Centre for Internet and Society

Train the Trainer — Report in Udayavani

praskrishna — 2015-04-04T16:20:49Z

As part of the Train The Trainer program, on Feb 28, all the participants (Wikipedians from all over India) were taken to Janapada Loka, near Ramanagara. There was a report in Udayavani, Ramanagara edition on March 2, 2015 about this event.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/train-the-trainer-event-report-march-2-2015-udayavani-report

Train the Trainer Program

praskrishna — 2015-02-27T02:37:10Z

The Centre for Internet and Society's Access to Knowledge team (CIS-A2K) welcomes you to attend the "Train the Trainer Program" in Bangalore.

Train the Trainer (TTT) is a residential training workshop to groom leadership skills among the Indian Wikimedia community members. CIS-A2K is organizing the Wikipedia Train the Trainer Program 2015 (TTT 2015). This is the second iteration of this program. TTT 2015 will be conducted by CIS-A2K during 26 February to 1 March 2015 in Bangalore, India.

Note: All selected participants will be expected to reach the event venue the previous night (i.e. February 25) and leave by the evening of March 1, 2015. The selected participants are requested to kindly confirm their participation by writing to tanveercis-india.org. Registration for TTT 2015 is closed. Please do not register.. Please note that registration does not confirm participation. Selection by CIS-A2K will be final. Before registering here please go through the selection criterion.

Programme Schedule

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Timing	Session	Topics to be Covered	Coordinator / Resource Person

7:30am - 8:30am	Breakfast
8:30am - 9:00am	Registration
9:00am - 10.30am	Welcome & Introduction	Introductions (activity based) Creating name tags for yourself and your friends Energiser/Activity. Meet and greet Wikimedians	T. Vishnu Vardhan (VV) and Tanveer Hasan (TH)
10:30am - 11 am	Why TTT?	Design and Objectives of the TTT	VV
11 am - 11.30 am	☕ Tea/Coffee Break
☼ 11.30 am - 1 pm	Participant presentations	Individual presentation based on pre-work	TTT Participant
1 pm - 2 pm	Lunch
2 pm - 3.30 pm	Participant presentations	Individual presentation based on pre work	TTT Participant
3.30 pm - 4 pm	☕ Tea/Coffee Break
4 pm - 5 pm	Presenting with impact	Effective Communication Forceful Introduction Organizing your speech (Opening, Body Closing) Get to the point (General purpose and specific purpose) Communicate clearly, accurately and vividly Body Language (Stance, Movement, Gestures, Facial expression and eye contact) Vocal Variety (Volume, Pitch, Rate and Quality)	TH
5.30 pm - 6.30 pm	Break
6.30 pm - 8 pm	Parallel Sessions	Personal coaching on Presentation Skills using video recordings of Presentation or Multilingual Edit-a-thon (theme - Jnanpith_Award)	Sunil Abraham(SA) VV TH Rahmanuddin Shaik (RS) Subhashish Panigrahi (SP) U.B. Pavanaja (UBP)
8:00 pm - 9:00 pm	Dinner

Friday, February 26, 2015

Timing	Session	Topics to be Covered	Coordinator / Resource Person

☾ 8 pm - 9 pm	Dinner
☼ 10.30 am - 11 am	Internet research techniques (Session 2)	Information literacy and Internet research techniques for Wikipedia editors slides	LS
9.15 am - 10 am	Internet research techniques (Session 1)	Information literacy and Internet research techniques for Wikipedia editors	LS
8:30 am - 9.15 am	Copyright, CC and Wikimedia	Introduction to Copyright and Creative Commons slides Creative Commons Wikimedia Applications	L. Shyamal (LS)
7:30 am - 8:30 am	Breakfast
7 pm - 8 pm	Parallel sessions	Personal Coaching GLAM Projects Do's and Dont's FOSS Tools Support and Discussion	CIS-A2K Team RL RS
6.30 pm - 7 pm	GLAM Projects in Indic Wikipedia Context	Feasibility, Scalability and Scope	Rohini Lakshane(RL)
6 pm - 6.30 pm	☕ Tea/Coffee Break
5 pm - 6 pm	Essential Foss Tools for Wikimedians	Hands on Session	Rahamanuddin
4.30 pm - 5 pm	Essential FOSS Tools	Demonstration	RS
4 pm - 4.30 pm	☕ Tea/Coffee Break
3.30 pm - 4 pm	Panel Discussion	Importance of NPOV in Indian Languages	Participant Panel (TBD)
2.45 pm - 3.30 pm	Importance of NPOV	NPOV as an essential quality for Wikimedians with English Wikipedia as a case study	NVV Char and Tito Dutta
2 pm - 2.45 pm	Spectogram	Interactive activity to critically discuss the importance of NPOV	SA
11.45 am - 1 pm	DIY	Digitisation Techniques for Wikimedians-Hands on Session	Group Activity
11.30 am - 11.45 am	☕ Tea/Coffee Break
11 am - 11.30 am	DIY	Digitisation Techniques for Wikimedians	Viswa Prabha(VP)
10 am - 10.30 am	☕ Tea/Coffee Break
1 pm - 2 pm	Lunch

Saturday, February 28, 2015

Timing	Session	Topics to be Covered	Coordinator / Resource Person

7 am - 7.30am	Breakfast
7:30am	Departure to Janapada Loka
9 am - 9.30am	Expectations from GLAM Activity	Design,scope and expected outcomes	TH
9.30am - 1 pm	* GLAM Activity	Interviewing Janapada Loka Staff Documentation of Janapada Loka exhibits Resource Collection for Wiki Commons Material collection for GLAM Edit-a-thon	VP RL CIS-A2K
1 pm - 2 pm	Lunch
2 pm - 3.30 pm	Group Activity	GLAM Editathon in Indian Languages	VP and VV
3.30 pm - 4 pm	☕ Tea/Coffee Break
4 pm - 4.30 pm	Panel Discussion	Need and importance of GLAM Activities	TBD
4.30 pm - 5.30 pm	Focused Group Discussion	GLAM Activities to be pursued (Individual and Community)	Participant Groups
5.30 pm - 6.30 pm	Departure to CEO Centre
☾ 8 pm - 9 pm	Dinner at CEO Centre

Sunday, March 1, 2015

Timing	Session	Topics to be Covered	Coordinator / Resource Person

07:30 am - 08:30 am	Breakfast
08:30am - 9.30 am	Media and Social Media Strategies for Wikimedians	Mobilizing mainstream media to cover Wikimedia success stories Best practices of Social Media	Tinu Cherian
9.30am - 10 am	Building Communities for Wikimedia Movement	Introduction to WMIN	Ravishankar Ayyakkannu (RA)and Yohann Thomas (YT)
10am - 10.30 am	Building Communities for Wikimedia Movement	CIS-A2K Trials and Success	VV
☼ 10.30 am - 11:00 am	☕ Tea/Coffee Break
11am - 11.30 am	Group Discussion	Challenges & Opportunities in building an Indian Language Community online	Participant Groups
11.30 pm - 12.30 pm	Participant Presentation	Participant Presentations
12.30 pm - 1 pm	Lunch
1.30 pm - 2 pm	Focused Group Discussion	Road Ahead for GLAM activities in India Languages	Participant Presentations
2.30 pm - 3.30 pm	Participant Presentation	Submission of Outreach and GLAM Draft Plans
3.30 pm - 3.45 pm	Feedback Session
3.45 pm - 4 pm	Closing Remarks
4:00 pm	Departures or Visit to CIS

For any further queries please email—

tanveercis-india.org 09844439247
ajoy cis-india.org 09845492122
vishnucis-india.org 09845207308

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/events/train-the-trainer-program

Hindi Wiki Community Baithak in Delhi

subha — 2015-02-27T01:34:25Z

Hindi Wikimedians met in New Delhi during February 14 and 15. This was the first meeting of the Hindi community. Subhashish Panigrahi attended the meetup.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/how-the-first-time-face-to-face-interaction-helped-india-hindi-wikipedia-community

Telugu Wikipedia Winter Camp at Andhra Loyola College

rahim — 2015-02-26T02:27:05Z

Students of physics, statistics and Telugu departments of Andhra Loyola College spent 5 days of their Christmas vacation of 2014 to edit and enrich Telugu Wikipedia and Wikisource. They worked on their respective subject areas and came up with more than 100 new articles on Telugu Wikipedia and about 300 pages of Veeresalingam's works were typed on Telugu Wikisource.

CIS-A2K has signed an MoU with Andhra Loyola College to make available free knowledge in Telugu to all Telugus across the globe. In this approoach, a two month camp was organised in the college campus. In continuation to the two month camp, 5 days of students' Christmas vacation were marked as Wiki Winter Camp at Andhra Loyola College. 5 students from each of Physics, Statistics and Telugu showed interest to attend the camp. By the time, camp began, there were not 15 but 41 students from various disciplines who attended the camp.


Students and faculty who attended the camp. Source :Wikimedia Commons

For physics and statistics-department students, first day of the wiki winter camp involved students exploring English and Telugu Wikipedias, glancing through various reference websites such as JSTOR, IEEE Explorer, Google scholar, and their own textbooks in Telugu medium. New entrants created their user accounts on Telugu Wikipedia. Students got an essence of how an article on Wikipedia should look like, what should be there and what not. Few students came up with their own ray diagrams for physics (optics - mirrors) articles, uploaded them to Wkimedia Commons and then put them up in their articles. For some of the students, it was the first time they were typing in Telugu, and they felt very curious and excited. The rest of the three days students added about 103 articles on Telugu Wikipedia on physics, and a 10 articles on statistics. By the end of 5 days camp, faculty and co-ordinator for physics, Dr. Sahaya Bhaskaran expressed happiness at his students' work, he affirmed that one can learn his respective subject only if he understands it in his native language, and if he could reproduce that in his native language, he would remember for long.

For Telugu students the five-day camp was fun typing in works of Kandukuri Veeresaingam. First day, students who were new entrants learnt to type in Telugu, and were introduced to the Wikisource platform. In all, they typed about 300 pages of a compilation of Veeresalingam's works. Sri Kola Sekhar, faculty of Telugu a ALC and co-ordinator for Telugu wiki winter camp said he was confident of making students type entire Veeresalingam works in a year's time.

At the end of the 5 day camp, students were given a review of their work, and students felicitated with certificates.

Convener for the camp, Dr. B. Sivakumari, who is also a Wikipedia co-ordinator for Botany, expressed her gratitude to CIS-A2K team for organising the program.

This event has also contributed in achieving the 60,000+ article count landmark at Telugu Wikipedia and 10,000+ pages landmark at Telugu Wikisource.


Media coverage in Eenadu daily

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/telugu-wikipedia-winter-camp-at-andhra-loyola-college

Our Endangered Languages

subha — 2015-03-10T01:41:37Z

My op-ed (in Odia) about the endangered languages was published in the Samaja this 21st on the International Mother Language Day.

Excerpt

Even though we have hundreds of languages in India, only 22 are recognized as scheduled languages in our constitution. People speaking in the non-scheduled languages deserve all the rights to express their opinion in their native languages and stopping them would be against the freedom of expression. In most cases, the dominant class of a society represses the rest and the languages of minorities fall victim to the political and societal inequality. By UNESCO's survey, 197 Indian languages (which are part of 2471 world endangered languages) are in the verge of extinction. For migration from their original places in search of job, speaking others' languages and living in a hetero-cultural society often make aboriginals forget about their own language and cultural heritage. In this column, I have discussed about many such challenges for aboriginals to retain their native languages and some of the possibilities for external interventions to document and preserve the dying languages.

ଆମ ଦେଶରେ କେଇ ହଜାର ଭାଷା ପ୍ରଚଳିତ, ଯହିଁରୁ କେବଳ ୨୨ଗୋଟି ସମ୍ବିଧାନରେ ପାହିଆଟିଏ ପାଇଛନ୍ତି । ତେବେ ବାକି ଭାଷାମାନ ମଧ୍ୟ ଭାଷା ଓ ସେ ଭାଷାମାନ କହୁଥିବା ଲୋକଙ୍କର ଆମ ଭଳି ନିଜ ଭାଷାରେ ସାହିତ୍ୟ ରଚିବା, ଶାସନ କରିବା କିମ୍ବା ପଢ଼ିବାର ଅଧିକାର ରହିଛି । ସେ ଅଧିକାର ଛଡ଼ାଇନେବା ମାନବିକତାର ବିରୁଦ୍ଧାଚରଣ । ଅଥଚ ବର୍ଷବର୍ଷ ଧରି ଛାମୁଆ ବୋଲାଇ ଭାଷାମାନ ଅଳ୍ପ କଥିତ ଭାଷାମାନଙ୍କୁ ଏକ ପ୍ରକାର ଚାପିରଖିଛନ୍ତି । କେତେକ ଭାଷା ଏ ଚାପରୁ ମୁକୁଳି ନିଜ ପତିଆରା ଜାହିର କରିବାବେଳେ ଆଉ କେତେକ ଆମ ଆଖି ଆଗରେ ଜୀବନ୍ତ ସମାଧି ନେଇଛନ୍ତି । ଏଇ କେତେବର୍ଷ ତଳେ "ବୋଆ' ନାମକ ଆଣ୍ଡାମାନୀ ଭାଷାଟି ସେ ଭାଷାର ଶେଷ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ ବୋଆ ଜୁନିଅରଙ୍କ ଦେହାନ୍ତ ପରେ ଲୋପ ପାଇଗଲା । ମିଳିତ ଜାତିସଂଘର ରିପୋର୍ଟ ଅନୁସାରେ ୧୯୭ ଭାରତୀୟ ଭାଷା ସମେତ ଜଗତର ୨୪୭୧ ଗୋଟି ଭାଷା ଧରାରୁ ଲିଭିବା ଉପରେ । ତେବେ ଏ ଭାଷା ସବୁ ଲିଭିଗଲେ ଏ ଜଗତ କ'ଣ କ'ଣ ନ ହରେଇବ ସତେ? ଭାଷାଟିଏ ଏକ ଜନସମାଜ ଓ ସଭ୍ୟତାର ଦୁଆରମୁହଁ । ଏକ ସମାଜର ଚଳଣି, ଚିନ୍ତା, ଚେତନା, ବିଧି ବ୍ୟବହାର, କଳା-କୌଶଳ ଓ ବାକି ସବୁକିଛି ଭାଷା ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ସେ ସମାଜରେ ଆଗକୁ ବଞ୍ଚେ ଆଉ ସମାଜ ବାହାରକୁ ଯାଏ । ଯା'ର ଭାଷାଟି ଯେଡ଼େ ଦମ୍ଭିଲା, ସେ ବାହାର ସମାଜରେ ସେତେ ପରିଚିତ । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିାଠାଗାର ପାଇଁ ଭୁବନେଶ୍ୱରର କିସ୍‍ଠାରେ ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ୬୨ଟି ଜନଜାତି ପିଲାଙ୍କ ସଙ୍ଗେ ମିଶି ତିନି ମାସ ଧରି କାମ କରିବାର ଅନୁଭୂତିରୁ ଲେଖକ ଜୋରଦେଇ କହିାରନ୍ତି ଯେ ଆଦିବାସୀ ବୋଲି ଚିହ୍ନଟ କରାଯାଇଥିବା ସମାଜର ଲୋକ ଅନ୍ୟ ସାଧାରଣ ସମାଜଠାରୁ ବେଶି ବା ସମାନ ଚତୁର, ଚିନ୍ତାଶୀଳ ଓ ଉଚ୍ଚ-ବିଚାରସମ୍ପନ୍ନ । ତେବେ ସେମାନଙ୍କ ସମାଜର ବିକାଶମୁଖୀ ଦିଗଟି ତାଙ୍କ ଭାଷାର ଦମ୍ଭିଲାପଣର ଅଭାବ ସକାଶେ ଯେ ଦୁନିଆ ସାମନାରେ ପହଞ୍ଚିପାରୁ ନାହିଁ, ଏକଥା କହିବା ବାହୁଲ୍ୟ । ୧୯୫୨ ମସିହାର କଥା । ପାକିସ୍ତାନ କବଳରେ ପୂର୍ବବଙ୍ଗଳା । ରାଜନୈତିକ ଚାପରେ ପଞ୍ଜାବୀ, ସିନ୍ଧି ଆଦି ଅନେକ ଭାଷାକୁ ପଦଦଳିତ କରି ନବୀନ ଉର୍ଦ୍ଧୁଭାଷାକୁ ପାକିସ୍ତାନ ନିଜ ଜାତୀୟ ଭାଷା ଘୋଷଣା କଲାବେଳକୁ ପୂର୍ବ ବଙ୍ଗରେ ବଙ୍ଗଳାଭାଷାକୁ ଛାଡ଼ିବାପାଇଁ ସେଠାର ବଙ୍ଗାଳୀଙ୍କ ଭୀଷଣ ଅରାଜି । ବଙ୍ଗଳାଭାଷାକୁ ପୂର୍ବବଙ୍ଗର ଜାତୀୟ ଭାଷା କରିବା ଲାଗି ଢାକା ବିଶ୍ୱବିଦ୍ୟାଳୟ ଓ ମେଡ଼ିକାଲ କଲେଜରେ ପଢ଼ୁଥିବା ଅନେକ ଛାତ୍ରଙ୍କ ଦେଇ ତେଜିଲା ଜନଆନେ୍ଦାଳନ । ଫେବୃୟାରୀ ୨୧ ତାରିଖ ଦିନ ପୁଲିସ ଗୁଳିରେ ଆହୁତି ଦେଇଥିଲେ ଏ ପଢ଼ାଳିଗଣ । ଦାବି ଥିଲା ନିଜ ଭାଷାକୁ ଛାଡ଼ି ବିଦେଶୀ ଉର୍ଦ୍ଧୁ ଭାଷା ଆଦରିବେ ନାହିଁ । ଜଗତରେ ଭାଷା ପାଇଁ ଏ ପ୍ରାଣବଳି ବିରଳ । ଆଜି ବଙ୍ଗଳାଭାଷା ଜଗତର ୨୦ଟି ଛାମୁଆଁ ଭାଷା ଭିତରେ ଗୋଟିଏ ହେବାପାଇଁ ଏ ଥିଲା ନିଅଁପୋତା । "ଭାଷାସବୁ ଭାଷାଙ୍କୁ ମାରନ୍ତିନି; ଭାଷାଭାଷୀମାନେ ମାରନ୍ତି' କହିଥିଲେ ,ସାଲିକିକ ମୁଫଉଇନ (ଜଣାଶୁଣା ଭାଷାବିଦ୍‍) । ଅନେକ ଡରନ୍ତି ଆଜି ଜିଇଥିବା ୬,୭୦୦ଭାଷା ମରିମରି ଆଉ ଶହେବର୍ଷ ପରେ ୨୦୦ ହୋଇସାରିଥିବ । ଭାଷା ତଳେ ଭାଷାର ସମାଧି ଲଭିବାର ମୂକସାକ୍ଷୀ ନିକଟ ଅତୀତ । ଅନେକ ଭାଷା ରାଜଭାଷା, ରାଜନୈତିକ ପୃଷ୍ଠପୋଷକତା ପାଇଥିବା ଭାଷାର ମଙ୍ଗ ଧରିଥିବା ମୁଣ୍ଡିଆଳମାନଙ୍କ ଅଦଉତିରେ ମୁଣ୍ଡଟେକି ଭବିଷ୍ୟତର ଆଲୋକ ଦେଖିାରିନାହାନ୍ତି । ଅଳପ ଧନ ପାଇଁ ବିକଳମନ ଘର ଛାଡ଼ି ବିଦେଶ ଦାଦନ ଯାଏ । ଆଉ ବିଦେଶର ପାଣି ଲାଗିଗଲେ ନିଜ ଲୋକ, ନିଜ ଭାଷା, ନିଜ ଚଳଣିସବୁ ଇଚ୍ଛାରୁ ହେଉ କି ଅନିଚ୍ଛାରୁ ହେଉ ଦୂରେଇ ଯାଏ । ପିଲାଏ ଅଜା କୋଳେ ବସି ବୁଢ଼ାଚକୁଳି ଖାଇପାରନ୍ତି ନାହିଁ କି ଆଈର ଉଷୁମ ପଣତ ଘୋଡ଼ିହୋଇ ବୁଢ଼ୀ ଅସୁରୁଣୀ ଗପ ଶୁଣିବାକୁ ପାଆନ୍ତି ନାହିଁ । ଆଦିବାସୀ ବୋଲି ସମାଜ ଯେଉଁମାନଙ୍କୁ ଗୋଟେ କଣକୁ ଠେଲିଦେଇଛି ଅୟୁତ କାଳରୁ, ସେମାନେ ଯେ ନାନାଦି ଭାଷାରେ କଥାବାର୍ତ୍ତା କରନ୍ତି ତାହା ଅନେକଙ୍କୁ ଅଗୋଚର । ଭାଷାଟିଏ ଚିରକାଳ ବୋଲି ବା କଥିତ ଭାଷା ହୋଇ ରହେନାହିଁ । ତା'ର ଲିପି ଗଢ଼ା ହୁଏ, ସାହିତ୍ୟ, ଇତିହାସ ଲେଖାହୁଏ, ଲୋକେ ସେ ଭାଷାରେ ପଢ଼ାଲେଖା ଆଉ ଶାସନ କରନ୍ତି । ତେବେ ସବୁ ଭାଷା ପାଇଁ ରଘୁନାଥ ମୁର୍ମୁମାନେ ଜନମି ନଥା'ନ୍ତି । ଓଡ଼ିଶାରେ ୬୨ରୁ ଅଧିକ ଆଦିମ ଜନଜାତି, ତାଙ୍କ ତୁଣ୍ଡରେ ୧୫ରୁ ଅଧିକ ନିଆରା ଭାଷା । ତେବେ କେବଳ ସାନ୍ତାଳୀକୁ ଛାଡ଼ି ଆଉ କୌଣସି ଆଦିବାସୀ ଭାଷା ସମ୍ବିଧାନର ୮ମ ପରିଚ୍ଛେଦରେ ସ୍ଥାନ ପାଇନାହିଁ କି ଗୋଟେ ଯୋଡ଼େ ଭାଷାକୁ ଛାଡ଼ି ଆଉ ଭାଷାରେ ବୋଧେ ବହି ଛପା ହୋଇନାହିଁ । ଏଣେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ମୁଖ୍ୟଭାଷା ହୋଇ, ଶାସ୍ତ୍ରୀୟମାନ୍ୟତା ଲଭି ସୁଦ୍ଧା ଦମ୍ଭ ଧରି ନିଜର ଶାସନବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥା ଓ ଦମ୍ଭିଲା ମିଡ଼ିଆଟିଏ ନିଜେ ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠା କରିାରିଲା ନାହିଁ । ଦିନ ଥିଲା ଭାଷା-ସାହିତ୍ୟ ଥିଲା ଭାଷା ପାଇଁ ବାବଦୂକ । ହେଲେ ବହିର କଳେବରରୁ ବାହାରି ଭାଷା ଶାସନ, ସମ୍ବାଦ ପରିବେଷଣ, ମନୋରଞ୍ଜନର ଅନେକ ମାଧ୍ୟମ, ଗବେଷଣା ଓ ବିଜ୍ଞାନର କଥା ପରିବହନ କରିବା ଆରମ୍ଭିଲା । ଆଉ ଭାଷା ପାଇଁ ସଜ ତିଆରିବା ଲୋଡ଼ା ପଡ଼ିଲା । ଭାଷାଟି କିରି ସହଜରେ ଛପାରେ, କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରେ, ମୋବାଇଲରେ ଏବଂ ଆଉ କୌଣସି ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ଲେଖାଯାଇପାରିବ ତା'ଲାଗି ଗହନ ମନ-ଚାଷ ଚାଲିଲା । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ସମେତ ଅନେକ ଭାରତୀୟ ଭାଷାରେ କେବଳ ସାହିତ୍ୟ-ଚାଷ ହୋଇଛି । ଭାଷା- ପ୍ରସାରର ବାକି ସଜତକ ଏ ଯାଏ ଗଢ଼ା ହୋଇନାହିଁ । ଆଜି ସମାଜ ଏତେ ତ୍ୱରିତ୍‍ ଗତିରେ ବଦଳୁଛି ଯେ, କାରିଗରୀ ଜ୍ଞାନରୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ସମ୍ବାଦ ଜାଣିବାଯାଏ ସବୁ କିଛି ଆଜିସଜ କାଲିବାସି ହୋଇଯାଉଛି । ଆଉ ଭାଷାଟିଏ ଯଦି ଏ ଗତି ସଙ୍ଗେ ତାଳମିଳାଇ ଚାଲି ନ ପାରେ, ତା'ହେଲେ ସେ ଅଲୋଡ଼ା, ଅଖୋଜା ହୋଇଯାଏ । ଅନେକ ଭାଷାଭାଷୀ ଲୋକେ ତାଙ୍କ ମୋବାଇଲ କି କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରେ ନିଜ ଭାଷାରେ ଲେଖିବା ଜାଣନ୍ତି ନାହିଁ । ଫଳରେ ସେମାନେ ଇଂରାଜୀ କିମ୍ବା ବାକି ଜଣାଶୁଣା ଭାଷାରେ ଲେଖିବାକୁ ବାଧ୍ୟ ହୁଅନ୍ତି । କିଛିିଢ଼ି ଏଇ ବାଟ ମାଡ଼ିଗଲା ପରେ ନିଜ ଭାଷାଟି ପୂରା ଅମଡ଼ାବାଟ । ଆଉ ଯେଉଁ ଭାଷା ସାଧାରଣ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ଦେଇ ଯେତେ ଅଧିକ ବ୍ୟବହାରରେ ଲାଗେ ସେ ଭାଷାର ଖାଦି ସେତେ । ଅନେକ ଆଦିବାସୀ ନିଜ ଗାଁ' ଛାଡ଼ି ସହରରେ ଆସି ବିଶାଳ ଜନସାଗରରେ ମିଶିଗଲାପରେ ନିଜ ମାଟିର ଗନ୍ଧ ତାଙ୍କ ପିନ୍ଧାଲୁଗାରୁ ଯେ ଆଉ ବାହାରୁ ନାହିଁ ଏକଥା କହିବା ବାହୁଲ୍ୟ । ତେବେ ରାଜ୍ୟ ବା ଦେଶରେ ଭିନ୍ନଭିନ୍ନ ଭାଷାଭାଷୀ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ଭିତରେ ଭାବ ଦିଆନିଆ ଲାଗି ଏକ ମିଶାମିଶି ଭାଷା ବା "ଲିଙ୍ଗୁଆ ଫ୍ରାଙ୍କା' ମଧ୍ୟ ଲୋଡ଼ା । ଓଡ଼ିଆର ପୁରୁଣା ରୂଟି ଯଦି ଆମେ ଖୋଜି ପାଇବା, ତେବେ ସେ ବତେଇବ ସମଗ୍ର କଳିଙ୍ଗ ଭୂଖଣ୍ଡରେ କଥିତ ଭାଷାର ରୂା ଶାସନର ଭାଷା ଥିଲା ସେ ଭାଷା । ଆଉ କଳିଙ୍ଗ ଲମ୍ବିଥିଲା ଗଙ୍ଗାରୁ ଗୋଦାବରୀଯାଏ । ଏଡ଼େ ବଡ଼ ଭୂଖଣ୍ଡରେ ଲୋକେ ଭିନ୍ନଭିନ୍ନ ଭାଷାରେ କଥା ହେଉଥିବେ ସତ । ହେଲେ ସେ ସବୁ ଆଞ୍ଚଳିକ ଭାଷାରୁ ଶବ୍ଦ, ବ୍ୟାକରଣ ଆହରି ମିଶା ଭାଷାଟିଏ ଗଢ଼ା ହୋଇଥିଲା । ଆଜି ବାଲେଶ୍ୱରରୁ ରାୟଗଡ଼ା ଯାଏ ଚାଲିଗଲେ ଓଡ଼ିଆର ଅନେକ ରୂ ଆଖିରେ ପଡ଼େ । ହେଲେ ଆମେ କ'ଣ ଅହମିୟା ଆଉ ବଙ୍ଗଳା ବୁଝିାରୁନା? ନିଜକୁ ପଚାରିଲେ ଉତ୍ତରଟି ହୁଁ ଆସିବ । ଛତିଶଗଡ଼ି କି ମୈଥିଳୀ ପୁଣି କେତେ ନିଜର ନିଜର ଲାଗେ । ଲେଖକ ବଙ୍ଗଳାଦେଶର ଅନେକଙ୍କ ସଙ୍ଗେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ-ବଙ୍ଗଳା ମିଶେଇ କଥା ହୋଇଛି । ହେଲେ ବ୍ୟାପକ ଭାବେ ଦେଖିଲେ ବିହାର, ଝାଡ଼ଖଣ୍ଡ, ବଙ୍ଗଳାରୁ ଓଡ଼ିଶା ଆସୁଥିବା ହଜାର ହଜାର ଛାତ୍ର, ନା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଶିଖନ୍ତି ନା ନିଜ ଭାଷାରେ ଏଠା ଲୋକଙ୍କ ସଙ୍ଗେ କଥା ହୁଅନ୍ତି । ସେମାନେ କଥା ହୁଅନ୍ତି ହିନ୍ଦୀରେ । ଏଇଠି କଥା ଆସେ ଭାଷାର ଖାଦି କଥା । ଆମ ଦେଶରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ, ବଙ୍ଗଳା, ଅହମିୟା ବା ଆଉ କେଉଁ ଭାଷାର ଛାମୁଣିଆ ନାହିଁ । ହେଲେ ରହିଛି ହିନ୍ଦୀ ଭଳି ଏକ ନୂଆ ଭାଷାର । ୪୦ରୁ ଅଧିକ ଭାଷା ହିନ୍ଦୀର ଉପଭାଷା ଭାବେ ଆଜି ଜଣା । ହେଲେ ସେ ଭାଷାସବୁ ନିଆରା, ହିନ୍ଦୀଠାରୁ ମଧ୍ୟ ପୁରୁଣା । ରାଜନୀତିର ବାଜି ଚଳିଲେ କିସ ଅବା ଘଟେ, ତେବେ ସାଲିକିକ ମୁଫଉଇନଙ୍କ ସେଇ ଉକ୍ତିଟି ଏଇଠି ପୁଣି ଆସେ ଯେ ଭାଷା ନୁହେଁ, ଲୋକେ ଭାଷାକୁ ମାରିଦିଅନ୍ତି । ଯଦି ଲୋକେ ନିଜ ଭାଷାକୁ ସାହିତ୍ୟର ଚଉହଦୀରୁ ଶାସନ, ଗଣମାଧ୍ୟମ, ଶିକ୍ଷାଦୀକ୍ଷା, ଧର୍ମ, କଳା, ବିଜ୍ଞାନ ବା ଚାଷବାସ ଯାଏ ଲମ୍ବାଇ ପାରିଥା'ନ୍ତେ, ତା'ହେଲେ ଇତିହାସର ଚକ ଓଲଟା ଗଡ଼ିଥା'ନ୍ତା । ତେବେ ସାଧାରଣ ଲୋକେ ଏକାମ ଯେଡ଼େ ଦହଗଞ୍ଜ ହୋଇ କରି ନ ପାରନ୍ତି, ସରକାର ଓ ପାରିବା ଲୋକେ ଏ କାମ ତେଡ଼େ ସୁରୁଖୁରୁରେ କରିାରନ୍ତି । ରାଜନୀତିର ପଶାଖେଳରେ ଜିତାପଟ ହୋଇଥିବା ଲୋକେ କେମିତି ନିଜ ଭାଷାକୁ ନାହିଁରୁ କାହିଁ କରନ୍ତି ତାହା ଇଂରେଜଙ୍କଠାରୁ ଶିଖିବା କଥା । ଆଜି ଇଉନାଇଟେଡ଼ କିଙ୍ଗଡମ୍‍ ସିନା ପତିଆରା ହରାଇ ସାରିଲାଣି, ହେଲେ ପତିଆରା ଥିବାବେଳେ ନୂଆ ଅପ୍ରାକୃତିକ ଭାଷାଟେ ତିଆରି ସେମାନେ ଯେ ସାରା ଦୁନିଆରେ ନିଜ ପତିଆରା ରଖିାରିଲେ ତାହା କ'ଣ କମ୍‍ ବଡ଼ କଥା? ତେବେ ଇଂରାଜୀ ଭାଷା ତିଆରିବା ଥିଲା ଗୋଟେ କଳା, ଲାଟିନ ଅକ୍ଷରରେ ଅନେକ ଇଉରୋପୀୟ ତଥା କିଛି ଓରିଏଣ୍ଟାଲ ଶବ୍ଦ ମିଶାଇ ଏ ଭାଷା ତିଆରିବାବେଳେ ଅନେକ ଦେଶରୁ ମୂଳଶବ୍ଦ ସବୁ ଆହରିଥିଲେ ସେମାନେ । ଆମ ଦେଶରେ ଏ ଯାଏ ଏ କାମଟି ହୋଇପାରିଲା ନାହିଁ । ସଭିଙ୍କୁ ସମ୍ମାନ ଦେଇ ତାଙ୍କ ଭାଷାକୁ କିଛିକିଛି ଆହରି ଭାଷାଟିଏ ତିଆରିଲେ ସିନା ସେ ସବୁରି ତୁଣ୍ଡରେ ପଇଟନ୍ତା । ଖାଲି ଜୋର ଜବରଦସ୍ତି ଗୋଟେ ଭାଷା ପଛରେ ପୁଳାପୁଳା ପଇସା ଖରଚ କଲେ ସେ କି ଜନାଦର ଲଭିବ? ତେବେ ଭାଷା କ୍ଷେତ୍ରରେ ଦୁଇଟି ଜିନିଷ ଜଳଜଳ ଦିଶେ । ଆଜି ଯାହାର କାଟତି ଅଛି ସେ ଯେ କାଲି ରହିବ ତା' କହିବା ଦୁରୂହ । ବ୍ରିଟିଶ ଇଂରାଜୀ ଆଦି ଖୁବ୍‍ କମ୍‍ ଅଞ୍ଚଳରେ କଥିତ । ହେଲେ ସେ ଥିଲା ମୂଳ ଇଂରାଜୀ । ଗବେଷଣା ହେଉଥିଲେ ହେଁ ମୂଳ ଭାଷାଭାଷୀଙ୍କ ତୁଣ୍ଡରେ ବୋଲାଯାଉ ନ ଥିଲେ ଭାଷାଟି ଧୀରେଧୀରେ ମରିଯାଏ । ୨୦୧୦ ମସିହାରେ ବୋଆ ସିନିଅରଙ୍କ ଦେହାନ୍ତ ପରେ ଗ୍ରେଟ ଆଣ୍ଡାମାନୀ ଭାଷାଟି ତାଙ୍କ ସଙ୍ଗେ ମରଣ ଲଭିବା ଭଳି ଦୁଃଖଦ ଘଟଣା ଏହାର ମୂକସାକ୍ଷୀ । ଆଜି ଅଧିକ ହେଉ କି ଅଳପ, ସବୁରି ଭାଷା ପାଇଁ ଲୋଡ଼ା କିଛି ଦରକାରୀ ସଜ । ନିଜ ଭାଷାରେ ମୋବାଇଲ ଓ କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରେ ଲେଖାପଢ଼ାର ସୁବିଧା, ସାରା ଜଗତରେ ଜଣାଶୁଣା ବିଭିନ୍ନ ମନୋରଞ୍ଜନର ସମକକ୍ଷ ଉପାଦାନ, ଆନ୍ତର୍ଜାତିକ ମାନର ପାଠପଢ଼ା ଆଉ ଶେଷରେ ଭାଷାକୁ ଶାସନର ଭାଷା କରିାରିଲେ ଯେ ସେ ଭାଷାରେ ଜୀବନ ଲାଗିବ । ଆଉ ଏ ସାରାଜଗତ ପାଇଁ ଗୋଟେ ନୁହେଁ ଅନେକ ଭାଷା ଲୋଡ଼ା, ନିଜ ମଣିଷଙ୍କ କଥା, ତାଙ୍କ ଚଳଣି ଆଉ ଜନଜୀବନର ଗାଥା ଆଉ କେଉଁ ଭାଷା କି ସରସେ ଲେଖିହେବ?


Above: A scanned version of the article originally published by the Samaja

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/our-endangered-languages

Cultural knowledge needs to be more open

praskrishna — 2015-03-12T16:41:05Z

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

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

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

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

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

The Basics

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

Open up to us

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

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

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

What open tools and data help you get things done?

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

What do you wish were more open?

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

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

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

Why choose the open source way?

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

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

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

Online Free Content in Telugu Wikipedia

praskrishna — 2015-02-19T15:51:32Z

Wikimedians gathered at Tirupati for a strategic meet. This was covered by the regional newspaper Andhra Jyothy

Click to read the article published on the website of Andhra Jyothy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/andhra-jyothy-february-16-2015-online-free-content-in-telugu-wikipedia

Academia and Civil Society submit critical comments to DIPP on draft National IPR Policy

sinha — 2015-03-08T11:27:05Z

As our readers may be aware, the DIPP had initiated public consultation on the drafting of India’s first National IPR policy in November 2014.

These were published as two separate blog posts on Spicy IP (Part I and Part II).

The second round of consultation on the National IPR Draft Policy (draft policy) ended on January 31, 2015. Last week, we brought to you a guest post by Raghul Sudheesh who presented criticisms submitted by Prof. NS Gopalakrishnan, Director and Dr. TG Agitha, Associate Professor at Inter University Centre for Intellectual Property Rights Studies (IUCIPRS at CUSAT).

This two part post highlights two more submissions: first, made by Prof. Srividhya Ragavan (University of Oklahoma), Prof. Brook Baker (Northeastern University), Prof. Sean Flynn(American University) (click here); and second, by Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore (CIS). In November 2014, the professors also made submissions to the Office of United States Trade Representative (USTR) objecting to US’ threats of unilateral trade sanctions, and argued in support of India’s current IPR regime.

The following sections discuss the submission made by Prof. Srividhya Ragavan, Prof. Brook Baker and Prof. Sean Flynn. The authors have shared with us a draft version of the submission as well (authored by Prof. Raghavan and Prof Baker) and you may access it here. The two submissions are substantially similar, and therefore, I have discussed the points made in the final submission only.

Broad observations and caveats

According to the authors, the policy begins with a noble objective to maintain a balance between rights and obligations (protections, limitations and exceptions) as a means to serve constitutionally recognized ends of developing scientific and creative capacities of Indian society. However, the objective soon loses steam when one comes across clauses disturbing the balance in favour of rights holders (highlighted in subsequent sections).

The document also erroneously treats IP as an end in itself, rather than a means to higher social goals and functions; and fails to mention that there exist non-IP centric policies, which are equally, possibly better suited to meet such goals. The document depicts IP as a magic tool to disperse greater creativity and innovation. In view of such dubious characterisation of IP, the authors are quick to add that the policy would be more aptly titled “Views on the Future of Creativity and Innovation in India”! To fix this muddled projection of IP, the authors at the very outset recommend that the policy imbibe the following norms, broadly:

Firstly, intellectual property systems are means to the greater ends of society, not ends in themselves.
Secondly, the ends that IP is meant to serve include to promote both production of and access to fruits of science and creativity.
Thirdly, in order to achieve the production and access promoting ends of there is a need for context-specific tailoring of protections and exceptions and limitations to achieve a proper balance of rights and obligations.

Further, the policy recommends India becoming more active in negotiations at the international level, and in this regard the authors suggest India to actively resist and reject any TRIPS plus provisions. They express concern about the policy’s intent on commercializing IP, and warn about not going overboard with the commercialization, lest it interferes or diminishes access to medicines, and state that this is where the policy should have mentioned flexibilities in Indian IP law. While addressing specific clauses, the authors warn that steps to introduce a trade secret legislation should be mulled over more, and the proposed law should reconcile with protection of traditional knowledge. Reviewing legislations and their implementation is a welcome step, but law makers need to be extremely cautious before adding more protections to the IP mix. The authors also raise their doubts about the competence and expertise of the think-tank constituted to draft the policy.

What the policy should have done instead (as per the submission)

Articulated the limited role of IP in fostering innovation, creativity and societal goals more accurately – the policy goes as far as to deem copyright and patents as ‘intellectual creations’ on page one! The policy should also have highlighted literature which indicated that IP promises are grossly overemphasized particularly with respect to low- and lower-middle income countries.
Not glorified IP as a magic tool at the altar of other instruments (effective instruments include capacity building, technology transfer, and investment strategies) to increase economic growth. For instance, the IP Hall of Fame section proposes to celebrate only ‘IP innovators &creators’ and ignores other innovators/creators.
Stressed on the importance of limitations and exceptions – the policy calls for case studies of “successful use of IPRs” but not of limitations and exceptions to intellectual property rights, nor of open access tools like Creative Commons licensing or of any other knowledge governance policies. By neglecting the role of limitations and exceptions and focusing on IPRs only, the policy also takes two steps backwards by ignoring amendments to patent and design laws – changes which facilitated the introduction of flexibilities into India’s IPR law. The policy should have also defended India’s compulsory licensing decisions and produced evidence to support the same.
Held back on its enthusiasm to increase the infrastructure for IP specialist courts. In a country where the poor is struggling with access to justice, it is unjustified to put such matters on the backburner and focus on IP adjudication.

In the end, the authors draw up a list of core IP debates that the policy should address, inter alia: clarification of patent eligibility threshold on controversial subject matters; reexamination of the policy on exhaustion of IP rights; calibration and defining the impact of competition law on the exercise of IP exclusive rights; deciding whether India will continue to improve the compulsory and government use licensing regime to broaden permissible grounds for such licenses; articulating India’s position on counter IP overreach of other countries on IP and trade such as USTR’s unilateral Special 301 Watch List and US International Trade Commission investigations; increasing collaboration with developing countries to take a coordinated stand on common IP and trade issues; clarifying and broadening standards for fair use and affordable access to copyright protected works and translation of the same, especially with respect to educational and scientific resources, etc.

Public consultation on the first draft of the National IPR Policy concluded this month. The DIPP received many submissions on the draft policy and also held stakeholder meetings. We’ve discussed two other submissions on SpicyIP (here and here), and this post discusses the submission made by Centre for Internet and Society, India. For our readers’ information, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a non-profit research organisation that works in the areas of issues of intellectual property law reform, openness, privacy, freedom of speech and expression and Internet governance, accessibility for persons with disabilities, and engages in academic research on digital humanities and digital natives.

Like the other two submissions, CIS’ submission also reiterates that a National IPR Policy is not something to be rushed into without adequate evidence and consultation. The submission highlights certain principles that should be followed in the the formulation of a National IPR Policy, and also provides comments and recommendations for the draft policy. To begin with, the submission claims that the vision and mission are at odds with the methods suggested by the draft Policy. While the vision encourages growth for the ‘benefit of all’ and embraces the philosophy that knowledge owned (should be) ‘transformed into knowledge shared’ and, the mission expresses a commitment to establish a balanced, dynamic and vibrant intellectual property system in India, both sections leave much to be desired. The policy should also have envisioned (and set a mission) towards:

The creation of a balanced IP framework and committing to do so by including adequate limitations and exceptions; duly acknowledged that IP is not necessarily the best and the only solution to promoting creativity, innovation and access; and prevent unreasonable and disproportionate remedies to IPR law violations; and
Recognized that upholding freedom of expression and due process of law are essential pillars of any IP regime.

One of the (many) assumptions made by the policy is that increased IP will lead to a corresponding growth in innovation. The submission flags this and cites evidence to prove that there exists no established nexus between intellectual property and innovation, and there are reports which suggest that an increase in patents is not directly proportional to an increase in innovation and productivity. Many academic papers have concluded that the connection between patents and innovation/productivity is at best, unambiguous, and there are no positive correlations in the developing countries.

The submission also warns against introduction of a utility model protection system and mentions a couple of drawbacks- explosion in litigation of poor quality patents and legal uncertainty – which impact small business the maximum in terms of costs; risk of the system being used by foreign companies more than local firms. Utility model rights can be, and have been, used by companies to cordon off entire areas of research. Reports also suggest that in China, the abundance of utility models has led to lowering of quality of innovation. Creation of a second-tier patent protection system would lead to a deluge of low quality patents, and the impact of such a system remains debatable, especially in a developing country like India.

The policy also makes an unequivocal commitment to increase IP output at national research labs and universities. The submission cautions against use of excessive IP to cordon off timely access to valuable research produced at public funded institutions and points out that the commitment is at odds with its vision of ‘knowledge sharing’. Any IP resulting from of publicly funded research should automatically belong to the funder. Further, a focus on maximising IP will lead to research being conducted only in areas of commercial value. The objective of the section goes against the recent steps by the government to make research openly accessible in Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Biotechnology as well as other institutions. On a similar note, the submission recommends that the government develop and support the evolution of open standards. The Policy must not encourage use of IP to limit access to standards, because these are the foundational rules any technology must adhere to enter the market or ensure quality. To make the government’s ‘Digital India’ and ‘Make in India’ initiatives a success, it is imperative that standards are openly accessible – not just for the technology sector, but also India’s manufacturing sector. It would also help to establish reasonable and non-discriminatory patent pools, so that even small scale entities can commercialise their inventions based on standards with relative ease. For instance, CIS has earlier proposed that the establishment of a a government-aided patent pool of standard essential technologies in mobile phones will facilitate cross-licensing. This may potentially help avoid a patent thicket and patent licensing war in India, the kind that has erupted internationally.

On the issue of negotiating international treaties and agreement, the submission recommends that the policy state that such negotiations shall be conducted in consultation with various stakeholders, and in a transparent manner. Regional FTAs should not override nor dilute TRIPS’ flexibilities.

Lastly, it strongly pushes the policy to not just ‘study the role of limitations and exceptions’ as future policy development, but also commit to include, adopt and periodically renew of limitations and exceptions in India’s intellectual property laws.

In conclusion, the submission seeks the creation of a policy which encourages greater use of exceptions and limitations to the otherwise exclusionary use of intellectual property, encourages the expansion of the public domain, secures proportionality in enforcement of IP rights, promotes alternatives to IP – including open access to scholarly literature, open educational resources, free/open source software, open standards, open data, and aims to create a regime of intellectual property that aims to serve the public interest and not just the narrow interest of private right holders.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/academia-and-civil-society-submit-critical-comments-to-dipp-on-draft-national-ipr-policy

[OpenGLAM] Nominate an OpenGLAM project today for the 2015 Muse Awards

praskrishna — 2015-05-27T14:08:55Z

It's that time of the year again to nominate projects for the Muse Awards! This is like the Oscar of GLAM awards in the USA and welcomes international submissions.

Our esteemed jury comprises of:

Glen Barnes, Founder/CEO of MyTours and co-founder of Open New Zealand
Dominic McDevitt-Parks, Digital Content Specialist, National Archives and Records Administration
Subhashish Panigrahi, Programme Officer, Centre for Internet and Society
Jane Park, Project Manager, Creative Commons
Lieke Ploeger, Community Manager, Open Knowledge Foundation
Merete Sanderhoff, Curator, National Gallery of Denmark

Submissions are due Feb 23.

Please submit your OpenGLAM projects!!! This is a volunteer driven process, and we throw a big award ceremony with lots of champagne at the annual AAM conference.

More details here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/open-glam-nominate-open-glam-project-today-for-2015-muse-awards

Open Letter to Prime Minister Modi

rohini — 2016-02-14T04:39:01Z

After the government introduced the "Make in India" and "Digital India" programmes, the air is thick with the promise of reduced imports, new jobs, and goods for the domestic market. In light of the patent wars in India, the government can ill-afford to overlook the patent implications in indigenously manufactured mobile phones. CIS proposes that the Government of India initiate the formation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and a five percent compulsory license.

The blog post was re-published by Medianama on March 24, 2015.

Honourable Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi,

We at the Centre for Internet and Society support the "Make in India" and "Digital India" initiatives of the Indian government and share your vision of a digitally empowered India where “1.2 billion connected Indians drive innovation”, where “access to information knows no barriers”, and where knowledge is the citizens’ power. The government’s plan of incentivising the manufacturing of electronics hardware, including that of mobile phones in the 2015 Union Budget is equally encouraging. Towards this important goal of nation building, the Centre for Internet and Society is researching the patent and copyright implications of Internet-enabled mobile devices that are sold in the Indian market for Rs 6,000 or less.

Bolstered by Make in India, several mobile phone manufacturers have started or ramped up their manufacturing facilities in India. Homegrown brands — such as Spice, Maxx Mobile and Lava — and foreign manufacturers alike are making humongous investments in mobile phone plants. Chip manufacturer Mediatek; one of the newest entrants in the Indian smartphone market, Xiaomi; and telecom company Huawei, all different links in the mobile phone manufacturing chain, are setting up research and development units in India having recognised its potential as a significant market. These developments promise to cut or substitute imports, cater to the domestic market, create millions of jobs, and stem the outflow of money from India.

However, mobile phone manufacturers, big and small, have also been embroiled in litigation in India for the past few years over patents pertaining to crucial technologies. Micromax, one of the several Indian mobile phone manufacturers with original equipment manufacturers in China was ordered by the Delhi High Court late last year to pay a substantial 1.25 to 2 per cent of the selling price of its devices to Ericsson, which has claimed infringement of eight of its standard essential patents. Intex and Lava, two members of Micromax’s ilk, have been similarly sued and claim to have received the short end of the stick in the form of unreasonable and exorbitant compensations and royalty rates. Chinese budget phone manufacturers operating in India — Xiaomi, OnePlus, and Gionee — also have come under the sledgehammer of sudden suspension of the sale of their devices. The bigger companies such as Asus, Samsung and ZTE have faced the heat of patent litigation as well.

The fear of litigation over patent infringement could thwart local innovation. Additionally, the expenses incurred due to litigation and compensation could lead to the smaller manufacturers shutting shop or passing on their losses to their consumers, and in turn, driving the price points of Internet-enabled mobile devices out of the reach of many. It could also become a stumbling block to the success of ambitious plans of the government, such as the one to provide free WiFi in 2,500 cities and towns across India.

We propose that the Government of India initiate the formation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and mandate a five percent compulsory license. Such a pool would possibly avert patent disputes by ensuring that the owners' rights are not infringed on, that budget manufacturers are not put out of business owing to patent feuds, and that consumers continue to get access to inexpensive mobile devices. Several countries including the United States regularly issue compulsory licenses on patents in the pharmaceutical, medical, defence, software, and engineering domains for reasons of public policy, or to thwart or correct anti-competitive practices.[1] [2] Unfortunately, we did not receive a response from the previous government to our suggestion of establishing such a patent pool. We believe that our proposal falls in line with your ambitious programmes designed to work towards your vision of India, and we hope that you would consider it.

Yours truly,
Rohini Lakshané,
Programme Officer,
The Centre for Internet and Society

Copies to:

Shri Arun Jaitley, Minister for Finance
Shri Rajiv Mehrishi, Secretary to Ministry of Finance
Smt. Smriti Zubin Irani, Minister for Human Resource Development
Shri Satyanarayan Mohanty, Secretary to Ministry of Human Resources Development
Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman, Minister for Commerce and Industry
Shri Amitabh Kant, Secretary to Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion
Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad, Minister for Communication and Information Technology
Shri Rakesh Garg, Secretary to Department of Telecommunications
Shri R. S. Sharma, Secretary for Department of Electronics and Information Technology

Also read: FAQ: CIS' Proposal for Compulsory Licensing of Critical Mobile Technologies

[1]. James Love, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) written comments and notice of intent to testify at the Special 301 Public Hearing, Page 6, "US use of compulsory licensing",http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/KEI_2014_Special301_7Feb20014_FRComments.pdf, February 7, 2014, Last accessed February 10, 2015.

[2]. Colleen Chien, Cheap Drugs at What Price to Innovation, Does the Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceuticals Hurt Innovation, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Volume 18, Issue 3, Article 3, Page 862, "Compulsory licensing in the United States", http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1429&context=btlj, June 2003, Last accessed February 10, 2015.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/open-letter-to-prime-minister-modi

National IPR Policy Series : RTI Requests to DIPP seeking Details on the IPR Think Tank and the National IPR Policy

nehaa — 2015-04-12T12:48:00Z

In an earlier blog post titled " National IPR Policy Series : The Development of the National IPR Policy", we discussed the formation of an IPR Think Tank to draft the first National IPR Policy. Since many details about the constitution and working of this Think Tank were unavailable, we decided to send out RTI requests to find out more.

According to the press release by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) which can be found here, an IPR Think Tank was constituted in order to draft the National Intellectual Property Policy. The Think Tank, chaired by retired Justice Prabha Sridevan, submitted a confidential first draft of the National IPR policy to the DIPP on 19th December, 2014. This document was made publicly available by the DIPP and all stakeholders were requested to provide comments and suggestions to the first draft of the National IPR Policy.

Though the IPR Think Tank has expediently released their first draft of the National IPR policy, there is a lack of information available on the constitution of this IPR Think Tank. There is no data on how the members of this Think Tank were shortlisted and selected or how the Chairperson and Convener of the Think Tank were elected. Further, the suggestions and comments received by the IPR Think Tank before and after publishing the first draft of the policy have not been made publicly available.

In an attempt to obtain more data on the process of the constitution of the Think Tank and it’s working, CIS filed three RTI requests to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion date February 2, 2015. A copy of the RTI requests is included below:

RTI Request 1: Information on Constitution of IPR Think Tank

Dear Sir/Ma’am,

Subject: Request for Information under Right to Information Act 2005.

Information Sought:

Please provide the following information:

Please indicate in detail the process followed by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion for the constitution for an IPR Think Tank to draft the National Intellectual Property Rights Policy under Public Notice No. 10/22/2013-IPR-III dated November 13, 2014.
If there was a meeting held to decide on the same, please include all necessary documents including the minutes of the meeting, records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, etc. in which the constitution of the aforementioned IPR Think Tank was decided.
If there were multiple meetings held for the same, please provide all necessary documents including the minutes of all such meetings, records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders etc. for all such meetings held.
If a directive or directives were received by Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion from any other government body to constitute such a think tank, please provide a copy of such a directive received by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion from any Government authority, to constitute such a Think Tank.
Please indicate in detail the process of shortlisting the members of the IPR Think Tank by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion or any other body that was responsible for the same.

In case the information is held by or related to another public authority, the application or such part of it as may be appropriate may be transferred to that other public authority under intimation to the undersigned as per Section 6(3) of RTI Act.

Proof of payment of application fee:

An Indian Postal Order for the amount of Rs.10 dated 2/2/2015 favouring the Public Information Officer, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion is enclosed as proof of payment of application fee.

I hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. I request you to ensure that the information is furnished before the expiry of the 30 day period after you have received the application.

Details of Applicant:

Ms. Nehaa Chaudhari
Centre for Internet and Society
G-15, Hauz Khas
New Delhi – 110016

Date: 2/2/2015

RTI Request 2: Working of IPR Think Tank while drafting National IPR policy

To,
Ms. Chandni Raina
Central Public Information Officer
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (IPR I, II, III, IV, V and VI Sections)
Room No.260
Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi

Dear Sir/Ma’am,

Subject: Request for Information under Right to Information Act 2005.

Information Sought:

Please provide the following information:

Please indicate in detail the process followed by the IPR Think Tank constituted by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion via Public Notice No. 10/22/2013-IPR-III dated November 13, 2014 while framing the first draft of the National IPR Policy dated December 19, 2014.
If there was a meeting held to decide on the same, please include all necessary documents including the minutes of the meeting, records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, suggestions etc. related to the drafting of such National IPR Policy by the IPR Think Tank chaired by Justice Prabha Sridevan.
If there were multiple meetings held for the same, please provide all necessary documents including the minutes of all such meetings, records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders suggestions etc. for all such meetings held.
Please provide all the suggestions and comments received by the IPR Think Tank from stakeholders after the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion issued Public Notice No. 10/22/2013-IPR-III dated November 13, 2014 asking for suggestions and comments on or before November 30, 2014.

Proof of payment of application fee:

I hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. I request you to ensure that the information is furnished before the expiry of the 30 day period after you have received the application.

Details of Applicant:

Ms. Nehaa Chaudhari
Centre for Internet and Society
G-15, Hauz Khas
New Delhi – 110016

Date: 2/2/2015

RTI Request 3: Request for suggestions and feedback received by DIPP on the first draft of the National IPR Policy

To,
Ms. Chandni Raina
Central Public Information Officer
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (IPR I, II, III, IV, V and VI Sections)
Room No.260
Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi

Dear Sir/Ma’am,

Subject: Request for Information under Right to Information Act 2005.

Please provide the following information:

Please indicate all the suggestions and comments received by the IPR Think Tank by different stakeholders on or before January 30, 2015 on its first draft of the National Intellectual Property Policy submitted by the IPR Think Tank on December 19, 2014.

Proof of payment of application fee:

I hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. I request you to ensure that the information is furnished before the expiry of the 30 day period after you have received the application.

Details of Applicant:

Ms. Nehaa Chaudhari
Centre for Internet and Society
G-15, Hauz Khas
New Delhi – 110016

Date: 2/2/2015

(Many thanks to CIS intern Protyush Choudhury for his assistance with this.)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-requests-dipp-details-on-constitution-and-working-of-ipr-think-tank

A Wikipedia Presentation at BITS, Goa

Radhakrishna Arvapally — 2015-03-09T01:21:43Z

Quark is one of India's largest science, technology and management festivals, held every February at BITS Pilani - K.K. Birla Goa Campus. This year in 2015, the event was held from February 6 to 8, 2015. This blog post captures the key moments. About 12 delegates attended the event.

How it Started?

For celebrating this annual event, "Quark 2015", BITS Pilani invited speakers from all over India. Many parallel tracks happen during this event. I got an Invite to speak about Wikimedia projects.The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) supported my event participation.

Dr. Sunil Kumar, a BITS physics professor who could not join the presentation due to conflicting meetings met me in the morning that day. He was curious to understand how Wikimedia projects work, how people collaborate to write the same article, how the conflicting views gets resolved among editors and how one can trust the content. He was excited to know the mechanics behind. We discussed about organizing a quiz for their students. He responded very positive and said that he will discuss this internally and get back to me later.

CIS team also helped me to establish contact with Luis Gomes, a local Konkani Wikipedian. We met at the event and shared our thoughts. It was a good learning for me to understand how Konkani Wikipedia is progressing.

I gave my speech in the afternoon. The participants showed great enthusiasm to learn about Wikipedia projects. The session was very interactive. The participants tried answering open ended questions like — As on today, what are the possible ways to preserve unique knowledge and skill? The participants also asked questions on the source of knowledge contribution to Wikipedia and how it survives?

My presentation showcased how anyone could contribute to Wikipedia and also explore greater possibilities of exploring existing frame work with examples like QRpedia, WikiWand, and many more.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/a-wikipedia-presentation-at-goa

An International Conclave of Odia Language

praskrishna — 2015-03-08T05:06:14Z

Subhashish Panigrahi is participating in this event.

See the invitation letter and the concept letter.

The Odia language traces its roots back to 4th Century BC. Odisha was the first state to be carved out as a separate state on the basis of the language. The dawn of 20th February 2014 was a proud moment for all Odias as Odia language was accorded the ‘Classical language’ status of our country and occupied the 6th position. This achievement was due to the relentless effort of many scholars and activists. Now it becomes the responsibility of all the Odias to preserve, propagate and carry forward the legacy of the Odia language which is spoken by around 40 million people in India and around 45 million people globally. We will see that a day will come when it will be used as the first language in all government offices for official communications.

THE INTELLECTS, a forum of progressive individuals and intellectuals in Delhi, believes it as an utmost duty and responsibility to promote Odia identity in India and abroad. In its bid to impart our language to Pravasi Odias living in and around Delhi, THE INTELLECTS is on a missionary zeal. It has started its mission called “ASA SIKHIBA AMARI BHASHA” in National Capital region.

And now, the forum in association with SHRI JAGANNATH MANDIR, TYAGRAJNAGAR is organizing a two days conclave, on 20th & 21st February 2015, to celebrate the 1st anniversary of Classical status to Odia language & the World Mother tongue Day with a special focus on our mother tongue Odia.

The Event

International Conclave of Odia Language:
The event will be a two days festival showcasing the Odia identity in the national Capital and bringing some best minds of the country to discuss on various issues of immense need on language and culture of Odisha. Around 200 eminent people from across the world including many renowned experts from various walks of life are the invited speakers.

It will be our proud privilege to have you with us for the occasion.
With Kind Regards

Debendra Rout
Convener of the conclave & Chairman of The Intellects
Email: cm.intellects@gmail.com
Mob: +91-9350127370

Programme

Celebration of 1st Anniversary of Classical status of Odia language
Date: 20th February, Friday, Time: 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Venue: Constitution Club, Rafi Marg, New Delhi

Welcome
Inauguration of Conclave
Inauguration of Special Report on the Conclave
Felicitation of prominent personalities for their contribution to
Odia language
Addresses
Vote of Thanks
Cultural Programme
Dinner

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/international-conclave-odia-language

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

nehaa — 2015-02-09T00:59:10Z

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

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

Preliminary

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

About CIS

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

Structure of this Submission

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

Principles

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

Detailed Comments

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

On the Vision

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

On the Mission

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

On Objective 1: IP Awareness and Promotion

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

On Objective 2: Creation of IP

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

On the IP-Innovation/ Creativity Nexus

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

On Utility Models

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

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

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

On Objective 3: Legal and Legislative Framework

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

On Utility Models and Intellectual Property in Public Funded Research

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

On the Negotiation of International Treaties and Agreements

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

On Limitations and Exceptions

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

On Standard Setting

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

On Objective 5: Commercialization of IP

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

Concluding Remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

31 Id .

32 Id .

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

34 Id .

35 Id .

36 Id .

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

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

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

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

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

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

43 See

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

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

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

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

48 Id .

49 Id .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

73 Id.

74 Id.

75 Id.

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

77 Id .

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

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

80 Id .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Centre for Internet and Society

Train the Trainer — Report in Udayavani

Train the Trainer Program

Programme Schedule

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Friday, February 26, 2015

Saturday, February 28, 2015

Sunday, March 1, 2015

Hindi Wiki Community Baithak in Delhi

Telugu Wikipedia Winter Camp at Andhra Loyola College

Our Endangered Languages

Excerpt

Cultural knowledge needs to be more open

The Basics

Open up to us

What open tools and data help you get things done?

What do you wish were more open?

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

Why choose the open source way?

Online Free Content in Telugu Wikipedia

More online free content in Telugu Wikipedia soon

Academia and Civil Society submit critical comments to DIPP on draft National IPR Policy

Broad observations and caveats

What the policy should have done instead (as per the submission)

[OpenGLAM] Nominate an OpenGLAM project today for the 2015 Muse Awards

Open Letter to Prime Minister Modi

National IPR Policy Series : RTI Requests to DIPP seeking Details on the IPR Think Tank and the National IPR Policy

A Wikipedia Presentation at BITS, Goa

How it Started?

An International Conclave of Odia Language

The Event

Programme

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

Preliminary

About CIS

Structure of this Submission

Principles

Detailed Comments

On the Vision

On the Mission

On Objective 1: IP Awareness and Promotion

On Objective 2: Creation of IP

On the IP-Innovation/ Creativity Nexus

On Utility Models

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

On Objective 3: Legal and Legislative Framework

On Utility Models and Intellectual Property in Public Funded Research

On the Negotiation of International Treaties and Agreements

On Limitations and Exceptions

On Standard Setting

On Objective 5: Commercialization of IP

Concluding Remarks