Centre for Internet and Society

WEBINAR: Closed for Business

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:18:07Z

A Global Panel Discusses International Copyright Laws and Their Impact on the Open Internet

The digital revolution has forged new ways to create knowledge, educate people and disseminate information. It has also restructured the way the world perceives and conducts economic practices, runs governments and engages politically. Recognizing this new dynamic requires global discussion and a common desire & commitment to build a people-centred and development-oriented Information Society. Coming off the heels of the latest Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement (ACTA) discussions in Washington, D.C. and on the eve of the upcoming Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Vilinius, we invite you to join in a discussion about the future of Internet.

This online-only event features an array of panelists from regions around the world. We invite you to watch the New America LiveStream channel and to participate in an online chat room during the event. If you plan to participate, please register using the form at right.

In addition, if you have specific questions you'd like the panel to address, we encourage you to post them prior to the event here.

Participants

Featured Speakers

Joe McNamee
Advocacy Coordinator, European Digital Rights

Sherwin Siy
Deputy Legal Director, Kahle/Austin Promise Fellow, Public Knowledge

Renata Avila
Creative Commons Guatemala and Global Voices Guatemala

Sunil Abraham

Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India

Clare Curren

New Zealand Labour Party Spokesperson for Communications and IT

Moderator

Rebecca MacKinnon
Schwartz Fellow, New America Foundation

Event Time and Location
Thursday, September 9, 2010 - 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m.

For details of the event on the New America Foundation website, click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/webinar-closed-for-business

The madness of software patents

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:17:11Z

India’s patent law excludes software per se, yet over a thousand patents have been granted, writes Lata Jishnu in an article published in Down to Earth.

Per se is a straightforward term meaning by or in itself. Those who use it are pretty clear what the Latin-origin term signifies. And that’s what our lawmakers must have also believed when they used it in the 2005 amendment to India’s Patent Act.

But unaccountably this particular term has turned out to be prone to misuse more than anything else in the country’s patent law, leading to a host of software patents that should never have been granted in the first place. So me have been challenged and many more are set to be opposed in the courts but what is clear is that patent examiners in India have learned nothing from the anarchy in the US where the liberal grant of patents to software programmes and business methods has resulted in the biggest logjam in the courts. Patents cripple innovation and creativity by blocking access to data format specifications—and they hurt everyone.

A scan of the current patents disputes reveals how expensive and destructive these suits are.

InNova is suing 36 of the world’s top flight computer, telecom and banking companies for violating its patent, which “covers technology used to differentiate between spam email messages and those that users actually want to receive”. The company claims its spam filter is one of the “building blocks for all email communications” but some experts say that actual spam filtering is far more sophisticated than the methods in the firm’s patent.
Oracle is suing Google because it says Google’s Android operating system infringes seven patents it owns on Java. Analysts allege that Oracle wants to assert its dominant position in the Java ecosystem.
Microsoft and Salesforce, a small competitor, were suing each other, with the Redmond behemoth claiming Salesforce used its software-as-a-service products, while Salesforce accuses Microsoft of violating its patents.
VirnetX Holding Corp, an Internet security software firm, which successfully sued Microsoft for US $200 million, is now charging several other corporations with violating patents for technology used in mobile phones, remote communication and virtual private networking.

This list is merely illustrative of the madness out there. It is precisely to avoid such anarchy that India’s law was so formulated as to exclude software and business method patents. Here is what Section 3 (k) of the Patent Act says cannot be considered inventions: a mathematical or business method or computer programme per se or algorithms. In other words, computer programmes are a kind of algorithm just as algorithms are a kind of mathematical method. One reason for this exclusion is that computer programmes are protected by copyright in India and it was not thought necessary to provide additional protection through patents.

But lawyers being what they are, have set their sharp legal brains to assay what “computer programme per se” could be made to mean—encouraged, of course, by firms keen on pat - ent protection for software applications and business methods. The result is pretty dismaying: hundreds of patents granted in recent years, setting at naught the intention of the law. The Bengaluru-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) offers some estimates of the number of software patents granted in India. It says around 200 software patents have been granted till date (applications have been filed since 1999), another 1,000 patents were given for inventions which use the term ‘computer’ in the abstract describing the invention.

Krithika Narayana of CIS explains that actual numbers are hard to come by because there is no category for software patents. Thus, applications may be described as either ‘computer-based’ or ‘computerised’ or ‘computer implemented’ systems. However, most software patents are concentrated in the group of patents with G06F as their classification. The figures have been culled from this category. There is more bad news. Hund reds of software patent applications are in various stages of examination, opposition and grant which have not been included in the CIS tally. How has all this come about?

Most applicants manipulate the term ‘computer programmes per se’ to obtain patents for computer programmes run in combination with hardware (even though the hardware only executes the programme and has no ingenuity of its own) or software embedded in a machine (embedded systems). Clearly, the patent office has been wrong in granting such patents.

To end this, CIS, working in tandem with Knowledge Com - mons and Software Freedom Law Centre, is set to challenge a software patent. Hopefully, it might stop the tide. Otherwise, the consequences are scary. As Richard Stallman, the guru of free software, said, “If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.”

Read the original in Down to Earth

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/madness-software-patents

Why piracy is tough to rein in

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:16:50Z

“Video market is being treated as a poor cousin of the film industry”

Armed with a shoulder-strung carry bag, Meeran (name changed) walks into an apartment block that he frequents. By the time he comes out, he has sold nearly 10 pirated DVDs. His brother runs a shop which makes a business of Rs.1,000 to Rs.1,500 a day. But regular customers can avail themselves the privilege of his visit to their homes.

Film buffs like Madhankumar Subbiah, who buys DVDs, say the proliferation of multiplexes means a significant number of people cannot afford to go to the cinema regularly. “On the other hand, a whole family can watch the movie spending just Rs.30 on a pirated DVD. I feel that this trend would continue unless ticket prices are reduced,” he adds.

Depending on which side of the copyright debate you are on, Meeran is either a pirate who is a making a dent on the film industry's profits or a trader who is trying to take advantage of a backlash against monopolistic tendencies in the entertainment industry.

According to sources in the Video Piracy Wing of the Central Crime Branch, Puducherry is the headquarters of the illegal piracy business. Multiple copies are made using the master prints from the overseas rights agreement and distributed to various parts of Tamil Nadu.

CCB's Video Piracy Wing, in the last one year, has booked 234 cases and arrested 279 persons, of which 23 have been booked under the Goondas Act.

To understand piracy, it has to be placed in context. G. Dhananjayan, Chief Operating Officer, Moser Baer Entertainment, says the opportunity is not there for the consumer to buy the original. “Tamil cinema is not encouraging other modes of revenue generation. Unlike anywhere else in the country, producers get into agreements with satellite networks to release it on television before a DVD release.”

The DVD release window is usually six months after the release in theatres. According to him, the video market is being treated as a poor cousin of the industry. Kerala, for example, he says has a thriving video market because the release window is 90 to 100 days after the release in theatres.

Though movies are meant to be viewed in theatres, digital technologies have enabled a segment of movie watchers who prefer to enjoy the experience through on-demand or even streaming content.

Nishant Shah, Director, Centre for Internet and Society, says that attempts at controlling piracy are futile. The digital technologies that we are working with are intuitively designed for copying, dissemination and sharing.

According to him, copyright is not a pre-given frame of reference. It arose, historically and culturally, with the industrialisation of information and came into being so strongly because of the possibilities and limitations of analogue technologies.

He says media conglomerates that “try to imagine the consumer as monolithic and unchanging, and accuse them of piracy and theft, will only alienate the audience.” It is a move that fails to recognise the changing dynamics of cultural economies, he adds.

Read the original in the Hindu

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/piracy-tough-rein

Seminar on Software Patent and the Commons

praskrishna — 2011-10-23T14:22:15Z

A pre-grant opposition has been filed against a software patent application filed in the patent office by Certicom, a wholly owned subsidiary of Research in Motion (RIM), manufacturers of Blackberry. The opposition was filed on August 31, 2010 by the Software Freedom Law Centre which has recently expanded its operations to India. This exciting development was announced by Mishi Choudhary from SFLC on the lines of the seminar on “Software Patents and the Commons” organised on 1 September 2010 in Delhi jointly by SFLC, the Centre for Internet and Society, the Society for Knowledge Commons and Red Hat. Filing more such oppositions to software patents in India was in the pipeline and this is just the beginning of a movement to take on monopolisation of knowledge and ideas through patenting software, the organisers said.

Software patent opposition is still in its nascent stage in India while several oppositions have been filed against software patents in the US and the EU. The harmful effects of software patents are little known to the Indian public, especially from the context of its danger to development in small and medium size enterprises, as pointed out by Pranesh Prakash from the Centre for Internet and Society who spoke about why software patents are bad for innovation and development in society and also in the software industry, in particular.

In the same context, Venkatesh Hariharan from Red Hat as also Mr. T.C. James, Director of the National Intellectual Property Organisation spoke about the growing importance of free and open source software in education, governmental agencies and as a key agent in information technology policy making in India. “Out of 500 super computers in the world, 446 are running on Linux”, he said, talking about how open source software makes computing highly accessible and affordable while allowing for improvements to be made to the software by any user and releasing it back to benefit the whole community. Dr. Anshu Bhardwaj involved in the Open Source Drug Discovery project undertaken by CSIR, spoke at length about the project as a live demonstration of the power of open source software in impacting drug access and development and health care reform across communities at highly economical rates.

Prof. Eben Moglen, Executive Director of Software Freedom Law Centre in New York who was the keynote speaker at the conference spoke about the growth of the free software and open source movement based on the principle of equating knowledge with commons – that is, a good to be commonly shared by all members of the public – resulting in access to and sharing of knowledge and distribution of information in society for greater innovation, creation of new ideas, communication and development. Dr. Abhijit Sen, member of the Planning Commission was the other keynote speaker who stressed on the role of the government and the policy making bodies to ensure that knowledge and education is accessible and shared without restrictions in such a way that it is not misused by the members of the society.

Other notable speakers in the event included Prabir Purkayastha from the Society for Knowledge Commons, Pradyut Bora, Chief Convenor of BJP's information and technology cell, Jaijit Bhattacharjee from Hewlett Packard and Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Professor, National University of Juridical Sciences. The event also witnessed the participants discuss the various strategies to be used from the perspective of legal analysis as well as policy reform, for opposing software patents filed or granted in India. Indian patent law clearly declares computer programmes per se or software patents to be unpatentable. Prabir Purkayastha pointed out that the most important and major scientific discoveries in history have not been patented and that this has, in no way prevented new ideas from being created and has in fact fostered such innovation. In spite of such a clear legal restriction on grant of software patents, around 1000 software patents have been filed in the patent offices in India in the last year. This trend is extremely disturbing since it poses a serious threat to access to knowledge and distribution of information in society in addition to stifling innovation and development in the software industry.

The seminar was attended by people from diverse backgrounds including the IT industry, civil society organisations, and groups working in pharma patent advocacy, media persons and government officials.

Videos

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/softtware-patents-and-the-commons

Seminar on Software Patents and the Commons

praskrishna — 2011-04-05T03:59:59Z

A seminar on Software Patents and Commons is being held on 1 September, 2010 in Delhi. It is jointly organised by CIS, Knowledge of Commons and the Software Freedom Law Centre. The event is sponsored by Red Hat. Pranesh Prakesh will speak on Arguments against Software Patents in India.

For the full event details and the agenda, click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/software-patents-commons

Copyright bill restricts Net access

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:21:40Z

Law to curb piracy may fetter creativity

The government introduced the copyright amendment bill in the Rajya Sabha on April 19. The bill gives independent rights to authors, film directors and musicians and makes it difficult for Internet users to access works protected by copyright.

G R Raghavender, registrar of copyrights, said the amendments are necessary as the Copyright Act of 1957 gives minimum protection to writers and artists against commercial exploitation of their works through the Internet.

Under lock without key

But the bill lacks clarity on some aspects. For instance, it introduces technological protection measures (tpms)—locks that restrict access to copyrighted material and help the copyright holder decide how his or her work should be used.

The bill allows users to bypass the lock if it is for a purpose not prohibited by the law, such as research. But for that the user should have the means to unlock the tpm. The bill assumes the users would know how to bypass the lock but that need not be the case, said Pranesh Prakash, of the non-profit Centre for Internet and Society.

The Spanish law, for instance, requires copyright holders to help legitimate users access their work.

Shamnad Basheer, who teaches intellectual property law at the National University of Juridical Sciences in Kolkata, said tpm is an added restriction and not required. “India is not obligated to import tpms into its copyright law as it is not a member of the World International Property Organization internet treaties (the amended bill conforms to these treaties). Raghavender said tpms are a must for curbing piracy.

The bill evoked mixed reactions in the film and music industry. Abhishek Chaubey, director of the recently released film Ishqiya, said the bill would put creative people in a stronger position. But Hiren Gada who runs the production house, Shemaroo Entertain-ment, is against directors getting copyrights. “It is against the fundamental principle of the film business; directors don’t share losses with producers if a film flops,” he pointed out. Dhruv Jagasia, manager of the music band Indian Ocean, said he was not sure if the bill would be implemented effectively as in the US where “cheques arrive by mail if one’s track is played on the radio”.

Print impaired get short shrift

Non-profits working for the physically challenged said the bill does not address certain handicaps. Rahul Cherian of www.inclusiveplanet.com, an online platform for print impaired, said the bill permits conversion of printed material only to special formats like Braille and sign language, not mainstream formats like audio tapes and text with large font size. “There are about 70 million print disabled persons in India. Those affected by cerebral palsy, dyslexia and visually impaired persons who do not know Braille, would need to access material in mainstream formats. The bill does not benefit them,” said Cherian. He added the bill allows only organizations working for disabled to seek licence to publish works in mainstream formats. Educational institutions, self-help groups and physically challenged individuals can’t obtain the licence.

While copyright amendment bill seeks to protect intellectual property, there are people who think it fetters creativity. “Copyright is a fairly recent phenomenon and should not be considered natural. Were that the case, the entire cultural history of humanity would not have occurred,” said Shuddhabrata Sen of the Centre for Study of Developing Societies. Swaraj Paul Barooah, researcher at the Nalsar university of law in Hyderabad, said, “In a developing country like India the emphasis should be on adapting and improvising on the works in the public domain.”

Given the circumstances, should the copyright on Mahatma Gandhi’s works be renewed. The copyright for his writings expired in 2009. Former governor of West Bengal and Mahatma Gandhi’s grandson Gopalkrishna Gandhi said there was nothing to lament. “The expiration of the copyright term should be the beginning of responsible access and use. It would be important in the computer age to use his manuscripts with great responsibility because no one can sue the user under the copyright law,” he said.

The bill has been referred to the standing committee of the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development for vetting.

Read the original in Down to Earth

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/copyright-bill-restricts-net-access

First Post-Bilski Decision - Software Patent Rejected

praskrishna — 2011-08-23T03:24:25Z

In the first decision post-Bilski, the Board of Patents Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) rejected a software patent claimed by Hewlett-Packard. The ruling in this case has buttressed the fact that the Bilski decision furthered the cause of narrowing the patentability of software even though the Supreme Court of the United States totally avoided mentioning software patents or the applicability of the machine or transformation test for software patents in its decision.

As eagerly as it was awaited, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos (2010) was a dampener as far as its impact (or the lack of it) on patentability of software was concerned. The Supreme Court totally avoided even mentioning software patents or the applicability of the machine or transformation test for software patents in its decision and while many claimed that it was status quo maintained, a few of us found a silver lining in the Court’s ruling of abstract ideas as unpatentable and its admission of an argument that patents do not necessarily promote innovation and may, sometimes result in limiting competition and stifling innovation. Our hope that the Bilski case furthered the cause of narrowing the patentability of software was not misplaced is evident from the first decision post-Bilski, of the BPAI, which rejected a software patent claimed by Hewlett-Packard. The BPAI, in In Re Proudler, rejected a patent claim for software made by Hewlett Packard on the ground that software, being an abstract idea, is not patentable. The BPAI relied on, among others, the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos in holding that an abstract idea was not patentable.

The case before the BPAI was on appeal from the decision of the patent examiner who refused patent for the claim on the ground that it was obvious (on basis of prior art analysis) and therefore, “barred at the threshold” for patentability under US patent law. The patent was claimed for “a method of controlling the processing of data” comprising “defining security controls for a plurality of data items, and applying individualised security rules to each of the data items based on a measurement of integrity of a computing entity to which the data items are to be made available”. It was essentially a claim for software facilitation data processing and involving security controls for several data items. The BPAI refused patent for the claim but differed from the patent examiner in its reasoning. The BPAI held that all claims related to non-patentable subject matter and hence, could not be granted patent.

In coming to this conclusion, the BPAI relied on previous decisions including In Re Nuijten which held that Section 35 of the US Code of Patents which allows patents for a machine, a manufacture, a process or a composition of matter constitutes “the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter”. In ruling that HP’s claim was not patentable, BPAI also held that software, being an abstract idea, was not patentable. The line of argument relied on by the BPAI was something like this – “[A] machine, a manufacture, a process or a composition of matter” constitutes the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. Thus, laws of nature, abstract ideas, and natural phenomena are excluded from patent protection as held in the well known case of Diamond v. Diehr. The Federal Circuit in its decision in In re Warmerdam has held that an abstraction is not a patentable subject matter. In other words, a claim that recites no more than software, logic or a data structure (that is, an abstraction) does not fall within any statutory category. It has been held in Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp. that an abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment. Finally, and most significantly, the Bilski case has put the nail in the coffin by ruling that abstract ideas are not patentable. Against the background of these precedents, BPAI has confirmed the unpatentability of software on the ground that it is an abstract idea.

It is interesting that the BPAI also mentioned that “no true hardware structure is recited” in the claims to buttress its conclusion that the idea claimed was an abstract one. This means that the BPAI took note of the fact that although a hardware structure may have been essential to implement the abstract idea forming the claim such structure itself was not claimed for patent. The innovation claimed lay in the software alone and not in the hardware and therefore, did not merit patent protection. Thus, a claimed invention which is a combination of hardware (required to implement the software) and software may not be patentable as long as there is no ingenuity in the hardware as software alone, being a mere algorithm and an abstraction, falls outside the scope of patentable subject matter.

The first post-Bilski decision gives us more than one reason to cheer about –

It refused patent for software on the ground that it was an abstract idea and hence, did not fall under patentable subject matter. Acceptance of software as merely an abstract idea is catching up and is thus, good news for those who challenge the patentability of software.
The BPAI, in ruling software as an abstraction and thus, unpatentable relied directly on the Bilski decision and therefore, provided a clear, much-needed guideline for conclusively interpreting the Bilski decision as one restricting the patentability of software.
The decision supported the argument that any combination of hardware and software, to be patentable, must demonstrate ingenuity in the hardware component. As long as there is no claim for hardware, the software itself, being an abstraction, cannot be patented. This brings about greater clarity in the definition of software to be limited to an algorithm (and thus, abstract) and to be looked at in isolation from a hardware component which is solely used to implement the software and no more.

It will be interesting to follow the developments in this case and in other future claims for software which may rely on the Bilski decision. In Re Proudler is certainly encouraging for limiting software patents especially in the aftermath of Bilski. As far as patentability of software is concerned, the Bilski decision may not be that insignificant after all.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/post-bilski

The Bilski Case - Impact on Software Patents

praskrishna — 2011-08-23T03:24:31Z

The Supreme Court of the United States gave its decision in Bilski v Kappos on 28 June, 2010. In this case the petitioners’ patent application sought protection for a claimed invention that explains how commodities buyers and sellers in the energy market can protect, or hedge, against the risk of price changes. The Court in affirming the rejection by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also held that the machine- or-transformation test is not necessarily the sole test of patentability. The Court’s ruling of abstract ideas as unpatentable and its admission that patents do not necessarily promote innovation and may sometimes limit competition and stifle innovation have provided a ray of hope. In the light of the developments, the Bilski decision as far as patentability of software is concerned may not be totally insignificant, says Krithika Dutta Narayana.

The United States Supreme Court’s much awaited decision of last month in Bilski v. Kappos (2010) (Bilski), a case that was touted as a potential watershed in the debate surrounding patentability of software, was disappointing, even though it was not without any impact. While the Supreme Court affirmed the rejection by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) of a patent claim for a business method, it failed to define with clarity, any test for patentability which might have constituted a precedent for future cases involving patentability of software or business method. At the same time, it held that the “machine- or- transformation” test which was the test followed by the CAFC in rejecting the claim, was not the sole test to determine patentability, thus effectively providing no guideline to determine patentability of software or business methods in future cases.

The Supreme Court in Bilski, affirmed the rejection by the CAFC in In re Bilski (2008) of a patent claim involving a method of providing insurance against fluctuating energy prices due to changes in weather. The applicants, Bernard L. Bilski and Rand Warsaw filed a patent application for such a method of hedging risks – essentially a claim for a business method – under Section 101 of US Patent Act before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The examiner at the USPTO rejected the claim on the ground that the claim was not for patentable subject matter and that “the invention is not implemented on a specific apparatus and merely manipulates (an) abstract idea and solves a purely mathematical problem without any limitation to a practical application, therefore, the invention is not directed to the technological arts”. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) took a re-look at the examiner’s decision and held that the “machine or apparatus” test was in itself insufficient to determine patentability since a claim that included transformation of a physical object from one state to another would also be patent eligible subject matter. The BPAI also struck down the requirement of the invention to be a “technological art”. Thus, it rejected the Bilski claim on the ground that it did not cause transformation of a physical object from one state to another, since transformation of financial liabilities and risks does not constitute transformation of physical matter.

In its decision on October 30, 2008, the CAFC affirmed the ruling of the BPAI and laid down the machine or transformation test for patentability and held that Bilski’s claim was neither tied to any machine or apparatus to derive the result nor did it cause transformation of any physical object from one state to another and is hence, unpatentable subject matter. The Court reasoned that the “machine or transformation” test was crucial for determining patentability as it ensured that the claim based on a fundamental principle did not preempt all other uses of the principle. This test was the first test since the US Supreme Court’s decision in Diamond v. Diehr (1981) – which held that laws of nature, mathematical formulae and algorithms are not patentable – that had a huge potential for laying down definitive rules for patentability including declaring software and business methods to be outside the realm of patentable subject matter. If this test was upheld in the Supreme Court, that would effectively put an end to the rise of software patents since software, in most cases, did not cause transformation of physical object from one state to another. Thus, the decision of the Supreme Court had huge stakes for both sides of the software patent debate.

In light of the same, the Supreme Court’s ruling holding that the machine or transformation test is not the sole test for determining patentability and at the same time, failing to provide any other test on which to determine patentability, was a sore disappointment. Though, it affirmed the rejection of Bilski’s patent claim on the ground that the subject matter claimed was abstract and thus not a patentable “process” under section 101, its core decision was only limited to this particular claim and it did not lay down a concrete and definitive guideline for future claims. However, one must not be too quick to dismiss this decision as either going against the interests of open society and free software or as a completely inconsequential case that simply maintains status quo. There are important takeaways for the patentability of software in the Bilski decision – The Court did not totally reject the machine or transformation test relied on by the CAFC. It only held that the machine or transformation test is not the sole test on basis of which the patentability of a subject matter of a claim can be decided. The Court, in fact, held that the “machine or transformation test” was a “useful and important clue, an investigative tool for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under section 101.” This leaves open the possibility of using the test to determine patentability in future cases and this is good news for opponents of software patents since software (an algorithm designed to be operated upon by a computer) is merely an abstract idea which, in most cases, does not involve transformation of a physical object from one state to another.

Bilski’s claim was essentially interpreted to be a patent for a business method. The Supreme Court was completely silent on the issue of patentability of software in its decision and stuck to only the narrow issue in hand – that of the patentability of a particular business method. This means that the “machine or transformation test”, whose applicability was ruled out in this particular case, may still be applicable for software patents. Nothing in this case precludes an opponent of a software patent from urging the courts to use the “machine or transformation test” to rule on patentability. Thus, the very fact that the Supreme Court only dealt with the narrow issue in hand ensures that the “machine or transformation test” is not altogether dismissed.

The main ground on which Bilski’s claim was rejected was that the patent claim was for an overly abstract idea which was not patent-eligible. The Court held that the basic concept on which the claim was based – the concept of hedging risks against risk is an unpatentable abstract idea. Further, some of the claims are constituted by equations and are purely mathematical in nature and are abstract and thus not patentable. This means that basic concepts and use of mathematical formulae constitute abstract ideas which are unpatentable. This test can strike down many software patents as these are simply algorithms executed by a computer and incorporate very fundamental and basic concepts which are abstract in nature and are thus, not patentable. This test for determining patentability on the basis of the claim being abstract as laid down in Bilski reaffirms the patentability test laid down in Diamond v. Deihr which kept laws of nature, mathematical formulae and algorithms outside the scope of patentable subject matter. This may serve as an important test to determine and especially, limit the patentability of software in coming years.

Notwithstanding the fact that Bilski’s claim has been interpreted to be one of a business method patent, when examined in detail, the claims indicate that the ‘method’ cannot be implemented without a computer. Certain claims for calculating probability (and risk), although mathematical or algorithmic in nature, have too many variables to be executed in any way other than by using a computer.1 Such algorithms which can be executed only by a computer fall under the category of software and the patent is thus, also, a software patent. That being said, the ruling of the Court that the claim is for an overly abstract idea and thus not patentable lends credence and indicates that software patents can be validly claimed to be abstract ideas not falling under the scope of patentable subject matter.

Another important outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling was the invalidation of the 1998 CAFC decision in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group2 which opened the floodgates for software patents by holding that a practical application of an algorithm or formula to produce “useful, concrete and tangible result” was sufficient to constitute patentable subject matter. The State Street test was too broad and afforded an opportunity for many frivolous patent applications to be admitted. In fact, Justice Stevens, in his concurring opinion, has stated that it would be a “grave mistake” to follow the test. By clearly striking down and dismissing such a test to determine patentable subject matter, the Court in Bilski has precluded future software patent claims for taking recourse to this test and has effectively, to an extent, made it that much harder for a software to be granted patent. The test in State Street Bank which opened the floodgates for software patents was definitively dismissed.

The Court in the 1978 case of Parker v. Flook, had rejected patent for a mathematical algorithm on the ground that an algorithm was a law of nature although its use was limited to a specific field in this case (the “field of use” test) and added an insignificant post solution activity (“post solution activity” test). The test laid down in Flook had been subsequently questioned and thus, subtly dismissed by the Court in Diehr in 1991. The Court in Bilski emphasized on the test for patentability laid down in Flook and opined that the two tests may well come in handy in future challenges or oppositions to a patent claim while determining if the claim pertained to an idea that was abstract and hence, not patentable. Thus, this test can be used in future for invalidating software patents which are characterized by broad claims adding insignificant post solution activity.

It is heartening to note that the Court looked at the importance of patent law while recognizing that patents are not always necessary to encourage innovation. It noted that patents could also limit competition and stifle innovation. They can have ill effects such as increasing prices while slowing progress and could actually be deterrent to free flow of information within society. By recognizing and validating this, the ruling not only helped increase awareness about the debate surrounding software patents but also showed that the Courts are open to such an approach to patent law in future. This can only be good news for busting software patents.

For further reading

Claim 4 of Bliski's claims is as follows - “perform a Monte Carlo simulation across all deals at all locations ... over the last 20 years of weather patterns and establish the payoffs from each deal under each historical weather pattern “ Such a simulation would involve multiple parameters such as deals, locations, weather patterns, to establish a payoff.
149 F.3d. 1368.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/bilski-case

Privacy and the Indian Copyright Act, 1857 as Amended in 2010

praskrishna — 2011-08-23T03:25:02Z

In this post the author examines the issue of privacy in light of the Indian Copyright Act, 1857 as amended by the Copyright Amendment Bill in 2010. Four key questions are examined in detail and the author gives suitable recommendations for each of the questions that arise.

India's Copyright Act was established in 1857 and was most recently amended in 2010. Although India at present is not a member of WIPO, the provisions in the proposed Bill will work to make the Act WIPO compliant. When looking at privacy in the context of copyright, four key questions arise:

How do DRM technologies undermine privacy and what safeguards are present in the Indian Law to protect citizens’ right to privacy?

Technologies such as digital rights management technologies were developed to be used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to impose limitations on the usage of digital content and devices. DRM technologies pose as a privacy threat, because in their ability to monitor what is happening to a copyrighted work, they are also able to collect personal information and send it back to a host without knowledge of the user. The host is then able to use that data for marketing or commercial purposes. In the Copyright Act, 1957 there are no current provisions against DRM circumvention. In the proposed Copyright Bill 2010 there are two proposed provisions to prevent anti circumvention of DMR technologies, and one provision that clarifies what is a DMR technology.

Proposed Legislation

Section 2 (xa): Defines Rights Management information.
Section 65A : Protection of Technological Measures - Any person who knowingly makes or has in his possession any plate for the purpose of making infringing copies of any work in which copyright subsists shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years. The section includes that any person facilitating circumvention by another person of a technological measure, shall maintain a complete record of such other persons including his name, address and all relevant particulars necessary to identify him.
Section 65B: Protection of Rights Management Information – Any person who removes or distributes, copies or broadcasts any rights management information without authority shall be by punishable with imprisonment.

Recommendation

We find that in this provision the privacy of an individual is brought into question, because there are no safeguards against the commercialization of information, and no formal process of redress if an individual discovers that his information is being used without his consent/prior knowledge. We would recommend that it be clearly articulated in the provision that the collection and commercialization of information and personal data is prohibited by DRM technologies and host companies, and a method of redress be put in place.

Under the present copyright does a person have the ability to expose privacy infringement?

Because DRM technologies often employ the use of spy-ware, it is important that an individual has the ability to know if spy-ware is being used on their computer systems. Currently reverse engineering is permitted under provision 52 (ac). The amended version of provision 52 is less clear on if reverse engineering would be allowed.

Current Legislation

Provision 52 (ac): Certain acts not to be in infringement of copyright include the observation, study or test of functioning of the computer programs in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any elements of the program while performing such acts necessary for the functions for which the computer program was supplied. The following acts shall not constitute in infringement of copyright, namely:

Proposed

The proposed amendment reads:

52 (1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyrights, namely:

(i) (a) a fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work not being a computer program for the purposes of:

(ii) private use, including research

(iii) Criticism or review, whether of that work or of any other work.

The exclusion of computer program in the proposed bill makes it unclear under what circumstances reverse engineering would be allowed.

Recommendation

We would recommend that for clarity purposes a specific clause be added to the act that details under what circumstances a person is allowed to reverse engineer a product for protection of their own privacy.

How does the proposed exception for the disabled undermine privacy?

In India under the current Copyright Act, 1957 there are no provisions for the benefit of disabled persons, thus currently permission from copyright holders needs to be exclusively sought every time the visually challenged person requires access. Under the Constitution of India and the Berne Convention, India has committed to enshrining the rights of the disabled.

Proposed Legislation

The proposed amendment of the Act will grant compulsory license in respect of publication of any copyrighted works not covered by the exception under section 52 (1) (zb).

The Bill also proposes a board that would establish the credentials of the applicant and satisfy itself that the application has been made in good faith. This compromises the anonymity that most individuals enjoy when a disabled person tries to access a digital library.

Recommendation

We recommend that the proposed Bill limits the authentication process a disabled person must go through when accessing digital libraries, etc, and the extent to which records are to be kept of transaction This will serve to protect the anonymity and privacy of disabled persons.

What is On the horizon?

As copyright and IP is a constantly evolving issue, countries are consistently amending and changing their laws. With the flow of peoples across borders increasing, Indians will be affected by different international policies that could pose to infringe upon their privacy, for example, cross border checks or three strike regimes.

Examples of Proposed Legislation: The Anti- Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

ACTA is a proposed legislation with the objective to combat counterfeiting and piracy. Partners in the negotiations include the United States, Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Switzerland. The treaty will oblige each Contracting Party to adopt, in accordance with its legal system, the measures necessary to ensure the application of the treaty. Though ACTA has not been enacted, many worry that ACTA would facilitate privacy violations by trademark and copyright holders against private citizens suspected of infringement activities without any sort of legal due process. The Act would allow for random searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for illegally downloaded or ripped music and movies.

Recommendation

We find that copyright infringement does not appear to justify a three strike regime or cross border searches. ACTA and other international treaties raise the question that if India became compliant with certain international standards, the standards would be too stringent without safeguards, and pose as a risk to a person’s privacy.

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

Call to increase awareness of intellectual property rights

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:47:26Z

We need more knowledge on IPR itself, says IT Secretary

There is an imperative need to focus on intellectual property rights issues, provide more information to the public on what constitutes IPR and how to deal with violations, Information Technology secretary PWC Davidar said.

“We need more knowledge on IPR itself. Very few people are aware of what IPR is and therefore unaware that they are violating someone's IPR, for instance, even when they copy for an essay,” Mr. Davidar said at the inaugural of the seminar on Access to Knowledge. It was organised by the Consumers Association of India and Consumers International, Kuala Lumpur in association with the Madras Library Association.

Assignments

Even when it came to assignments in schools, colleges and universities, sometimes Ph.D. theses as well, one hears of people borrowing from others' work, Mr. Davidar said.

This kind of thing was very tightly controlled in the West, where software was used to pick up plagiarism. However, that was not so strictly enforced in India, he added.

Debate

Mr. Davidar also highlighted the debate on IPR in areas such as environment or health where lives could be at stake.

“When it comes to academics, you know clearly that you should not borrow without acknowledgement. It is not as simple in situations where a solution can save several lives or prevent destruction of property. Such technologies should be shared, without being safeguarded in the corporate domain by IPR,” he added.

R. Desikan, founder, CAI, provided a brief report on the activities of the organisation and stressed the need to increase awareness of consumer rights, and IPR. Pranesh Prakash, from Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, stressing the need to provide access to knowledge in the context of IPR, also hinted at the negative aspects that patents might have on consumers.

Knowledge economy

Former Chief Vigilance Commissioner N. Vittal said consumers were living in a knowledge economy.

Pointing to the example of Japan that worked backwards on creating their own process with an end product (already invented in the U.S.) in mind, he advised that India too should examine whether it could benefit from such reverse engineering.

“Knowledge only grows with distribution,” he added, alluding to the teaching of the Upanishads.

Read the original article in the Hindu

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/increase-awareness-of-ipr

Civil Society groups urge State Judicial Academy to restructure agenda for Judges' Roundtable meet

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:47:36Z

Some of the Civil Society groups in the country have urged the Maharashtra State Judicial Academy to restructure the agenda for the 'Judges Roundtable on Intellectual Property Rights Adjudication' being held in Mumbai on July 24 and 25 to promote public interest and a deeper understanding of intellectual property amongst judicial officers. FICCI is the joint organiser of the event.

In a letter to justice Dr D Y Chandrachud, director (Officiating), Maharashtra State Judicial Academy, the Civil Society groups said that the industry associations like FICCI and CII are primarily known for their lobbying activities towards greater IP protection. Therefore it is not proper for Judicial Academies to collaborate with such organisations without ensuring that the agenda that is set does not promote a biased view. While industry input is necessary, such one-sided collaborations will result in marginalisation of public interest in the IP enforcement
adjudication.

The agenda clearly shows that one side view of IPR and ignores the core concerns emerging out of IPR protection and enforcement related to access to knowledge and access to medicines. Except three academics, all other resource persons outside of the judicial fraternity are from corporate IP law firms and industry associations. The agenda failed to provide a balanced view on IP protection and enforcement, they said.

The letter further said that it is very clear from the agenda and the list of speakers of the roundtable that it is highly skewed, and that there is no balancing of viewpoints that the judicial officers are being presented with. Many of the speakers, who are from corporate law firms, have openly, in public, advocated against public interest provisions of the Indian Patent Act, such as s.3(d) which seeks to prevent evergreening of pharmaceutical patents or s.3(k) which seeks to prevent basic building blocks of technology and business like mathematics,
business methods, and software, from being patented.

Moreover, many of the lawyers have made attempts to import the jurisprudence of developed countries in the matters relating to the enforcement of IPRs, too often with success. Anton Piller orders, which are no longer prevalent in the UK, have been imported into India and modified to even allowing for lock-breaking. This very idea of adhering to foreign jurisprudence on the matters of IPR is highly opposed to the development of indigenous jurisprudence. We feel that jurisprudence of a country should be based on the developmental issues and contexts at the domestic level.

Further, at least four resource persons represent the industry associations like Indian music Industry (IMI), Business Software Alliances (BSA) and The Film & Television Producers Guild of India Ltd. These associations have been actively advocating for IP enforcement law and policies at the national and international level, which undermine the public interest. Hence, these resource people are not in a position to provide a holistic perspective on IP protection and its enforcement, the Civil Society groups contended.

“In the interest of equity and justice, we urge you to take appropriate actions, including requiring the sensitization programme to be balanced both from an industry perspective as well as from a developmental perspective. The Maharashtra State Judicial Academy's collaboration with FICCI does not seem to do either, and instead specific narrow interests seem to be promoted in the form of a sensitization programme. We urge you restructure the agenda to avoid this capture of interest and to actually promote public interest and a deeper understanding of
intellectual property amongst judicial officers,” they said.

This article by Ramesh Shankar appeared in Pharmabiz.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/judges-roundtable-meet

pranesh — 2011-09-21T06:01:54Z

CIS analyses the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, from a public interest perspective to sift the good from the bad, and importantly to point out what crucial amendments should be considered but have not been so far.

The full submission that CIS and 21 other civil society organizations made to the Rajya Sabha Standing Committee on HRD (which is studying the Bill) is available here. Given below is the summary of our submissions:

Existing Copyright Act

The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 has been designed from the perspective of a developing country. It has always attempted a balance between various kinds of interests. It has always sought to ensure that rights of authors of creative works is carefully promoted alongside the public interest served by wide availability and usability of that material. For instance, our Copyright Act has provisions for:

compulsory and statutory licensing: recognizing its importance in making works available, especially making them available at an affordable rate.
cover versions: recognizing that more players lead to a more vibrant music industry.
widely-worded right of fair dealing for private use: recognizing that individual use and large-scale commercial misuse are different.

These provisions of our Act have been lauded, and India has been rated as the most balanced copyright system in a global survey conducted of over 34 countries by Consumers International.

The Indian Parliament has always sought to be responsive to changing technologies by paying heed to both the democratisation of access as well as the securing of the interests of copyright holders. This approach needs to be lauded, and importantly, needs to be maintained.

Proposed Amendments

Some positive amendments

Fair Dealings, Parallel Importation, Non-commercial Rental: All works (including sound recordings and cinematograph films) are now covered the fair dealings clause (except computer programmes), and a few other exceptions; parallel importation is now clearly allowed; and non-commercial rental has become a limitation in some cases.
Persons with disabilities: There is finally an attempt at addressing the concerns of persons with disabilities. But the provisions are completely useless the way they are currently worded.
Public Libraries: They can now make electronic copies of works they own, and some other beneficial changes relating to public libraries.
Education: Some exceptions related to education have been broadened (scope of works, & scope of use).
Statutory and compulsory licensing: Some new statutory licensing provisions (including for radio broadcasting) and some streamlining of existing compulsory licensing provisions.
Copyright societies: These are now responsible to authors and not owners of works.
Open licences: Free and Open Source Software and Open Content licensing is now simpler.
Partial exemption of online intermediaries: Transient and incidental storage of copyrighted works has been excepted, mostly for the benefit of online intermediaries.
Performer’s rights: The general, and confusing, exclusive right that performers had to communicate their performance to the public has been removed, and instead only the exclusive right to communicate sound/video recordings remains.
Enforcement: Provisions on border measures have been made better, and less prone to abuse and prevention of legitimate trade.

Some negative amendments

WCT and WPPT compliance: India has not signed either of these two treaties, which impose TRIPS-plus copyright protection, but without any corresponding increase in fair dealing / fair use rights.
Increase in duration of copyright: This will significantly reduce the public domain, which India has been arguing for internationally.
Technological Protection Measures: TPMs, which have been shown to be anti-consumer in all countries in which they have been introduced, are sought to be brought into Indian law.
Version recordings: The amendments make cover version much more difficult to produce.
Moral rights: Changes have been made to author’s moral rights (and performer’s moral rights have been introduced) but these have been made without requisite safeguards.

Missed opportunities

Government-funded works: Taxpayers are still not free to use works that were paid for by them. This goes against the direction that India has elected to march towards with the Right to Information Act.
Copyright terms: The duration of all copyrights are above the minimum required by our international obligations, thus decreasing the public domain which is crucial for all scientific and cultural progress.
Criminal provisions: Our law still criminalises individual, non-commercial copyright infringement.
Libraries and archives: The exceptions for ‘public libraries’ are still too narrow in what they perceive as ‘public libraries’.
Educational exceptions: The exceptions for education still do not fully embrace distance and digital education.
Communication to the public: No clear definition is given of what constitute a ‘public’, and no distinction is drawn between commercial and non-commercial ‘public’ communication.
Internet intermediaries: More protections are required to be granted to Internet intermediaries to ensure that non-market based peer-production projects such as Wikipedia, and other forms of social media and grassroots innovation are not stifled.
Fair dealing and fair use: We would benefit greatly if, apart from the specific exceptions provided for in the Act, more general guidelines were also provided as to what do not constitute infringement. This would not take away from the existing exceptions.

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

A Guide to Key IPR Provisions of the Proposed India-European Union Free Trade Agreement

glover — 2011-08-30T13:06:03Z

The Centre for Internet and Society presents a guide for policymakers and other stakeholders to the latest draft of the India-European Union Free Trade Agreement, which likely will be concluded by the end of the year and may hold serious ramifications for Indian businesses and consumers.

In its ongoing negotiation for a FTA with the EU, a process that began in 2007 and is expected to end sometime this year, India has won several signicant IP-related concessions. But there remain several IP issues critical to the maintenance of its developing economy, including its robust entrepreneurial environment, that India should contest further before ratifying the treaty. This guide covers the FTA's IP provisions that are within the scope of CIS' policy agenda and on which India has negotiated favorable language, as well as those provisions that it should re-negotiate or oppose.

Download the guide here, and please feel free to comment below.

You may also download a chart comparing the language proposed by India and the EU respectively with that included in the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

Following is a summary of CIS' findings:

India has become a de facto leader of developing countries at the WTO, and an India-EU FTA seems likely to provide a model for FTAs between developed and developing states well into the future.
The EU has proposed articles on reproduction, communication, and broadcasting rights which could seriously undermine India's authority to regulate the use of works under copyright as currently provided for in the Berne Convention, as well as narrowing exceptions and limitations to rights under copyright.
The EU asserts that copyright includes "copyright in computer programs and in databases," without indicating whether such copyright exceeds that provided for in the Berne Convention. Moreover, by asserting that copyright "includes copyright in computer programs and in databases," the EU has left open the door for the extension of copyright to non-original databases.
India should explicitly obligate the EU to promote and encourage technology transfer -- an obligation compatible with and derived from TRIPS -- as well as propose a clear definition of technology transfer.
The EU has demanded India's accession to the WIPO Internet Treaties, the merits of which are currently under debate as India moves towards amending its Copyright Act, as well as several other international treaties that India either does not explicitly enforce or to which it is not a contracting party.
In general, the EU's provisions would extend terms of protection for material under copyright, within certain constraints, further endangering India's consumer-friendly copyright regime.
An agreement to establish arrangements between national organizations charged with collecting and distributing royalty payments may obligate such organizations in India collect royalty payments for EU rights holders on the same basis as they do for Indian rights holders, and vice versa in the EU, but more heavily burden India.
The EU has proposed a series of radical provisions on the enforcement of IPRs that are tailored almost exclusively to serve the interests of rights holders, at the expense of providing safety mechanisms for those accused of infringing or enabling infringers.
The EU has proposed, under cover of protecting intermediate service providers from liability for infringement by their users, to increase and/or place the burden on such providers of policing user activity.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-guide-to-the-proposed-india-european-union-free-trade-agreement

A New Age in News

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T11:26:14Z

Citizen journalism and online piracy were key topics during the opening day of the Mekong Information and Communication Technology conference. The 2010 Mekong ICT conference in Chang Mai, Thailand, has brought together an experienced crowd of experts from all over the globe. They have gathered to discuss the status, trends and the current situation of the ICT world.

Participants with expertise from various fields will be sharing ideas and exchanging information until June 12 in Thailand. The intensive session includes participants from Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Thailand, Japan, New Zealand, Argentina, the United States, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Germany.

The way that technology is changing the scope of media and the new wave of citizen journalists are playing a powerful role in the way that the information age is emerging. Citizens are now a powerful force of information and the Internet is their tool. Social networking sites such as facebook and twitter have changed the way information is shared and examples of how to utilize these sources posed both debate and discussion from the panel of experts and participants.

Veteran journalist Tharum Bun shared that, "The flow of information, the quality, the speed, it is all changing. Youtube, blogs, twitter and social networking have greatly changed the game for journalism and are essential to the new age of reporting."

Also addressed was the idea that journalists have as much responsibility as any other public figure and perhaps more because of the audience they can reach. Media was described as a "war of ethics" that citizen journalists are raising the bar in. One major challenge is the abundance of information leaving those who read to question or scrutinize more carefully what is factual because there is, at times, an overflow of information.

The way that average citizens are getting the word out and becoming a new source of information was a topic of great interest to attendees. Citizen journalism is fast-becoming a way for the general population to become reporters. There was also talk of how video is becoming a weapon of choice for citizen journalists and is an essential supplement to the written word as images are important because they are so powerful.

In closing, keynote speaker Sunil Abraham spoke on the topic of piracy and the availability of everything from books to movies online. He pointed out that the war against piracy has become an invasion of privacy. Examples of authors, such as the worldwide sensation Paulo Cohelo, and how they have used online sharing to their advantage were highlighted. The sharing of information is now a fact and people can either find ways to utilize (and still profit) from this new age, or they are fighting something similar to a war on drugs that has no end in sight. Abraham pointed out that bibles are available for free worldwide, yet it is still the most sold book in history. So despite its ready availability, it hasn't stopped it from being sold.

Music has also always been, "Shared, it's remixed, it's borrowed, it's changed..." illustrating that information should be available. The topics, discussions, and meetings at the 2010 Mekong ICT will continue for the next week.

Read the original in dtinews

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/new-age-news

Consilience 2010

praskrishna — 2011-04-05T04:06:51Z

The National Law School of India University, Bangalore is hosting a conference on May 29 and 30 at the Taj Residency in Bangalore.

The Law and Technology Committee (elTek) of the National Law School of India University, Bangalore is hosting ‘Consilience’, a conference, where, as the name suggests, a multi-disciplinary approach is adopted to tackle and discuss a topic of contemporary relevance. Past editions of the conference have brought together luminaries like Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia (Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission), Mr. R. Ramraj (MD and CEO, Sify Technologies Ltd.,), Mr. Richard Stallman (Founder – GNU Project), Hon’ble Justice Yatindra Singh (Allahabad High Court, India), Mr. Rahul Matthan (Partner, Trilegal ) and discussed contemporary issues such as “Legal Aspects of Business Process Outsourcing”, “Biotechnology and the Law” and“Free and Open Source Software".

The use of the Internet has proliferated in the past few years, and the positive side is clear to see. However, there is also a huge negative associated with this growth in use of the Internet. With the free dissemination of information, there is also dissemination of illegal and immoral materials. For instance, copyright protected songs and movies are found easily on the internet, sometimes even before they are officially released. The Internet has also made obscene materials like child pornography easily accessible at the click of a button. All of this has a marked negative impact on society and therefore, due to the overriding social interest at stake, the State steps in to regulate and punish the offenders. Internet intermediary liability affects everyone who uses the Internet in numerous ways, both directly and indirectly. Internet intermediary liability could shape the very future of the Internet, yet it surprising how little it has been discussed in India.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/consilience-2010-bangalore

Centre for Internet and Society

WEBINAR: Closed for Business

Participants

The madness of software patents

Why piracy is tough to rein in

Seminar on Software Patent and the Commons

Videos

Seminar on Software Patents and the Commons

Copyright bill restricts Net access

Under lock without key

Print impaired get short shrift

First Post-Bilski Decision - Software Patent Rejected

The Bilski Case - Impact on Software Patents

Privacy and the Indian Copyright Act, 1857 as Amended in 2010

How do DRM technologies undermine privacy and what safeguards are present in the Indian Law to protect citizens’ right to privacy?

Proposed Legislation

Recommendation

Under the present copyright does a person have the ability to expose privacy infringement?

Current Legislation

Proposed

Recommendation

How does the proposed exception for the disabled undermine privacy?

Proposed Legislation

Recommendation

What is On the horizon?

Examples of Proposed Legislation: The Anti- Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

Recommendation

Call to increase awareness of intellectual property rights

Assignments

Debate

Knowledge economy

Civil Society groups urge State Judicial Academy to restructure agenda for Judges' Roundtable meet

Analysis of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010

Existing Copyright Act

Proposed Amendments

Some positive amendments

Some negative amendments

Missed opportunities

A Guide to Key IPR Provisions of the Proposed India-European Union Free Trade Agreement

A New Age in News

Consilience 2010