and to a balance of rights and obligations. Besides measures that need to be taken, the strategy also needs to have an implementation matrix and a time bound schedule.”

In addition to this, the September 2014 IPR Strategy Document lays down a four pronged approach- to promote respect for IP, to simulate creation of IPRs ,creation of new IP regimes to address needs of the country and strengthening protection of IP, and to facilitate commercialization of IP. The IPR Strategy of July 2014 expands on this to include the establishing of cost effective, efficient, service oriented administration, institutional capacity building and development of human capital and the integrating of IP components of national sectoral policy and the Addressing of IP issues in international fora.

The Draft Policy though has enumerated seven objectives throughout the report. They are: a) “To create public awareness about economic social and cultural benefits of IP among all sections of society for accelerating development, promoting entrepreneurship, enhancing employment and increasing competitiveness”.b) “To stimulate creation of growth of IP through measures that encourage IP generation.”c) “To have strong and effective laws with regard to IPRs that are consistent with national priorities and international obligations which balance the interests of rights owners with public interest.” d) “To modernize and strengthen IP administration for efficient, expeditious and cost effective grant and management of IP rights and user oriented services.” e) “To augment the commercialization of IP rights, valuation licensing and technology transfer.” f)”To strengthen the enforcement and adjudicatory mechanisms for combating IP violations, piracy and counterfeiting, to facilitate effective and speedy adjudication of IP disputes to promote awareness and respect for IPRs among all sections of society.” f) “To strengthen and expand human resources, institutions and capacities for teaching, training, research and skill building in IP.”

Clearly the Draft Policy lays more emphasis on raising public awareness about the benefits of IP, strengthening the enforcement and adjudicatory mechanisms to combat violations and on balancing different interests during the creation of new IP laws and regulations.

Raising Awareness

While the September 2012 IPR Strategy speaks of raising awareness as a tool in encouraging creation of IP and facilitating commercialization of IP, the Draft Policy envisions an elaborate awareness raising and publicity program. Some of the schemes suggested in the Draft Policy include: Adoption of the slogan “Creative India: Innovative India” and launching an associated campaign on electronic , print and social media by linking IPRs and other national initiatives such as Make in India, Digital India, Skill India and Smart Cities. Reaching out to industry, MSMEs, R&D institutions, science and technology institutes, universities, colleges, inventors, creators, farmers/plant variety users, traditional knowledge holders, designers and artisans through campaigns tailored to their needs and concerns. Promoting the idea of high quality and cost effective innovation as a particularly Indian competence leading to competitive advantage, Involving of eminent personalities as ambassadors to spread awareness of India’s IP, Using audio visual material in print/electronic/social media for propagation, Creating moving exhibits that can travel to all parts of the country, Establishing Innovation and IPR museums, announcing a National IPR day and celebrating world IPR day etc.

The Draft Policy has a much more elaborate program for awareness raising and publicity and this is reflected throughout the document with almost every stakeholder and department being involved in the awareness programme.

MSMEs

The July 2014 IPR Strategy and the September 2012 IPR strategy both call for very similar policies with regard to MSMEs. Both lie emphasis on educating and incentivizing MSMEs to create new IP and formalize existing ones, on government intervention in setting up IP facilitation centers to bring about collaboration between the facilitation centers and the activities of existing industrial clusters, provision of access to databases on patent and non-patent literature to enable prior art research to IITs and NITs free of cost so that they can assist MSMEs or individuals with determining novelty in their inventions free of cost and other provide assistance with the patent application for a fee. While the September 2014 strategy called for identifying such institutions, the July 2014 Strategy does. Both of these strategies however, call for favorable tax treatments toward MSMEs for R&D Expenditures. Both also call for support mechanisms to offset IP costs and facilitate technology transfer through in-licensing from publicly funded research.

The Draft Policy discusses MSMEs in less detail, but still calls for creation of educational materials for MSMEs and highlighting special mechanisms for them to develop and protect IP, encouraging IP creation by establishing and strengthening IP facilitation centers especially in industrial and innovation university clusters, Introducing “first-time patent” fee waiver and support systems for MSMEs and reduce transaction costs in other ways (e.g. prior art search). It does not specifically mention favorable tax treatment to MSMEs or access to databases to determine novelty or provision of assistance with patent application or call for government intervention to better the IP facilitation centers.

Academia and Research Organisations

The July 2014 IPR Strategy and the September 2012 IPR strategy again recommend similar strategies when it comes to academia and research organisations. They both recommend some sort of education/awareness rising targeted at researchers and innovators regarding precautions to be exercised before patent application such as not selling inventions to company at early stages / not publishing research to public etc. they also recommend promoting university startups to motivate scientists to take up technology ventures. They both promote encouraging IITs and other similar institutions to undertake research on national issues like poverty, health, food, security, energy, information technology, bio-technology etc. They both recommend that IP creation be a key performance indicator for universities and institutions that participate in publicly sponsored/collaborative research and development and that this be gradually introduced in Tier 1 and Tier 2 institutions. And finally they both recommend that basic concepts of IP creation and respect for IP as part of formal education at school/college/university/vocational level including a course on IPR that is to be included in the curriculum of all technical programmes recognized by AICTE and in post grad/research programme in science and applied fields in universities.

The Draft Policy recommends all this and more. It recommends the formulation of institutional IP policy/strategy in higher education, research and technical institutions. Even though it recommends educating researchers and innovators regarding IP and precautions to be taken with respect to protecting their invention before publishing, it doesn’t go into detail or state that there is a need to protect against inventions being sold prematurely to companies. The Draft Policy also recommends that public funded research organisations and private sector are to be tapped to create campaigns highlighting the process of IPR creation and the value generated therefrom. It also recommends that IITs NITs etc. be encouraged to focus on research in areas such as nanotechnology, data analytics and ICT in addition to areas such as food security, healthcare and agriculture. Further in addition to creating educational material about IPR at school and university levels, the Draft Policy also calls for online and distance learning programs for all categories of users that focus on IPR. And for IP courses/modules to be introduced in all major training institutes such as judicial academies, National Academy of Administration, Police and Customs Academies, IIFT, Institute of Foreign Service Training, Forest Training Institutes etc., creating IPR cells and technology development and management units in such institutes. The Draft Policy also recommends that IPR be a compulsory subject in all legal educational institutions, NIDs NIFTs, agricultural universities and management institutes, and making IP teaching a part of accreditation mechanism in institutes under the purview of UGC, AICTE MCI as well as IITs and IIMs.

Large Organisations

The September 2012 IPR Strategy recommends that the government encourage large organisations to take a long term view of R&D and make research investments to create strong self-reliant tech portfolio and also acquire the scale to build strategic global positions, it recommends that the government encourage these organisations to share their expertise and resources for national benefit through PPPs, development of high technology base requires strategic relationships with overseas players, it recommends that it be made mandatory for MNCs to align with innovation strategy and the National Innovation systems and that the MNCs be encouraged by the state to leverage their standing and reach to ensure inflow of best practices and investments.it also recommends sops and preferential treatment in public contracts to large Indian organisations with a strong culture of IP creation. And that these organisations be encouraged to tap open innovation platforms and tie ups with academia. The July 2014 IPR Strategy recommends more or less the same strategies with regard to large organisations.

The Draft Policy recommends that public funded research organisations and private sector be encouraged to create campaigns highlighting the process of IPR creation and its value, that MNCs and large organisations develop IPR programs for their employees, that government encourage large organisations to create, protect and utilize IP in India and that the government create an industry-academia interface for encouraging cross-fertilization of ideas and IPR driven research and innovation in jointly identified areas. It makes no mention of requiring large organisations to align with the National IPR Policy, to ensure best practices but also doesn’t particularly mention tax cuts or other sops to encourage large organisations with a strong IP culture. The Draft Policy makes no mention at all of open innovation platforms. In large parts the Draft Policy is vague and lacks specifics with regard to strategies toward large organisations.

Startups and Individuals

The September 2012 IPR Strategy and the July 2014 IPR Strategy both make separate recommendations aimed at startups and individuals. They both recommend that information on the delivery mechanism for support services including things like venture capital funding should be made expedient and that identified public institutions should offer end to end support for creation, protection and commercialization of IP. The September 2012 Strategy also recommends that procedural mechanisms adopted for giving financial support for patent filing should be made smoother and that the assistance provided should be improved. The Draft Policy does not include any specific recommendations with regard to start ups or individuals apart from involving them in the publicity/awareness campaigns. In this measure the Draft Policy seems to fall short.

Strengthening IP Protection/ Creating New IP Regimes

The September 2012 IPR strategy generally called for improvement in institutions that grant IPRs and in institutions that are responsible for its enforcement and expansion of rights to include new IPRs.

The July 2014 IPR Strategy had a significant advance to this and recommended periodic review and streamlining procedures and process and guidelines for search, grant examination, maintenance and registration of IPRs in consultation with relevant stakeholders and benchmarked with best practices. It also recommended that full benefit be taken of global protection systems of WIPO, Patent Cooperation Treaty, Madrid System for International Registration of Marks etc. and that consequent upon amendment in 2012 of the Copyright Act, 1957, consideration be given to acceding to the Marrakesh Treaty for the blind, that avenues for international cooperation in IPR be studied. And finally it recommended that with respect to traditional knowledge and grant of patents in other countries, the Nagoya protocol is a step in the right direction and while the Patents Act, 1970, Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and the Plant Variety Protection and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 address the issue, a sui generis system of protection to check misappropriation is required at the international level.

The Draft Policy generally recommends that there be a review of existing IP laws to update and improve them and remove any inconsistencies, a review of IP related rules and procedures etc. to ensure clarity, simplification, streamlining, transparency and time bound process in administration and enforcement of IP rights. The Draft Policy also recommends that the government actively engage in negotiating international treaties and agreements in consultation with stakeholders, examine accession to some multilateral treaties that are in the countries interest and become a signatory to those treaty that India has defacto implemented so that India can participate in their decision making process. The central problem here is of course that what is in the countries interest may be open to debate, the Draft Policy does not at any point for example indicate whether or not the Government would consider taking on TRIPS plus obligations, the Draft Policy does not clarify what the Governments general stance on such issues would be.

The Draft Policy further recommends that important areas of study and research for future policy development be identified, some examples provided are: a) Interplay between IP laws and other laws to remove ambiguities or inconsistencies, b) Interface between IP and competition law and policy, c) Protection of undisclosed information not extending to data exclusivity, d) Guidelines for authorities whose respective jurisdictions impact the administration or enforcement of IPRs such as patents and bio-diversity, e) Exceptions and limitations and f) Exhaustion of IP rights. A prominent concern here would be data exclusivity, while the policy uses vague language and only wants these issues to be studied, Data exclusivity among others are demands made by the EU and others in Free Trade Agreements that go beyond our obligation under TRIPS and could harm the public interest.

Establishing Cost Effective, Efficient and Service Oriented IP Administrative Infrastructure

The July 2014 IPR Strategy recommends that IPOs be restructured to aim for ISO 9002 model to increase efficiency, quality and cost effectiveness; that after a review of the need of human resources to enable IPOs to discharged workload efficiently the required amount of manpower be employed; that recruitment training and career development of officials has to be reviewed to recruit and retain best personnel in the IPO; that the possibility of providing advisory services and value added products be studied; and recommends that there should be cooperation with IPOs in other countries in the area of capacity building, human resource development and awareness.

The Draft Policy recommends that IPOs be restructured, upgraded and be granted greater responsibility and autonomy taking into account the rapid growth and diversity of IP users and services, it also recommends an increase in manpower according to findings after a review to ensure speedy liquidation of backlog, requirements of global protection systems and productivity parameters. And that the process of recruitment training, cadre structure and career development of officials be studied and reviewed to retain the best talent to enhance efficiency and productivity. The Draft Policy also recommends that the government collaborate with R&D institutions universities, funding agencies, chambers of industry and commerce in providing advisory services which will improve IP creation and management and utilization, promote cooperation with IP offices in other countries in areas of capacity building, HRD, training, access to databases, best practices in search and examinations, use of ICT and user oriented services, enhance international and bilateral cooperation and post IP attaches in select countries to follow IP developments and advice on IP related matters.

Office of CGPDTM

The September 2012 IPR Strategy recommended that Grant/registration procedure to be quickened through recruitment and increasing human resources, that the functioning of IPOs be improved by measures such as: complete digitization of IP records and uploading for public view to improve transparency, communication with applicant/agents to be improved to bring in transparency meticulousness, database to be made searchable so that researchers can conduct effective searches to identify state of the art technology, electronic filing of applications and subsequent examination through electronic mode to be mandatory, Increase in filing fee with specific discounts for identified sectors such as MSEs.

The 2012 IPR Strategy observed that the quality of examination of IP applications needs to be improved and suggested reassessment of procedures followed in IPO to reduce timelines toward statutory actions.

The July 2014 IPR Strategy recommended that the grant and registration procedure be quickened through recruitment and increasing human resources, and that there be regular meetings between the CGPDTM and the National Biodiversity Authority to resolve issues that arise from implementing guidelines about grant of patents on inventions using genetic resources and TK.

The Draft Policy recommended that the government establish close cooperation between IPOs and create a common web portal for ease of access to statutes regulations, guidelines, databases and for better coordination.

The Draft policy also recommended that the CGPDTM examine joining centralized access for search and examination (CASE) and WIPO digital access services (DAS), that the CGPDTM fix and adhere to timelines for grant of registration and disposal of opposition matters, create a service oriented culture, include appointing public relations officers who would make the IP office user friendly, that the CGPDTM conduct periodic audits of processes being adopted in IP administration for efficient grant and management of IP rights.

The Draft Policy also recommended that the CGPDTM implement quality standards at all stages of operations with the aim to obtain ISO certification and adopt best practices with respect to filing and docketing of documents, maintenance of records and digitizing the same including document workflow and tracking systems, and take steps to expedite digitization of the design office and enable online search and filing in the design office

The Draft Policy also recommended that the CGPDTM ensure that public records in IP office are easily available and accessible both online and offline and establish effective coordination between its office and NBA to enable harmonious implementation of guidelines relating to grant of patents on inventions using genetic resources and associated TK, that the CGPDTM remove disparities among different branches of the trademark registries and patent offices and adopt standardized procedures in examination/grant of applications including maintenance of rights, implement centralized priority field wise on a national basis and provide value added services in form of helpdesks, awareness and training materials, patent mapping, licensing and technology transfer support services, ease of remote access of the international patent search mechanisms and other IP related databases. And that the CGPDTM implement incentives for MSMEs to encourage filing by the said sector like waiver of official fee, support of examiners and pro-bono legal help for the first time filing.

Administrative Departments of Other IP Institutions

The September 2012 IPR Strategy and the July 2014 IPR Strategy both generally recommended that the administrative departments of other IP institutions also take up similar actions as the CGPDTM.

The Draft Policy however, goes into this with some detail. The Draft Policy recommends that with regard to the office of Registrar of Copyright, the Government take measures to expedite modernization of the office both in terms of office space and infrastructure and in terms of introducing e filing facility including e- applications, electronic processing and issuance of final extracts of registrations etc. It also recommends that all copyright records be digitized and that the government introduce an online search facility and provide necessary manpower and adequate training facilities to personnel in the copyright office. It further recommends that the government take urgent measures for the effective management and administration of copyright societies to ensure transparency and efficiency in the collection and disbursement of royalties in the best interests of rights holders and that the government provide user friendly services in the form of help desks, awareness raising and training materials.

The Draft Policy recommends that the registrar of Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Design study the reasons for lack of interest in filings under the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Design Act, 2000 and suggest appropriate measures. The Draft Policy also recommends that the government formalize a consultation and coordination mechanism between the National Biodiversity Authority and the IPOs with a view to harmonious implementation of guidelines for grant of IP rights and access to biological resources and associated traditional knowledge and benefit sharing.

Institutional Capacity Building

The July 2014 IPR Strategy recommended that the RGNIIPM act as a think tank, carry out research on IP matters, formulate and deliver training courses and develop teaching curricular for academic institutions, develop linkages with other national and international institutions involved in similar fields and develop joint training programs and conduct joint research studies on IPRs including programs for plant variety protection and issues related to traditional knowledge and bio resources. And establish IP institutes with state governments for raising awareness and training and teaching.

It also recommended that the MHRD IPR chairs provide support to all ministries and departments in policy making law making and negotiations under bilateral or multilateral frameworks. The Strategy also recommended that institutes responsible for training customs, police, judiciary, forest research institutes have IP training as an essential part of the curriculum, that National level institutes associated with creation enforcement or commercialization should be encouraged to incorporate IP training and capacity building in their operations and finally that industry, business, IP professional bodies, inventers associations, venture capital funds etc. should be encouraged to develop IP training modules for their members as well.

The Draft Policy recommends all this and more and suggests that RGNIIPM Nagpur conduct training for IP administrators , managers in the industry, academicians, R&D institutions, IP professionals, inventors, civil society apart from training the trainers, developing training modules and links with other similar entities at the international level and set up state level institutions. Further it recommended that the MHRD IPR Chairs provide high quality teaching and research, develop teaching capacity and curricula and evaluate their work on performance based criteria.

The Draft Policy also recommends that the CGPDTM provide continuous training to the IPO staff and update them with developments in procedures, substantive laws and technologies along with the RGNIIPM.

The Draft policy also recommends that the government establish national level institutes of excellence to provide leadership in IP, conduct policy and empirical research, examine trends and developments in the field of IP at the national and international level, support the government in strategic development of IP systems and international negotiations, establish links with similar institutes and experts in other countries for exchange of ideas, information and best practices and suggest approaches and guidelines for inter-disciplinary human capital development. And that the government facilitate industry associations, inventors and creators associations and IP support institutions to raise awareness of IP issues for teaching, training and skill building.

Strengthening Institutional Set-up to Improve Enforcement of IPRs and Create Respect for IPRs

The September 2012 IPR Strategy and the July 2014 IPR Strategy both recommend that the government encourage small and niche businesses to protect their products through trademarks, the September 2012 Strategy also adds that these businesses should be encouraged to seek international protection to participate in global competition and contribute to international trade activities. The Draft Policy recommends increasing awareness of international mechanisms and treaties (e.g. PCT, Madrid and The Hague) to encourage creation and protection of IP in global markets.

The 2012 IPR Strategy and the July 2014 Strategy go into further detail, they recommend that the service sector be encouraged to adopt strategies for registration of trademarks to ensure competitiveness and to leverage the goodwill of strong indigenous brands that have acquired traction in international markets. They also recommend that SME clusters be encouraged to develop a comprehensive database of their products to ensure that a parent isn’t issued on unprotected innovations.

As far as GI is concerned, both the July 2014 and the September 2012 IPR Strategy recommend that central public bodies such as the development commissioner for handicrafts and handlooms etc. partner with the suitable state, district and Panchayat level entities to educate communities on the benefits of registering GIs, to put in place examination protocols to ensure GI owners comply with quality standards. They further recommend that these bodies develop a roadmap to build brands for better market presence for products registered as GIs and coordinate with relevant state authority on enforcement and provide periodical updates to enforcement taskforce on issues that need redressal.

The Draft Policy only recommends that the government encourage registration of GI through support institutions and assist GI producers to define and maintain acceptable quality standards and providing better marketability.

As far as designs are concerned, both the July 2014 IPR Strategy and the September 2012 IPR Strategy recommend that the government encourage a move from informal to formal practices of protecting designs by administrative intervention, while the Draft Policy recommends the encouraging of creation of design related IP rights by identifying, nurturing, and promoting aspects of innovation protectable under the design law and educating designers to utilize and benefit from their designs , involve the NIDs , NIFTs and other institutions in sensitization campaigns.

With regard to plant varieties, both the 2014 and 2012 IPR Strategies recommend awareness generation programmes to encourage filings of new extant and essentially derived varieties. While the 2012 IPR Strategy further stated that there was a need to evaluate whether restructuring institutions/merging all IP issues under one umbrella would improve efficiency and a need for centrally managed National IP Enforcement Taskforce that could :a) Maintain database on criminal enforcement measures instituted for trademark infringement and copyright piracy, civil cases filed to be collated also, b) Mandated to deliberate upon operational issues of enforcement with the concerned Central and State agencies, c) Conduct periodic industry wise infringement surveys d) Coordinate capacity building programmes for the central and state enforcing agencies.

The Draft Policy recommends that the protection of plant varieties and farmers rights authority should: a) Support increased registration of new, extant and essential derived varieties and streamline procedures, b) Facilitate development of seeds and their commercialization by farmers., c) Establish links with agriculture universities, research institutions, technology development and management centers and Krishi Vikas Kendras, d) Coordinate with other IPOs for training sharing expertise and adopting best practices, e) Augment awareness building, training and teaching programs and modernize office infrastructure and use of ICT.

With regard to Traditional Knowledge, the Draft Policy also recommends that the government create a sui generis system for protecting TK which will safeguard misappropriation of traditional knowledge as well as promote further research and development in products and services based on traditional knowledge.

Creation of New IP Rights to Address Gaps

The September 2012 IPR Strategy recommended protection of utility models, utility patents as they have Protection of utility model. Utility patents / models proposed as they have less stringent patentability criteria, faster examination/grant, shorter term of protection as a cost effective way to incentivize incremental innovation and encourage creation of IPRs, with sector specific exemptions to ensure TRIPS compliance. And included a proposal for a predictable recognizable trade secret regime to improve investor confidence and facilitate flow of information.

The Draft Policy also recommended that the government facilitate creation and protection of small inventions through a new law on utility models, enact laws to address national needs to fill gaps in protective regimes of IPRs such as utility models and trade secrets to keep up with advancements in science and technology to strengthen IP and innovation ecosystem from example IP created from public funded research, to protect and promote traditional knowledge. As pointed out in the CIS Submission to the IPR Think Tank, the creation of utility models should by no means be assumed to be completely uncontroversial, many countries that had this system have now given it up, further this could lead to granting of frivolous patents and thereby harming development.

Facilitating Commercialization of IPRs

Both the July 2014 and the September 2012 IPR Strategies have similar recommendations with respect to facilitating commercialization of IPRs; they both recommend policy interventions to create strong and transparent national strategies to encourage: licensing of rights to another entity for commercialization, cross licensing agreements, leveraging the intellectual assets for future R&D growth and improved services, sale merger acquisition of either IPR or entire business distinguished and appropriately valued by their intellectual capital, patent pooling, reinforcing stability of IP license contracts.

And they both recommend that National research laboratories and academia and public institutions to stimulate commercialization of research resultants: intervention in building strengthening institutional capacity of research led organisations to enable utilization of IP.

The 2012 IPR Strategy also recommends national level policy changes to encourage development of indigenous technologies, that government fund (grants/loans) demonstration projects of new technologies that require large investment, suitable tax breaks for indigenously developed and commercialized products till attainment of some maturity levels, that qualification requirements during tendering process to accord acceptance to indigenously developed products where heavy development investments have been incurred, strengthening the indigenous R&D ecosystem policy frameworks should provide for flexibility in outsourcing technical expertise in niche areas and type testing of prototypes. Further it visualizes the emergence of open innovation systems and the role of voluntary SSOs.

The Draft Policy does all this and more. It recommends that the government establish an IP Promotion and Development Council (IPPDC) as a nodal organization for promotion and commercialization of IPR, the IPPDC is supposed to, among other things, promote licensing and technology transfer of IP, devise suitable contractual and licensing guidelines to enable commercialization of IP, promoting patent pooling and cross licensing to create IP based products and services and also establishing links with similar organisations for exchange of information and ideas as also to develop promotional educational products and services for promotion and commercialization, to facilitate access to databases on Indian IP and global databases of creators/innovators, market analysts, funding agencies, IP intermediaries, to study and facilitate implementation of best practices for promotion and commercialization of IP within the country and outside. IPPDC to establish IP Promotion and Development Units (IPPDU) in various regions The IPPDC is also tasked with identifying opportunities for marketing Indian IPR based products and services to a global audience.

The government is also recommended to provide statutory incentives like tax benefits linked to IP creation for the entire value chain from IP creation to commercialization, to support financial aspects of IP commercialization by: a)Enabling valuation of IP rights by application of appropriate methodologies including for better accounting as intangible assets, b) Facilitating investments in IP driven industries and services through the proposed IP exchange for bringing investors/funding agencies and IP owners /users together, c) Providing financial support to less empowered groups of IP owners or creators like farmers weavers, artisans, craftsmen etc. through financial institutions like rural banks or cooperative banks offering IP friendly loans, d) Taking stock of all IP funding by the government and suggesting measures to consolidate the same to the extent possible generating scale in funding and avoiding duplication, enhancing the visibility of IP and innovation related funds so that utilization is increased, performance based evaluation for continued funding, c) Regulating IP created through publicly funded research by a suitable law.

The Draft policy also recommends that the government promote going to market activities by: a) Creating mechanisms to help MSMEs and research institutions to validate scale and pilot through market testing, b) Providing seed funding for market activities such as participating in trade fairs, industry standards bodies and other forums, c) Providing guidance and support to IPR owners about commercial opportunities of e commerce through internet and mobile platforms. And that the government study the role of IPRs in setting standards in various areas of technology, actively participate in standards setting processes at national, international and industry SSO levels and to encourage the development of global standards that are influenced by technologies and IP generated in India

Facilitating and Encouraging Commercialization of IP Assets

The July 2014 IPR Strategy had specific recommendations to make in this regard. It recommended that the government forge links between creators and inventors , universities, industry and financial institutions for commercialization, that the government establish an IP exchange to stimulate trading of IP and creating markets for IP assets, to facilitate MSMEs to identify protect and commercialize their IP, creations through facilitation centers by providing package of services, to encourage technologies acquired under the patent pool of the Technology Acquisition and Development Fund (TADF) and licensed as per provision in manufacturing policy.

The Draft IP policy recommends all of these, tasking the IPPDC with most of these tasks and also recommends that the government improve awareness of the value of copyright for creators, the importance of their economic and moral rights and the rationalization of payment mechanisms for them, and to support initiative taken by public sector research entities to commercialize their IPRs for commercialization and lastly to develop skills among scientists to access , interpret and analyze the techno-legal and business information contained in IP documents.

Enforcement and Adjudication

The Draft Policy makes very specific recommendations with regard to enforcement and adjudication, apart from suggestions that go toward creating awareness and sensitizing the public, students, industry and inventors about IP, the policy also recommends that the government establish a Multi-Agency Task Force for coordination between various agencies and providing direction and guidance on enforcement measures, creating a nationwide database of known IP offenders, coordination and sharing intelligence and best practices at the national and international levels, studying the extent of IP violations in various sectors, examining the implications of jurisdictional difficulties among enforcement authorities and introducing appropriate technology based solutions for curbing digital piracy.

The government is also tasked with working with state governments in establishing IP cells and including IP crimes under their special laws, increasing manpower and infrastructure of the enforcement agencies and building capacity to check proliferation of digital crimes, providing regular training for officials in enforcement agencies, encouraging application of tech-based solutions in enforcement of IP rights, initiating fact finding studies in collaboration with stakeholders concerned to assess the extent of counterfeiting and piracy and the reasons behind it as well as the measures to combat it and taking up the issue of Indian works and products being pirated and counterfeited abroad with countries concerned.

On improving IP dispute resolution, the Draft Policy recommends the designation of specialized patent bench in the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras, the designation of one IP court at the district level depending on the number of IP cases filed, working with judicial academies to conduct regular workshops for judges, promoting ADRs in the resolution of IP cases by strengthening mediation and conciliation centers and developing ADR capabilities, creating regional benches of the IPAB in all five regions where IPOs are located, increasing the powers of IPAB in its administration including autonomy in financial matters and selection of technical and judicial members and providing necessary infrastructure for its effective and efficient funding and also taking urgent steps to make the copyright board function effectively and efficiently and provide adequate infrastructure and manpower to it.

Work Plans

In addition to all of the above, the July 2014 IPR Strategy also recommends a work plan which includes commissioning a study on schemes and programs financed by the government including under the PP mode for innovation, signing and acceding to the Marrakesh Treaty, the NICE agreement on international classification of goods and services for the purpose of registration of trademarks, assessing the Hague Agreement regarding registration of industrial design vis a vis India’s Designs Act with a view to accede to the treaty, assessing the possibility of accepting facilitation centers run by universities/academic institutions/departments of science and technology as receiving offices for patent applications where there are no patent offices.

The Draft IP Policy also makes recommendations to integrate IP with other government Initiatives like Make in India and Digital India, and plans to integrate into these government initiatives the different schemes of the Department of Electronics, and IT for IP promotion and global protection. It further recommends the establishing of a high-level body in the government to co-ordinate, guide and oversee the implementation and development of IP in India in accordance with the National IP Policy. The body will be responsible for bringing cohesion and coordination among different ministries and departments with regard to how they deal with IP matters, laying down priorities for IP development and preparing plans of action for time bound implementation of national and sector specific IP policies, strategies and programs, monitoring the progress and implementation of the National IP policy linked with performance indicators, targeted results and deliverables, annual evaluation of the overall working of the policy and a major review of the policy ever three years.

Concluding Observations

The National IPR Strategies of 2012 and 2014 contain more or less similar recommendations, the key differences being that the 2014 IPR Strategy emphasizes the need to address IP issues in international fora and in establishing cost effective, efficient and service oriented IP administrative infrastructure. It does not, in contrast to the 2012 IPR Strategy, recommend the introduction of laws on utility models or protection of trade secrets, policy changes to encourage development of indigenous technologies, but it does more specifically address facilitating commercialization of IP.

The Draft Policy is an important advance over the National IPR Strategy of July 2014 and September 2012. It places makes important new recommendations with regards to publicity and awareness raising, creation of legal regime with regard to traditional knowledge, utility patents and trade secrets, enforcement and adjudication- including the setting up of new courts, creation of the IPPDC and of a new high-level government body to oversee the implementation of the policy. It does however miss out on the chance to help start-ups, MSMEs and individuals in contrast to recommendations of the previous IPR Strategies. And in context of its avowed aim to turn knowledge owned into knowledge shared does little to encourage open access and focuses heavily on IP creation assuming that increase in IP would promote innovation and thereby lead to national development.

Table - Comparison of National IPR Strategy September 2012, National IPR Strategy July 2014 And Draft National IP Policy, December 2014

Sectoral Innovation Council, National IPR Strategy, September 2012, Available at: http://dipp.nic.in/english/Discuss_paper/draftNational_IPR_Strategy_26Sep2012.pdf (Hereafter : National IPR Strategy, September 2012)

National IPR Strategy, July 2014, Available at: http://dipp.nic.in/English/Schemes/Intellectual_Property_Rights/national_IPR_Strategy_21July2014.pdf (Hereafter: National IPR Policy, July 2014)

IPR Think Tank, Draft National IP Policy, December 2014, Available at: http://dipp.nic.in/English/Schemes/Intellectual_Property_Rights/IPR_Policy_24December2014.pdf (Here after: Draft Policy)

National IPR Strategy, July 2014, p.5

Draft Policy, p.5

[5] National IPR Strategy, July 2014, p.5

Draft Policy, p.5

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.11 and Draft Policy, December 2014, pp.5

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.11

National IPR Strategy, July 2014, pp.5-6,

Draft Policy, p.6,

Draft Policy, p.8.

Draft Policy, p.11.

Draft Policy, p.13.

Draft Policy, p.17.

Draft Policy, p.20.

Draft Policy, p.23.

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 7, 11, 12, 19 20

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 21

Draft Policy, p.6-8

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.6-7 , 12-13 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.6-8

Draft Policy, p.5, 9-10, 15,18-19

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 7, 13-14 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.8-9.

Draft Policy, p.8,11,24

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.6, 14-15 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.9-10

Draft Policy, p.7-8, 10

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 7, 15 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.10

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 7, 15

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 15

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.10-12

Draft Policy, p.12-13,

Draft Policy, p.13

Swaraj Paul Barooah, Data Exclusivity back on the table for India, SpicyIP, March 27, 2015, Available at: http://spicyip.com/2015/03/data-exclusivity-back-on-the-table-for-india.html

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.11-12

Draft Policy, p.14

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 15-16

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 16

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp. 12-14

Draft Policy, p. 15-16

Draft Policy,p. 16

Draft Policy, p.15

Draft Policy, p. 15-16

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.16 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.14

Draft Policy, p.16

Draft Policy, p.17

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.14-15

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.15

Draft Policy, p.24

Draft Policy, p.23

Draft Policy, p.24

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.18 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.15-16

Draft Policy, p.11

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.17-18 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.16-17

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.19 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.16

Draft Policy, p. 11

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.19-20 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp. 17-18

Draft Policy, p.11

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 20 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.18

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 18

Draft Policy, p.11

Draft Policy, p. 12

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 20-22

Draft Policy, p.12

See, CIS Comments to the First Draft of the National IP Policy, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-cis-comments-to-the-first-draft-of-the-national-ip-policy

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 22 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp. 18-19

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.22 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.18

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.23

Draft Policy, p. 18-19

Draft Policy, p.19

Draft Policy, p.10,19

Draft Policy, p.19-20

Draft Policy, p. 12-13

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.19

Draft Policy, pp. 10, 18-19.

Draft Policy, pp. 20-22

Draft Policy, p. 22

Draft Policy, p.22-23

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.22

Draft Policy, pp. 25-26.

Draft Policy, p.26

Draft Policy, p.27-28

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comparison-of-national-ipr-strategy-september-2012-national-ipr-strategy-july-2014-and-draft-national-ip-policy-december-2015

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

CIS-India Projects: Overlaps with Digital India

sinha — 2015-10-11T05:19:30Z

This post documents the overlap of CIS India's work with the nine pillars of the Digital India campaign. The list reflects work completed/underway as of September 2015.

Broadband Highways

National Fibre Optics Network: Studying the implementation BBNL and promoting shared backhall infrastructure.
Net Neutrality: Made submissions to the TRAI consultation, DoT Panel and testified before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on IT.
Internet Governance: Engaging with WSIS processes and the ICANN; participating in internet governance consultations.

Universal Access to Mobile Connectivity

CIS advises the deployment of shared spectrum test beds in IIT Hyderabad and IIT Delhi, supported by DEITY (Budget: INR 47.6 lakhs).
Text to Speech engine for 12 Indic languages using FOSS (Budget: INR 1.8 crores).
CIS serves on the High level committee for the National Electronic Accessibility Policy.

Public Internet Access Programme

Advising the Task-force constituted by the Delhi government for the roll out of Delhi Public WiFi.

e-Governance: Reforming Government through Technology

Policy, technical and mathematical research on UID.
Conducting case studies on public sector Big Data initiatives in India (Budget: 80K USD), and designing a research network for multi-year project on Big data in the global south (estimated total budget: 2M USD).
Privacy textbook featuring 50 court cases and 50 laws/policies, citizen’s draft of the privacy bill; domain specific briefs; multi stakeholder roundtables (Budget: 220K Pounds).

e-Kranti Electronic Delivery of Services

Voluntarily advising implementation of the CCTNS project for Karnataka.
Submitted comments on Information Technology (Electronic Service Deliverables) Rules, 2011.

Electronics Manufacturing

Pervasive Technologies Project: This is a 430K CAD research project aimed at increasing indigenous manufacturing of mobile devices in India and China.
National IP Policy and Strategy: CIS has submitted comments to the DIPP on IP reform, in sync with the Make in India campaign.

Information for All

Participation in and research around WIPO negotiations and meetings in support of Indian negotiators aimed at reforming Indian IP.
Submitted comments to the CSIR, DBT-DST and ICAR on development of Open Access policy.
Indic Wikipedia programme: Creating content and engaging with community for six Indic wikipedias (Budget: 200K USD per annum).
Augmenting, supporting, and capacity building for supply and demand of open (government) data in India (Budget: 500K for 2 years).

IT for Jobs

FOSS in curriculum: Encouraged the introduction of FOSS in university curriculum through RTI requests and outreach programmes.
IP reform of product development: Studying the impact of IP on mobile applications development in India.
Undertaking research and analysis of technology incubators in India.
Hosting and facilitating work of several startups, a continuing collaborative process.

Early Harvest Programme

Completed work on Open Educational Resources (OERs) through Wikipedia programmes, providing functioning of NMEICT and other steps.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-india-projects-overlaps-with-digital-india

WikipediansSpeak: Telugu Language Library Catalog Project Helps Wikipedia Grow

subha — 2015-12-15T08:06:52Z

In 2013, the interview project “WikipediansSpeak” was launched in response to observations that many noteworthy Wikimedians were being underrepresented both locally and globally. Not just them personally—their work, and the communities they represent, were also unknown to the Wikimedia community and the outside world.

This was published on Wikimedia blog in two languages English and Ukranian.

Wikimedia Foundation’s fundraising campaigns were the biggest inspiration for the project. From video-only interviews, this is an attempt at different ways of interviews, and is the first interview showcasing a Telugu Wikimedian: Viswanadh B.K., who was an Individual Engagement (IEG) Grantee last year and has continued to be active in outreach.

Recently, you attended a Telugu Wikipedia workshop for the Botany-major undergraduate students at Andhra Loyola College, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. Would you like to talk a little bit about your participation, how the program was designed, the activities there and the output? How are you planning to mentor the students in the future?

The staff and students are quite enthusiastic, and the students are dedicating considerable time to learning, and reflecting their learning, while editing the Telugu Wikipedia. However, they need more training on basics of Wikipedia, as well as on policies and guidelines. Without that, they might end up creating low quality articles that the community will face problems cleaning up. Centre for Internet and Society’s Access To Knowledge program (CIS-A2K), that has been organizing these sessions in the college, should seek out more support from the Telugu Wikimedia community so that the experienced editors could mentor these students. I feel it would be a good idea to award the students and faculty with certificates. These small little things often motivate many.

What part should the community and CIS-A2K be playing in the Wikimedia movement? What could and should we do for the Telugu community?

Many in our community do not know how programs like CIS-A2K work. Maybe there is a need to provide some kind of orientation for them which will help them to understand how they could approach CIS asking for support. This process could also help the community understand CIS’s activities and its programmatic implementation. More collaboration, and understanding of the program among the community, will improve involvement in CIS’s activities as well as CIS’s understanding of the community.

You were the second Telugu Wikipedian to be awarded with an Individual Engagement Grant (IEG). How did it go, and what did you achieve? Based on your own experience, how are you planning to groom this year’s applicants from Telugu and other Indian language Wikimedia communities?

This IEG was my dream come true! Back in 2009, I blogged about the potential of opening up library catalogs on the Internet for people to search for books. It took shape with my grant project: “Digitization of Important Libraries Book Catalog in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana”. I worked on an extensive project, digitizing the catalogs of five libraries—a total of 300,000 books—in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. I learned a lot, and documented part of my learning, which talks about the ways one should go about partnering with Indian institutions. I believe, my interaction with fellow Wikimedians must have helped them to better their grants applications this year. And I am hoping that I will continue to support more friend from my community and country in the future.

What drove you, over the years, to work on a project like this digitizing library catalogs? Were there any additional learning and benefits from this project?

In this digital age, people searching for books on the Internet might have developed the notion that if a book is not available online, it doesn’t exist. I have been experiencing this very issue while looking for evidence notability and citations on the Telugu Wikipedia. Many Wikipedia editors argue for citing at least the name of the book when the book is not available online. This pushed me to create a central catalog that will benefit Wikipedians, researchers, and readers. In the process of creating the catalog, I also managed to develop strong relations with several cultural organizations. These include Kathanilayam, a dedicated organization collecting every Telugu story; the Annamayya Library, which developed into a great cultural center in Guntur, Andhra Pradesh; and the Suryaraya Vidyananda Library, whose collection is enriched with rare manuscripts and important books. I touch based with them then, and they are slowly becoming household names for other Wikimedians for their library-related needs. We can see the potential of strong partnerships and synergy with these libraries.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wikimedia-blog-october-9-2015-subhashish-panigrahi-telugu-library-catalog-project-wikipedians-speak

Otago Southland are the Coolest

praskrishna — 2015-12-15T08:06:13Z

LIANZA Otago Southland are delighted to announce our speaker, Subhashish Panigrahi (@subhapa), from the Centre for Internet and Society’s Access To Knowledge programme, will be tuning in via the interwebs from India to share his vision of Guerilla GLAM, describe case studies of these initiatives in India, as well as touching on the creation of documentaries, learning resources and promotional material from acquired content.

This was published by Library and Information Association of New Zealand. The submission was accepted for Wikimania 2015.

Subha believes “this presentation will be useful for those who can mobilize a small team of volunteers equipped with digital camera, access to local cultural institutions and some level of expertise of curating data.”

Read more about Subha and the abstract for his talk here https://blogs.otago.ac.nz/openotago/2015/10/06/how-to-do-guerilla-glam/

Please share this event with your other GLAM networks!

Event Details

How to do Guerilla GLAM / Subhashish Panigrahi @subhapa <https://twitter.com/subhapa>Tuesday 20 October, 3.00pm NZDT In Dunedin: Conference Room 3, 1st floor University of Otago Central Library, 65 Albany Street, Dunedin<http://www.otago.ac.nz/library/locations/#central>

Online: via Adobe Connect<https://connect.otago.ac.nz/sarah/?launcher=false>. [No software required, just click the link and sign in as a guest. Please ensure you are logged in before 3pm and have read the participant notes on screen] The session will be recorded.

Pre - presentation preparation - entirely optional

If you’re planning on attending Subhashish’s webinar and want to know more about using Wikipedia in your GLAM, you might be interested in watching this first.

This blog post from Alex Stinson<https://twitter.com/sadads> from the Wikimedia Foundation<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home>, entitled "Librarian as Teacher: ways to use Wikipedia"<http://interlibnet.org/2015/10/07/librarian-as-teacher-ways-to-use-wikipedia/>, specifically regarding her discussion about GLAM-wiki
A recording of the September webcast by Phoebe Ayers<http://if%20you%E2%80%99re%20planning%20on%20attending%20subhashish%E2%80%99s%20webinar%20and%20want%20to%20know%20more%20about%20using%20wikipedia%20in%20your%20glam%2C%20you%20might%20be%20interested%20in%20watching%20this%20first./>, a librarian at MIT and former member of the Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees about the basics of editing Wikipedia especially for Librarians.https://join.onstreammedia.com/play/sparc/7087-edit-a-thon-training-09.30

How to do Guerilla GLAM

Open Access Week (19-25 October) is fast approaching and we have a number of events in store – one I’m keen to tell you about now is a webinar we have planned entitled, “How to do Guerilla GLAM”.

Our speaker, Subhashish Panigrahi @subhapa, from the Centre for Internet and Society’s Access To Knowledge programme will be tuning in via the interwebs from India to share his vision, case studies of Guerilla GLAM initiatives in India, as well as touching on the creation of documentaries, learning resources and promotional material from acquired content.

GLAM = Galleries Libraries Archives and Museums
Guerilla Glam = “getting the most out from cultural institutions where collaboration and long term engagement has high cost and time implications.”

Details of the event

How to do Guerilla GLAM / Subhashish Panigrahi @subhapa
Tuesday 20 October, 3.00pm NZDT
Conference Room 3, 1st floor University of Otago Central Library, 65 Albany Street, Dunedin
Or join us via Adobe Connect. [Please ensure you are logged in before 3pm and have read the participant notes on screen]

We will be recording this session and Subha has given permission for us to make the recording and his slides available here on the blog. We encourage participants to ask questions via the chat facility in Adobe Connect, or to tweet questions using #OAWeek #AOASG.

Abstract
Building partnership with galleries, libraries, archives and museums (collectively known as GLAM institutions) is a great way of funneling the cultural content acquisition and bringing open access to such valuable data. But it is not that easy given the complications each country has in terms of formal agreement, organizational framework, etc. This presentation will detail about the learning curve of institutional partnership building, leveraging personal contacts in small scale GLAM projects and bringing in several indie-projects to cut implication cost, and execute low-cost models.

During this presentation I will present two case studies of contrasting nature: India’s first GLAM project at the National Crafts Museum, New Delhi, and various small-scale collaborative projects. Where the first one would have learning from the six months long project, the second one will draw inspirations from many initiatives that have really no cost or low cost implication and less implementation time involved.

At times, institutional collaborations become liabilities and labor intensive with low Return on Investment. Training staff and implementing GLAM projects are not always easy and retaining contributors is a challenge. Alternatively Guerrilla GLAM could be thought of when having a Wikimedian-in-Residence is not feasible. This presentation will be useful for those who can mobilize a small team of volunteers equipped with digital camera, access to local cultural institutions and some level of expertise of curating data.

Making documentaries and building narratives based on acquired content to creating learning resources and promotional materials will be another aspect of this presentation. Building partnerships with many federal or private institutions also needs sustained long-term engagement and volunteer time is not always enough to devote for a long term GLAM project. This presentation will detail about going the guerrilla way to acquire data from GLAM institutions. This will involve low cost models, leveraging various factors, and getting the most out from cultural institutions where collaboration and long term engagement has high cost and time implications.

About Subhashish

Subhashish Panigrahi is an India based educator, author, blogger, Wikimedian, language activist and free knowledge evangelist. Earlier with Wikimedia Foundation’s India Program and currently at the Centre for Internet and Society‘s Access To Knowledge program, Panigrahi works on building partnership with universities, language research and GLAM (Gallery, Library, Archive and Museums) organizations for bringing more scholarly and encyclopedic content under free licenses, designing outreach programs for South Asian language Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects and communities.

The other hats he wears are as the Editor for Global Voices Odia, Community Moderator of Opensource.com, and Ambassador for India in OpenGLAM Local, Juror of 2015 American Alliance of Museum Muse Awards, and member of OER 2016 Standing Committee. He has presented in various Indian and international conferences on the free knowledge, GLAM and Open Access movement. Panigrahi has authored of “Rising Voices: Indigenous language Digital Activism” in Digital Activism in Asia Reader and was winner of the 2015 Opensource.com People’s Choice Award. Subhashish is available on Twitter at @subhapa and over email at psubhashishatgmaildotcom for more discussion.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/guerilla-glam

Wikipedia workshop at Sinhgad Institute of Technology and Science, Pune

garule — 2016-02-26T10:10:11Z

The goal of this Wikipedia workshop is to increase awareness about Wikipedia and equip its participants with the rudiments of contributing to Wikipedia, and to introduce it as a concept to them. The participants will be learn about Wikipedia and its sister projects. Furthermore, they will be encouraged to contribute in these projects.

Planned activities:

To introduce Wikipedia to the new editors and get them accustomed to the environment.
To promote Marathi Wikipedia and elaborate the use and contribution towards Wikipedia in other Indian languages.
To have an open discussion among the editors the free knowledge movement in general and Wikipedia in particular.
Experienced editors from the Marathi Wikipedia community will demonstrate and educate the participants.
To spread the awareness of Wikipedia as a powerful tool.

We are expecting about 30-60 students to participate in this event. Friends from Hamara Linux also are planning to join in this workshop and mentor the participants.

4th Annual US - China IP Conference: Best Practices for Innovation and Creativity

praskrishna — 2015-11-29T13:51:15Z

Bhairav Acharya attended this conference organized by Berkeley Law, University of California on October 6, 2015.

WHAT: The 4th Annual U.S.-China IP Conference: Best Practices for Innovation and Creativity

WHEN: Thurs. Oct. 8, 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. and Fri. Oct. 9, 9:00 a.m.—noon

WHO: Lawyers, government officials, scholars, and corporate counsel from China and U.S.

Participants include:

Chuntian Liu, dean of China Renmin University
Ping Liu, dep. director-general, Music Copyright Society of China
Robert Merges, co-dir. of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology at Berkeley Law
Maria Strong, deputy dir. of the U.S. Copyright Office
Duane Valz, sr. patent counsel, Google

For a full list of speakers and bios, go here.

WHERE: The Claremont Hotel, 41 Tunnel Road, Berkeley, CA 94705.

DETAILS: Last year marked the first in which Chinese investment in the United States—heavily weighted toward technology—exceeded U.S. investment in China. With companies in each country increasingly seeking joint ventures in the other, intellectual property (IP) issues that lie at the core of these investments have taken on even greater importance.

Participants will compare the latest trends and developments in IP creation, protection and cross-border enforcement in China and U.S.

Panel topics include:

Opportunities and Challenges in U.S.-China Film Co-Production and Other Media
New Trends and Legal Issues in Transnational Technology Investment
Specialized IP Courts
Recent Developments in Copyright: Legislation and Cases
Recent Developments in Patents: Legislation and Cases
Cross-border IP Enforcement

For a complete agenda, go here. Read a preview story about the conference here.

Event co-sponsors: The UC Berkeley School of Law’s Berkeley Center for Law & Technology (BCLT); Loyola Law School, Los Angeles; and Renmin University of China Law School.

For more information or to schedule interviews contact: Jim Dempsey, exec. dir. BCLT, 510-643-6960; or Louise Lee, assoc. dir., llee@law.berkeley.edu, 510-642-9353.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/4th-annual-us-china-ip-conference-best-practices-for-innovation-and-creativity

Pervasive Technologies: Working Document Series – Updated Research Methodology – Applying the Actor Network Theory to Competition Law and Standard Essential Patent Litigation in India

nehaa — 2015-10-04T04:20:13Z

This document lays out the updated research methodology for the paper on competition law issues around standard essential patent litigation in India.

Read the earlier posts:

In New Delhi, as in Fascist Milan or Nazi Berlin, the individual is lost; the scale is not human but super human; not national, but super-national: it is, in a word, Imperial.[1]

Twenty plus years later, written after he was awe-struck by the grandeur of the Rashtrapati Bhawan in New Delhi, Dalrymple’s delightful choice of words on the similarities between Lutyen’s Delhi and Speer’s Nuremberg[2] rather aptly describe today’s globalized narrative of intellectual property (“IP”) rights determination and ownership. The process of determination of standards applied in mobile devices, claims of IP ownership in these standards and the subsequent enforcement (globally) of these IP claims are all instances of this narrative.

The increasingly global nature of both – innovation and intellectual property has been well documented by researchers over the years and needs no further exploration in this article. This article will seek to examine how this narrative influences (either overtly or covertly) the application of competition law to the regulation of standard essential patents (SEPs) in India. More specifically, this article seeks to study the role of various human and non-human actors involved were competition law to be considered as a potential solution to the matter of SEP litigation in India.

This article examines four research questions. First, how does the globalized narrative of intellectual property influence the determination of standards around mobile devices, their IP protection, licensing and enforcement? Second, what are the important competition law issues in SEP litigation in the United States of America (“USA”) and the European Union (“EU”), and how have regulators (the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the European Commission (“EC”) respectively) and courts in these jurisdictions addressed these issues? Third, what are the critical issues in SEP litigation and competition law in India and how do they compare with similar questions in other jurisdictions? Fourth, could solutions and methodology from the FTC and the EC be applied to SEP competition law matters in India?

In this effort, this article will employ Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network Theory[3] (“ANT”) as the primary research methodology, supplemented where needed by others including comparative research and case studies. A detailed approach into discussing the (above) research questions has been discussed below.

Question one - how does the globalized narrative of intellectual property influence the determination of standards around mobile devices, their IP protection, licensing and enforcement?

This question primarily seeks to explain the determination SEPs on standards through International Standard Setting Organizations (“SSOs”) and the subsequent obligation on members of the SSOs to licence these SEPs on a Fair, Reasonable and Non Discriminatory (“FRAND”) basis.

Applying the ANT, this question will identify both human and non-human actors and that play a role internationally, in the determination of SEPs and their licensing. Illustratively, these actors include the SSOs, multinational corporations that are members of the SSOs, the FRAND licences and the contracts/terms of reference between the SSOs and their member corporations. In order to address this question, the author will refer to academic writing and other literature explaining the role of various actors and the international nature of the standard setting process. Networks that these actors share with each other and the possible influences to the determination of international standards will be studied. This question will explore the international IP environment, and the power of various actors that have an influence on IP norm setting, and attempt to locate the power of these various actors in their network setting.

Question two - what are the important competition law issues in SEP litigation in the USA and the EU, and how have regulators (the FTC and the EC respectively) and courts in these jurisdictions addressed these issues?

This question will study the competition law issues arising from the international determination of standards and the cross-border assertion and enforcement of intellectual property rights discussed in the previous question. This question will also study how (first, whether) courts and regulators have attempted to address some of the competition law issues.

Also applying the ANT, this question will identify various actors involved in competition law litigation around SEPs before the FTC, EC and the courts in the USA and the EU. Illustratively, these include the parties to the litigation, the regulator (whether the FTC or the EC), the court and the legal principles employed. Further applying the ANT, this question will also study how the various actors relate to one another, as a result of their connections within this network, i.e., the litigation, and other connections in other networks (for instance, the position of the parties in certain markets).

Under this research question, select a case study method will be employed to select cases from each jurisdiction. The most important cases pertaining to competition law questions will be studied. These are yet to be identified.

Question three - what are the critical issues in SEP litigation and competition law in India and how do they compare with similar questions in other jurisdictions?

This research question will seek to map the global context around SEP litigation (discussed above) to specific cases in India. In doing so, the author will study the two SEP disputes in India with competition law implications – the Ericsson and Micromax dispute and the Ericsson and Intex dispute; based on information available in the public domain. While there are other pending disputes around SEPs in India, they do not involve the Competition Commission of India (India’s market regulator), and hence are outside the scope of this article. Through a study of these cases, questions of competition law will be identified. Such questions may be either those as a result of the direct application of the Competition Act, 2000 or certain actions taken by the courts with competition law implications (for instance, granting ex-parte interim injunctions).

Having identified competition law issues in SEP litigation in India, the author will then employ the comparative research methodology to trace similar issues in international SEP litigation, discussed under the previous research question. What the author is most interested in locating is the position of the actors in domestic as well as international SEP litigation. Specifically, it is submitted that characters in the domestic litigation also trace back to the context of global IP norm setting; some of them more directly than others. For instance, multinational corporations are directly involved in IP norm setting and are a party to domestic disputes. Further, domestic regulators may seek to draw inferences or apply commonly understood international legal principles, thus invoking more international actors. This phase will attempt to distill the uniqueness of India in the narrative of global IP ownership around SEP litigation.

Question four- what are the challenges for competition regulation of SEPs in India; do principles and methodology from the FTC/ EU and courts present solutions to these challenges?

In this question, the author deliberates the challenge of competition regulation for SEPs in India and whether the approach of international regulators and courts could serve as a roadmap to address these issues.

In answering this question, the author will trace India’s specific location in global competition. The tensions between differently situated actors and the networks that they form will be examined. Some comparisons will be made to illustrate how the relationship of international jurisdictions (mainly the USA and the EU) with international multinational corporations that are a party to litigation differs from that of India. Legal traditions and institutions in India will be used to understand what legal possibilities are available for using competition regulation to regulate SEPs. This includes specifically the levers in competition law such as abuse of dominance as well as the nature of the competition regulator and the role that it identifies for itself. One might also consider the relative ‘youth’ of the competition regulator as a factor in laying down legal principles, the constraints it imposes on itself as well as a tension between the market regulator and the courts. This phase will also attempt to make a case for IP regulation within India’s existing culture of engaging with the public interest in intellectual property regulation.

Having examined global IP norm setting in SEPs, international and domestic issues around SEP litigation and the network of actors involved in these proceedings, in concluding this article, the author seeks to illustrate how actors and networks in the SEP-competition set-up derive power from each other; and how the location of an actor within a network is likely to influence law and regulation. Tracing this location will then in turn be useful in determining what solutions would best address the matter of competition regulation for SEPs in India.

[1]William Dalrymple, The City of Djinns – A Year in Delhi (rep. 2014, Penguin, India) at 83.

[2]Id at 82.

[3]Bruno Latour, Networks, Societies, Spheres: Reflections of an Actor – Network Theorist, International Journal of Communication 5 (2011), 796- 810, http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewArticle/1094 (accessed 31 August, 2015).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-working-document-series-2013-updated-research-methodology-2013-applying-the-actor-network-theory-to-competition-law-and-standard-essential-patent-litigation-in-india

National Conference: WTO, FTAs and Investment Treaties: Implications for development policy space

praskrishna — 2015-10-02T03:41:00Z

The conference was jointly organized by Focus on the Global South, Institute for Studies in Industrial Development (ISID), Madhyam, MSF Access Campaign, National Working Group on Patent Laws and WTO (NWGPL), Public Services International (PSI) – South Asia, South Solidarity Initiative – ActionAid, Third Word Network (TWN), and Forum against FTAs. Nehaa Chaudhari attended the event.

Nehaa Chaudhari made a presentation on Copyright: Access to Knowledge in Free Trade Agreements?

Day 1:

9.00 to 9.30 : Registration

9.30 to 10.00: Welcome and Introduction,

Prof Murthy, ISID

Shri. TN Chaturvedi, President of ISID

Prof Goyal, ISID

Prof. Dinesh Abrol, ISID

Shalini Bhutani, Legal researcher

( The session will cover objectives of the meeting, meeting schedule with purpose why people need to come forward and strategize and brief self-introduction by participants and state the introduction to the conference in very brief (2Mins to participants))

10.00 to 11.30: Session 1: Trade and Investment regimes: An overview of implications for development policy space

(The session will provide overview of macro-economic framework with the critical perspective over current state of play on WTO, FTAs and bilateral investment treaties (BITs)).

Chair: Shri. Muchkund Dubey, Centre for Social Development (CSD)

Panel of speakers:

Prof. Biswajit Dhar, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) – Current dynamics of trade and investment negotiations: Issues and options. (Synthesis of our views and what India should do – presentation of the background paper to the conference- Speech will cover elements of trade negotiations scenario, update on WTO, FTAs, BITs

Shri. Rajiv Kher, Former Commerce Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India - WTO negotiations: Challenges Ahead,

Deborah James, Our World Is Not For Sale (OWINFS) network: Overview of recent developments in WTO negotiations and Challenges Ahead

Followed by Discussion:

11.30 to 11.45 Tea

11.45 to 1.30: Manufacturing sector and Challenges for policy space

(The session will provide an overview of challenges for employment and development emerging from proposed trade agreements such as NAMA, Information technology agreement (ITA), Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA), and impact of FTAs. It will also critically analyze Global Value Chain arguments, Make in India initiative, protecting policy space, employment and trade union rights issues)

Chair: Prof. Biswajit Dhar, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU)

Panel of speakers:

Smitha Francis, ISID – FTAs, NAMA, ITA and EGA – Implications for Manufacturing sector

Amb. Jayant Das Gupta, Former Ambassador of India to the WTO - Issues and options in Non-Agricultural Market Access negotiations in WTO

Respondents: 5 to 7 Mins

Amitava Guha, Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) / FMRI (TBC)

Gautam Mody, New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI)

Saji Narayanan, Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS)

1.30 PM to 2.30 PM: Lunch

2.30 PM to 4.00 PM: Services Liberalization and Privatization – Part 1

(The session will focus on RCEP, TPP and TISA highlighting the corporate agenda in services liberalization. The session will then look at key sectors evaluating the extent of liberalization that has taken place and routes through which development policy is being lost.)

Moderator: Benny Kuruvilla, South Solidarity Initiative

Services liberalization: The Corporate Agenda: Deborah James, CEPR

Banking and insurance sector liberalization: Prof. C.P.Chandra Sekhar

Responses:

Banking sector Unions: Thomas Franko, All India State Bank Officers Association (TBC)

Insurance sector Union: V Narasimhan, All India National Life Insurance Employees Federation (AINLIEF)

4.00 to 4.15 Tea Break

4.15 to 6.00: Services Liberalisation – Part 2: Impacts on essential services

(The session will focus on key essential services and assess the extent of liberalisation achieved through different routes and the challenges posed by the TISA agenda).

Moderator: PSI

Panel of speakers: Health system: privatization and challenges to domestic regulation: Amit Sengupta, People’s Health Movement (PHM) – Challenges from autonomous liberalization and TISA, (Presentation will also cover the issue of Movement of health professional - debunking Mode 4.).

Privatization of education: Anil Sadagopal, All India Right to Education Forum Anil Sadagopal/ or JJ Thilak, National University of Education Planning and Administration (NUEPA) (presentation will focus on Foreign universities) (TBC)

Privatisation of electricity: EAS Sharma (TBC)

Responses:

Water sector: Jammu Anand, National Platform against water privatization / or someone from Karnataka

Day 2

9.30 AM to 11.30 AM: Trade policies and Agriculture: Challenges to food sovereignty and local communities

(The session will discuss challenges emerging from trade policies in the agriculture sector with the focus on WTO negotiations and India’s FTAs. It will also include views from representatives of farmers’ organizations)

Chair: Ranja Sengupta, TWN (We will say we are looking forward to strategy related suggestions)

Panel

Prof. Abhjit Das, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT): Agriculture and challenges emerging from trade negotiations / Ranja in case of (Speech will cover key agriculture issues in WTO Agreement on Agriculture and FTAs)

Afsar Jafri, Focus on the Global South – Food sovereignty, Peasant livelihood and free trade

Shalini Bhutani, Legal Researcher – Seeds and Intellectual Property Rights – implications for local communities

Responses (5 to 7 min.)-

Sridhar - ASHA

Biraj Patnaik - Right to Food Campaign -

Yudhvir Singh - Via Campasina

Kannaiyan - Via Campasina

Vijoo Krishnan - All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS)

11.30 am to 11.45: Tea Break

Discussion

11.45 to 1.15

Investment regime and Challenges for Development:

Moderator: Prof. Chimni, JNU

Kavaljit Singh, Madhyam: Investment regimes and challenges for development (20 min)

Prof. Chalapaty Rao, ISID: FDI and Development demystifying foreign investments' contribution to development (10 min)

Kajal Bharadwaj, ISDS case studies (health, mining and environment cases)

(The session will demystify issues around BIPAs and Foreign Direct investment. It will cover issues emerging from FTAs through BIPA, and review of BIPA with example of ISDS cases)

Responses:

FDI in Retail: Dharmendra Kumar / Praveen

Natural resources and Infrastructure Investment: NAPM – Madhuresh /Forest Workers

Infrastructure Investment in North East: Ramananda Wangkheirakpam, North East Peoples’ Alliance (NEPA)

1.15 to 2.15 Lunch Break

2.15 to 3.15: Session on Intellectual Property

Chair: Prof. Dinesh Abrol, ISID

Medicines - MSF Access Campaign

“TRIPS – State of Play in WTO negotiations” By Gopakumar, Third World Network (TWN)

“Copy rights: Access to knowledge” by Neha Chowdhury (CIS)

3.15 to 5.15 The Way Forward

(Starts with presentation from moderators on key issues raised in sectoral sessions. From each section draw a broad conclusion and arrange them towards a declaration or statement of unity)

Chair: Prof. Deepak Nayyar

Moderators: Prof. Dinesh Abrol and Shalini Bhutani

Valedictory address by Shri. S P Shukla (TBC)

Creating a Time line of key moments

4.00 to 4.15 Tea Break

4.15 to 5.45 Conclusion

5.45 to 6.00: Vote of Thanks

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/national-conference-wto-ftas-and-investment-treaties-implications-for-development-policy-space

Unable to read Odia on your android device? Don’t fret!

praskrishna — 2015-12-15T08:04:39Z

If you get only boxes in place of Odia fonts in your Android device then it does not support the language. So you need to install Odia font in your smart phone; one way is to root it, but it’s not without cons.

The article by Ruby Nanda was published in Odisha Sun Times on September 28, 2015. Subhashish Panigrahi was quoted.

Rooting means breaking and getting full rights into the entire operating system of your Android. If done right it can turn you into a super user and open a wealth of opportunities with your handheld device. But, rooting is a complex process and definitely not for a newbie, as rooting leads to loss of warranty, security issues and a wrong move can turn it into a paperweight.

“Rooting is not advisable as it is bit complicated and turns your phone warranty void”, says Subhashish Panigrahi, Programme Officer at the Centre for Internet and Society, an NGO. By far the easiest way to read Odia is by installing Firefox Browser for your android mobile, he added.

Nihar Kumar Dalai, IT professional, has found an easy hack and with Panigrahi, he has designed a free licensed tutorial by which one can easily read Odia language in their smart phones.

“Odia fonts are supported only in the latest android 5.1.1 update, but people using android devices with older version may not have Odia fonts and can see only the boxes. We see many people seeking help to resolve this problem on Twitter and Facebook. With missing Odia fonts, people may end up writing Odia in Roman script, said Dalai.

“There has been very positive response from people who have tried this method. I’m happy to play a very small part for this cause, the IT professional added.

So if you are unable to read or write Odia in your android handheld then no sweat, just try out these simple steps and enjoy the fun of reading and writing Odia in your mobile.

Install Mozilla Firefox browser for Android on your phone from Google Play.
Launch Firefox and go to the Oriya fonts package Add-Ons page and select “Add to Firefox”
Click on Install
Eureka! Now Odia fonts appear on your android device instead of unrecognizable boxes.

Click here to watch the tutorial:

https://or.wikipedia.org/s/ucf

Once you’re able to read and write Odia, you can use any online Odia transliteration service e.g. TypeOdia (on Firefox browser), iBUS on Linux, Microsoft’s Indic language Input Tool, Google Input Tool.

P.S: This method only works on Firefox Browser for Android and not on any other Apps. Android jellybean 4.3 version also supports Odia but there might be issues which are fixed by 5.1.1.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/odisha-sun-times-september-28-2015-ruby-nanda-unable-to-read-odia-on-your-android-device