Centre for Internet and Society

Six Kannada encyclopaedias released

praskrishna — 2014-07-18T05:22:56Z

The first six online volumes of the University of Mysore's Kannada Encyclopaedia were launched on wikipedia's Creative Commons (CC) to mark the 'Muktha Jana Dina Dayu' (Dissemination of Knowledge) today.

Click to read the blog entry posted on Webindia 123 website on July 15, 2014.

Launching the works Vice-Chancellor Prof K S Rangappa said the project seeks to give new lease of life to encyclopaedia editions in Kannada. The repository of information shared on the internet will surely be a boon for many. With this, the works of great Kannada writers and experts will be accessible to all, he added.

The university will encourage more such works and make sure the remaining 14 volumes are launched soon, he said.

The Kannada encyclopaedia project was taken up by Dr U B Pavanaja, programme officer, centre for internet and society, and his colleague Tejas Jain, a software engineer. Mr Pavanja said the initiative will expand the reach of Kannada language across the world. Over a 1000 articles have been shared on creative commons, he added.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/web-india-123-july-15-2014-six-kannada-encyclopaedias-released

ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ kannada ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ : ಈಗ ಆನ್ ಲೈನ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ 6 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳು ಮುಕ್ತ…ಮುಕ್ತ…….

praskrishna — 2014-07-18T05:19:32Z

ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾನಿಲಯದ ಮೂರು ದಶಕಗಳ ಶ್ರಮದ ಫಲವಾಗಿರುವ ` ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ’ ಇನ್ನು ಮುಂದೆ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದಲ್ಲೇ ಉಚಿತವಾಗಿ ವೀಕ್ಷಿಸಬಹುದು. ಹೌದು, ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯ ಈ ಮಹತ್ವಾಕಾಂಕ್ಷಿ ಯೋಜನೆಯನ್ನು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾ ಈಗ ಆನ್ ಲೈನ್ ಮೂಲಕವು ಲಭಿಸುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡಿದೆ.

Read the original published in JustKannada website on July 15, 2014 here.

ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾನಿಲಯದ ಕುವೆಂಪು ಕನ್ನಡ ಅಧ್ಯಯನ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮಂಗಳವಾರ ನಡೆದ ಸಮಾರಂಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಕುಲಪತಿ ಪ್ರೊ.ಕೆ.ಎಸ್.ರಂಗಪ್ಪ ಅವರು ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರ್ ಬಟನ್ ಒತ್ತುವ ಮೂಲಕ ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಚಾಲನೆ ನೀಡಿದರು.

ಸೆಂಟರ್ ಫಾರ್ ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ ಸೊಸೈಟಿ (ಸಿಐಎಸ್) ಸ್ವಯಂ ಸೇವಾ ಸಂಘಟನೆ ಮುಕ್ತ ಪರವಾನಗಿಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ ಆರು ಸಂಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ಮೊದಲ ಹಂತದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಒದಗಿಸಲಿದೆ. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರ್ ತಜ್ಞ ಯು.ಬಿ.ಪವನಜ ಸಹ ಸಾಥ್ ನೀಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

ಈ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾತನಾಡಿದ ಪ್ರೊ.ಕೆ.ಎಸ್.ರಂಗಪ್ಪ, 1978-1980ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಪಿಎಚ್ಡಿ ಮಾಡುವ ವೇಳೆ ಐಐಎಸ್ಸಿ ಗ್ರಂಥಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಸೀಮಿತ ಪುಸ್ತಕಗಳನ್ನು ಅಧ್ಯಯನ ಮಾಡಬೇಕಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಈಗಿನದ್ದು ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನ ಯುಗ. ಎಲ್ಲವನ್ನೂ ಬೆರಳ ತುದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪಡೆಯುವ ಅವಕಾಶಗಳು ಲಭ್ಯವಿವೆ. ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಜ್ಞಾನವೂ ಮುಕ್ತವಾಗಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಾಗಲಿ ಎನ್ನುವ ಸದಾಶಯ ಇಟ್ಟುಕೊಂಡು ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಗುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಒಪಿದ್ದೇವೆ. ವಿವಿ ಶತಮಾನೋತ್ಸವದ ಹೊಸ್ತಿಲಲ್ಲಿದೆ. ಇದರ ನೆನಪಿಗಾಗಿ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಹಾಗೂ ವಿಷಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶಗಳನ್ನು ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾ ಮೂಲಕ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲಕ್ಕೆ ಅಳವಡಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಇದರಿಂದ ನಮ್ಮ ಹಿರಿಮೆಯೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚಲಿದೆ. ಇದರಿಂದ ವಿವಿಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಹೊರೆಯಾಗದು. . ಬದಲಿಗೆ ಓದುಗರ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿ. ವಿವಿ ಗೌರವವೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿದರು

ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ಮೊದಲ ಆರು ಸಂಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ಆನ್ ಲೈನ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಪಡೆಯಲು ಅನುಮತಿ ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಉಳಿಕೆ ಸಂಪುಟ ಹಾಗೂ ವಿಷಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶಗಳನ್ನು ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಳವಡಿಸಲು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾನಿಲಯದ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳು ಹಾಗೂ ಪ್ರಾಧ್ಯಾಪಕರೊಂದಿಗೆ ಚರ್ಚಿಸಿ ಅನುಮತಿ ಕೊಡುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು.

ಯುಬಿ ಪವನಜ ಮಾತನಾಡಿ, ` ` ಭಾರತದ ಯಾವುದೇ ಭಾಷೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆಗದಷ್ಟು ಕೆಲಸ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾನಿಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಆಗಿದೆ. ಆ ಜ್ಞಾನವನ್ನು ಒಂದು ಕಡೆ ಇರಿಸಿದರೆ ಕೆಲವರಿಗೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಸಿಗಬಹುದು. ಅದನ್ನೇ ಇಂಟರ್ ನೆಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಾಗುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡಿ ಪುನರ್ ನವೀಕರಣಗೊಳಿಸಿದರೆ ಅದರ ಮೌಲ್ಯವೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚಲಿದೆ. ಜನರಿಗೂ ಉಪಯೋಗವಾಗಲಿದೆ. ಈಗ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ವಿಷಯಗಳ ಭಾಷೆಯೂ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನವೇ ಆಗಿದೆ. ಅದರಲ್ಲೂ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಕ್ಕಳಿಗೆ ಪಠ್ಯವನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಯಾವ ವಿಷಯವೂ ಇಂಟರ್ ನೆಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಭಾಷೆ ಉಳಿಯುತ್ತದೆಯೇ ಎನ್ನುವ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ ಸದಾ ಇದ್ದೇ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದೊಂದಿಗೆ ಕನ್ನಡ ಭಾಷೆ ಮಿಳಿತವಾದರೆ ಅದು ಜಾಗತಿಕ ಮಟ್ಟದಲ್ಲೂ ಗಮನ ಸೆಳೆಯಲಿದೆ. ಅಂಥ ಕೆಲಸ ಈಗ ಸದ್ದಿಲ್ಲದೇ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದೆ ಎಂದರು.

ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕ ಆರ್.ರಾಮಕೃಷ್ಣ, ಪ್ರಾಸ್ತಾವಿಕವಾಗಿ ಮಾತನಾಡಿ,. ಶತಮಾನದ ಆರಂಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಎಸ್.ಜೆ.ನರಸಿಂಹಾಚಾರ್ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ರೂಪಿಸುವುದನ್ನು ಪ್ರಸ್ತಾಪಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ಕುವೆಂಪು ಅವರು ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿ ಕುಲಪತಿಯಾದಾಗ ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಚಾಲನೆ ರೊರೆಯಿತು. ಬಳಿಕ ದೇಜಗೌ ಕುಲಪತಿಯಾಗಿ ಬರುತ್ತಲೇ ಇನ್ನಷ್ಟು ಶಕ್ತಿ ತುಂಬಿದರು. ಅದೂ ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆಯೂ ಆಯಿತು. ಜೆ.ಶಶಿಧರಪ್ರಸಾದ್ ಕಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಡಿ ರೂಪವನ್ನು ಪಡೆಯಿತು. ಬಹಳಷ್ಟು ವಿದ್ವಾಂಸರು ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ರೂಪಿಸುವ ಹಿಂದೆ ಇದ್ದಾರೆ. ಬೇರೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಭಾಷೆಯಲ್ಲೂ 14 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಬಂದಿಲ್ಲ. ಎಲ್ಲವೂ ಈಗ ಸಿಡಿ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಲಭ್ಯ. ಮುಂದುವರೆದ ಭಾಗವಾಗಿ ಮುಕ್ತ ಪರವಾನಿಗೆಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಾಗುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವುದು ವಿವಿ ಹಿರಿಮೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿಸಿದೆ. ಜತೆಗೆ 30 ವಿಷಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶಗಳಲ್ಲಿ 5 ಪೂರ್ಣಗೊಂಡಿವೆ. ಇನ್ನಷ್ಟು ವಿಷಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶಗಳು ಪ್ರಕಟಣೆ ಹಂತದಲ್ಲಿವೆ.` ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದರು.

ಸೆಂಟರ್ ಫಾರ್ ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ ಸೊಸೈಟಿಯ(ಸಿಐಎಸ್) ತೇಜಸ್ ಜೈನ್ ಮಾತನಾಡಿ, ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲಕ್ಕೆ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಸೇರಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಹಾಕಿದರೆ ಇದರಿಂದ ಪುಸ್ತಕ ವ್ಯಾಪಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಧಕ್ಕೆಯಾಗಬಹುದು ಎನ್ನುವ ಆತಂಕ ಬಹುತೇಕರಲ್ಲಿದೆ. ಇಂಥ ಅನುಮಾನ ಬೇಡ. ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಓದುವವರು ಇದ್ದೇ ಇದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದ ಲಭ್ಯತೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಓದುಗರನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಇಂಥ ಸವಾಲುಗಳನ್ನು ಎದುರಿಸಿ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾಕ್ಕೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಅಪ್ಡೇಟ್ ಮಾಡಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ ಎಂದು ವಿವರಿಸಿದರು.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/just-kannada-july-15-2014-wikipedia-kannada-vishwakosha-mysore-university-free-internet-kannada-department

ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ ಆರು ಸಂಪುಟ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾಗೆ

praskrishna — 2014-07-18T05:11:41Z

ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾನಿಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಮತ್ತೂಂದು ಹಿರಿಮೆಯ ಗರಿ

Read the original published in Udayavani on July 15, 2014 here.

ಶತಮಾನದ ಹೊಸ್ತಿಲಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾನಿಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಮತ್ತೂಂದು ಹಿರಿಮೆಯ ಗರಿ ಮೂಡಿದೆ. ದೇಶದಲ್ಲೇ ಮೊದಲ ಬಾರಿಗೆ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿ ಮೂರು ದಶಕಗಳಷ್ಟು ಹಳೆಯದಾದ ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ ಆರು ಸಂಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾಗೆ ಸಮರ್ಪಣೆ ಮಾಡಿದೆ.

ಪಾರಂಪರಿಕ ವಿವಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದಾದ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾನಿಲಯವು ಹಲವಾರು ವಿದ್ವಾಂಸರ ಅವಿರತ ಶ್ರಮದಿಂದ ರೂಪುಗೊಂಡಿರುವ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶಗಳು ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಾಗುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡುವಲ್ಲಿ ಯಶಸ್ವಿಯಾಗಿದೆ. ಮೊದಲ ಹಂತದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೂರು ದಶಕಗಳಷ್ಟು ಹಳೆಯ ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ ಆರು ಸಂಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್‌ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್‌ ಪರವಾನಗಿಯಡಿ ಗಣಕೀರಣಗೊಳಿಸಿ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾಗೆ ಬಿಡುಗಡೆಗೊಳಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಪರಿವರ್ತನೆ ಯೋಜಯಾದ ಚಿಜಿಠಿ.ly/ಞysಟ್ಟಛಿunಜಿಡಿಟ ಅನ್ನು ಮಂಗಳವಾರ ಮಾನಸಗಂಗೋತ್ರಿಯ ಕುವೆಂಪು ಕನ್ನಡ ಅಧ್ಯಯನ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ಬಿಎಂಶ್ರೀ ಭವನದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿ ಕುಲಪತಿ ಪ್ರೊ .ಕೆ.ಎಸ್‌. ರಂಗಪ್ಪ ಲೋಕಾರ್ಪಣೆ ಮಾಡಿದರು.

ಈಡೇರಿದ ಯೋಜನೆ: ಬಳಿಕ ಅವರು ಮಾತನಾಡಿ, ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಉತ್ಕಷ್ಟವಾದ ಪ್ರೌಢ ಪ್ರಬಂಧಗಳಿದ್ದು ಅವುಗಳೆಲ್ಲ ಜನರಿಗೆ ತಲುಪಬೇಕೆಂಬ ನಮ್ಮ ಅಭಿಲಾಷೆಗೆ ಪೂರಕವಾಗಿ ಈ ಯೋಜನೆ ಈಡೇರಿದೆ. ನಮ್ಮ ವಿವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ 14 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳಿದ್ದು ಈಗ 6 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾಗೆ ಬಿಡುಗಡೆಗೊಳಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ವಿಷಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ 30 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳಿದ್ದು 5 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾರ್ಪಡಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು.

ಯಾರೂ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡಬಹುದು: ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಪರಿವರ್ತನಾ ಯೋಜನೆಯ ರೂವಾರಿ ಡಾ. ಯು.ಬಿ. ಪವನಜ ಮಾತನಾಡಿ, ವಿಕಿಫೀಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಇದುವರೆಗೆ ಪ್ರಪಂಚದ 287 ಭಾಷೆಗಳು ಅಳವಡಿಕೆಯಾಗಿದ್ದು ಇವುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾರತದ 20 ಭಾಷೆಗಳು ಸ್ಥಾನ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿವೆ. ಮುಕ್ತವಾಗಿ, ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರ ವಿವಿ ಎಂದೆ ಕರೆಯುವ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾರು ಬೇಕಾದರೂ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ತುಂಬಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ, ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್‌ ಆಕ್ಟ್‌ನಡಿ ಬರುವ ಲೇಖನಗಳನ್ನು ಬಳಸುವಂತಿಲ್ಲ. ಅದಕ್ಕಾಗಿಯೇ ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್‌ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್‌ ಪರವಾನಗಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಿದ್ದು, ಇದರ ಸಹಾಯದಿಂದ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಒದಗಿಸಬಹುದು ಎಂದರು.

ಇದೇ ವೇಳೆ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶವನ್ನು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾಗೆ ಅಳವಡಿಸಲು ಶ್ರಮಿಸಿದ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಕ್ರೈಸ್ತ ವಿವಿಯ ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿಗಳಾದ ಕೋಮಲ್‌, ಗೀತಾ, ಗೌತಮ್‌, ಪ್ರತಾಪ್‌, ಭರತ್‌, ಸ್ಮಿತಾ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಸ್ಮರಣಿಕೆ ನೀಡಿ ಗೌರವಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಕುವೆಂಪು ಕನ್ನಡ ಅಧ್ಯಯನ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕ ಪ್ರೊ. ಆರ್‌. ರಾಮಕಷ್ಣ, ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿ ಯೋಜನೆ, ಉಸ್ತುವಾರಿ ಮತ್ತು ಮೌಲ್ಯಮಾಪನ ಮಂಡಳಿಯ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕ ಪ್ರೊ. ಎಸ್‌. ರವಿ, ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್‌ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್‌ನ ತೇಜಸ್‌ ಜೈನ್‌ ಇತರರಿದ್ದರು.

14ರಲ್ಲಿ 6 ಸಂಪುಟ ಸಮರ್ಪಣೆ

ಎನ್‌ಸೈಕ್ಲೋಪೀಡಿಯಾ ಬ್ರಿಟಾನಿಕ್‌ ಮಾದರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ 1954ರಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ರಚಿಸುವ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ ಆರಂಭವಾಯಿತು. 1968ರ ವರೆಗೆ ಈ ಯೋಜನೆಯು ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯ ಮತ್ತು ಸಂಸ್ಕತಿ ಅಭಿವದ್ಧಿ ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಅಧೀನದಲ್ಲಿತ್ತು. ನಾಡೋಜ ಡಾ.ದೇಜವರೇಗೌಡ ಅವರು ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯ ಕುಲಪತಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಯೋಜನೆಯನ್ನು ವಿವಿಯ ವಶಕ್ಕೆ ವಹಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಇದುವರೆಗೆ ಒಟ್ಟು ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ 14 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ಹೊರತರಲಾಗಿದ್ದು, 30 ವಿಷಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶಗಳಿವೆ. ಇದೀಗ ಅವುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ 6 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾಗೆ ಸಮರ್ಪಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/udayavani-july-15-2014-mysore-university-event-coverage-in-udayavani

ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾಗೆ ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ

praskrishna — 2014-07-16T11:14:16Z

ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾನಿಲಯವು ಇದೀಗ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲೂ ಹೆಸರು ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಹಲವಾರು ವಿದ್ವಾಂಸರ ಅವಿರತ ಶ್ರಮದಿಂದ ರೂಪುಗೊಂಡಿರುವ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶಗಳು ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಾಗುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡುವಲ್ಲಿ ವಿವಿ ಯಶಸ್ವಿಯಾಗಿದೆ.

The article was published in Kannada Prabha on July 15, 2014.

ಮೊದಲ ಹಂತದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೂರು ದಶಕಗಳಷ್ಟು ಹಳೆಯ ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ ಆರು ಸಂಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್ ಪರವಾನಗಿಯಡಿ ಗಣಕೀರಣಗೊಳಿಸಿ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾಗೆ ಬಿಡುಗಡೆಗೊಳಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಪರಿವರ್ತನೆ ಯೋಜನೆಯಾದ ಡಿಡಿಠಣಣಛ್ಝಿಡಿ.ಟಣಣಟಣಡ್ಟ್ಠಜ್ಡಟ್ಝಿಢಿಠ ಅನ್ನು ಮಂಗಳವಾರ ಮಾನಸಗಂಗೋತ್ರಿಯ ಕುವೆಂಪು ಕನ್ನಡ ಅಧ್ಯಯನ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ಬಿ.ಎಂ.ಶ್ರೀ ಭವನದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿ ಕುಲಪತಿ ಪ್ರೊ.ಕೆ.ಎಸ್. ರಂಗಪ್ಪ ಲೋಕಾರ್ಪಣೆ ಮಾಡಿದರು. ನಂತರ ಮಾತನಾಡಿದ ಅವರು, ಇತ್ತೀಚಿನ ದಿನಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದ ವೇಗೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚಾಗಿದೆ. ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಉತ್ಕೃಷ್ಟವಾದ ಪ್ರೌಢ ಪ್ರಬಂಧಗಳಿದ್ದು ಅವುಗಳೆಲ್ಲ ಜನರಿಗೆ ತಲುಪಬೇಕೆಂಬ ನಮ್ಮ ಅಭಿಲಾಷೆಗೆ ಪೂರಕವಾಗಿ ಈ ಯೋಜನೆ ಈಡೇರಿದೆ. ನಮ್ಮ ವಿವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ 14 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳಿದ್ದು, ಈಗ 6 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳು ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾಗೆ ಮಾರ್ಪಟ್ಟಾಗಿವೆ. ಇನ್ನುಳಿದ ಸಂಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾರ್ಪಾಟುಗೊಳಿಸಲಾಗುವುದು. ವಿಷಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ 30 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳಿದ್ದು 5 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾರ್ಪಟಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಬೆರಳ ತುದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬೇಕಾದ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಾಗಬೇಕೆಂಬುದು ವಿವಿಯ ಉದ್ದೇಶವಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರು.

ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಪರಿವರ್ತನಾ ಯೋಜನೆಯ ರೂವಾರಿ ಯು.ಬಿ. ಪವನಜ ಮಾತನಾಡಿ, ಕನ್ನಡ ಭಾಷೆ ಉಳಿಯಬೇಕೆಂದರೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಬಳಸಬೇಕು. ಭಾಷೆಯನ್ನು ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನಕ್ಕೆ ಅಳವಡಿಸಿದರೆ ನಮ್ಮ ಮುಂದಿನ ಪೀಳಿಗೆ ಬಳಸಿ, ಬೆಳೆಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಮಕ್ಕಳಿಗೆ ಓದೋಕೆ ಪಠ್ಯಪುಸ್ತಕಗಳಿವೆ. ಆದರೆ, ಬೇಕಾದ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ನೀಡಬೇಕೆಂದರೆ ಪುಸ್ತಕದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶವನ್ನು ನೆಚ್ಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಈಗ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾಗೆ ಮಾರ್ಪಡಿಸಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಜನರಿಗೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಅನುಕೂಲವಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರು.

ಮಾಹಿತಿ ತುಂಬಬಹುದು: ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಕಣಜ ಎನಿಸಿರುವ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಇದುವರೆಗೆ ಪ್ರಪಂಚದ 287 ಭಾಷೆಗಳು ಅಳವಡಿಕೆಯಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಭಾರತದ 20 ಭಾಷೆಗಳಿವೆ. ಮುಕ್ತವಾಗಿ, ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರ ವಿವಿ ಎಂದೆ ಕರೆಯುವ ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾರು ಬೇಕಾದರು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ತುಂಬಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ, ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಆಕ್ಟ್‌ನಡಿ ಬರುವ ಲೇಖನಗಳನ್ನು ಬಳಸುವಂತಿಲ್ಲ. ಅದಕ್ಕಾಗಿಯೇ ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್ ಪರಾವನಗಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಿದ್ದು, ಇದರ ಸಹಾಯದಿಂದ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಒದಗಿಸಬಹುದು ಎಂದರು.

ಸ್ಮರಣಿಕೆ ನೀಡಿ ಗೌರವ: ಇದೇ ವೇಳೆ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶವನ್ನು ವಿಕಿಪಿಡಿಯಾಗೆ ಅಳವಡಿಸಲು ಶ್ರಮಿಸಿದ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಕ್ರೈಸ್ತ ವಿವಿಯ ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿಗಳಾದ ಕೋಮಲ್, ಗೀತಾ, ಗೌತಮ್, ಪ್ರತಾಪ್, ಭರತ್, ಸ್ಮಿತಾ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಸ್ಮರಣಿಕೆ ನೀಡಿ ಗೌರವಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.

ಕುವೆಂಪು ಕನ್ನಡ ಅಧ್ಯಯನ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕ ಪ್ರೊ.ಆರ್. ರಾಮಕೃಷ್ಣ ಅವರು ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು. ಮೈವಿವಿ ಯೋಜನೆ, ಉಸ್ತುವಾರಿ ಮತ್ತು ಮೌಲ್ಯಮಾಪನ ಮಂಡಳಿಯ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕ ಪ್ರೊ.ಎಸ್. ರವಿ, ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವಿ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್‌ನ ತೇಜಸ್ ಜೈನ್ ಇದ್ದರು.

ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್ ಲೈಸನ್ಸ್ ಬಳಸಿ

ಮೈಸೂರು ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ಪುಸ್ತಕಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನಮಗೆ ಬೇಕಾದ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಇದ್ದರು ಸಹ ಹಂಚಲು ಮುಂದಾದಾಗ ಕಾಡುವ ಕಾಪಿರೈಟ್ ಆಕ್ಟ್ ಭೂತದಂತೆ ಕಾಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಅದರಿಂದ ಹೊರ ಬರಲು ಇರುವ ಪರ್ಯಾಯ ಉಪಾಯವೇ ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್ ಲೈಸನ್ಸ್. ಇದನ್ನು ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಬ್ಬರೂ ಬಳಸಬಹುದಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ತೇಜಸ್ ಜೈನ್ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಪಟ್ಟರು. ಜ್ಞಾನ ಯಾರ ಸ್ವತ್ತೂ ಅಲ್ಲ. ಅದೊಂದು ಮುಕ್ತ ಹಾಗೂ ಸುಲಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಸಿಗುವಂತಾಗಬೇಕು. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ವೇದಿಕೆಯೊದಗಿಸಿಕೊಡುವ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲಕ್ಕೆ ಪರವಾನಗಿ ಎಂಬ ಕೊಂಕು ಕಾಡುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಇದರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಎಬೆನ್ ಮೊಗ್ಲೆನ್ ಎಂಬವರು ಚಳವಳಿ ನಡೆಸಿ ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್ ಲೈಸನ್ಸ್ ಎಂಬ ಹೊಸ ಪರಿಕಲ್ಪನೆಯನ್ನು ಹುಟ್ಟುಹಾಕಿದರು. ಇದರಡಿ ಯಾರ ಬೇಕಾದರು ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಬಳಸಬಹುದು ಎಂದರು.

ಏನಿದು ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ?

ಜ್ಞಾನದ ವಿವಿಧ ಶಾಖೆಗಳ ವಿವೇಚನೆಯುಳ್ಳ, ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಬಿಡಿ ಲೇಖನಗಳನ್ನು ಅಕರಾದಿಯಾಗಿ ಒಳಗೊಂಡ ಭಂಡಾರವೇ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ. ಎನ್‌ಸೈಕ್ಲೋಪಿಡಿಯಾ ಬ್ರಿಟಾನಿಕ ಮಾದರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ 1954 ರಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ರಚಿಸುವ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ ಆರಂಭವಾಯಿತು. 1968 ರವರೆಗ ಈ ಯೋಜನೆಯು ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯ ಮತ್ತು ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತಿ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಅಧೀನದಲ್ಲಿತ್ತು. ನಾಡೋಜ ಡಾ. ದೇಜಗೌ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯ ಕುಲಪತಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದಾಗ ಯೋಜನೆಯನ್ನು ವಿವಿಯ ವಶಕ್ಕೆ ವಹಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಇದುವರೆಗೆ ಒಟ್ಟು ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ 14 ಸಂಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ಹೊರತರಲಾಗಿದ್ದು, 30 ವಿಷಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶಗಳಿವೆ.

ಇದನ್ನು ಬಳಸುವವರ ಗಮನಕ್ಕೆ

ಯಾವುದೇ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಪಡೆದರು ಸಹ ಅದರ ಕರ್ತೃವಿನ ಹೆಸರನ್ನು ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸುವುದು
ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಬದಲಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡಿ ಅಥವಾ ಹಾಗೆ ವಿತರಿಸಬಹುದೇ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಗಮನಿಸಬೇಕು
ಕೆಲವು ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಬದಲಾಯಿಸುವ ಅಥವಾ ಪುನರಾವರ್ತಿಸುವ ಸಂದರ್ಭ ಬಂದಲ್ಲಿ ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್ ಲೈಸನ್ಸ್‌ನಡಿ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು

ಬಳಸುವಾಗ ಎದುರಾಗುವ ಸವಾಲುಗಳು

ಇಷ್ಟುದಿನ ಪುಸ್ತಕದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ದಾಖಲಿಸಿ ವ್ಯಾಪಾರ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದವರಿಗೆ ಆತಂಕ ಕಾಡಬಹುದು
ತಮ್ಮ ಬೌದ್ಧಿಕ ಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯತೆ ಹೋಗುತ್ತೆ ಎಂಬ ಭಯ ಕಾಡಲಿದೆ
ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸಬೇಕಾದಾಗ ಗಣಕೀಕರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಒಪ್ಪುವ ಭಾಷೆಯನ್ನು ಬಳಸುವುದು
ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲವನ್ನು ಬಳಸುವುದರಿಂದ ಗ್ರಂಥಾಲಯಗಳ ಅವಶ್ಯಕತೆ ಬೇಕೆ ಎಂಬ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ ಕಾಡಲಿದೆ

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/kannada-prabha-july-15-2014-coverage-of-open-knowledge-day

Soon, all 14 volumes of Kannada encyclopaedia to be online

praskrishna — 2014-07-16T11:06:56Z

Four volumes have been uploaded so far on a pilot basis.

The article by R.Krishna Kumar was published in the Hindu on July 15, 2014. Dr. U.B.Pavanaja gave his inputs.

All 14 volumes of the Kannada Vishwakosha published by the University of Mysore along with five volumes of subject encyclopaedia — also published in Kannada by the varsity — may soon be available on the internet.

This will not only enrich Kannada content on the Internet, but will give the multi-volume publications that are available only in a few libraries and research institutions a new lease of life.

While four volumes of the Vishwakosha published by the Prasaranga wing of the varsity have already been uploaded on Wikisource, talks are on to upload other volumes along with the subject encyclopaedias.

“We are in discussion with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore, in this regard and may soon decide on making the other volumes available on the Internet through Creative Commons (CC) licence to coincide with the centenary of the university in 2016,” said K.S. Rangappa, Vice-Chancellor, University of Mysore.

Speaking at the Open Knowledge Day organised in collaboration with the CIS here on Tuesday, Prof. Rangappa said four volumes of the Vishwakosha have been uploaded as part of a pilot project. “This has helped people access the contents and hence its popularity has grown,” he said.

The university is in talks with the authors and editors concerned at Prasaranga to take the project forward and was also considering digitising the subject encyclopaedia and migrate them to the CC licence platform for public sharing, he added.

The CIS and the varsity signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to re-release the first six volumes of the Vishwakosha under the CC licence, of which four volumes have been released, and the Open Knowledge Day was organised to mark the occasion. The CIS said it also coincided with the Open Knowledge Festival being held in Berlin (July 15 to 17).

U.B. Pavanaja of the CIS said it was imperative to make the latest developments in the world available in Kannada so that people can keep themselves updated. “But for books prescribed in the syllabus, there is not much available on the Internet in Kannada and this project will help bridge the gap,” he said.

Students of Christ University, Bangalore, who worked to upload the Vishwakosha, were felicitated on the occasion.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-july-15-2014-r-krishna-kumar-soon-all-14-volumes-of-kannada-encyclopaedia-to-be-online

Open Access: Students help revive and digitize rare books for Malayalam Wiki Library

praskrishna — 2014-07-28T08:50:07Z

The blog post that quotes Centre for Internet and Society was published in SPICY IP on July 15, 2014.

The New Indian Express reports that in a terrific effort, more than 1000 school students and 234 members of the public across the state of Kerala digitized, proof-read and uploaded more than 150 rare and out-of-copyright Malayalam books as part of a digitization contest organized to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Wiki Source project by the Centre for Internet and Society, the state government run IT@School project, Swanthanthra Malayalam Computing and the Kerala Sahitya Akademi online library.

While these rare books were already in the public domain, the importance of preserving them in an accessible format cannot be emphasised enough. Books published as early as 1772 are now available on Wiki Grandhasala, the Malayalam wiki library to which these digitized copies have been uploaded. As they have been digitized rather than simply scanned, one can also search through them for keywords/phrases. If I’m not mistaken, OCR solutions for Indian languages either do not exist or are not of reliable quality. This would mean that much of the over 13,000 pages were typed out! I understand that these articles will also be used to cross reference wikipedia articles as well.

A big round of applause to all the involved parties for organizing and participating in this great effort at preserving as well as making accessible local literature and culture, that could otherwise be at a risk of getting lost amongst unhelpful copyright laws and/or tarnished or lost physical copies amongst other risks.

(I’m not sure if these overlap but as we reported here, there also seems to be the Kerala State Central Library that makes rare books available as well).

Can this effort be replicated in other states? I know the Panjab Digital Library is another resource that looks to do something similar. Their mission statement includes: to locate, digitize, preserve, collect and make accessible the accumulated wisdom of the Panjab region, without distinction as to script, language, religion, nationality, or other physical condition. There is also the Digital Library of India, hosted by IISC Bangalore, which states that they are trying to digitize all the significant works of mankind! If our readers know of other such databases, please do let us know in the comments.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/spicy-ip-swaraj-paul-barooah-july-15-2014-open-access-students-help-revive-and-digitize-rare-books-for-malayalam-wiki-library

‘ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ’ಕ್ಕೆ ಇನ್ನು ಲೈಸೆನ್ಸ್ ಹಂಗಿಲ್ಲ

praskrishna — 2014-07-14T07:55:12Z

ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾಲಯ ಇದೇ ಮೊದಲ ಬಾರಿಗೆ ತನ್ನ ಮೂರು ದಶಕಗಳಷ್ಟು ಹಳೆಯ ‘ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ’ದ ಮೊದಲ ಆರು ಸಂಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ‘ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್ ಲೈಸನ್ಸ್’ನಡಿ (ಮುಕ್ತ ಪರವಾನಗಿ) ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿಡುಗಡೆ ಮಾಡಲಿದೆ

Click to read the original published in Prajavani on July 14, 2014 here.

ಇದಕ್ಕೆಂದೇ ಕಳೆದ ಫೆಬ್ರುವರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾಲಯವು ಸಿಐಎಸ್‌ (ಸೆಂಟರ್ ಫಾರ್ ಇಂಟರ್‌ನೆಂಟ್‌ ಅಂಡ್ ಸೊಸೈಟಿ) ನೊಂದಿಗೆ ಒಪ್ಪಂದ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದು, ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶದ ಆರು ಸಂಪುಟಗಳು ಇದೀಗ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣ ಉಚಿತವಾಗಿ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲ ಓದುಗರಿಗೆ ಲಭ್ಯವಾಗುತ್ತಿವೆ.

ಇದೇ ರೀತಿ ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾಲಯವು ಕೂಡ ತನ್ನ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶಗಳನ್ನು ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್‌ನಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿಡುಗಡೆ ಮಾಡಬೇಕೆಂದು ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾ ಸಮೂಹವು ಕೋರಿದೆ. ಆದರೆ, ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ವಿ.ವಿ ಇನ್ನೂ ಒಪ್ಪಿಗೆ ಸೂಚಿಸಿಲ್ಲ. ಎಲ್ಲ ವಿ.ವಿ., ಅಕಾಡೆಮಿ, ಪರಿಷತ್ತು ಕನ್ನಡ ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯ ಪರಿಷತ್ತುಗಳು ತಯಾರಿಸಿದ ಮತ್ತು ಸರಕಾರದಿಂದ ಅನುದಾನ ಪಡೆದು ತಯಾರಾದ ಎಲ್ಲ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್ ಪರವಾನಗಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿಡುಗಡೆ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು ಎಂಬುದು ಬಹುತೇಕರ ಒತ್ತಾಯವಾಗಿದೆ.

ಜುಲೈ 15ರಂದು ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾಲಯದ ಕುವೆಂಪು ಕನ್ನಡ ಅಧ್ಯಯನ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆಯುವ ‘ಮುಕ್ತ ಜ್ಞಾನ ದಿನಾಚರಣೆ’ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಕುಲಪತಿ ಡಾ.ಕೆ.ಎಸ್. ರಂಗಪ್ಪ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶವನ್ನು ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಲೋಕಾರ್ಪಣೆ ಮಾಡುವರು.

ಏನಿದು ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್ ಲೈಸೆನ್ಸ್?: ಜ್ಞಾನ ಯಾರ ಸ್ವತ್ತೂ ಅಲ್ಲ. ಅದೊಂದು ಮುಕ್ತ ಹಾಗೂ ಸುಲಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ದಕ್ಕುವಂಥದ್ದಾಗಿರಬೇಕು. ಇದಕ್ಕೆಂದೇ ಅವತಾರವೆತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲ ‘ಲೈಸೆನ್ಸ್’ ಎಂಬ ಯಮಪಾಶಕ್ಕೆ ಸಿಕ್ಕಿ ನರಳುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಎಬೆನ್ ಮೊಗ್ಲೆನ್ ಎಂಬುವರು ‘ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟಿವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್ ಲೈಸೆನ್ಸ್’ ಎಂಬ ಹೊಸ ಚಳವಳಿಯನ್ನೇ ಜಾಗತಿಕವಾಗಿ ಹುಟ್ಟು ಹಾಕಿದ್ದು, ಲೈಸೆನ್ಸ್ ಎಂಬ ಪರಿಕಲ್ಪನೆಯನ್ನೇ ತೊಡೆದುಹಾಕಲು ಶ್ರಮಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

ಇದರಡಿ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾಲಯ ಇದೇ ಮೊದಲ ಬಾರಿಗೆ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯಾಗೆ ತನ್ನ ಆರು ಸಂಪುಟಗಳನ್ನು ಜಾಗತಿಕ ಶಿಷ್ಟತೆಯಾದ ಯೂನಿಕೋಡ್‌ನಲ್ಲಿ ಮುಕ್ತಗೊಳಿಸಲಿದೆ.

ಏನಿದು ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ?: ದೃಶ್ಯ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಗಳ ಹಾವಳಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶಗಳು ಎಂದರೆ ಏನು ಎಂದು ಕೇಳುವ ಯುವಜನರೂ ನಮ್ಮ ನಡುವೆ ಇದ್ದಾರೆ. ಗ್ರಂಥಾಲಯಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ದೂಳು ತಿನ್ನುತ್ತಾ ಎತ್ತರದ ಕಪಾಟುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಇಂದಿಗೂ ಇವುಗಳನ್ನು ಕಾಣಬಹುದು. ಜ್ಞಾನದ ವಿವಿಧ ಶಾಖೆಗಳ ವಿವೇಚನೆಯುಳ್ಳ, ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಬಿಡಿ ಲೇಖನಗಳನ್ನು ಅಕರಾದಿಯಾಗಿ ಒಳಗೊಂಡ ಭಂಡಾರವೇ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ.

ಭರತನ ನಾಟ್ಯಶಾಸ್ತ್ರ ಬಹುಶಃ ಪ್ರಪಂಚದ ಮೊದಲ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ. ನಿಜಗುಣ ಶಿವಯೋಗಿಯ ವಿವೇಕ ಚಿಂತಾಮಣಿ ಕನ್ನಡದ ಮೊದಲ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಎನಿಸಿದೆ. ಇಂಗ್ಲಿಷ್‌ನ ಬ್ರಿಟಾನಿಕಾ ಎನ್‌ಸೈಕ್ಲೋಪೀಡಿಯಾ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಜಗತ್ತಿನಾದ್ಯಂತ ಹೆಸರುವಾಸಿಯಾಗಿದೆ. 1768–-1771ರ ನಡುವೆ ಮೊದಲ ಬಾರಿಗೆ ಪ್ರಕಟವಾದ ಅದು ವಿಶ್ವದ ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಹಳೆಯ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಕೂಡ ಹೌದು. 1931ರಲ್ಲಿ ಶಿವರಾಮ ಕಾರಂತರು ‘ಬಾಲಪ್ರಪಂಚ’ ಕೋಶವನ್ನು ರಚಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ಎನ್‌ಸೈಕ್ಲೋಪೀಡಿಯಾ ಬ್ರಿಟಾನಿಕ ಮಾದರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ರಚಿಸುವ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ1954ರಲ್ಲಿ ಆರಂಭವಾಯಿತು.

ಕುವೆಂಪು ಅವರ ನೇತೃತ್ವದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯು ಯೋಜನೆ ಸಿದ್ಧಪಡಿಸಿ, ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿತು. 1954ರಿಂದ 1968ರವರೆಗೆ ಈ ಯೋಜನೆ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯ ಮತ್ತು ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತಿ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಅಧೀನದಲ್ಲಿತ್ತು. ದೇಜಗೌ ಅವರು ಕನ್ನಡ ಅಧ್ಯಯನ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯ ನಿರ್ದೇಶಕರಾಗಿದ್ದಾಗ ಅಂದಿನ ಮುಖ್ಯಮಂತ್ರಿ ವೀರೇಂದ್ರ ಪಾಟೀಲ, ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ ಸಚಿವ ಕೆ.ವಿ.ಶಂಕರಗೌಡ ಹಾಗೂ ಹಣಕಾಸು ಸಚಿವ ರಾಮಕೃಷ್ಣ ಹೆಗಡೆ ಅವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿವಿಯ ಶಾಶ್ವತ ಯೋಜನೆಯಾಗಿ ನೆಲೆಗೊಳ್ಳುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡಿದರು.

ಪ್ರೊ.ದೇಜಗೌ ಅವರ ಮಾರ್ಗದರ್ಶನ, ಪ್ರೊ.ಹಾ.ಮಾ. ನಾಯಕ ಅವರ ಸಾರಥ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಕನ್ನಡ ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಪ್ರಕಟಗೊಂಡಿತು. ಇದೀಗ ಇದನ್ನು ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲಕ್ಕೆ ಮುಕ್ತವಾಗಿ ಹಂಚಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ.ಕೆಲವು ಅಂತರ್ಜಾಲ ಕೊಂಡಿಗಳು ಹೀಗಿವೆ, ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿ.ವಿ.

ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಪರಿವರ್ತನೆ ಯೋಜನೆ - http://bit.ly/mysoreunivwp
ವಿಕಿಸೋರ್ಸ್‌ನಲ್ಲಿ ಮೈಸೂರು ವಿ.ವಿ. ವಿಶ್ವಕೋಶ ಲೇಖನಗಳು - http://bit.ly/mysoreuniv

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/prajavani-july-14-2014-four-volumes-of-kannada-encyclopaedia-digitised

Open Knowledge Day at Mysore

praskrishna — 2014-07-14T09:41:39Z

Mysore University along with the Centre for Internet and Society's Access to Knowledge (CIS-A2K) team invites you to an Open Knowledge Day at the University of Mysore on July 15, 2014.

We signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the University of Mysore earlier this year in January to re-release the first six volumes of their Kannada encyclopaedia under Creative Commons (CC) license.

CIS-A2K facilitated extracting the legacy text from the soft-copies, converting them to Unicode, distributing the files among volunteers and Christ University interns and uploading them to Kannada Wikisource. So far about 1200 articles have been added. These articles will feed to articles in Kannada Wikipedia.

To commemorate this, the University of Mysore and CIS-A2K is organizing this event. This will also coincide with the Open Knowledge Festival happening at Berlin from July 15 to 17, 2014.

The invitation for the Mysore program given below:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/events/open-knowledge-day-mysore

Four volumes of Kannada Encyclopaedia digitised

praskrishna — 2014-07-14T05:49:48Z

The content is available online under Creative Commons License.

The article by R. Krishna Kumar was published in the Hindu on July 12, 2014, Dr. U.B.Pavanaja is quoted.

Articles from the Kannada Encyclopaedia (Kannada Vishwakosha) of the University of Mysore can now be accessed online under the Creative Commons License. The move to make content of the Kannada Vishwakosha accessible is part of the ongoing effort to enrich Kannada content on Internet.

The University of Mysore is working with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) to digitise encyclopaedic publications for which the copyrights are owned by the varsity, and to re-release them under the Creative Common License.

U.B. Pavanaja of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, who is promoting Kannada content on the Internet, told The Hindu that of the 14 volumes, digitised content of the first four volumes has been uploaded.

And, the CIS is awaiting the release of the revised edition of the other two volumes. “Each volume has about 900 pages and hence over 3,600 pages of the Kannada Vishwakosha can now be accessed. What is significant is that people seeking quality information in Kannada can now access reliable content. It is also subject to editing in real time and hence will remain updated,” according to Mr. Pavanaja. The content was digitised and uploaded with the help of students who were interning with the CIS and included three boys and five girls, said Mr. Pavanaja.

The permission for digitising the content has been accorded for the first six volumes. However, the CIS has sought permission from the varsity for digitising the content of the other volumes, including Subject Encyclopaedia.

The Centre for Internet and Society signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the University of Mysore in February. The varsity issued a certificate to publish the work under the Creative Common License in May.

As per the plan, the digitised content will be made available for everyone through free content distribution platforms like Wikipedia, Wikisource and this is expected to enhance digital literacy in Kannada language while helping in free dissemination of knowledge in Kannada to students, academics, researchers and the general public. As of now, the articles have been uploaded on Wikisource and will shortly be migrated to Wikipedia also.

Besides, the CIS is trying to hold talks with Kannada University, Hampi, on digitising the Janapada Vishwakosha and make it available under the Creative Common License, said Mr. Pavanaja.

Niranjan Vanalli, Director of EMMRC of the University of Mysore, said digitisation of Kannada Vishwakosha has given a new lease of life to publications. “The 14-volume Kannada Vishwakosha was not available to everyone earlier and was confined to research institutions or libraries. But now that the content is available online, it is accessible to all those who are interested. And, what it is more is that most articles, especially those pertaining to history, art and culture, will be of reference quality and that will act as a major boost to the cause of Kannada language,” he added.

Meanwhile, the University of Mysore and CIS will celebrate World Open Knowledge Festival on July 15 at the Kuvempu Institute of Kannada Studies from 11 a.m. to commemorate the event.

Those interested to access the Kannada Vishwakosha online can log on to: http://bit.ly/mysoreuniv

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-july-12-2014-r-krishna-kumar-four-volumes-of-kannada-encyclopaedia-digitised

Patent Valuation and License Fee Determination in Context of Patent Pools

vikrant — 2014-07-09T09:46:16Z

The focus of this research paper is on an extremely limited though important aspect of patent pools — that of patent valuation and license fee determination. It is important to bear in mind that the concept of patent valuation and license fee determination as it exists independently is modified when it is applied in context of patent pools.

I. Introduction

A patent pool is essentially “An agreement between two or more patent owners to aggregate (pool) their patents and to license them to one another or third parties. Pools usually offer standard licensing terms to licensees and allocate a portion of the licensing fees (royalties) to patent owners according to a pre-set formula or procedure.[1]

A patent pool particularly faces intense scrutiny by way of competition/ antitrust law and each step of structuring of a patent pool has to be done keeping the prevalent norms of antitrust law in context. This article merely brushes with the antitrust aspect, as a discussion on that topic is beyond the scope of this particular article. However, suffice is to say that like other aspects of structuring of a patent pool, patent valuation and licensing fee determination is also subject to antitrust law concerns.

Part II of this research paper is a discussion as regards factors which determine patent value in context of a patent pool. Similarly, Part III is a discussion as regards factors that determine license fee in context of a patent pool. Thereafter, Part IV discusses the methods which are applied for patent valuation and license fee determination. A number of these methods are independent evaluation methods and hence their dynamics when applied in context of patent pools may need to be altered in light of the discussion in Parts II and III. Part V discusses certain aspects of actual patent pools in the technological field to better understand the principles which have been discussed in Parts II-IV. Finally, Part VI concludes this research paper.

II. Determination of Patent Value in a Patent Pool

One of the prominent pillars of a patent pool is an appropriate patent valuation process. Patent valuation is a difficult and subjective task.[2] Moreover, the result of a patent valuation independently outside of a pool might be quite different from when it is part of a pool transaction. A “pool regularizes the valuation of individual patents - making, as the United States Supreme Court put it, ‘a division of royalties according to the value attributed by the parties to their respective patent claims’”.[3] However, this value attribution process is not an arbitrary one but incredibly dynamic, and constantly evolving. This difficulty is furthered by the fact that the term “patent value” itself is subject to interpretation. Patent value essentially comprises of the economic benefit that the patent can bestow.[4]

A number of factors as discuss hereinafter determine the value of a patent. It is not necessary though that all the factors would come into play in context of every exercise of valuation of a patent in a pool. The factors determining patent value can be largely classified into a discussion as regards the types of patents in a patent pool in context of their relative importance and other complementary factors which further affect such importance.

A. Categories of Patents in a Patent Pool

Patents in a pool can be classified based on their necessity and quality. Thus, arises the concept of essential and non-essential patents and strong and weak patents.

Essential and Non-Essential Patents
As the terms indicate, essential patents are those which are imperative for the success of pool creation and thus naturally have considerably more value. Non-essential patents on the other hand are patents which though not imperative may bring efficiency advantages to the pool. However, what exactly comprises an essential patent is a subjective and constantly evolving definition determined by each patent pool according to its commercial needs and capabilities. For example, the number of patents in the MPEG-2 pool, all of which are declared to be essential to the MPEG-2 standard, increased from 27 in 1997 to more than 900 in 2010.[5]

Essential patents naturally have more economic value than non-essential patents.[6] “A pool that includes non-essential patents can increase prices for some consumers, while decreasing prices for other consumers.”[7] Also, inclusion of inessential patents can raise potential concerns about foreclosure of alternative technologies and higher royalties for some licenses than would have occurred if these patents were excluded from the pool.[8] These concerns though should be balanced against the costs of excluding potentially essential patents from the pool.[9] Such concerns were raised in context of the DVD 3C patent pool.[10] Thus, it has to be decided on a case by case scenario as to whether the patent pool will include only essential patents or both essential as well as non-essential patents.

“Whether a patent pool improves a market’s transactional efficiency depends on the competitive characteristics of the patents included within the pool’s offering.”[11] Properly demarcating all required patents for a technology is important during patent pool formation. Otherwise it may create a “hold out” problem where a patent owner will “hold out” for higher royalties, “knowing that the manufacturer has individually negotiated for and already acquired the rest of the necessary … patent licenses, and that the value of all those licenses depends on obtaining a license to its own patent.”[12] Essentiality of a patent can be determined based on certain characteristics of patents:

a. Blocking Patents
Blocking patents comprise of improvement patents on an existing technology. Thus, the improvement patent is deemed to be “subservient” to the earlier, “dominant’ patent”[13] and the subservient and dominant patents are said to block one another.[14] This is so because, the subservient patent cannot be exploited without infringing upon the dominant patent.[15] Likewise, the dominant patent cannot be developed in the improved embodiment without permission from the subservient patentee.[16] For example, the Wright brothers patents for aeroplane wings were improved upon by Glenn Curtiss and Alexander Graham Bell by using a set of wing flaps, or ailerons. The Curtiss patent, however, was found to infringe upon the Wright patent. As a result, Curtiss had no legal right to make, use, or sell his ailerons without a license from the Wright brothers, and the Wright brothers had no legal right to make, use, or sell Curtiss's commercially successful form of the stabilizing device. Their patents mutually infringed and blocked one another and they had to form a patent pool.[17] Similarly, public key encryption method was devised and patented at Stanford University, and licensed to Cylink. Soon thereafter, a team of scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology developed and patented an algorithm, and licensed its use to RSA. The RSA algorithm was successfully commercialized and became an industry standard. Cylink and RSA constituted blocking rival patents and the issue was resolved by formation of a patent pool.[18]

b. Complementary Patents
Complementary patents cover technologies that are largely lacking or inefficient absent a license to a separate patented product.[19] They occur as a consequence of independent invention. Thus, value of complementary patents increases when combined with a separate patented invention; they act synergistically, each increasing the value of the other.[20] “Two products or technologies are complements if an increase in the price of one of them reduces the demand for the other.”[21] For example, production of a light bulb requires patent rights to both the vacuum bulb as well as the filament.[22] A patent pool that only contains complementary patents may have substantial market power if the pool does not face competition from alternative or substitutable technology.[23] This though, could lead to the occurrence of royally stacking i.e. double-marginalization, which can occur when firms sell or license complementary products or technologies and demand is sensitive to price.[24] It refers to the addition of successive mark-ups by suppliers in a vertical relationship.[25]

c. Competing Patents

Competing patents result when there exist totally novel products or processes that provide market substitutes for patented goods, or when inventors sufficiently modify existing patented goods so that the original patent is deemed “invented around” and not infringed.[26] “Two products or technologies are substitutes if an increase in the price of one of them increases the demand for the other.”[27] A patent pool may obtain market power by obtaining control over substitutable patents too.[28] An individual who acquires the rights to a competing patent eliminates or significantly lessens his need for competing patents within or outside of the pool.[29] Thus, the value of a pool consisting of competing patents increases with acquisition of substitute patents.[30]

Strong and Weak Patents
A patent pool can comprise of strong as well as weak patents. The value accorded to the patents would naturally be in accordance with its “strength.” “‘Low patent quality’ is shorthand for such problems as overlapping claims, inappropriately broad claims, slow patent prosecution, and patents on obvious inventions.”[31] Patents are “probabilistic rights”[32] Their scope and extent often remains probabilistic until their claim determination which may often be done only upon adjudication. Similarly in situations of a patent flood,[33] the overall quality of patents may become lower.[34] The additional protection of the pool affords a weak patent enforcement rights that it may not have secured standing alone.[35] Thus, even weak and invalid patents become important and can be used to exclude competitors, for example for litigation threats.[36]

Some patent pools contain explicit agreements to support weak patents, such as covenants not to challenge patents, joint defense agreements, and allocation of patent rights to parties who are best able to defend them.[37] Some patent pools achieve a similar effect not by explicit agreements, but by creating an institutional environment where patentees find that it is mutually advantageous to recognize each other’s patents.[38]

B. Other Factors Determining Patent Value in Context of Patent Pool

Besides the patents themselves, other complementary criteria impact on patent value. These comprise of the holistic environment in which the patents subsist, as discussed hereinafter.

Subject matter of Invention
“Value is highly dependent upon the subject matter of the invention.”[39] Certain subject matter fields or innovations do not have sufficient commercial importance or market demand to warrant investments.

Scope of Invention
A particular subject where there is extensive minefield of patents already in existence is less likely to have considerable patent value due to the limited patent scope as opposed to a field where patents are relatively lacking and there is possibility of a broader patent scope. Analogously, “value of a patent is derived from an ability to preclude others from practicing the unique innovation described by the words of the patent’s claims.”[40] “Generalizing, a patent employing broad claim language is typically more valuable than a patent of narrowly written claims in the same technology arena.”[41]

Size of Patent Pool
The size of a patent pool i.e. the number of its members and their patents is an important facet in determining the value of patents involved. Greater the number more are the governance issues as well as royalty determination issues, which in turn affect the valuation of the patents. This though does not imply that pools should be of a specific size, only that their size should meet efficiency demands.

Value of Patent Pool
The patents under the purview of a patent pool determine the pool’s value which in turn determines the value of the patents within as well as out of the pool. Value of a patent pool may be limited if certain holders of essential patents are not members.[42] This may occur due to various reasons such as if it was perceived that the patent may have more value as an independent entity, or due to strategic interests, or choice of joining different pools.[43] Correspondingly, if the patent pool does not contain all the patents it cannot curtail royalty stacking issues for the users. For example, Alcatel-Lucent pursued infringement claims for patents that it alleged covered the MPEG-2 standard and were not in the pool.[44]

While it is evident that collecting all necessary patents where the end product or standards is determined is extremely difficult, it becomes considerably more difficult where there is no predetermined or identifiable end-product.[45]

Patent Portfolio
Certain academic studies are of the opinion that “the real value of patents lies not in their individual significance, but instead in their aggregation into a patent portfolio: a strategic collection of distinct-but-related individual patents that, when combined, confer an array of important advantages upon the portfolio holder.”[46] This theory has been applied to explain the patent paradox where the patent intensity, i.e. patents obtained per research and development dollar has risen dramatically even as the expected value of individual patents has diminished.[47] Thus, greater the control of an entity over a portfolio of patents, more would be its negotiation power in context of valuation.

Signaling
It has been opined that the value of patents inheres not so much in the exclusivity they confer upon inventors, but rather in their ability to serve as credible signals.[48] Firms use patents to credibly convey information about the invention to the market who otherwise might not be willing to expend the costs necessary to obtain the information.[49]

Defensive Aspect
Patent value is also ascertained based on its use to serve as an insurance, whereby competing firms use them as “bargaining chips” to negotiate and secure certain niches in the marketplace.[50] This is so especially from the negotiation as well as the litigation viewpoint.

Valuation Dynamics
In context of certain subject matters, inability of the patents to be valued or possibility of dynamic changes in value creates problems in structuring the patent pool, or it might lead to issues of according over-value or under-value. For example, in the process of biological research, where hypotheses are often adjusted and experimentation continually refined, it is impossible to anticipate the particular value of a given research tool for an investigative procedure.[51] Similarly, in context of the Human Genome Sciences, the patent for the gene that encodes CCR5 protein, was likely not valued very highly, because of unsurity of its utility, which changed when independent research established its importance in the fight against HIV.[52]

C. Role of Independent Evaluator

Often, independent experts in the relevant technology are employed for patent valuation purposes. Their role includes the responsibility of providing a mechanism for determining the market value of each participating patent for the purpose of setting appropriate royalty rates within the patent pool.[53] Also, they would evaluate the current state of the art and determine which patents are essential and which aren’t.[54] An evaluator’s is a continuing responsibility throughout the existence of the duration of the patent pool to monitor developments in the field so as to ensure each patent’s essentiality and incorporate additional patents if necessary.[55] Concerns though have been expressed as regards the expert’s ability and impartiality.[56]

III. Determination of License Fee for a Patent Pool

Theorists, have suggested criteria to gauge viability of patent pools.[57] The various elements involved in structuring of a patent pool do not function in a vacuum. Each has an impact on the other and ultimately they determine in totum, the licensing fees.

A. Pool Dynamics

The factors catalyzing pool creation impact on the licensing fee that is set. A patent pool may primarily be structured due to government influence,[58] court influence,[59] commercial and business perspective,[60] to achieve or pursuant to standard setting,[61] and social objectives.[62] Accordingly, riders may be placed on creation of the pool and setting of licensing fees.

Analogously, members comprising the patent pool affect royalty determinations. Different perspectives can be observed in commercial entities as opposed to research entities or voluntary organizations. Similarly, the negotiation capabilities are different for established commercial conglomerates as opposed to entrepreneurs, or smaller entities.[63] Similarly, patent pools may distinguish between patent contributing licensees and mere licensees in fixing royalty rates.[64]

Furthermore, pool governance as well as nature of the pool would have an impact on royalty determination. Pools can essentially be of two types based on regulation of members or licensing- open and closed.[65] Correspondingly, the patent holders themselves may have different perspectives or expectations of their rights.

The negotiating entity too has an impact on royalty determination. “Agreements between the members of the patent pool and third parties can be established directly through patentees and licensees or indirectly through an entity specifically created to administer the pool.”[66] There are a considerable number of business models involved in context of a patent pool that define the parameters of the relationship between what are primarily classified as IP creators and IP consumers.[67] These dynamics have considerably altered with the strong and prolific emergence of IP intermediaries; they in turn affect the royalty rate negotiations.[68]

B. Negotiation Dynamics

License negotiations involve complicated factors, such as uncertain outcomes, asymmetric information about the values of technologies and the contributions of licensees to a technology's value, the credibility of disagreements, differential bargaining power and skill, and the individual circumstances of licensors and licensees.[69] Royalty determination depends on “the bargaining skills of patentees, their licensing objectives, the qualities of their patents, opportunity costs that patentees may have if they choose not to license their patents, the likelihood of injunctions, and the methods that courts apply to calculate infringement damages.” [70] Pool members act strategically to maximize their share of the pool’s revenues.[71] “The defining characteristic of patent ownership has been described as the right to extract royalties ‘as high as [one] can negotiate with the leverage’ of exclusivity.”[72] “The patent holder can ask for a high starting price; the potential infringer can counter by pointing to potential substitute technologies; and ultimately the process should yield a price that accurately reflects the marginal advantages of the patented technology.”[73] Again, negotiation strategies include deploying a number of tactics by corporates to whittle down an independent inventor’s patience and his price, thus reducing the licensing fee from the desired amount.[74] Correspondingly, there is no average length of time or amount of money needed for successfully creating a patent pool; it depends on the number of members involved in the negotiations and their commitment and willingness to negotiate an appropriate price.[75]

Timing of the license negotiation too has an impact on determination of the royalty scheme. Licensing can occur in two primary settings: ex ante licensing, i.e. prior to pool formation; and ex post, i.e. post pool formation. In ex ante licensing, the manufacturer has a choice to alter existing products to incorporate the patented features, and can thus perform a rational cost-benefit analysis prior to making any product alterations.[76] Analogously, a holdout who demands royalties prior to the final organization of the pool can only demand a royalty that reflects the additional value that his new patent adds to the collection.[77] If he demands more than this value, the pool will work around the holdout’s patent by adopting a different standard, adjusting the patent pool to cover slightly different technology, or dissolving itself.[78] In ex post licensing, on the other hand, a holdout is in a stronger negotiating position, and can demand not only the marginal value of his patent, but also the switching costs that would be incurred if the established standard or licensing regime were limited by a court injunction.[79] Complicating this situation are licenses that are granted ex ante but negotiated ex post.

Furthermore, patent pools are generally voluntary collaborations; however, it is also possible to compel parties to join the pool or risk losing revenue from a large segment of the industry.[80] Depending on the situation, the negotiation dynamics and hence the royalty scheme would be affected.

Rules governing damages for patent infringement also affect patentees’ decision to join a pool or to license independently, as the threat of injunctive relief can provide a patentee with bargaining power that can be disproportional to the number of patents he owns.[81]

C. Terms of License

The terms of the license considerably influence royalty determination. These include, nature of licensed products,[82] character of license- whether exclusive or non-exclusive,[83] granting clause, geographic scope of the license, field of use governed by the license, provision of sublicensing, grantback provisions, future usage governance, non-assertion clauses, reach-through provisions, termination clause, and licensee’s ability to challenge patents in the pool.

Included herein too would be the treatment of after-acquired patents, which in turn can be classified into two types: (1) improvement patents based on a patented technology licensed by another member of the patent pool; and (2) patents unrelated to patented technologies licensed to the members of the patent pool.[84]

License governance in context of graduated and progressive licensing would also influence royalty determination. This would include “provisions for pool members to license their patents without licensing all the patents in a pool”[85] And the freedom “to license their patents bilaterally, i.e., outside of the pool structure.”[86]

IV. Methods for Patent Valuation and License Fee Determination

There are three basic methods of valuation: the cost method,[87] the market method,[88] and the income method.[89] In context of patent valuation, these methods find varied expressions. “A truly accurate assessment of patent value requires intensive legal and technical evaluation of individual patents.”[90] The economics literature, however, has also proposed several proxies for patent value based on objective and readily available information.[91]

In context of patent pools the dynamics of patent valuation methods is altered and they need to be viewed through the prism of factors discussed in Part II. This doesn’t imply that approaches to objective patent valuation are not relevant.[92] “However, such valuation approaches focus only on characteristics of patents at the time of issue and neglect to consider what happens afterwards.”[93] “Technology developments or price fluctuations, among many factors, may alter the relationship between two patents … In turn, this may decrease the value of any static analysis conducted by experts.”[94]

Determination of the licensing fee of a patent pool is based on the joint affect of certain transactions. Again, as with patent valuation, so also with licensing fee determination, in context of patent pools, the factors discussed in Part III need to be given heed. The transactions influencing licensing fee determination essentially comprise of valuation of the patent, which in turn is used to set a royalty rate pertaining to allocation of various fees received by licensing of the pool patents. Thus, royalty payment is comprised of two components: a royalty rate and a royalty base, upon which the rate is applied.[95]

A. Determining an Appropriate Royalty Base

The scope of the royalty base can be determined in two principal ways- apportionment and entire market value rule.

The apportionment principle implies that when a patent reads on the entirety of an infringing product, the royalty base should be the total value of the sales (or use) of that product.[96] When the patent at issue covers only a component of the infringing product, the value of the sales or uses of that item must be apportioned between the patented invention and the remaining unpatented components.[97] Thus, the principle aims at allocating awards in proportion to contribution, and is not based on any value attributable to the infringer’s or third parties’ inventions.[98] Thus, essentially, a licensor garners a royalty fee in proportion to the number of infringed patents owned by him.

The entire market value rule, recognizes that the economic value added to a product by a patented component may be greater than the value of the component alone.[99] Thus, this rule focuses on whether the patented component drives demand for the entire product, and if it is so, then the patentee may treat all revenue from the infringing product as an appropriate royalty base.[100]

B. Setting Royalty Rates

Royalty rates are typically a percentage rate and thus reflects the proportion of the base value that the patented technology contributes.[101] Various approaches have emerged in determining royalty rates; these could be adapted in context of patent pools.

Rule of Thumb
This approach suggests that the licensor should receive 25 percent of the licensee’s gross profit from the licensed technology.[102]Thus, this rule’s purpose is not the valuation of a technology per se, but rather the apportionment of a technology’s value between the licensor and licensee.[103] The percentage split between the licensor and licensee should be adjusted upwards or downwards to take into account the parties’ respective investment and risk in the licensed technology.[104]

Numerical Proportionality
According to this approach, royalty entitlement of the holder of patents essential to a standard should be calculated in light of the proportional contribution of that patent owner’s essential patents compared to the total contribution of all other essential patents reading on the standard.[105] This method rests on the proposition that every patent is of equal value.[106]

Industry Standards / Market or Comparable Technology Method
Under this approach, the worth of a patent is determined by examining the royalty rates garnered in similar past transactions.[107]

Discounted Cash Flow
This approach proposes that patent price can be expressed as the present value of the future stream of economic benefits derived from ownership, which includes projected sales of products (or components) based on the patent over its expected life or any increased share of sales as compared to competitors, net of any capital requirements of production.[108] To implement it, one must determine (1) the future cash flows generated by the patent in question and (2) an appropriate discount rate.[109]

Ranking
This approach compares the intellectual property asset to be valued to comparable intellectual property assets on a subjective or objective scale.[110] There are five components to a ranking method: (i) scoring criteria; (ii) scoring system; (iii) scoring scale; (iv) weighting factors; and (v) decision table; these components are used to calculate a composite score for an asset, which is then compared to the average score for a comparable intellectual property asset to determine the relative value.[111]

Cost-based Rate Setting
This approach proposes that the patent holder’s cost of obtaining the invention and its patent forms the basis of the royalty rate; a profit margin is simply tacked onto the innovation cost.[112]

Surrogate Measures
Surrogate measures value patents by reference to the patents themselves.[113] They can be largely categorized into: (1) the number of patents issued to a company; (2) payment of patent maintenance fees i.e. patents which are regularly renewed are more valuable; (3) prior art citations i.e. more a patent is cited, more is its value; (4) characteristics of litigated patents i.e. patents which are the subject matter of litigation are more valuable.[114]

Disaggregation Methods
There are two basic types of disaggregation methods - value disaggregation and income disaggregation.[115] The former apportions some fraction of total value to intellectual property assets by setting the value of intangible assets equal to the value of a firm minus the firm’s monetary and tangible assets from to determine the value of the intangible assets.[116] The latter apportions some fraction of total earnings of a firm, based upon various factors, to intellectual property assets.[117]

Option Methods
This approach views an investment in intellectual property as an option to develop the intellectual property further, or to abandon the intellectual property, depending upon future technical and market information.[118]

Competitive Advantage Valuation (R)
The major premise of the CAV method is that intellectual property assets have no inherent value; the value of intellectual property assets resides entirely in the value of the tangible assets which incorporate them.[119] The minor premise of the CAV method is that the value of a given intellectual property asset can best be measured by the competitive advantage which that asset contributes to a product, process, or service.[120] In its most general form, CAV method consists of following six basic steps[121]:

The intellectual property asset to be valued (IPA) is associated with a product and the product’s net present value is calculated.
The product's net present value is apportioned among tangible assets, intangible advantages and intellectual property assets. (There are three groups of intellectual property assets: technical [utility patents, functional software copyrights and technical trade secrets]; reputational [trademarks, service marks and brand names]; and operational [business method patents and proprietary business processes].
The product is associated with competition parameters which can be used to compare the product to substitute products and competition parameter weights are calculated. (There are three groups of competition parameters: technical [price and performance], reputational [recognition and impression], and operational [cost and efficiency]. Weights are calculated for each parameter group and for individual parameters within each group).
The IPA is associated with an individual competition parameter and the IPA's competitive advantage relative to substitute intellectual property assets is calculated. (Substitute intellectual property assets are assets which are incorporated in substitute products and associated with the same competition parameter as the IPA).
The IPA is associated with complementary intellectual property assets and the IPA's competitive advantage relative to complementary intellectual property assets is calculated. (Complementary intellectual property assets are assets which are incorporated in the same product and associated with the same parameter group as the IPA).
The value of the IPA is calculated by apportioning a share of the product's intellectual property asset value to the IPA based upon the IPA's competitive advantage contribution relative to substitute and complementary intellectual property assets. If the IPA is associated with multiple products, the IPA's relative competitive advantage contribution to each product is calculated and these contributions are summed to calculate the total value of the IPA. If the IPA is associated with multiple parameters, the IPA's relative competitive advantage contribution for each parameter is calculated and these contributions are summed to calculate the total value of the IPA.

Georgia Pacific
The fifteen factors enumerated in the Georgia Pacific case, several of which repeat approaches discussed above, are used in royalty rate determination:[122]

The royalties received by the patentee for the licensing of the patent in suit, proving or tending to prove an established royalty.
The rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the patent in suit.
The nature and scope of the license, as exclusive or non-exclusive; or as restricted or non-restricted in terms of territory or with respect to whom the manufactured product may be sold.
The licensor’s established policy and marketing program to maintain its patent monopoly by not licensing others to use the invention or by granting licenses under special conditions designed to preserve that monopoly.
The commercial relationship between the licensor and licensee, such as, whether they are competitors in the same territory in the same line of business; or whether they are inventor and promoter.
The effect of selling the patented specialty in promoting sales of other products of the licensee; the existing value of the invention to the licensor as a generator of sales of its non-patented items; and the extent of such derivative or convoyed sales.
The duration of the patent and the term of the license.
The established profitability of the product made under the patent; its commercial success; and its current popularity.
The utility and advantages of the patent property over the old modes or devices, if any, that had been used for working out similar results.
The nature of the patented invention; the character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and produced by the licensor; and the benefits to those who have used the invention.
The extent to which the infringer has made use of the invention; and any evidence probative of the value of that use.
The portion of the profit or of the selling price that may be customary in the particular business or in comparable businesses to allow for the use of the invention or analogous inventions.
The portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the invention as distinguished from non-patented elements, the manufacturing process, business risks, or significant features or improvements added by the infringer.
The opinion testimony of qualified experts.

The amount that a licensor (such as the patentee) and a licensee (such as the infringer) would have agreed upon (at the time the infringement began) if both had been reasonably and voluntarily trying to reach an agreement; that is, the amount which a prudent licensee-which desired, as a business proposition, to obtain a license to manufacture and sell a particular article embodying the patented invention-would have been willing to pay as a royalty and yet be able to make a reasonable profit and which amount would have been acceptable by a prudent patentee who was willing to grant a license.

Academics have prescribed modification to the approach towards these factors analyzing that the relevant questions in calculating a reasonable royalty fall into four basic categories: (1) whether the patentee in fact produces a product in the market; (2) the contribution made by the patented technology compared to the next best alternative; (3) the number and importance of other inputs necessary to make that technology work; and (4) evidence of how the market has actually valued the patent, to the extent it differs from the outcome of (1), (2), and (3).[123]

V. Patent Pool Examples

The following discussion highlights certain aspects of patent pools from real world examples. These examples are restricted to the technological field. Study of these aspects is of value in understanding the concepts discussed hereinbefore.

A. Manufacturers Aircraft Association (MAA)

The MAA was formed in 1917 in U.S.

Apart from the “foundational” patents of Glenn Curtiss and the Wright Brothers, which had substantial royalty rates, most licensing was conducted on a royalty-free basis, with mutual forbearance from infringement suits as the real payment for the exchange.[124]

The MAA was open to anyone who wished to use the Wright-Curtiss designs for a $1000 initiation fee and a licensing fee of $200 per aircraft built; these funds were to be distributed primarily between the Wright and Curtiss interests until each received a sum of $2,000,000 or their key patents expired.[125] MAA retained $ 25 (12.5%) to cover its administrative expenses, $ 135 (67.5%) was paid to the Wright-Martin Aircraft Corporation and $ 40 (20%) was paid to the Curtiss-Burgess Airplane & Motor Corporation.[126]

Patents added to the pool after its formation were divided into two classes- normal patents were licensed into the pool for all to use, with no special royalty payout going to the inventor or firm; exceptional patents earned ongoing royalties, in an amount determined by a formal arbitration procedure.[127]

The MAA also included a grant-back provision that applied to after-acquired patents.[128]

MAA’s members could license their patents to non-members if the terms were no more favorable than to members and any MAA member could withdraw at any time, but its patents in the pool at the time of withdrawal would remain.[129]

B. Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG)

MPEG technology allows for transmission and storage of digital video and audio signals. It was formed by the Trustees of Columbia University, Fujitsu Limited, General Instrument Corp., Lucent Technologies Inc., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Philips Electronics N.C., Scientific Atlanta, Inc., and Sony Corp. in 1997. The patent pool for the MPEG-2 standard is administered by a common license administrator- MPEG-LA

MPEG-LA is required to grant licenses to any potential licensees, without discrimination and at a reasonable royalty rate.

MPEG LA offers a portfolio of MPEG-2 systems licenses with a fixed royalty for each licensed mobile MPEG-2 systems signal receiver and a different fixed royalty for all other MPEG-2 systems devices.[130] Additional patents, not included in the portfolio, are available for specific implementations.[131]

The pool offers a standardized five-year license to all prospective licensees.[132] The licensing royalties do not change if patents are added to the portfolio during the five-year licensing period, although the royalty rate may increase by up to 25% in a license renewal.[133] Each patent in the pool is valued equally.[134]

The license has a grant-back provision that requires the licensee to grant to the licensor and other portfolio licensees a nonexclusive license, under fair and reasonable terms and conditions, on any essential patent that the licensee has a right to license.[135]

There exists a partial termination right given to licensors, who may request that MPEG-LA terminate the license of that licensor’s IPR to a particular licensee, if that licensee has sued the licensor for infringement of an MPEG-2 essential or “related” patent or refused to license a related patent on fair and reasonable terms.[136]

C. DVD

Sony, Philips and Pioneer organized the DVD3C patent pool in 1998 for the licensing of patents that are “essential” to comply with the DVD-Video or DVD-ROM standard specifications.

Royalty payments are allocated under guidelines set by the Ground Rules for Royalty

Allocation rather than on subjective analysis by an expert.[137] The royalty rate in standard licenses is not related to fluctuations in the market price of a licensed product; also, the royalty rate is not computed on a per-patent basis and does not fluctuate as patents are added or removed, therefore, the same royalty rate is payable when using one essential patent as when using several.[138]

Hitachi, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Time Warner, Toshiba, and Victor organized the DVD6C patent pool in 1999 again for the licensing of patents that are “essential” to comply with the DVD-Video or DVD-ROM standard specifications.

The DVD6C pool is also governed by the “Ground Rules for Royalty Allocation” guidelines.[139] The royalties are 4% of the net selling price of the product or U.S. $4.00 per product, whichever is higher. Royalties for DVD decoders are 4% of the net selling price of the product or U.S. $1.00 per product, whichever is higher.[140]

The DVD6C agreement contains a grant-back clause, which, requires licensees to grant each of the licensing companies of DVD6C (and their licensees) a non-exclusive license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms to use any of their patents that are deemed essential for the manufacture, use or sale of DVD Products; this grantback is restricted only to those DVD products actually licensed to the licensee.[141]

D. 3G Mobile Telephony

The 3G Patent Platform Partnership was formed in 1999. The purpose of the 3G Patent Platform Partnership is to allow for “fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory” access to rights essential for implementing the W-CDMA 3GPP standard.[142]

There are three form contracts associated with the Platform: the Framework Agreement, the Standard License, and the Interim License.[143] The Framework Agreement gives each member the choice either to license its essential patents according to the Standard License or to negotiate terms directly with a licensee.[144] The Standard License prescribes standardized royalties for licenses, to be determined by an independent commission.[145] If the patent owner foregoes the Standard License and fails to come to terms in bilateral negotiations, the Interim License comes into effect which has the same royalty terms as the Standard License.[146]

E. Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG)

The Bluetooth SIG was formed in 1997 to provide a technology for interconnection of mobile phones, computers, laptops, printers, PDAs, and other devices via a short-range radio frequency band; SIG oversees the development of Bluetooth standards and its licensing.[147]

SIG’s member companies are divided into three different classes- (1) promoter company, which are intensely engaged in the strategic and technical development of Bluetooth wireless technology; they include Agere, Ericsson, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, and

Toshiba; (2) associate members, who are licensed to use Bluetooth specifications and trademarks; (3) adopted members, which use published specifications and trademarks, but do not influence the specification process, nor do they have early access to unpublished specifications.[148]

SIG licenses to member companies on a royalty-free basis, but, associate members pay an annual fee based on their company’s annual revenue, with “small” associates (less than $100 million USD/year) paying $7,500 USD/year and “large” associates (more than $100 million USD/year) paying $35,000 USD/year; adopted members are not required to pay an annual fee.[149]

VI. Conclusion

As is evident, patent valuation and license fee determination are extremely subjective and case based. Moreover, their dynamics alter according to the situation, as in the context of patent pools. This dynamism is furthered by the fact that there are no strict or universal formulas or procedures which can be applied in such determinations. Furthermore, such determinations cannot be made in a vacuum but are subject to the cascading effect of a multitude of factors comprised of the holistic technological environment that may not be just restricted to the innovation in question.

[1] Krista L. Cox, The Medicines Patent Pool: Promoting Access and Innovation for Life-Saving Medicines Through Voluntary Licenses 4 Hastings Sci. & Tech. L.J. 293 (Summer, 2012) citing IGWG Briefing Paper on Patent Pools: Collective Management of Intellectual Property--The Use of Patent Pools to Expand Access to Essential Medical Technologies, Knowledge Ecology International, (June 3, 2007) quoting Robert P. Merges, Institutions for Intellectual Property Transactions: The Case of Patent Pools, in Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property, Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society 123 (Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss et al. eds., 2001).

[2] Jer Rutton Kavasmaneck v Gharda Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. (Suit No.2932 of 2011; Decided On: 20.03.2012) Bombay H.C. (Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) including the patent right is valuable right for all the commercial purposes. These intangible assets play important role in any financial assessment of the trade/commercial or the market. It changes from time to time, market to market, person to person based upon the situations. If valuation is always a complex and flexible issue and a matter of discussion and debate in business strategies. The patent valuation involves many described and undescribed elements).

[3]Robert P. Merges, Contracting into Liability Rules: Intellectual Property Rights and Collective Rights Organizations 84 Calif. L. Rev. 1293 (October 1996) citing Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 283 U.S. 163, 171 (1931).

[4] Michael S. Kramer, Valuation and Assessment of Patents and Patent Portfolios Through Analytical Techniques 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 463 (Spring, 2007).

[5] Richard J. Gilbert, Ties That Bind: Policies to Promote (Good) Patent Pools 77 Antitrust L.J. 1 (2010) MPEG LA Business Review Letter from Joel I. Klein, Ass’t Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Garrard R. Beeney, Esq., Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (June 26, 1997), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/busreview/215742.pdf; MPEG LA, MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License Briefing (Aug. 4, 2010).

[6] See Kramer, supra n.4 at 463 (essential patents of technical standards are more valuable, on average, than the general population of patents).

[7] Gilbert, supra n.5.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.citing DVD 3C Business Review Letter from Joel I. Klein, Ass't Att'y Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice, to Garrard R. Beeney, Esq., Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (Dec. 16, 1998), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/busreview/2121.pdf.

[11]R. Justin Koscher, A Patent Pool's White Knight: Individual Licensing Agreements And The Procompetitive Presumption 20 DePaul J. Art Tech. & Intell. Prop. L. 53 (Fall, 2009).

[12] Daniel Lin, Research versus Development: Patent Pooling, Innovation And Standardization In The Software Industry 1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 274 (2002).

[13] Steven C. Carlson, Patent Pools and the Antitrust Dilemma 16 Yale J. on Reg. 359 (Summer, 1999).

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Michael A. Sanzo, Antitrust Law And Patent Misconduct In The Proprietary Drug Industry 39 Vill. L. Rev. 1209 (1994).

[21] Gilbert, supra n.5.

[22] Carlson, supra n.13.

[23] Philip B. Nelson, Patent Pools: An Economic Assessment Of Current Law And Policy 38 Rutgers L. J. 539 (Winter, 2007).

[24] Gilbert, supra n.5.

[25] Id.

[26] Carlson, supra n.13.

[27] Gilbert, supra n.5.

[28] Nelson, supra n.23.

[29] David S. Taylor, The Sinking Of The United States Electronics Industry Within Japanese Patent Pools 26 GW J. Int'l L. & Econ. 181 (1992).

[30] Id.

[31] Michael J. Meurer, Business Method Patents and Patent Floods 8 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 309 (2002).

[32] Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, Frontiers of Intellectual Property: Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking 85 Tex. L. Rev. 1991 (June, 2007).

[33] Meurer, supra n.31 (A patent flood occurs when many inventors apply for patents on similar inventions during an interval of a few years).

[34] Id.

[35] Robert P. Greenspoon and Catherine M. Cottle, Don't Assume A Can Opener: Confronting Patent Economic Theories With Licensing And Enforcement Reality 12 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 194 (2011).

[36] Meurer, supra n.31.

[37] Gilbert supra n.5 citing the cross-licensing arrangement between the Singer Manufacturing Company and Gegauf, contained provisions by which each of the parties agreed not to bring any infringement action against the other. United States v. Singer Mfg. Co., 374 U.S. 174, 178 (1963).

[38] Gilbert supra n.5.

[39] Kramer, supra n.4.

[40] Id.

[41] Id.

[42] Jorge L. Contreras, Standards, Patents, and the National Smart Grid 32 Pace L. Rev. 641 (Summer Issue, 2012).

[43] Gilbert, supra n.5 (To the extent that a patent pool successfully lowers total royalties relative to independent licensing, this leaves ‘headroom’ available for an independent licensor outside the pool to charge a high royalty for its patent).

[44] Id. citing Multimedia Patent Trust v. Microsoft Corp., et al., 525 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

[45] Chase A. Marshall, A Comparative Analysis: Current Solutions To The Anticommons Threat 12 J. High Tech. L. 487 (2012); Damien Geradin and Anne Layne-Farrar, Patent Value Apportionment Rules for Complex, Multi-Patent Products 27 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 763 (2010 / 2011) (the typical semiconductor chip likely involves hundreds, perhaps more, patents. In turn, that chip may be intended for use in a laptop computer, the other components of which involve hundreds, or more, patents. Without knowing how many patents actually read on a product, and how many have holders who will actively seek licensing fees, it can be exceedingly difficult to assign the contributed value to those that are known).

[46] Gideon Parchomovsky and R. Polk Wagner, Patent Portfolios 154 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1 (November, 2005); Elizabeth M. Bailey, Gregory K. Leonard and Mario A. Lopez, Making Sense Of “Apportionment” In Patent Damages 12 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 255 (2011) (combining patented technologies typically creates value that is greater than the sum of the parts. For example, patent pools often bring together various technologies that are necessary to create the product in question. The stand-alone value of any one patent in the pool may be low or close to zero unless combined with the other patents in the pool).

[47] Parchomovsky and Wagner, supra n.46.

[48] Id.

[49] Id.

[50] Id.

[51] Scott Iyama, The USPTO's Proposal of a Biological Research Tool Patent Pool Doesn't Hold Water 57 Stan. L. Rev. 1223 (March, 2005).

[52] Bradley J. Levang, Evaluating the Use of Patent Pools For Biotechnology: A Refutation to the USPTO White Paper Concerning Biotechnology Patent Pools 19 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 229 (December, 2002).

[53] Courtney C. Scala, Making the Jump From Gene Pools to Patent Pools: How Patent Pools Can Facilitate the Development of Pharmacogenomics 41 Conn. L. Rev. 1631 (July, 2009).

[54] Id.

[55] Id.

[56] R. Justin Koscher, A Patent Pool's White Knight: Individual Licensing Agreements And The Procompetitive Presumption 20 DePaul J. Art Tech. & Intell. Prop. L. 53 (Fall, 2009) citing DVD-6 Business Review Letter from Joel I. Klein, Assistant Attorney General, to Carey R. Ramos, Esq., of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (June 10, 1999), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/busreview/2485.htm.

[57] Alexander Lee, Examining the Viability of Patent Pools for the Growing Nanotechnology Patent Thicket, 3 Nanotechnology L. & Bus. 317 (2006) suggests that to determine the viability of using a patent pool in a market, companies should ponder the following list of nine criteria: (1) product development driven by standards; (2) moderate fragmentation of patent landscape; (3) at least five pool members; (4) each member working on specific subcomponent of a product; (5) willingness of patent holders to negotiate; (6) commitment by members to create the pool; (7) an industry that is in the later stages of product development; (8) certainty of patent ownership; and (9) a patent pool clear of potential antitrust violations.

[58] See Gilbert, supra n.5 discussing the Manufacturers Aircraft Association, where the U.S. government used the threat of compulsory licensing to compel the pioneers of the aircraft industry to form a patent pool in 1917. The industry was enmeshed in litigation over the scope and validity of patents, and some patentees, particularly the Wright-Martin Company, were demanding royalties that the government and other aircraft manufacturers deemed excessive. Creation of the Manufacturers Aircraft Association patent pool resolved the litigation chaos. The government negotiated a portfolio license from the pool with a royalty of $ 200 per aircraft, which was a fraction of the royalty that Wright-Martin was demanding for a single patent ($ 1,000 per aircraft).

[59] See Carlson, supra n.13 discussing that pool agreements are frequently employed as a means of settling existing litigation, and citing examples including patent pools in the laser eye surgery, and the public key encryption industries;

also see Lemley & Shapiro, Frontiers of Intellectual Property, supra n.32 discussing that the average royalty rate granted in all reasonable-royalty cases is 13.13% of the price of the infringing product, which is much higher than that of patent licenses negotiated without litigation.

[60] See Greenspoon and Cottle, supra n.35 discussing the value of patents as a form of currency that can be used to further goals unrelated to market creation or entry. Such goals can be to improve a firm's competitive position when trying to acquire start-up funds, to improve negotiating terms when licensing other patents, and to reduce the chance of paying excessive royalties to external patent owners;

also see, Gilbert, supra n.5 discussing how different business strategies can cause firms to pool their patents with some firms, but not with others, citing the example of emergence of two pools to license DVD patents as a consequence of differing approaches to industry standards. One explanation offered for the existence of two separate pools is that the two groups could not reach an accord about their respective shares of joint royalty payments.

[61] See Gilbert, supra n.5 discussing how some pools license their patents royalty-free or at royalties that are deliberately held below profit-maximizing levels in an effort to promote adoption of new technologies covered by their patents, citing the example of the Bluetooth Special Interest Group and the Multimedia Home Platform. The article also discusses patent pools formed to license patents that are necessary to implement a defined standard, such as MPEG encoding, DVDs, or mobile telephony.

[62] See Gilbert, supra n.5 discussing pools that limit royalties to promote social objectives rather than to profit from new products citing examples of companies, universities, and research organizations such as Syngenta- an agricultural technology company, the Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture, the SARS IP Working Group, and the UNITAID pool for AIDS medications.

[63] Yuichi Watanabe, Patent Licensing And The Emergence Of A New Patent Market 9 Hous. Bus. & Tax L.J. 445 (2009) (The current state of affairs shows that the patent licensing market strongly favors larger corporations over smaller ones, enabling the larger corporations to reap much of the market opportunities and benefits while limiting them to smaller patentees).

[64] Roger B. Andewelt, Practical Problems In Counseling And Litigating: Analysis Of Patent Pools Under The Antitrust Laws 53 Antitrust L.J. 611 (October 11, 1984/October 12, 1984) (Pools typically contain restrictions on those who join the pool by contributing patents and/or those who take licenses under the pooled patents).

[65]Chase A. Marshall, A Comparative Analysis: Current Solutions To The Anticommons Threat 12 J. High Tech. L. 487 (2012).

[66] Ann Weilbaecher, PSY.D., Diseases Endemic in Developing Countries: How to Incentivize Innovation 18 Ann. Health L. 281 (Summer, 2009).

[67] Greenspoon and Cottle, supra n.35 identify five general types of entities that license and enforce patents: (1) Individual inventors with a single patent; (2) Individual serial inventors; (3) Non-Practicing Entities; (4) Operating companies who practice inventions acquired from others; and (5) Operating companies who practice inventions developed in-house.

[68] See, Raymond Millien and Ron Laurie, A Survey Of Established & Emerging IP Business Models 9 Sedona Conf. J. 77 (2008) discussing various models, viz. Patent Licensing and Enforcement Companies, Institutional IP Aggregators/Acquisition Funds, IP/Technology Development Companies, Licensing Agents, Litigation Finance/Investment Firms, IP Brokers, IP-Based M&A Advisory Firms, IP Auction Houses, On-Line IP/Technology Exchanges, Clearinghouses, Bulletin Boards, and Innovation Portals, IP-Backed Lending, Royalty Stream Securitization Firms, Patent Rating Software and Valuation Services, University Technology Transfer Intermediaries, IP Transaction Exchanges & Trading Platforms/IP Transaction Best Practices Development Communities, Defensive Patent Pools, Funds and Alliances, Technology/IP Spinout Financing, and Patent-Based Public Stock Indexes.

[69] Richard J. Gilbert, Deal or No Deal? Licensing Negotiations In Standard-Setting Organizations 77 Antitrust L.J. 855 (2011).

[70] Gilbert, supra n.5

[71] Merges, Contracting into Liability Rules, supra n.3.

[72] Alan Devlin, Standard-Setting And The Failure Of Price Competition 65 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 217 (2009) citing Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29, 33 (1964).

[73]Doug Lichtman, Understanding The Rand Commitment 47 Hous. L. Rev. 1023 (2010).

[74] Peter N. Detkin, Leveling The Patent Playing Field 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 636 (Summer, 2007).

[75] Lee, infra n.57.

[76] Kelce Wilson, The Four Phases of Patent Usage 40 Cap. U.L. Rev. 679 (Summer, 2012).

[77]Gavin D. George, What is Hiding in the Bushes? eBay's Effect on Holdout Behavior in Patent Thickets, 13 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 557 (2007).

[78] Id.

[79] Id

[80]Daniel R. Cahoy and Leland Glenna, Private Ordering and Public Energy Innovation Policy 36 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 415 (Spring, 2009).

[81] Gilbert, supra n.5; See for example, Merges, Contracting into Liability Rules, supra n.3 describing how in the airplane cross-licensing agreement, it provides that a board of arbitrators may decide in any case what reward should be paid to individual patent owners and this is based not upon the official determination of patentability by the Patent Office, but upon the unofficial determination of the importance of the invention by a board of arbitrators.

[82] See Andewelt, supra n.64 (The scope and variety of patents included vary considerably from pool to pool. Some pools are limited to patents covering a single commercial device. Others contain numerous and diverse patents relating to different devices in different markets).

[83] See, Scala, supra n.53 discussing how the non-exclusive character of a license is particularly important for those firms holding patents whose full utility is unascertainable at the time of the formation of the pool.

[84] Dustin R. Szakalski, Progress In The Aircraft Industry And The Role Of Patent Pools And Cross-Licensing Agreements 2011 UCLA J.L. & Tech. 1 (Spring 2011).

[85] Ed Levy, et. al, Patent Pools And Genomics: Navigating A Course To Open Science? 16 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 75 (Winter, 2010).

[86] Id.

[87] Ted Hagelin, Technology and Legal Practice Symposium Issue: Valuation of Intellectual Property Assets: An Overview 52 Syracuse L. Rev. 1133 (2002) (The cost method of valuation measures the value of an asset by the cost to replace the asset with an identical or equivalent asset. The assumption underlying the cost method of valuation is that the cost to purchase or develop a new asset is commensurate with the economic value that the asset can provide during its life).

[88] Id. (The market method values an asset based upon comparable transactions between unrelated parties).

[89] Id. (The income method values an asset based upon the present value of the net economic benefit (net future income stream) expected to be received over the life of the asset).

[90] Sannu K. Shrestha, Trolls Or Market-Makers? An Empirical Analysis Of Nonpracticing Entities 110 Colum. L. Rev. 114 (January, 2010).

[91]Id.

[92]Colleen V. Chien, From Arms Race to Marketplace: The Complex Patent Ecosystem and Its Implications for the Patent System 62 Hastings L.J. 297 (December, 2010).

[93] Id.

[94]R. Justin Koscher, A Patent Pool's White Knight: Individual Licensing Agreements And The Procompetitive Presumption 20 DePaul J. Art Tech. & Intell. Prop. L. 53 (Fall, 2009).

[95] Geradin and Layne-Farrar, supra n.45.

[96] Id.

[97] Id.

[98] Id.

[99] Id.

[100] Id.

[101] Id.

[102] Hagelin, supra n.87; also see, Geradin and Layne-Farrar, supra n.45.

[103] Id.

[104] Id.

[105] Geradin and Layne-Farrar, supra n.45.

[106] Id.

[107] Hagelin, supra n.87; also see, Geradin and Layne-Farrar, supra n.45.

[108] Geradin and Layne-Farrar, supra n.45.

[109] Malcolm T. "Ty" Meeks & Charles A. Eldering, PhD, Patent Valuation: Aren’t We Forgetting Something? Making the Case for Claims Analysis in Patent Valuation by Proposing a Patent Valuation Method and a Patent-Specific Discount Rate Using the CAPM 9 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 194 (Fall, 2010).

[110] Hagelin, supra n.87.

[111] Id.

[112] Geradin and Layne-Farrar, supra n.45.

[113] Hagelin, supra n.87.

[114] Id.; Meeks & Eldering, supra n.109.

[115] Hagelin, supra n.87.

[116] Id.

[117] Id.

[118] Id.

[119] Id.

[120] Id.

[121] Id.

[122] Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).

[123] Daralyn J. Durie and Mark A. Lemley, A Structured Approach To Calculating Reasonable Royalties 14 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 627 (Summer, 2010).

[124] Merges, Contracting into Liability Rules, supra n.3.

[125] Michael Mattioli, Communities Of Innovation 106 Nw. U.L. Rev. 103 (Winter, 2012).

[126] Szakalski, supra n.84.

[127] Merges, Contracting into Liability Rules, supra n.3.

[128] Mattioli, supra n.125.

[129] Szakalski, supra n.84.

[130] Gilbert, supra n.5.

[131] Carlson, supra n.13.

[132] Id.

[133] Id.

[134] Id.

[135] Lin, supra n.12.

[136] Dorothy Gill Raymond, Benefits and Risks Of Patent Pooling For Standard-Setting Organizations 16 Antitrust ABA 41 (Summer, 2002).

[137] David Serafino, Survey of Patent Pools Demonstrates Variety of Purposes and Management Structures, KEI Research Note 2007:6, Knowledge Ecology International, 4 June 2007.

[138] Id.

[139] Id.

[140] Id.

[141] Id.

[142] Id.

[143] Michael R. Franzinger, Latent Dangers in a Patent Pool: The European Commission's Approval of the 3G Wireless Technology Licensing Agreements 91 Calif. L. Rev. 1693 (December, 2003).

[144] Id.

[145] Id.

[146] Id.

[147] David Serafino, Survey of Patent Pools Demonstrates Variety of Purposes and Management Structures, KEI Research Note 2007:6, Knowledge Ecology International, 4 June 2007.

[148] Id.

[149] Id.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patent-valuation-and-license-fee-determination-in-context-of-patent-pools

Wikipedia edit-a-thons to add content on LGBTs

praskrishna — 2014-07-28T06:41:42Z

From Monday, Wikipedia will hold a series of “edit-a-thons” to encourage people to add content to the site about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.

The article by Renuka Phadnis was published in the Hindu on July 7, 2014. T. Vishnu Vardhan gave his inputs.

It is inspired by “Wiki Loves Pride”, a global campaign to expand and improve LGBT-related content across Wikimedia projects. The campaign focuses on the June to October period, when LGBTs around the world celebrate their community.

An “edit-a-thon” is a workshop where people are trained in how to edit the Wikipedia and add content to it, usually focussing on a particular topic.

The aim is to make Wikipedia inclusive and reflect diversity by creating content on the LGBT discourse: history, culture, rights, equal opportunities and Article 377. The focus is also on generating content in regional Indian languages which do not have equivalents for terms such as “gay”, “lesbian” or “bisexual”. The website https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Access_To_Knowledge/ Events/Wiki_Loves _Pride_2014 has listed 11 languages.

The edit-a-thon will culminate in two offline events in Bangalore and Delhi on July 19, creating a forum for the community. While anyone can participate in the edit-a-thon, Vishnu, programme director for Access to Knowledge at Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore, which works on improving Indian language Wikipedias and India-related content on Wikipedia, said, “We hope the [LGBT] community takes the lead.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-july-7-2014-renuka-phadnis-wikipedia-edit-a-thons-to-add-content-on-lgbts

State of Odia Language in Computing and Future Steps

subha — 2014-07-28T07:03:46Z

I participated in a "National Level Seminar on, Computer Application and Odia Language" organized by the Institute of Odia Studies and Research in Bhubaneswar on July 6, 2014 as a panelist to discuss about the state of Odia language in computing, work in progress highlighting CIS-A2K's work in the knowledge and education sector and further steps.

I wrote an article on this for the Sovereign. This can be downloaded here. The invitation for the seminar can be viewed here.

କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରେ ଓଡିଆ ଭାଷାର ସ୍ଥିତି ଓ ଭବିଷ୍ୟତ ପଦକ୍ଷେପ

ଓଡ଼ିଆ: କାଲି ଓ ଆଜି

କମ୍ପୁଟରରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାର ବ୍ୟବହାର ଆରମ୍ଭ ହେବାର ଦଶନ୍ଧିଟିଏ ବିତିଯାଇଛି । ଏ ଦଶନ୍ଧିର ଶେଷ ଆଡ଼କୁ ଏହି ବର୍ଷ ଫେବ୍ରୁଆରି ୨୦ ତାରିଖରେ ଉଲ୍ଲେଖନୀୟ ଘଟଣାଟିଏ ଘଟିଲା - ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷା ଷଷ୍ଠ ଭାରତୀୟ ଭାଷା ଭାବେ ଶାସ୍ତ୍ରୀୟ ମାନ୍ୟତା ପାଇଲା । ସାଧାରଣ ମଣିଷର ମାନସିକତା ଦୋହଲେ ଅଦିନିଆ ଝଡ଼ି କିମ୍ବା ନଈ କୂଳ ଲଙ୍ଘିଲେ । ଏ ଶାସ୍ତ୍ରୀୟ ମାନ୍ୟତା ପାଇବା ଥିଲା ସେମିତି ମନ-ଦୋହଲେଇବା ଭଳି ଘଟଣାଟିଏ । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ପଢ଼ୁଥିବା ପିଲାଙ୍କ ମନରେ ଅଧିକ ଚାକିରି ପାଇବାର ନୂଆ ନୂଆ ଆଶାଟିଏ ଗଜୁରିଲା । ଘରୁ ଫେରିଥିବା ପ୍ରବାସୀ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଦୋକାନୀଟିଏ ବେଙ୍ଗାଳୁରୁ ସହରରେ ଥିବା ତା' ଜଳଖିଆ ଦୋକାନ ଆଗରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ନାମଫଳକଟିଏ ଲଗାଇଲା । ନିର୍ବାଚନରେ ବୋଧେ ପ୍ରଥମଥର ରାଜନୈତିକ ଦଳଟିଏ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବିଶ୍ୱବିଦ୍ୟାଳୟର ଯୋଜନା ନିର୍ବାଚନ ଇସ୍ତାହାରରେ ସାମିଲ କଲା । ଫେସବୁକରେ, ୱେବସାଇଟରେ ଅନେକ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଏ ଆନନ୍ଦର ଉତ୍ସବ ପାଳନ କଲେ । ତେବେ ଏ ସବୁରି ଆମୋଦ ଭିତରେ ବେଳ ଆସିଛି ଆମ ଏ ଶାସ୍ତ୍ରୀୟ ଓଡ଼ିଆକୁ ଆଧୁନିକ ଜ୍ଞାନକୌଶଳର ତରାଜୁରେ ତଉଲିବା । ଆମ ଭାଷା ଗୋଟେ ପୁରାତନ ଭାଷା, ଆଉ ତା'ର ମାନେ ନୁହେଁ ଯେ ସେ କେବଳ ହାତୀଗୁମ୍ଫାର କାନ୍ଥରେ କିବା ଗୁଡ଼ହାଣ୍ଡିରେ ଲୁଚିରହିବ ଶିଉଳି ଗହଣରେ । ଭାଷାର ଅତୀତ ଯେତେ ପରିପୁଟ, ତା'ର ଅଧୁନା ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ଉପରେ ନିର୍ଭର କରେ ସେ କେଉଁ ଦିଗରେ ମୁହାଁଇବ - କେବଳ ପୁରାତନ ଭାଷାର ମାନ୍ୟତା ପାଇ ଜେଜେ ହୋଇ କଣ ଘରେ ବସିରହି ଦିନ ଗଣିବ, ନାଁ ଆଧୁନିକ କୌଶଳକୁ ଆପଣେଇ ଆହୁରି ଅଧିକ ବ୍ୟବହାରରେ ଲାଗିବ । ଏକ ଭାଷା ପାଇଁ ସବୁଠାରୁ ବଡ଼ ସମ୍ପତ୍ତିଟି ହେଉଛି ତାକୁ ଦୈନନ୍ଦିନ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରୁଥିବା ଲୋକେ, ବିଶେଷ କରି ତା'କୁ ପଠନ ଓ ଲିଖନରେ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରୁଥିବା ଲୋକେ । ଏ ମୋବାଇଲ, କମ୍ପୁଟର ଓ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟର ଯୁଗରେ ଆମ ଭାଷା ଯଦି ଇଂରାଜୀ ସହ ତାଳ ମିଳାଇ ଚାଲି ନ ପାରୁଛି ତାହେଲେ ଆଗାମୀ ପିଢ଼ିଟି ଯେ ଆମ ଭାଷାକୁ ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ପାଶୋରି ନ ପକାଇବ ତାହା ଲେଖକ ହଲପ କରି କହିପାରେ । ଆମ ଭାଷାର ଆଧୁନିକତାର ସ୍ଥିତି ନିର୍ଦ୍ଧାରଣ କରିବା ଓ ଚଳିତ କାମମାନଙ୍କ ବିଷୟରେ ଜାଣି ଆଗାମୀ ଦିନମାନଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଯୋଜନାର ରୂପରେଖ ତିଆରିବା ବୋଧେ ଏ ବେଳର ପ୍ରଥମ କାମ ।

ଓଡ଼ିଆ କମ୍ପୁଟରରେ ବ୍ୟବହାର ଉପଯୋଗୀ ହେଲା ଟିକେ ବିଳମ୍ବରେ, ଏକବିଂଶ ଶତାବ୍ଦୀର କିଛି ବର୍ଷ ଆଗରୁ । ବାକି ଭାରତୀୟ ଭାଷା ସେତେବେଳକୁ କମ୍ପୁଟରରେ ଦେଖିବାକୁ ମିଳିଲାଣି । ପ୍ରାରମ୍ଭିକ କାମ ଥିଲା ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ କମ୍ପୁଟରରେ ଟାଇପ କରି ଲେଖିବା ଓ ଆଗର ବ୍ଲକ ଟାଇପିଙ୍ଗ ବଦଳରେ ସହଜରେ ଡିଟିପି କରି ଅଳ୍ପ ସମୟରେ ଛପାଇବା । ସେ ବେଳରେ ସେ ଥିଲା ଗୋଟେ ବିରାଟ ସଫଳତା । ତିଆରି ହୋଇଥିଲା ନାନାଦି ଫଣ୍ଟ (font) । ଫଣ୍ଟ ହେଉଚି କମ୍ପୁଟରରେ ଏକ ଲିପିର ଅକ୍ଷର ସଜାଣି । ଆଉ ସବୁ ଫଣ୍ଟ ଦେଖିବାକୁ ଅଲଗା ଅଲଗା । ତେବେ ଆରମ୍ଭରେ ତିଆରି ହୋଇଥିବା ଫଣ୍ଟସବୁ ତିଆରି ହୋଇଥିଲା ଏକା ଢାଞ୍ଚାରେ - ଇଂରାଜୀ ବା ଲାଟିନ ପରିବାରର ଅକ୍ଷରସବୁର ବଦଳରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଅକ୍ଷର ଖଞ୍ଜାଯାଇଥିଲା । ଯାହା ଫଳରେ କିବୋର୍ଡ଼ରେ ଇଂରାଜୀ ଅକ୍ଷରଟିଏ ଟାଇପ କଲେ ଆସୁଥିଲା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଅକ୍ଷର । ତେବେ ଏକାଧିକ ଫଣ୍ଟ ନିର୍ମାତା ଭିନ୍ନ ଭିନ୍ନ ମାନକ ତିଆରି କରିବା ଫଳରେ ଅନେକ ଗୁଡ଼ିଏ ମାନକର ଫଣ୍ଟ - ଯେଉଁମାନଙ୍କର ନିଜ ନିଜ ଭିତରେ ତାଳମେଳ ନ ଥିଲା - ତିଆରି ହେବାରେ ଲାଗିଲା । ତେଣୁ ଅମୁକ ଫଣ୍ଟରେ ଲେଖା ପାଠ ସମୁକ ଫଣ୍ଟରେ ପଢ଼ିବା ଦୁରୂହ ହୋଇପଡ଼ିଲା । ତେବେ ଅଧିକାଂଶ ଛାପା ଓ ପ୍ରକାଶନ ସଂସ୍ଥା ଆକୃତି ନାମକ ସଫ୍ଟଓଏରଟିଏ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରୁଥିବାରୁ ଅଲଗା କମ୍ପୁଟରରେ ଟାଇପ ହୋଇଥିବା ପାଠ ଭିତରେ ଗୋଟେ ପ୍ରକାର ସମାନତା ଥିଲା । ତେବେ ଏସବୁ ଫଣ୍ଟରେ ଲେଖା ପାଠକୁ ନାଁ ଇମେଲରେ କାହାକୁ ପଠାଇହେଉଥିଲା, ନାଁ ୱେବସାଇଟରେ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିହେଉଥିଲା, ନାଁ ଗୁଗଲରେ ଖୋଜି ହେଉଥିଲା । ଏହି ସବୁ ଅସୁବିଧାକୁ ସୁଧାରିବା ପାଇଁ ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ ଫଣ୍ଟ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରାଗଲା । ଏହା ଥିଲା ଅଣ-ଲାଟିନ ଲିପିମାନଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଏକ ବରଦାନ । ଏଥିରେ ସବୁ ଲାଟିନ/ଇଂରାଜୀ ଅକ୍ଷର ସହିତ ସବୁ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଅକ୍ଷର ମଧ୍ୟ ରହୁଥିଲା । ଆଉ ଏ ଥିଲା ଏକ ବିଶ୍ୱସ୍ତରୀୟ ମାନକ । ଅର୍ଥାତ କେବଳ ଦୁଇଟି ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଫଣ୍ଟ ଭିତରେ ସମାନତା ନୁହେଁ, ଓଡ଼ିଆ-ଗୁଜୁରାଟୀ ଭିତରେ ମଧ୍ୟ ସମାନତା ରହିଲା । ତେବେ ଆମର ପ୍ରକାଶନ ସଂସ୍ଥାମାନ ଏହାକୁ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିବା ପାଇଁ ମଙ୍ଗିଲେ ନାହିଁ । କାରଣ ଥିଲା ସେମାନେ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରୁଥିବା ଡିଟିପି ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର (ଆଡୋବି ପେଜମେକର, କ୍ୱାର୍କ ଏକ୍ସପ୍ରେସ ଆଦି)ରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ରେ ଯୁକ୍ତାକ୍ଷର ଆଦି ଠିକରେ କାମ କରୁନଥିଲା । ଏଣୁ ଲକ୍ଷ ଲକ୍ଷ ପୃଷ୍ଠା ବହିର ମଲାଟ ତଳୁ ବାହାରି କମ୍ପୁଟର ଓ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟର ପାଠକମାନଙ୍କ ପଢ଼ାହେବାରୁ ବଞ୍ଚିତ ହେଲା । ଏହାର ଗୋଟେ ବାଟ ଥିଲା ଡିଟିପି ପାଇଁ ବ୍ୟବହୃତ ଫଣ୍ଟକୁ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ରେ ରୂପାନ୍ତର କରି ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ କରାଇବା । ବିଡ଼ମ୍ବନା ଏହିକି ଯେ, ଆମ ଖବରକାଗଜମାନେ ତା' ନ କରି ଆପଣେଇଲେ ଲେଖାକୁ ଛବି କରି ନିଜ ୱେବସାଇଟରେ, ଆଉ ଥୋକେ ଡାଇନାମିକ ଫଣ୍ଟ ନାମକ ଆଉ ଏକ ପନ୍ଥା ଧରିଲେ । ଛବି ହେଲେ ଲେଖା ସବୁ ଯେ ଖୋଜିହେବ ନାହିଁ କିବା ଆଉ କେଉଁ କାମରେ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିହେବ ନାହିଁ ତାହା କହିବା ବାହୁଲ୍ୟ । ଡାଇନାମିକ ଫଣ୍ଟରେ ମୂଳ ସର୍ଭରରୁ ଫଣ୍ଟଟିଏ ଲୋଡ଼ ହେଇଥାଏ, ଯାହା ଫଳରେ ପାଠକର କମ୍ପୁଟରରେ ସେ ଫଣ୍ଟଟି ନ ଥିଲେ ମଧ୍ୟ ସେ ପଢ଼ିପାରେ । କିନ୍ତୁ ନାଁ ସେ ଲେଖାକୁ କପି କରି କାମରେ ଲଗାଇହୁଏ ନାଁ ଗୁଗଲ ସର୍ଚରେ ସେ ଆସେ । ଓଡ଼ିଶାର ପ୍ରାୟ ସମସ୍ତ ପ୍ରକାଶିତ ପାଠ ଭିତରୁ ଅଧା ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଆସେ ନାହିଁ, ଆଉ ଅଧକ ଆସେ ଏମିତିକା ମୃତ ଫରମାଟରେ ଯେ ତା'କୁ ଆଉ କେହି କାମରେ ଲଗାଇପାରିବେ ନାହିଁ । ଯଦି ପାଠକଟିଏ ନିଜ ମୋବାଇଲ କି କମ୍ପୁଟରରେ ଅବାଧରେ ନିଜ ଭାଷା ପଢ଼ିନପାରୁଛି ତାହେଲେ ସେ କେମିତି ଯେ ଭାଷାକୁ ଜାବୁଡ଼ି ଧରିବ ତାହା ଆଲୋଚନାର ବିଷୟ । ପାଠ ବଢ଼ିଲେ ପାଠକମାନଙ୍କୁ ଅଧିକ ପଠନର ସୁଯୋଗ ମିଳିବ, ବିକଳ୍ପ ମିଳିବ ବାଛିବା ପାଇଁ ନିଜ ପସନ୍ଦର ବହିଟିଏ । ଆଉ ତା ଯଦି ହୁଏ ସୁବିଧାରେ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିହେଉଥିବା ଭଳି ସାଧନରେ ତାହେଲେ ଇଂରାଜୀ ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ପଢ଼ୁଥିବା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଘରର ପିଲାଟି ବି ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ପଢ଼ିବାକୁ ଆଗଭର ହେବ ।

ଉପରେ ବର୍ଣ୍ଣିତ ଅସୁବିଧା - ଅଣ-ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ରୁ ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼କୁ ଫଣ୍ଟ ରୂପାନ୍ତର କରିବାର ସାଧନଟି ପ୍ରଥମେ ୨୦୧୧ରେ ସୃଜନିକା ଅନୁଷ୍ଠାନ ଦ୍ୱାରା ଲୋକମାନଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଖୋଲାରେ ବିତରଣ କରାଯାଇଥିଲା ରେବତୀ ନାମକ କନଭର୍ଟର ଦେଇ । ତେବେ ସେ ସଫ୍ଟଓଏରଟି ମଧ୍ୟ ରକ୍ଷଣାବେକ୍ଷଣା ଅଭାବରୁ ପୁରୁଣା ହୋଇଗଲା ଆଉ ନିକଟ ଅତୀତରେ ଆଉ କିଛି ବନ୍ଧୁଙ୍କ ସହ ମିଶି ଲେଖକ ଏକାଧିକ ଆକୃତି ସାରଳା ଫଣ୍ଟ ତଥା ଶ୍ରୀଲିପି ନାମକ ଆଉ ଏକ ଫଣ୍ଟରୁ ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ ରୂପାନ୍ତର ପାଇଁ କନଭର୍ଟର ତିଆରି କରିଛନ୍ତି । ଆକୃତି ସାରଳା କନଭର୍ଟରଟି http://bitly.com/akrutiodia ରେ ଓ ଶ୍ରୀଲିପି କନଭର୍ଟରଟି http://bitly.com/shreelipi ୱେବସାଇଟରେ ଉଭୟ ଅନଲାଇନ ଓ ଅଫଲାଇନରେ ବ୍ୟବହାର ପାଇଁ ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ମାଗଣାରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ । ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟର ଭାଷା ହେଲା ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼, ତାକୁ ଆଦରିଲେ ଆମ ଭାଷାର ସ୍ଥିତି ଯେ ନାହିଁରୁ କାହିଁ ହେବ ତାହା କହିବା ଏ ବିବରଣର ଅତିରଞ୍ଜନ ମାତ୍ର ହେବ ।

ଏ ତ ଗଲା ଫଣ୍ଟ-ଜନିତ ଅସୁବିଧା କଥା । ଏବେ ଆମର ବହିସବୁରେ କି କି ପ୍ରତିବନ୍ଧକ ରହିଛି ତାହା ବିଚାରିବା । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାରେ ଏଯାବତ ଲକ୍ଷାଧିକ ବହି ଲେଖାଯାଇଥିବ । ସେସବୁ ଭିତରୁ କେତେ ଯେ ଉପାଦେୟ ବହି ଅଛି ଆଉ ଅଚିରେ ଏସବୁ ପାଇବାର ବାଟ ଯେ ଅମଡ଼ା ଏକଥାରେ ବୋଧେ ପାଠକେ ଏକମତ ହେବେ । ଆମ ବହିସବୁ ଯଦି ଡିଜିଟାଲ ଲାଇବ୍ରେରି ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ଖୋଲାରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ହୁଅନ୍ତା ତାହେଲେ ଜ୍ଞାନଲାଭର ପଥ ସୁଗମ ହୋଇପାରନ୍ତା । ବହି ସବୁ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ କରାଇବାର ସୁବିଧା ବାଟଟିଏ ହେଲା ସେସବୁକୁ ଲେଖା ବା ଟେକ୍ସଟ ରୂପରେ ରଖିବା । ଲେଖାକୁ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଯୋଗେ ଖୋଜିହେବ, ପୁନର୍ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିହେବ ଆଉ ବିତରଣ ମଧ୍ୟ କରିହେବ । ଆଉ ଏକ ବାଟ ହେଲା ବହିକୁ ସ୍କାନ କରି ପିଡିଏଫ ରୂପରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ କରିହେବ । ପିଡିଏଫ ବହିସବୁ ପଢ଼ିହେଉଥିଲେ ହେଁ ଖୋଜିବା ଆଉ ପୁନର୍ବ୍ୟବହାର କରିବା ପାଖାପାଖି ଅସମ୍ଭବ । ତେବେ ଡିଟିପି ହୋଇଥିବା ବହିକୁ ଫଣ୍ଟ କନଭର୍ଟର ସାହାଯ୍ୟରେ ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ରେ ରୂପାନ୍ତର କରିହେବ ଯାହା ବହିକୁ ସ୍କାନ କରି ପିଡିଏଫ ତିଆରିଲେ ହୋଇପାରିବ ନାହିଁ । ନ୍ୟାସନାଲ ଇନଷ୍ଟିଚ୍ୟୁଟ ଅଫ ରାଉରକେଲାର ମିଳିତ ସହଯୋଗରେ ୧୯୫୦ ମସିହା ଯାଏ ଛପା ହୋଇଥିବା ୭୪୦ ଖଣ୍ଡ ଉପାଦେୟ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବହିକୁ ସୃଜନିକା ଅନୁଷ୍ଠାନ ତରଫରୁ ସ୍କାନ କରାଯାଇଛି । ଏଥି ମଧ୍ୟରୁ ୨୪୦ ଖଣ୍ଡ ବହି oaob.nitrkl.ac.in ରେ ଡାଉନଲୋଡ଼ ପାଇଁ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ । ତେବେ ବହିସବୁ ପ୍ରକାଶକଙ୍କ ଅନୁମତି ବିନା ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ରଖିବା କପିରାଇଟ ଆଇନର ଉଲ୍ଲଙ୍ଘନ । ନିକଟରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ତରଫରୁ ଆୟୋଜିତ "ଓଡ଼ିଶା ଦିବସ ୨୦୧୪" ଅବସରରେ ଭାଷାବିଦ ପଦ୍ମଶ୍ରୀ ଦେବୀପ୍ରସନ୍ନ ପଟ୍ଟନାୟକ ଓ ଭାଷା ଗବେଷକ ସୁବ୍ରତ ପୃଷ୍ଟିଙ୍କ ରଚିତ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାର ଗବେଷଣା ତଥ୍ୟ ସମ୍ବଳିତ ଏକ ଇଂରାଜୀ ବହି "Classical Odia" ଓ ଶ୍ରୀଯୁକ୍ତ ପୃଷ୍ଟିଙ୍କ ଦୁଇଟି ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବହି "ଭାଷା ଓ ଜାତୀୟତା" ଏବଂ "ଜାତି, ଜାଗୃତି ଓ ପ୍ରଗତି"କୁ CC-BY-SA ୩.୦ ଲାଇସେନ୍ସରେ ପୁନ-ଲାଇସେନ୍ସ କରିବାର ଅନୁମତି ଦେଲେ । ଏହି ଲାଇସେନ୍ସ ଜଣେ ପାଠକକୁ କେବଳ ବହିଟି ପଢ଼ିବାର ସୁଯୋଗ ଦେଇନଥାଏ, ବରଂ ବହିର ସ୍ରଷ୍ଟାଙ୍କୁ ଶ୍ରେୟ ଦେଇ ବହିର ଲେଖାକୁ ପୁନ-ବ୍ୟବହାର ଓ ବିତରଣ କରିପାରେ । ଏହା ଏକ ଯୁଗାନ୍ତକାରୀ ଓ ଐତିହାସିକ ପଦକ୍ଷେପ । ଯଦି ଆମ ଲେଖକ ଓ ପ୍ରକାଶକ ମାନେ ଏମିତି ଅନୁମତି ଦିଅନ୍ତେ ତେବେ ଅନେକ ଉପାଦେୟ ବହି ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ହୋଇ ପାଠକର ପଠନ ଭୋକ ମେଣ୍ଟାନ୍ତା । ଶ୍ରୀଯୁକ୍ତ ପୃଷ୍ଟିଙ୍କ ବହି ଦୁଇଟିର ଲେଖାର ଫଣ୍ଟ ରୂପାନ୍ତର ହୋଇ ଏବେ ତାହା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାରରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ହେବ । ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାର ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page/Odia ଠାରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଏକ ଡିଜିଟାଲ ଲାଇବ୍ରେରି ଯେଉଁଥିରେ କପିରାଇଟର ଜଞ୍ଜାଳରୁ ମୁକ୍ତ ବହିମାନ ପାଠକମାନଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଖୋଲାରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ । ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାରରେ ଆମ ଭାଗବତ, ମହାଭାରତଠାରୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ବିଜ୍ଞାନ ଓ ଆଇନର ବହିସବୁ ରଖାଯାଇପାରିବ । ବହୁ ବର୍ଷ ଧରି ଛପା ହୋଇନଥିବା ଅନେକ ଉପାଦେୟ ବହି ଯେ କେବଳ ପାଠକମାନଙ୍କ ଅବାଧ ପଠନର ଦିଗନ୍ତଟିଏ ବିସ୍ତାରିବ ତା' ନୁହେଁ, ବରଂ ଆମ ଭାଷାର ଅଧିକ ପାଠ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ କରାଇ ଓଡ଼ିଆକୁ ଆଉ ପାଞ୍ଚ ବିଶ୍ୱସ୍ତରୀୟ ଭାଷା ସଙ୍ଗେ କାନ୍ଧ ମିଳାଇ ଛିଡ଼ାହେବାକୁ ଭରସା ଦେବ ।

ଖାଲି ବହି ନୁହେଁ ଆମ ଖବରକାଗଜମାନ ମଧ୍ୟ ହେଲେ ଚଳନ୍ତି ଇତିହାସର ରଥଚକ । ବହି, ପତ୍ରିକା ଆଉ ଖବରକାଗଜରୁ ତଥ୍ୟ ନେଇ ଭରିହେବ ଆମ ଭାଷାର ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆକୁ । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ଏକ ଆନ୍ତର୍ଜାତିକ ସଙ୍ଗଠନ ଉଇକିମିଡ଼ିଆର ଅଂଶବିଶେଷ । ଅନେକେ ଇଂରାଜୀ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆରୁ ନିତି କେତେ ବିଷୟ ପଢୁଥିବେ, ହେଲେ ଥରେ ବୋଧେ ଭାବି ନଥିବେ ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ଥିବା ବାବଦରେ । ୨୦୦୨ରୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇ ୨୦୧୧ ଯାଏ ସୁପ୍ତିରେ ଥିଲା ଏହି ଅନଲାଇନ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ । ତେବେ ବେଙ୍ଗାଳୁରୁଠାରେ କେତେଜଣ ଓଡ଼ିଆଙ୍କ ଉଦ୍ୟମରେ ପୁଣି ତେଜିଲା ଆଉ କିଛି ଉତ୍ସାହୀ ଓଡ଼ିଆ, ଓଡ଼ିଶା ଓ ଭାରତର କୋଣ-ସନୁକୋଣରୁ ଏଥିରେ ଭାଗ ନେବା ଆରମ୍ଭ କଲେ । ମାତ୍ର ୧୫ ଜଣ ସ୍ୱେଚ୍ଛାସେବୀ ଉଇକିଆଳି (ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆର ସମ୍ପାଦକ)ଙ୍କ ସମ୍ପାଦିତ ୮,୦୦୦ ରୁ ଅଧିକ ପ୍ରସଙ୍ଗରେ ଭରା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାର ବିଶାଳତମ ଇନଲାଇନ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ । ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ ଭିତ୍ତିକ ଲେଖା ବୋଧେ ଗୋପାଳ ପ୍ରହରାଜଙ୍କ ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣଚନ୍ଦ୍ର ଭାଷାକୋଷ ଓ ବିନୋଦ କାନୁନଗୋଙ୍କ ଜ୍ଞାନମଣ୍ଡଳ ପରେ ଆଉ ସାମୁହିକ ଭାବେ ଲେଖାହୋଇନଥିବ । or.wikipedia.orgରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆରେ ସମସ୍ତେ ଭାଗନେଇ ନୂଆ ପ୍ରସଙ୍ଗ ଗଢ଼ିପାରିବେଓ ଆଗରୁ ଥିବା ପ୍ରସଙ୍ଗର ସମ୍ପାଦନା କରିପାରିବେ । ଅନେକେ ଯେ ଗୁଗଲରେ ଆଉ ଫେସବୁକରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଆସୁନାହିଁ ବୋଲି ଗୁମାନ କରିବସନ୍ତି ତାକୁ ଆଣିବାର ଗୋଟେ ବାଟ ହେଲା ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆରେ ନିଜ ଅଞ୍ଚଳ, ପର୍ଯ୍ୟଟନ ସ୍ଥଳ, ନିଜ ପସନ୍ଦରେ ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିତ୍ୱ, ଆମର ଇତିହାସ ଓ ଆହୁରି ଅନେକ ବିଷୟରେ ପ୍ରସଙ୍ଗମାନ ଲେଖିବା ।

ଭବିଷ୍ୟତ ପାଇଁ ପନ୍ଥା:

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବହିର ଡିଜିଟାଲ ରୂପ: ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାରରେ ଅଚିରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବହି ସବୁକୁ ଡିଜିଟାଲ ରୂପରେ ଲେଖା ଭାବେ ରଖାଯାଇପାରିବ । ତେବେ ବହି ସବୁର ଲାଇସେନ୍ସକୁ Creative Commons Share-Alike କିମ୍ବା Public Domainରେ ପ୍ରକାଶକ କିମ୍ବା ସତ୍ୱାଧିକାରୀଙ୍କ ଅନୁମତି କ୍ରମେ ବଦଳାଇବାକୁ ପଡ଼ିବ ।
ଓଡ଼ିଆରେ ଅଧିକ ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ କଣ୍ଟେଣ୍ଟ ତିଆରି: ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ଏଥିପାଇଁ ଏକ ପ୍ରକୃଷ୍ଠ ସ୍ଥାନ । ଏହା ସମସ୍ତଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଖୋଲାଥିବାରୁ ଅଧିକ ସଂଖ୍ୟକ ଲୋକ ମଧ୍ୟ ଏଥିରେ ଲେଖିପାରିବେ । ଏଥିସହିତ ଖବରକାଗଜ, ପତ୍ରପତ୍ରିକା ଆଦି ମଧ୍ୟ ନିଜର ୱେବସାଇଟରେ ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ରେ ଲେଖାସବୁ ଦେବାକୁ ପଡ଼ିବ ।
ଓପନସୋର୍ସ ସାଧନର ବ୍ୟବହାର: ଅନେକ ଓପନସୋର୍ସ ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ଏବେ ବ୍ୟବହୃତ ଆଡୋବ ପେଜମେକର ଆଦି ଡିଟିପି ସଫ୍ଟଓଏରର ବିକଳ୍ପ ଭାବେ ବ୍ୟବହାର ହୋଇପାରିବ । ଆକୃତି, ଶ୍ରୀଲିପି ଆଦିର ବଦଳରେ ଡିଟିପି ପାଇଁ ଇଉନିକୋଡ଼ ଫଣ୍ଟ ବ୍ୟବହାର କଲେ ଏବେ ଲେଖା ବିତରଣରେ ଯେଉ ବିରାଟ ଖମାଟିଏ ରହିଛି ତାହା କିଛିକାଂଶରେ ଭରିଯିବ । ସୁଖର କଥା ମାଗଣାରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଉବଣ୍ଟୁ ଓ ଫେଡୋରା ଭଳି ଓପନସୋର୍ସ ଅପରେଟିଙ୍ଗ ସିଷ୍ଟମ ମାଇକ୍ରୋସଫ୍ଟର ଉଇଣ୍ଡୋଜ XP, ଭିସ୍ତା ଆଦିଠୁ ଯଥେଷ୍ଟ ଅଧିକ ନିରାପଦ ଓ ଭାଇରସ ରହିତ । ବ୍ୟବହାରୀରେ ଏହାକୁ ଆପଣେଇପାରିବେ
ଓଡ଼ିଆକୁ ବାଧ୍ୟତାମୂଳକ ଭାବେ ପାଠ୍ୟକ୍ରମରେ ରଖିବା: ଶିଶୁର ଭାଷା ତା' ବୋଉର ଭାଷା ହେବା ଉଚିତ, ସେଥିପାଇଁ ଏହା ମା'ବୋଲି ମା ମା' ତୁଣ୍ଡର ଭାଷା ବୋଲି ଜଣା । ତଣ୍ଟିଚିପି ପିଲାଟିକୁ ଜନ୍ମ ହେବା ବେଳୁ ଚାକିରି ପାଇଁ ଯୋଗ୍ୟ କରିବାରେ ଯେଉଁ ବୃଥା ପରିଶ୍ରମ ଅଭିଭାବକେ କରୁଛନ୍ତି ତା' ପିଲାଟି ଉପରେ ଜୋର-ଜବରଦସ୍ତି ଏକ ବିଦେଶୀ ଭାଷା ଲଦି ଦେଉଛି । ଏହାର ପ୍ରଭାବରେ ପିଲାର ମାନସିକ ସନ୍ତୁଳନ ବିଗିଡ଼ି ନିଜ ଜାତି, ଅଞ୍ଚଳ, ରାଜ୍ୟ, ଲୋକେ ଆଉ ଏପରିକି ନିଜ ପରିବାର ପ୍ରତି ଛୁଆବେଳୁ ଏକ ପ୍ରକାର ମମତା-ରହିତ ହୋଇଯାଉଛି । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଶିକ୍ଷା ଶିଶୁ ଶ୍ରେଣୀରୁ ନେଇ ବିଏ-ବିଏସସି ଯାଏ ବାଧ୍ୟତାମୂଳକ ହେଉ । ଓଡ଼ିଶାରେ ବାକି ରାଜ୍ୟ ଭଳି ଏକ ଗବେଷଣାମୂଳକ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବିଶ୍ୱବିଦ୍ୟାଳୟ ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠା ହେଉ । ଏ ଭାଷା ଯଥେଷ୍ଟ ଆଧୁନିକ ପ୍ରେମ କବିତା ଶୁଣିଲାଣି । ଭାଷାର ଅତୀତ, ବର୍ତ୍ତମାନ ଓ ଭବିଷ୍ୟତର ବିଶ୍ଳେଷଣ ଲୋଡ଼ା ।
ଓଡ଼ିଆ ହେଉ ସରକାରୀ ଭାଷା: ଯେତେ ଯାହା ହେଉ ଯଦି ଭାଷାଟିଏ ରାଜଭାଷା ବା ସରକାରୀ କାମରେ ନ ଲାଗିଲା ତାହେଲେ ଭାଷା ପ୍ରତି ଯେତେ ମମତା ଥାଉ, ସାଧାରଣ ଲୋକଟିଏ ବ୍ୟାଙ୍କରୁ ଋଣ ଆଣିବା ବେଳେ କଷ୍ଟେମଷ୍ଟେ ଇଂରାଜୀରେ ଲେଖିବ । ଓଡ଼ିଆ ସରକାରୀ ସ୍ତରରେ ବାଧ୍ୟତାମୂଲକ ହେଲେ ବାହାରୁ ଆସୁଥିବା ଆଇଏଏସ ଅଫିସର ଯେଉଁମାନେ ସରକାରୀ କଳର ମୁଖ୍ୟ, ମଧ୍ୟ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଶିଖିବେ ଓ ଲୋକଙ୍କର ଅସୁବିଧା ବେଶି ବୁଝିବେ । ମଣିଷର ପ୍ରାକୃତିକ ଭାଷା ଯଦି ପଠନ, ଲିଖନ, ସରବରାହ ଓ ଯୋଗାଯୋଗର ଭାଷା ହେଲା ସେ ଭାଷାର ଗତିକୁ ଯେ କେହି ରୋକିପାରିବେ ନାହିଁ ତାହା ଆମ ପାଇଁ ମାଣ୍ଡାରିନ, ଜାପାନୀ, ଥାଇ ଆଦି ଏସୀୟ ଭାଷାମାନଙ୍କଠୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ଫରାସୀ, ଜର୍ମାନ, ଋଷିଆନ, ଆରବୀ ଆଦି ଛାମୁଆଁ ଭାଷାସମୂହ ଆମ ଆଗରେ ପ୍ରମାଣ କରିଦେଇଛନ୍ତି । ଆଉ ଇଂରାଜୀକୁ ଆମର ଶତ୍ରୁ ନ ମଣି ତା' କାନ୍ଧରେ ଚଢ଼ି ଆମ୍ବ ପାରିବା କୌଶଳଟି ଏ ସାଧବର ଦାୟାଦ ଜାତିକୁ ଶିଖିବାକୁ ପଡ଼ିବ।

ଲେଖକ ପରିଚିତି:

ଶୁଭାଶିଷ ପାଣିଗ୍ରାହୀ ଜଣେ ଶିକ୍ଷା ଗବେଷକ । ସେ ଉଇକିମିଡିଆ ଫାଉଣ୍ଡେସନରୁ ଅନୁଦାନପ୍ରାପ୍ତ ସେଣ୍ଟର ଫର ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଏଣ୍ଡ ସୋସାଇଟିର ଆକସେସ ଟୁ ନଲେଜରେ ପ୍ରୋଗ୍ରାମ ଅଧିକାରୀ ଭାବେ କମ୍ପୁଟରରେ ଭାରତୀୟ ଭାଷାଶିକ୍ଷା ସମ୍ବନ୍ଧରେ କାମ କରୁଛନ୍ତି । ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ଓ Mozilla ତଥା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷାରେ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଲୋକାଲାଇଜେସନର ମାନକ, ଓଡ଼ିଶାରେ ବିଭିନ୍ନ ବିଶ୍ୱବିଦ୍ୟାଳୟ ଓ ଶିକ୍ଷାନୁଷ୍ଠାନରେ ଛାତ୍ରମାନଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ସମ୍ପାଦନା ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ, ବିଶ୍ୱସ୍ତରରେ OpenGLAMର ସଦସ୍ୟ ଓ ଭାରତୀୟ ଆମ୍ବାସାଡର ଭାବରେ ଓ OpenEducation ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ମାଧ୍ୟମରେ ଅଧିକ ଜ୍ଞାନର ବିତରଣର ସାଧନ ନିର୍ମାଣ, ଉଇକିମାନିଆ ଭଳି ଆନ୍ତର୍ଜାତୀୟ ସମ୍ମିଳନୀରେ ଭାଗନେଇ ଏସୀୟ ଭାଷାସମୂହ ପାଇଁ ମିଳିତ କାର୍ଯ୍ୟକ୍ରମ ତଥା ନାଗରିକ ସାମ୍ବାଦିକ ସଙ୍ଗଠନ Global Voicesର ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଲିଙ୍ଗୁଆ ମୁଖ୍ୟ ଭାବେ ସେ ଭାଷା ଗବେଷଣା ଓ ଭାଷାର କମ୍ପୁଟରୀକରଣ ପାଇଁ ବିଭିନ୍ନ ସାଧନ ନିର୍ମାଣରେ ସେ ସକ୍ରିୟ ।

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/state-of-odia-language-in-computing-and-future-steps

Aircel & Wikimedia Foundation announce Wikipedia Zero

pavanaja — 2014-07-07T05:58:08Z

Aircel and Wikimedia Foundation came together to announce Wikipedia Zero. As per this, users of Aircel need not pay for data for accessing Wikipedia. Dr. U.B.Pavanaja wrote a report on this in Prajavani.

Click here to read the article published in Prajavani on July 3, 2014.

ಗ್ಯಾಜೆಟ್ ಸುದ್ದಿ

ಏರ್‌ಸೆಲ್ ಬಳಸುವವರಿಗೆ ಉಚಿತ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ

ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ಫೋನ್ ಸೇವೆ ನೀಡುವ ಏರ್‌ಸೆಲ್ ಕಂಪೆನಿ ಮತ್ತು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯವನ್ನು ನಡೆಸುವ ವಿಕಿಮೀಡಿಯ ಫೌಂಡೇಶನ್ ಜೊತೆಗೂಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಏರ್‌ಸೆಲ್ ಗ್ರಾಹಕರು ತಮ್ಮ ಸ್ಮಾರ್ಟ್‌ಫೋನ್‌ಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯವನ್ನು ಬಳಸಿದರೆ ಅವರು ಅಂತರಜಾಲ ಬಳಕೆಗೆ ಹಣ ನೀಡಬೇಕಾಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಇದು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಬಳಸುವವರಿಗೆ ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಸುದ್ದಿ. ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಝೀರೊ ಎಂಬುದು ಆಫ್ರಿಕದಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಾರಂಭವಾದ ಯೋಜನೆ.

ಇದರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ಸೇವೆ ನೀಡುವ ಕಂಪೆನಿ ತಮ್ಮ ಗ್ರಾಹಕರು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ವೀಕ್ಷಿಸಿದರೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಪ್ರವಾಹಕ್ಕೆ (ಡಾಟಾ) ಹಣ ನೀಡಬೇಕಾಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಭಾರತದಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಝೀರೊ ಯೋಜನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸದ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಏರ್‌ಸೆಲ್ ಮಾತ್ರ ಭಾಗಿಯಾಗಿದೆ. ಇಂಗ್ಲಿಷ್ ಮಾತ್ರವಲ್ಲದೆ ಇತರೆ ಭಾರತೀಯ ಭಾಷೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಬಳಸುವವರಿಗೆ ಇದು ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಸುದ್ದಿ.

See the portion about Wikipedia Zero below:

Click to download the PDF here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/prajavani-july-3-2014-article-on-wikipedia-zero

Opening Comments by India on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives at WIPO SCCR 28

nehaa — 2014-07-21T17:55:28Z

This was the statement made by the Indian delegation at the 28th session of the World Intellectual Property Organization Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights on July 2, 2014.

Hon'ble Chair

In the quest for Knowledge society-for the developing countries- the issue of haves and have -not’s is now sliced with an additional divide of knows and Know -not’s. Libraries and Archives are the engines of creativity and promote intergeneration equity. They indeed are the modern day temples, mosques and churches- The notion of strong copyright boundaries has found its resonance to encircle spaces hitherto providing the socio economic infrastructure for developing nations. It is in this context that we need to look for appropriate international instrument to consolidate the access by way of limitations and exceptions to libraries, archives, educational institutions and other disabled people.

The overemphasis of stricter and stronger copyright as the engine of creativity is now questioned by latest studies. Ekhard Höffner a German historian has in his comprehensive research argues the fact that in the 19th century Germany outpaced UK, as the copyright laws were not strong as it was in UK. This fact goes contrary to the established view that Copyright is directly correlated to the expansion of creative works and publication. In fact Germany could do the catch up with the other powers in Europe.

I am mentioning this to emphasize for the developing world to do the catch up it is necessary to have limitations and exceptions for Libraries/archives/educational institutions. At this junction it is necessary to recognize the importance of such consensus without presuming whether what sort of International Instrument it should be.

India supports the effort of harmonizing the exceptions and limitations from an international dimension for intergenerational equity and as a tool to develope socio-economic- human resource infrastructure.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/opening-statement-of-india-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives

ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଅକ୍ଷରସଜ୍ଜା

subha — 2014-07-28T06:02:16Z

This article was published in the Samaja (Odia newspaper) on July 4, 2014.

This is an article "ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଅକ୍ଷରସଜ୍ଜା" published in The Samaja on July 4, 2014 is about the Akruti Sarala - Unicode Odia converter that fellow Wikipedian Manoj Sahukar and myself worked. Akruti is a modified/extended ISCII encoding based font that is used by many users. This converter could convert them to Unicode so the text could not just be searchable on the Internet but could also be used for posting on Facebook, mail, Wikipedia, blogs and other websites. This has been published today in the editorial page.

Read a scanned version of the published article below:

Read the Samaja paper here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/article-on-akruti-unicode-converter-in-samaja