Centre for Internet and Society

Access to Knowledge — September 2012 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-12-14T06:18:01Z

This is the first newsletter from the Access to Knowledge team of CIS in Delhi. The issue introduces you to the CIS Access to Knowledge program, the team members in Delhi and reports from Workshops conducted by the Wikipedia community.

Beginning from September 1, 2012, Wikimedia Foundation has awarded CIS a two-year grant of upto INR 26,000,000 to support and develop free knowledge in India:

Access to Knowledge Programme

The Wikimedia Foundation’s India Program has become the Access to Knowledge (A2K) programme of CIS.

CIS Office in Delhi

The A2K team consists of four members: Nitika Tandon, Shiju Alex, Subhashish Panigrahi and Noopur Raval.

Statistical Report

Indic Language Wikipedias – Statistical Report (January – June 2012) (by Shiju Alex). The data for this report and analysis are based on the statistical data published at http://stats.wikimedia.org.

Wikipedia Workshops

Note: Although most of these workshops were conducted prior to the grant period, the reports for all of these were written during September, hence we are featuring these:

The First Punjabi Wikipedia Workshop (by Shiju Alex and Subhashish Panigrahi, September 27, 2012).
Punjabi Wikipedia Workshop at Punjabi University, Patiala (by Shiju Alex and Subhashish Panigrahi, September 28, 2012).
Punjabi Wikipedia Workshop at Amritsar (by Shiju Alex and Subhashish Panigrahi, September 30, 2012).
Wikipedia Workshop in British Library, Chandigarh (by Subhashish Panigrahi, September 27, 2012).
Kannada Wiki Workshop at Tumkur University (Tumkur, Karnataka, September 15, 2012).
Wikipedia comes to Hyderabad! (by Noopur Raval, September 30, 2012). There was coverage in the Hindu on September 28, 2012.

Blog Entry

Editor Growth & Contribution Program on Telugu Wikipedia (by Nitika Tandon, September 29, 2012).

About CIS

CIS was registered as a society in Bangalore in 2008. As an independent, non-profit research organisation, it runs different policy research programmes such as Accessibility, Access to Knowledge, Openness, Internet Governance, and Telecom.

CIS is grateful to its donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation and the Kusuma Trust which was founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin, for its core funding and support for most of its projects.

Follow us elsewhere

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Join the CIS group on Facebook
Visit us at http://cis-india.org

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/access-to-knowledge-september-2012-bulletin

Access to Knowledge

anirudh — 2014-05-22T04:48:41Z

Unit 4 of Module 2 discusses the right to access knowledge, patents and copyright. There is also a case study of Oxbridge Textbooks.

Introduction

In the middle of the 16th century, Queen Mary was faced with a difficult question that was brought to her by none other than most powerful publishing house in England at the time. The Stationers, like any other craft guild in the business of printing and producing books loved a monopoly in the profits of their books and terribly feared competition.[1] Therefore, they went to Queen Mary with the request of a royal charter. This charter would allow them to seize illicit editions of their books and bar the publication of books unlicensed by the crown. The Queen suddenly thought that this could indeed be a more efficient way to squash sedition and dissent through censorship by puppeteering this craft guild than previous, perhaps less subtle means like torture and death. In 1557, she granted them this early form of a copyright. Notice how the author or the creator of the work has no place in this agreement and the origins of intellectual property in English law are based on privilege, namely power and profit. This rhetoric, however, changes with the coming of the 18^th century and the passing of the Act of Anne in 1707 to one of creativity and learning. The concern for the author has a steady positivist rise after this in the tug of war over intellectual property. In the case Miller v Taylor in 1769, the author sought to extend copyright to common law. Three judges ruled in favor of this motion and two judges ruled against.[2]

A closer examination at the reasoning provided by the three assenting judges will tell us almost all the philosophical justifications of intellectual property. The first judge called upon his notion of justice and said it is just that the author control the destiny of his work as it is a product of his labor. The second judge said that extending the copyright would encourage creativity by making the work the creator’s property. The third judge said it is the authors natural right as the work wouldn’t exist if not for the mental labor of the author. Together, justice, incentives and natural rights are the cornerstones of the justifications of intellectual property.

Although history is littered with theories on property, there have been only sparse discussions on intellectual property. The question then arises, can intellectual property be accommodated within normal property. The similarity is in the fact that intellectual property is also a relationship between people but the difference lies in the fact that the object is an abstract one.[3]

This leads many to believe that it cannot be subject to the same rules of property. The first dissenting judge in Miller v Taylor, for example, said that abstract ideas cannot be occupied like corporeal objects so they cannot be property. He said the author deserves a reward which the Act of Anne provides in the form of limited monopoly but that’s about it. In fact, an idea is almost the perfect example of a resource like the air or light that is not zero sum and inexhaustible in that my use of it doesn’t take away from your use of it. Neither air nor light can become personal property which leaves ideas in a property limbo. This leaves room for very interesting discussions and debates over the existence of intellectual property and the place it should occupy in society. This discourse has largely taken two forms: the deontological and the consequentialist. Deontological justifications for IP come from a priori reasons like rights or duties which can be established in many forms. There is the ontological basis for rights which answers questions like whether rights exist and if so, where they come from. One of the preeminent figures in this discourse has been John Locke, an English philosopher whose argument for individual property as “natural rights” remains relevant even today when applied to intellectual property. Locke’s major assumptions in his claim were:

God has given the world to people in common.
Every person owns his own personality.
A person’s labor belongs to him.
When a person mixes his labor with something in the commons he makes it his property.
The right of property is contingent upon its being good for commoners.[4]

In order to extend this argument, Locke says that exclusive ownership of a resource is a precondition for production. Ideas before labored upon by people, however, are not exclusively owned which resists the cross application of his ideas to intellectual property. Another impediment in extending the natural right to intellectual property is the 5th assumption. Intellectual labor, in annexing an idea, stops it from becoming a part of the intellectual commons. If this labor, armed with the property of becoming property is doing a disservice to society, then it may not be a natural right at all. The notion that ideas are a part of the intellectual commons is also one that needed evidence and Locke found that in scripture as Judeo-Christian philosophy clearly advocates the idea of all worldly resources being part of the commons.

Hegel, on the other hand, took the route of personality theory. He argued that if individuals have claims to anything, they had to be considered an individual first. He states that in order to be individuals, people must have a moral claim to things like their character traits, feelings, talents and experience.[5] The definition of these aspects or the process of self-actualization requires an interaction with tangible and intangible objects in the world. The external actualization process requires property that includes intellectual property for Hegel as he sees the works as an extension or an establishment of the self in the external world that embody the person’s personality in an inseparable and even immortal way.

Another form is in linguistics, where we ask questions like what we mean when we say rights and property. Skinner said that in the history of intellectual property law, the social context of its use and the matrix of assumptions involved in reference is the determining factor. This is why the history of intellectual property is as important as and to the philosophical underpinnings.

The consequentialist justifications of IP assume that the specious connection between IP and creativity is fact and warn of a chilling effect on creative activity in the absence of IP. History shows us that the relationship between IP and creativity is local and contingent rather than necessary and universal. Imperial China, for example, was a creative and inventive empire that gave rise to many technologies and artistic subcultures without any promise of IP. Indeed, Marx’s historical materialism could be seen as condemning IP as a superstructural phenomenon in the industrial development phase of capitalist societies and one that a future society can function well without.[6] If one was interested in the consequentialist debate over IP, then historical empirical data would be more important than an a priori analysis.

The lack of a definitive philosophical, ethical or normative justification for the existence of Intellectual Property rights unlike those for free expression or equal treatment under the law shows us that its application needs to be tempered with other considerations. If, as Rawls suggested, we hide behind the veil of ignorance and tried to form an ideal society, then IP may not feature within it as it tends to create social stratification and further marginalizes the least advantaged in social life and democratic culture.[7] Since IP’s are liberty intrusive privileges that do not “allow the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all.” or “benefit the least advantaged.” or are “open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.”, their utilitarian claims of creativity have to answer to the injustices that manifest from them before they get a carte blanche in society.

The access to knowledge has been a yearning of society to shift and dilute the concentration of this most precious of resources because of the old adage “knowledge is power”. This concept, however, can be understood from many lenses including the sociological and the legal. At first, in order to understand the importance of the legal entities under access to knowledge, we must explore its saliency in society.

Humanity world over is at the cusp of a major shift in the production, consumption, dissemination and distribution of knowledge. This warrants changes in frameworks of looking at knowledge, information and data in the digital era at multiple levels and by multiple players including students, academics, entrepreneurs, researchers, civil society and the State. In order to understand why and how knowledge matters in the world today, we must see how it makes a difference in our world and how it materially changes the world.

Many prominent economists and social theorists have sought to claim that knowledge has affected the organization of society in a manner that is different than in previous eras though knowledge has been an organizing principle of society throughout history. How the exact time of the shift and the nature of the shift are catalogued will depend on what category the basis is. From an economic perspective, Marx said that the capitalist system depends on the constant improvement and dynamism of technology. The real understanding of the role of knowledge in our economy came when Robert Solow posited that the majority of economic growth in the beginning of the 20th century was less due to labor or capital and more due to technological changes. These advances in knowledge came in the form of new machines to new production techniques that made the production process more efficient.[8]

Fritz Machlup stated that in the 1960’s the change in the knowledge intensity of the economy was marked by “an increase in the share of ‘knowledge-producing’ labor in total employment.” The Harvard historian Daniel Bell observed in his study of post-industrial societies that 1/3^rd of the US workers were employed in the service industry at the turn of the century but by the 1980’s almost 7/10^ths of the workers were employed in the service industries.[9]

People who were employed in the industrial sectors were flocking steadily to finance, education, information technology and the cultural industry. The movements of people came as a reaction to the movement of profitability from industrial sectors to finance, biotechnology and information technology. Knowledge basically is a positive feedback loop which means that as more information and communication technologies emerge, it allows more innovation. Manuel Castell categorizes this shift in the place of knowledge as a global one even though it’s concentrated in a few wealthy countries because all the economies ultimately depend on the global one. The disparity between countries is still massive but it used to be just in terms of raw materials and manufactured goods but now at a global level, there is a huge knowledge (high technology low technology, high knowledge services low knowledge services) disparity between wealthy and non-wealthy countries. This claim may seem to imply that knowledge is simply technical and scientific, but there are obviously other important kinds of knowledge like ethical and humanities knowledge. The point here is that the enhanced ability of humans to organize and employ specific kinds of technical and scientific knowledge has created a huge shift in the global economy similar to the effect of the increase in access to knowledge from the invention of printing press. This shift in the importance of knowledge has made our health better as well. The average lifespan has increased exponentially in the past half century and it is our scientific advancement in the mechanisms of disease and medicine that has aided this achievement.

When there is so much integral societal dependence on knowledge, the non market production of knowledge is essential for equality in access to this knowledge. Yochai Benkler stated that the processing power of the modern computers linked together on the internet creates a platform that allows for new kinds of collaboration. Apart from new kinds of political activism, it also leads to decentralized knowledge production like open source/ free software and Wikipedia.

Within this context of the digital turn, openness and transparency are gaining newer significance. On the one hand emerging participatory models of openness like Wikipedia[10] are increasingly pushing us to look beyond the traditional models of the bygone century;[11] on the other hand these models are being thought of to be effective even in governance and policy making. Open data,[12] for instance is becoming a key prerequisite for the State and civil society alike in imagining better governance models. This could potentially create a pre-condition for the transformation of society into a ‘Knowledge Society’, wherein the citizen is increasingly repositioned from a ‘spectator’ to ‘spect-actor’.[13] Eventually, the distinction between a knowledge society and governance could get blurred. However, this process needs strong civil society players to catalyze and cultivate an effective knowledge society. Such work happens at multiple layers of policy coupled with advocacy, research, dissemination and infrastructure creation. The larger policy debate happens in the form of a contest between understandings of knowledge. The two sides are knowledge as property versus knowledge as a common resource. This tension is explored in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Right to Access to Knowledge

The discourse around the access to knowledge has been around for a while as it is inscribed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted in 1948. Article 27 of the charter attempts to bring about a balance between the right of access and the protection of material interests.

Article 27[14]

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Here, many academics and Access to Knowledge theorists posit that the right to access to knowledge is the more important right. This is because the right to material protection or rather the Intellectual Property (IP) right is ultimately for sale and transferrable so is not inalienable like the right to access to knowledge. Many right to knowledge theorists are of the opinion that the level of IP protection currently in place in the world is too much.

In 1996, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[15] was adopted by the General Assembly of the UN. As we may expect, the right to free speech has a longer history of acceptance and positivist outlook on it. Article 19 of the ICCPR reads as follows:

“Article 19.

Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
- For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
- For the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals.” (Italics are mine)

The idea that free speech includes the right to seek and receive is something that will be discussed in the chapter on free speech but the important positive externality or reading that one can glean from this wording is that the access to knowledge becomes a right.


Above: Google books Ngram Viewer

However, as you can see in the graph, the discourse around Access to knowledge doesn’t begin to really take off until the early 1960’s when the U.S government was just starting to build a network between computers. In the early stages of the modern internet around the early 1980’s the discourse around access to knowledge becomes even more frequent. This is because intellectual property rights started to eclipse the astronomical increase in the production of knowledge and vast portions of the world’s population remained in the dark. Especially, the production of academic knowledge has increased exponentially in the recent past which has made it essential that the barriers to this knowledge are attenuated as much as possible.Now that we have explored the sociological aspect of access to knowledge and the philosophical debates around it, let us look at how it is codified in law. Specifically we will look at copyright and patents.

Patents

What are Patents?

Of all forms of intellectual property rights (IPR) patents are said to be the most restrictive, granted to inventors of devices or processes on the basis that the invention is novel, can be applied for a useful function, andinvolves an inventive step (and may not be obvious to a professional in the relevant field).

Under Indian patent law, a patent is a statutory right for an invention, giving the inventor the exclusivity to prevent others from making, using, or selling the invention—unless, of course, they are to receive permission from the right holder and pay the necessary royalty fees to do so. For this reason, a patent holder is said to have a monopoly over the invention. [16] In return for this exclusivity, the right holder must disclose a detailed, accurate and complete written description of the invention to be available for the public.[17]

A patent may be a utility patent, issued for the invention of a new and useful process, machine or product; a design patent, for a new and original design to be used in the manufacturing of a product; or a plant patent, for a new and distinct, invented or discovered type of plant.[18] Subject matter that is unpatentable in India includes an invention that is immoral, an invention which claims anything contrary to natural laws (e.g. gravity), the discovery of anything occurring in nature, and the formulation of an abstract theory.[19] That being said, a patentable invention generally must be able to result in a useful, concrete and tangible result, although restrictions of what is not patentable may vary country to country.

Patents are valid for a limited period of time; generally 20 years from the start of the term. A patent’s exclusivity is also limited to the country in which it was granted, meaning that a patent holder may not be able to exclude others from the making, using, or selling of a similar invention in a different jurisdiction that would otherwise infringe upon the their IP right.[20]

Effects on Innovation

There are vast perspectives around the adoption and application of patents, ranging from a strong opposition—by those in favour of free and widespread access to products of innovation and knowledge processes (e.g. medicines and educational materials)—to those in strong support of a more restrictive intellectual property (IP) regime, as a means of protecting the inventor and his or her inventions.

One of the underlying principles for the consideration and enforcement of a patent regime is the claim that this form of IPR serves as an incentive for innovation to take place. By offering a “reward” in the form of statutory recognition, protection, and remuneration, the granting of a patent may encourage innovation. An opposing viewpoint to such a claim, however, may argue that patents do not encourage innovation, but stifle it, by preventing others from being able to innovate through their enforcement. Just as well, a patent is granted after the fact, and the odds of one’s application being approved are quite slim—not to mention expensive!—so a patent would not be an ideal form of incentive, with remuneration only taking place when one’s patent is infringed or one’s monopoly abused.

One’s monopoly may be abused when the right holder of a patent (or thousands!) brings an industry to a standstill by shutting out others from having their new inventions reach the market. Often, patents may prevent the manufacturing and selling of innovations that are not actually relevant, but claim by the right holder to fall within the scope of the patented invention.

The effects of the excessive granting and enforcement of patents may trickle down to the level of the individual when the economic threshold for starting a new business increases, one’s business’s profitability reduces due to the payments of royalties and legal expenses, and the potential for such an entrepreneur to scale beyond national boundaries is undermined.[21]

Case Study: Pervasive Technologies
Because of these limitations placed onto others by patent holders, small-to-medium business and enterprises in India and China tend to ignore existing IPR for inventions they may use within their manufactured products due to the high costs associated to seeking permission and paying royalties to the right holder. For this reason, these businesses may only begin to develop protection and risk-mitigation strategies when they have scaled up and can afford to do so.[22] A phenomenon that has risen out of a restrictive market and resulting repeated efforts to get around such restrictions is the “gray” market, where mobile phone are being manufactured with the likelihood of infringing upon a number of existing patents for inventions used in the manufactures. Mobile phones that are entirely legal may cost well over INR 8000/- (US $120) when gray market devices generally range from INR 3000/- to INR 4000/- (US $48-60), demonstrating the high price of patents on the availability of hardware.[23] The term, pervasive devices, coined by the Centre for Internet & Society, largely refers to sub-$100 communication devices that are becoming near-ubiquitous as a result of their increased availability to reach larger demographics of lesser income brackets. Software Technologies Although software technologies are predominantly protected under Indian copyright law, in countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States, software is patentable. Unlike American companies, such as IBM which has applied for 5,896 US patents, very seldom do Indian companies apply for software patents, and instead are likely to become at risk for litigation in attempts to penetrate markets elsewhere due to the patents already existing. Most commonly, software producers from India do not own the rights to the IP they have created and instead adopt a “software as a service” (SAAS) business model, within which contracts signed require all IP developed to be signed over to the client. As international players continue to register a multitude of software patents, it becomes increasingly difficult for Indian companies to move away from this SAAS model to developing their own proprietary products due to the increased risk of litigation.[24]

Pre-Grant and Post Grant

Upon signing the Trade Related Aspects Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, India introduced two kinds of patent oppositions, where an individual may write to the Indian Patent Office to oppose the granting of a patent. The first kind, pre-grant opposition, may occur after the patent application has been published by the Patent Office, but has not yet been granted, for the primary purpose of challenging the application’s validity before a patent is granted. One may also give notice of opposition to the Patent Office after the granting of a patent, under post-grant opposition, so long as it occurs within a year of the granted patent’s publication.[25]

Compulsory Licensing

In March 2012, the Government of India granted its first compulsory license ever to Indian generic drug manufacturer, Natco Pharma Ltd. to allow for the manufacturing of Sorateni tosylate, a treatment for advanced kidney and liver cancer. Patent Holder and German pharmaceutical giant, Bayer Corporation, had not been making the drug adequately accessible to the people of India on a commercial scale, and had not imported the drug at all in 2008, and barely in 2009 and 2010. As a result, Natso Pharma Ltd. applied for a compulsory license.

Once granted, Natco was to pay a reduced royalty fee to Bayer quarterly, was required to provide the drug for free to at least 600 needy and deserving patients per year, to sell the drug for a set fee, as specified by the Indian government.

Pharmaceuticals have been an area of fierce debate as drugs for treating serious illnesses, such as malaria, HIV and AIDS, are widely available in the West, and generally too expensive for developing countries due to being protected by patents, where outbreaks are more likely to occur. India’s first compulsory license had been a landmark decision for India, as it is an exemplary case which demonstrates the possibility of a “new” drug under patent to be produced by generic makers at a fraction of the price, compensating the patent holder through royalty payments, while at the same time, enabling access to individuals that would not have otherwise been able to receive this form of treatment.

In the scenario where a government feels a patent holder is abusing one’s monopoly over their patented invention by excessively limiting others to access—and when it could otherwise substantially benefit the public good—a government may grant special privilege to another to use or manufacture such a patented product without the consent of its owner. This is called a compulsory license, and does not take the rights away from the patent holder, but limits them, as to enable increased access. A license fee or royalty payment is still to be paid to the patent holder; however this rate may be negotiated by the government, contrary to a statutory license, where this rate is fixed by the law.

Copyright

Copyright refers to the protection granted, in law, to the expression of some ideas. It is to be noted that the idea itself is not protectable. For instance, if I were to tell you about an ‘idea’ that I had about writing a story about a cat and a mouse, and, a few days later, you wrote a story about a cat and a mouse, the copyright of that story would vest with you, despite the fact that the ‘idea’ for the story was mine. This concept is called the idea-expression dichotomy.

The ‘expression’ that is eligible for protection could be in various forms, including literary, artistic or dramatic works.

Components of Copyright

Copyright recognises the concepts of ownership and authorship of work, and the fact that these might vary in specific instances, when various persons could be involved in the creation of a work. Some may have provided creative input (the author of the book or the director/screen play writer/story writer of the movie), and some may have provided monetary input (the publisher of the book/producer of the movie).

The moral right of ‘attribution’, that is, the right to be recognised for the work vests with the authors. Economic rights associated with copyright vest in the owner of the copyright. The owner could be different from the author. For instance, in case of the book, the owner of the copyright could be the publisher, and in the case of the movie, it could be the producer. In some instances, copyright may be jointly owned as well. Copyright vests in the owner of copyright. It grants the owner the right to exclude all others from making use of/exploiting the work in question commercially. This would essentially prevent others from adapting, copying, distributing, or making any other use of the protected work, unless authorised by the owner.

Copyright and the Law

Copyright law is territorial in nature, that is, copyright granted by law in one nation state is only enforceable in the said that grants the right. One aspect of territoriality could be the term of copyright. Generally, the term is the lifetime of the author (creator/owner) (plus) fifty to hundred years from the death of the author. Anonymous works, or works owned by corporations have a fixed term of copyright, usually between fifty and hundred years. The exception to this general rule of territoriality is if the state in question has entered into any international agreement to the contrary.

Other aspects of copyright regulated by law include subject matter of protection, requirements of registration, term of protection and associated rights. Internationally, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886 is the key instrument. Additionally, some other important international instruments include the WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996 and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty, 1996.

While the general rule is that all copying and distribution of the copyrighted work has to be done with the express permission of the copyright holder, some exceptional circumstances allow for this requirement to be dispensed with. These are known as fair use/fair dealing (depending on the jurisdiction).

Case Study: The Oxbridge Textbooks[26]
The Broad Issue: The issue of copyrights when it comes to academic purposes has always been one that has sparked debates and very compelling arguments on both sides. While research that is published in scientific journals is carried out with the pure intent of spreading knowledge that will ultimately lead to broader scientific inquiry and research, in the past few decades it has transformed into a product of “ruthless capitalism” whose profit margins are far too high. The question then arises that how research that is carried out mostly with government funded public money be made available to the general public across the world at reasonable and affordable rates? Don’t students in the developing world have equal rights to access a level of education and research that would enable them to compete with their affluent counterparts? But this issue isn't just a cause for concern in the developing world as one of the world’s richest schools,Harvard University released a memorandum in mid-2012 that the cost of its journal subscriptions has become prohibitively expensive. This forces us to take a moment and think about the world of academic publishing, the accessibility of knowledge, and the flow of information when the richest academic institution on the planet cannot afford to continue paying for its journal subscriptions? According to Thomes and Clay’s report, commercial publishers within the last twenty to thirty years have taken control over many publications that had been controlled by non-profit academic and scholarly societies. The shift took place during the 1960’s and 1970’s as commercial publishers recognized the potential for profitability in acquiring journals from the societies. This has resulted in publishing houses now commanding hefty profit margins up to 40%. The Broad Solution: The Indian Copyright Act, Section 52, provides for a wide educational fair use exception for academic purposes. Yet the publishing houses, demand for the purchasing of a Blanket License under the IRRO (Indian Reprographic Reproduction Organization)[27] which costs Rs 24,000 per annum for 20 copies of a single publication and not more than 10% of each copy being photographed. This clause can be challenged on the grounds of “fair use exception” under Section 52. The cancellation of these licenses is a fair demand as the risks of purchasing the license and complying to the publishing houses norms have many repercussions. Due to the business model of the publishing industry, a steep increase in prices has been seen for the past decade, the Harvard letter being just the tip of the iceberg. In 2012, over 12,000 researchers have signed a statement promising to boycott any publication published by Elsevier (a publication house accused of pocketing 40% of the profits). The increase in the prices of academic works in the international market has a steep impact on the budget of children who attend public universities such as Delhi University where the annual fees is Rs. 5000 per annum. Specific Issue at Hand: The specific issue here is a lawsuit filed by the Cambridge and Oxford publication press against Delhi University and a small photocopy shop for copyright infringement. The store, who they accuse of creating photocopied “course packs” in agreement with the University that include content from their textbooks, is selling these bundles for much cheaper than the original books. The presses are demanding more than US$110,000 in damages. On one hand we have powerful international publishing houses and on the other students who do not have access to study material from these houses due to their impoverished backgrounds. It is unlikely that the publishing houses’ revenues would increase post this suit, as most students cannot afford to purchase the study material unless the university foots the bill. It is also important to note that a previous lawsuit that Cambridge publication house lost was due to the defendant using only 10% of the book. In this case we have: Average percentage of entire book copied = 8.81 %. The breakup of the amount of material used per book can be found here.[28] Out of the 23 books in question, only 5 extracts exceed the 10% threshold(these have been marked in red in the document). To suggest that the photocopy shop and Delhi University should have to shell out Rs. 60,00,000 in damages for this case, is a case of publishing houses flexing their muscle power over students in the developing world who deserve equal access to academic material.

[1]. Peter Dravos

[2]. Ibid

[3]. Ibid

[4]. Ibid

[5]. For more on intellectual property see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intellectual-property/

[6]. Supra note above.

[7]. For more see Darryl J. Murphy “Are Intellectual Property rights compatible with Rawlsian principles of justice?, Springer, available at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10676-012-9288-8

[8]. For more see Ashish Rajadhyaksha, “The Last Cultural Mile”, Centre for Internet and Society, available at http://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/last-cultural-mile.pdf, last accessed on February 1, 2014.

[9]. See citation above.

[10]. Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz, Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader, published by CIS and Institute of Network Cultures, available at http://www.networkcultures.org/_uploads/%237reader_Wikipedia.pdf

[11]. The Access to Knowledge (Wikipedia) team from CIS has held several workshops and produced more than 50 blog entries in nearly 10 months.

[12]. See Pranesh Prakash, Nishant Shah, Sunil Abraham and Glover Wright, “Open Government Data Study: India” published by Transparency & Accountability Initiative, available at http://cis-india.org/openness/blog/publications/open-government.pdf

[13]. A term coined by the Brazilian theatre practitioner Augusto Boal in the context of theatre. This formulation of spect-actor is very useful in reimagining the citizen in the digital era that has created preconditions for the citizen to effectively participate in governance. For more on Spect-actor see Augusto, Boal (1993). Theater of the Oppressed. New York: Theatre Communications Group.

[14]. For more see Article 27 available at http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a27, last accessed on January 31, 2014.

[15]. Read the full Covenant at https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20999/volume-999-I-14668-English.pdf

[16]. Stephan Kinsella, “Against Intellectual Property”, Journal of Libertarian Studies 15, no. 2 (Spring 2001), available at http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications/against-intellectual-property/, last accessed on February 1, 2014.

[17]. See “Inventing the Funture: An Introduction to Patents for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, World Intellectual Property Organization”, available at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/freepublications/en/sme/917/wipo_pub_917.pdf , last accessed on January 31, 2014.

[18]. See “Types of Patents”, available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/patdesc.htm , last accessed on January 31 , 2014

[19]. See “Inventions not Patentable in India”, available at http://www.cazri.res.in/itmu/pdf/Inventions%20not%20Patentable%20in%20India.pdf, last accessed on January 31, 2014.

[20]. Supra note 62 above.

[21]. See Research Proposal on Pervasive Technologies available at http://cis-india.org/a2k/pervasive-technologies-research-proposal.pdf , last accessed on January 31, 2014.

[22]. Ibid.

[23]. Ibid.

[24]. Ibid.

[25]. See Tech Corp Legal http://bit.ly/NBRg1F

[26]. Ariel Bogle, Cambridge & Oxford University Press sue Delhi University for copyright infringement — over course packs, March 18, 2013, Melville House, available at http://www.mhpbooks.com/cambridge-university-press-oxford-university-press-sue-delhi-university-for-copyright-infringement-over-course-packs/,last accessed on January 29, 2014.

[27]. http://www.irro.in/about.php

[28]. Book-wise Percentage Analysis (DU Photocopying Case), available at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnUBa-WkvhlOdDItVENnYkpZZ1ZYYTYwRGVycXVtZ1E#gid=0, last accessed on January 29, 2014.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/access-2-knowledge

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

sinha — 2015-03-08T11:27:05Z

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

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

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

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

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

Broad observations and caveats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abuse of Dominant Position in Indian Competition Law: A Brief Guide

Sarthak Sood — 2015-12-09T13:20:40Z

Every car owner would give a knowing nod when spoken to about the struggle of finding reasonably priced spare parts for their cars. While original parts can only be found at limited dealerships (which would invariably be miles away from home), once found, a small block of plastic would be worth a proverbial fortune.

In a path breaking judgment delivered by the Competition Commission of India (hereinafter ‘CCI’ or ‘the Commission’), fourteen car manufacturers were penalised, the amount adding up to INR 2544.65 crores, for anti-competitive practices which included grossly marking-up the prices of original car parts. They (the manufacturers) found to have abused their dominant position in the market of car parts.

In this post, the issue of ‘abuse of dominant’ position as per S.4 of the Competition Act (‘the Act’) shall be analysed. The three steps to determine a contravention of S.4 shall be discussed in terms of factors considered by the Commission to assess each, and lastly, penalising powers of the Commission will be looked into.

1. Relevant Market

The first thing to be determined in cases of alleged abuse of dominant position is the 'relevant market' in which the accused party has a dominant position. The purpose served by delineating a relevant market is to define the scope within which the position of an enterprise is to be tested for dominance and abuse thereof. The 'relevant market' is defined in terms of 'product' and 'geography', that is to say, the relevant market identifies the particular product/service or class of products produced or services rendered by an enterprise(s) in a given geographic area. Identification also includes identification of enterprises that compete to supply those products or services.

A. Product Market

Both the dimensions of the relevant market are governed by several factors. For example, product market has been defined to comprise all those products or services that are regarded as interchangeable or substitutable by the consumer, because of characteristics of the products or services, their prices and intended use.[1]The CCI held that relevant product market is to be looked at form both demand and supply perspectives based on the characteristics of the product, its price and intended use.[2] So, in the BCCI case, the relevant market was decided on the consideration of demand substitutability of various forms of entertainment. It was held that a cricket match could not be held to be substitutable by any other sport based on neither characteristics nor the intention of the viewer to watch a cricket match.[3] Substitutability of products was in question again in Schott glass case where transparent and amber tubes made of the same type of glass and for the same purpose (storing chemicals), were held to be unsubstitutable because light sensitive chemicals could not be stored in transparent tubes.

The relevance of defining a relevant product market is made clear by this hypothetical used by the CCI- "Simply because many wholesale traders of grains also do wholesale trading of vegetables does not imply that grains and vegetables are substitutable or that grains and vegetable mandis are interchangeable."[4]

B. Geographical Market

Relevant geographic markets could be local or national depending upon the facts in each case, but it cannot be global. [5] These are areas where demand and supply of goods of services can be said to be homogenous and distinguishable from markets in neighbouring areas.[6] Naturally, several factors then, like regulatory trade barriers, local specification requirements, national procurement policies, adequate distribution facilities, transport costs come under the purview of consideration. Therefore, if all such factors were uniform throughout the country vis-à-vis a product, the whole country would be the relevant geographical area.[7] If not, then areas displaying uniformity would be. The intention of the consumer may also be used in defining the relevant geographical boundary. In a case of purchase and allocation of apartments, the Commission upheld "geographic region of Gurgaon" to be the relevant market because it observed that it was the intention of the buyer to buy an apartment in Gurgaon because it had developed a unique brand image over the years, a characteristic which other regions did not share. [8]

2. Determination of dominant position

Having determined the relevant market, the second step lies in determining whether the enterprise holds a dominant position in that market. Under the provisions of the Act, dominance refers to the ability of an enterprise to operate independently of market forces, and its position of strength, which enables it to affect competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favour.[9]

Various factors to be taken into account for determination of dominance are listed under S. 19(4) of the Act. Consequently, it might be said that market share, though a major factor, is not the sole yardstick in determination of dominance. This viewwas reaffirmed in Mr.RamakantKini v Dr L H Hiranandani Hospital, Powai, Mumbai.[10] The Commission was assessing the dominance of the Hiranandani hospital. The relevant market was for provision of maternity services by super specialty and high-end hospitals within a distance of 12 kilometers from the Hiranandani Hospital. The Commission, in the case, clarified that the market shares of an entity is 'only one of the factors that decides whether an enterprise is dominant or not, but that factor alone cannot be decisive proof of dominance'.

In other cases, the Commission has adopted the practice of looking at the facts in totality to determine dominance. The case in point being In Re M/s ESYS Information Technologies Pvt LtdvIntel Corporation (Intel Inc) &Ors.[11] Along with the market share commanded by Intel, the Commission recognized various other factors- like consumer preference owing to the brand name, the existence of strong entry barriers in the relevant market, the significant intellectual property rights of Intel and the scale and scope enjoyed by Intel.

In Pankaj Kumar, the Commission opined that dominant position would be one in which the enterprise would have the ability to operate independently of competitive forces in the relevant market. In Sheil, the OEMs were held to be dominant in light of the fact that they had entered agreements with overseas equipment suppliers (OES) which effectively made the OEMs the sole proprietors of equipment of their companies, thereby, shielding themselves from competition.

3. Abuse, assessment of

The mere fact of dominance is inconsequential in so far as attracting the Act is concerned. What has to be shown is the abuse of the said dominance. An enterprise or a group is said to be abusing its dominant position if its activities, on perusal, are found to be fit any of the activities listed under S. 4(2).

Such activities may be divided into two categories- Exclusionary activities and exploitative activities.

Exclusionary activities are those in which the dominant entity uses its dominance to restrict entry of competition into the relevant market. For example, in Re Shri ShamsherKataria v Seil Honda[12], where there existed agreements between the dominant entities and the Overseas Suppliers of original car parts which prevented the Overseas Suppliers from supplying parts to independent repairers, such agreements were held to be anti-competitive as they restricted entry of new firms.

Exploitative activities, meanwhile, are those where the dominant entity exploits its dominance by imposing discriminatory and/or unjust conditions on other firms or consumers. A case in point would be Pankaj Agarwal, where, in a case pertaining to allotment of apartments, the contracts drafted unilaterally by DLF enabled them to be arbitrary about allotment of super-area, secretative about information relevant to the purchaser, like, the number of apartments on a floor, and to cancel allotments and forfeit booking amounts. The Commission held the contracts to be exploitative against buyers, and thus, abusive.

A. The issue of per se violations

An issue at hand while discussing what amounts to abuse is whether commission of any act falling within S. 4(2) is per se violative of competition law. To elaborate, if an act by a dominant power, say, unjustly exploits the consumer, but is in pursuance of some policy or rule, would the dominant entity be held to be abusing its position? No such distinction or characterisation appears in the Act, but was introduced by the Commission in its decision in Dhanraj Pillay v Hockey India[13]. In that case, Hockey India, a dominant entity in the market for organisation of private professional hockey activities in India and for services of hockey players, decided against adding World Hockey Series in the list of sanctioned events, thus, disincentivising players from participating in the same. The Commission noted that sanctioning of events was a regulatory function of Hockey India, and could not be found, per se, of violation of competition laws. Creating a further distinction between means and ends, the Commission noted that it had to proven that the clause in contention was applied by Hockey India in a discriminatory/unjust manner.[14] So, what is left somewhat in the grey is whether the activity is in contravention of the Act if it results in abuse, or if it is done in a discriminatory manner.

4. Penalties and Sanctions

To an enterprise held to be abusing its dominant position, the Commission can do several things-

Direct the enterprise to discontinue such acts that amounted to abuse. (S.27(a)). Examples of use of this power by the Commission can be found in cases likeIn Re Shamsher Kataria[15] and Atos[16], where the dominant parties were ordered to cease and desist from indulging in activities that had been found to be in contravention of S.4.
Impose penalties of up to ten percent of the average of the turnover for the last three preceding financial years. (S.27(b)).

There has been some concern about this provision for though it provides the upper limit, it gives no guidelines for the calculation of penalties. The Commission, too, is yet to come up with guidelines of its own. So, as of now, the Commission has complete discretion in calculation of penalties to be imposed upon each of such person or enterprises which are parties to such abuse. However, the COMPAT has put some conditions on the Commission so far as awarding penalties is concerned. In a case, COMPAT admonished CCI for CCI's practice of awarding large penalties without providing any reasoning for the same. Furthermore, in the same judgment, COMPAT held that penalties are to be calculated on the basis of the 'relevant turnover'. [17] So, in a case of abuse against a multi-product company, the turnover used to calculate the penalty would be the turnover from the particular product(s) in contention, and not the overall turnover.

However, irregularity is rampant in this sphere of the functioning of the Commission and the Appellate Authority, for the COMPAT itself failed to follow its precedent of 'relevant turnover' in M/s DLF Limited v Competition Commission of India &Ors[18]. COMPAT did not restrict the calculation of the penalty on the basis of DLF Limited's turnover arising only from the residential segment, despite the relevant market in that case being the market for 'high-end residential accommodation'. COMPAT upheld the penalty levied by the CCI, which was calculated on the basis of DLF's turnover pertaining to its entire business (i.e., the development of residential, office and commercial properties). [19]

Lastly, the Commission can pass an order to cause the division of the dominant enterprise such that does not abuse its dominant position. (S.28)

Conclusion

The Competition Act, 2003 is the successor of the Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. It underwent great changes in 2007. Thus, the prevalent competition law jurisprudence in India has ages barely seven years, and may not be as thorough as the US jurisprudence, which has been evolving since 1901. In spite of that, it is a progressive bit of legislation which, unlike the MRTP Act which had little tolerance for any dominance, recognizes the changing market conditions and does not have problems with dominance per se, but it does not veer away from its objective of keeping the market competitive.

[1] Atos Worldline v Verifoneindia, Case No. 56 of 2012, ¶6.3

[2] Surinder Singh Barmi v BCCI, Case 61 of 2010; Kapoor GlassPvt Ltd v Schott Glass, Case 22 of 2010.

[3] BCCI, id. at ¶8.34.

[4] MCX Stock Exchange v NSE, Case 13 of 2009, ¶10.24.

[5] BijayPoddar v Coal India Ltd., Case 59 of 2013.

[6] Atos, supra note 1 at ¶6.3.

[7] BijayPoddar, supra note 5 at ¶40

[8] Pankaj Agarwal v. DLF, C. Nos. 13 & 21 of 2010 and 55 of 2012, ¶6.23.

[9] In Re Shri Shamsher Kataria v. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. &Ors, Case No. 03 of 2011¶¶8.1.7, 8.1.8

[10] Case No. 39 of 2012.

[11] Case 48 of 2011.

[12] Supra note note 9 at ¶8.1.11.

[13] Case 73 of 2011.

[14] Id., ¶10.13.5(a)

[15] Supra note 9 at ¶11.

[16] Supra note 1 at ¶6.32.

[17] M/s Excel Crop Care Limited v Competition Commission of India, Appeal 79 of 2012, ¶62.

[18] M/s DLF Limited v Competition Commission of India &Ors, Appeal No. 20 of 2011, Appeal No. 22 of 2011, Appeal No. 19 of 2012, Appeal No. 23 of 2011, Appeal No. 12 of 2012, Appeal No. 20 of 2012, Appeal No. 29 of 2013, Appeal No. 8 of 2013, Appeal No. 9 of 2013, Appeal No. 11 of 2013

[19] Cyril Shroff & Nisha Oberoi, India: Abuse of Dominance, Global Competition Review. Available at http://globalcompetitionreview.com/reviews/69/sections/235/chapters/2749/india-abuse-dominance/ (last visited on 18/11/2015).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/abuse-of-dominant-position-in-indian-competition-law-a-brief-guide

વિકિપીડિયા ગુજરાતી માં પણ છે

praskrishna — 2012-12-07T10:36:20Z

We've recently been featured in the Gujarati magazine on technology: Cybersafar. The below article was written by Harsh Kothari.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/article-in-cybersafar

A workshop to improve Telugu Wikipedia articles on Nobel laureates

Pavan Santhosh — 2016-09-12T15:01:15Z

Many articles about Nobel laureates are missing in the Telugu Wikipedia. Recently undergraduate students from four different disciplines of the Andhra Loyola College (ALC), Vijayawada gathered to create and improve articles related to Nobel laureates.

Spanned for three days—from August 16 through 18—54 students from the department of Telugu, Botany, Statistics and Physics edited articles related to Nobel laureates, improved the content quality and inserted images that were already there in Wikimedia Commons. There was a great balance of equal participation in the number of female and male students. During this sprint 124 existing articles on Telugu Wikipedia were improved and 118 of them saw images being added. Though it was challenging for me to manage so many participants, I was partly successful in mentoring some of the students who in turn helped their friends with basic editing.

Apart from educating the students about editing Wikipedia, I demonstrated about digitising “Kavitvatattva Vicharam”, a book authored by by Kattamanchi Ramalinga Reddy in 1913 and is considered as the first modern literary criticism in Telugu literature, on Telugu Wikisource. Some of the students tried to proof-read the book for the first time.

There is a plan laid out to work with a small subset of these participating students again for different kind of academic-centric projects like the QRpedia project. To keep the activity more regular, the students are are creating the missing Botany-related articles. We are hoping to work with remaining students at least once in every quarter. A few recommendations for bettering the students’ understanding of Wikipedia and the community that Telugu Wikipedian User:Chaduvari had shared earlier came quite useful during this event. Based on his inputs I did my best elaborating the [Wikipedia] project structure and community dynamics to the new editors. Another long time Wikimedian Rajasekhar followed up on the Wikisource activity remotely. B. Manikantha, a students from the Arts department shares, “Until now I always had a notion that Wikipedia might be some sort of entertainment website where we can listen to music and play games. But after attending this workshop I could understand how great it is as a learning platform. Also I learnt about one of our professors Dr. Gumma Sambashivarao who is a noted author, and how the articles about more such authors could be made available online in our language.” “It was fun translating articles in my favourite subject—war. I’m hoping to continue my contributions further”, he adds.

More details in the event page on Telugu Wikipedia.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/a-workshop-to-improve-telugu-wikipedia-articles-on-nobel-laureates

A Workshop on Editing Wikipedia in Mumbai

praskrishna — 2013-08-23T16:00:46Z

The Centre for Indian Languages in Higher Education and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS-A2K) is holding a workshop on Wikipedia editing at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai on August 24, 10.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.

The morning session will be having a discussion and demonstration on Wikipedia (10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.), which will be followed by a practical session (2.00 p.m. to 4.30 p.m.).

As part of the run-up to the Indian Languages Mela (planned for September 20-21, 2013), CILHE will conduct a workshop for those who would like create new articles in any Indian Language Wikipedia. The workshop is organized in collaboration with the Centre for Internet and Society’s Access to Knowledge Programme (CIS-A2K) and the Wikipedia Hyderabad community. The objective of the workshop is to train students to edit Wikipedia. Participants are encouraged to work with Telugu, Hindi, Marathi, Urdu or any other language of their choice. Although the workshop is mainly intended for potential competitors for the Mela awards for Best New Article in an Indian Language Wikipedia, anyone interested in Wikipedia is welcome.

As you may know, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and is the 5th most-visited website in the world! It's completely free to use and re-use, it has no advertising, and is available in more than 286 different languages - including 20+ Indian languages. Wikipedia articles are written by ordinary people who volunteer to share their knowledge with the world.

The CILHE is committed to producing material in Indian languages for higher education, and is partnering Wikipedia in drawing new editors to the Indian language Wikipedias so that they become an important knowledge resource.

What students gain from Wikipedia editing:

It improves writing skills. Wikipedia provides students a platform to hone their writing skills. Writing on Wikipedia enhances critical thinking and the ability to see all sides of a story. Students will find this incredibility useful in both their personal and professional lives while evaluating the pros and cons of different situations, projects, assignments etc. Wikipedia editing also strengthens research skills. A Wikipedia editor has to provide credible references by looking up books, journals and online materials. Writing on Wikipedia is good practice for those who will also work on a thesis or a research project.

Your articles will be read by thousands of people across the globe. If you edit a Wikipedia article, it is there *forever* and the audience can be any number from the 500 million who read Wikipedia every month!

It'll boost your chances in admissions or scholarships or placements.

It teaches students how to collaborate! Editing Wikipedia is magical. You add some content and someone from some other part of the class or school or town or country or somewhere else in the world adds a little bit more and makes the contribution that much better. Wikipedia helps one learn how to work productively with other people, even those you don’t know and may never actually meet.

The workshop will cover the following:

What exactly is Wikipedia and how does it work?
Who edits Wikipedia?
How do I edit Wikipedia?
What can I edit?
How can I input text in Indian languages?
How do I insert images?
How do I find and add references?
Do’s and Don’ts

Participants are required to register at least by August 23, 2013. Send your names to Ritesh Khunyakari riteshpk@gmail.com.

Important Instructions

Each student attending the Wikipedia Training programme should register themselves on Wikipedia. Please note that once you register on a Wikipedia project, you can use that 'Username' (i.e. same log-in details) across all Wikipedias and Wikimedia platforms. This should be done by August 23, 2013. Please note that you will not be able to register more than 5 Usernames from a single IP address within 24 hours (a security feature of Wikipedia). This tutorial will help you with Registration on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial/Registration
Once registered the students must furnish their details on the google doc. I have already entered my data just as sample. Please circulate this link to all the students at the earliest. This should be done by August 24, 2013 before the commencement of the Workshop https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AshSF7ZKRBR5dFBfM2lTaExINTZodVZ4ejd3VURzMEE&usp=sharing
All the students are expected to do editing on Wikipedia. We will choose Telugu Wikipedia (www.te.wikipedia) as a site to do some editing. Please be assured that we will also show how to use English and other language Wikipedias. For this workshop each student should come up with one article at least in an Indian language. This should be typed and be available in a soft copy form and could be carried in a thumb drive or any other storage media which should be easily accessible to them during the training programme.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/events/workshop-on-editing-wikipedia-in-mumbai

A Workshop on "Exploring the Internals of Mobile Technologies"

jdine — 2012-10-25T06:52:50Z

The Centre for Internet and Society invites all individuals interested in investigating and exploring the internal of the Mobile/Hardware Technologies and understanding of capabilities of mobile phones to join our workshop on Saturday, October 27, 2012, at the TERI Southern Regional Centre.

Objective:

Bringing together the technical/hacker community and individuals interested in mobile devices to explore mobile devices internals and capabilities

Scope of Conference and Workshop:

Our proposed topics/areas which we hope to have discussions on are:

Hardware Hacking (Board/Chips Capabilities)
Operating System Internals (Hardware/OS Interfacing)
Software Development Kit (MRE, etc.)
Forensic Analysis
Understanding of Mobile as Telecommunication Device (2G/3G, etc.)
Understanding Mobile/Devices Internals
Working with JTAG/UART Ports
Porting Open Softwares on Mobiles/Hardwares

Expected outcomes:

Understanding of mobile devices internals and capabilities
Documenting mobile devices capabilities and internals
Publishing of blogs on knowledge generated
Exploration/Speculation on research/development avenues

Agenda

I. Core Talks
Tea/Coffee: Time: 9:00 - 9:30 a.m.
1. Arduino Board Capabilities and Playing Around It! Objective: Understanding Arduino board capabilities and playing with it Speaker: Sudar Muthu Level: Introduction Duration: 1 Hour Time: 9:30 - 10:30 a.m.
2. Initiatives@CIS Objective: Discussing the research initiative that has led CIS to become interested in mobile device internals and capabilities Speaker: Jadine Lannon Level: Introduction Duration: 10-15 Minutes Time: 10:30 - 10:45 a.m.
3. Mobile Hacking Through Linux Drivers Objective: Understanding the Linux kernel & driver internals from the perspective of reverse engineering Speaker: Anil Kumar Pugalia Level: Intermediate to Advanced Duration: 1 Hour Time: 10:45 - 11:45 a.m.
4. Hardware Hacking (Board/Chips Capabilities) Objective: Discuss and explore key areas of mobile hardware (power, clock, pin multiplexing, peripherals, etc.) Speaker: Khasim Syed Mohammed Level: Introductory to Advanced Duration: 1 Hour Time: 11:45 - 12:45 p.m.
Lunch Time Time: 12:45 - 1:30 p.m.
5. Porting Open Software on Hardware Objective: Cover porting examples for each type of peripherals Cover Android and Linux bringup as an example Speaker: Khasim Syed Mohammed Level: Intermediate to Advance Duration: 2 Hours Time: 1:30 - 3:30 p.m.
II.Community Knowledge Sharing/Hacking!
Time: 3.30 to 5.30 p.m.
5. Free Slot
6. Free Slot
Tea/Coffee Time
7. Free Slot
8. Free Slot

We are inviting community members to take up Free Slots to share their knowledge in this section. In this section, any person can propose a talk, workshop, or speculation about any device for a duration 30 minutes to 1 hour, as long as the topic falls within broader scope of the focus areas described at the in the “Scope of the Conference and Workshop” section of the workshop objectives.

Venue, Dates and Logistics

The event will take place on Saturday, October 27, 2012, at the following address:

TERI Southern Regional Centre
4th Main, Domlur II Stage
Bangalore - 560 071
Karnataka

The event will be begin at 9 a.m. on Saturday and end in the evening around 5 p.m. Lunch and snacks will be provided by CIS.

Available Resources:
CIS has purchased 12 gray-market mobile phones with the intent to document as much information about the life-cycles, hardware, software and content of each phone as possible. We request that the producers, make and model of each device be kept anonymous in discussions/publications that take place outside of the workshop.

The Speakers

1. Anil Kumar Pugalia
The author is a freelance trainer in Linux internals, Linux device drivers, embedded Linux & related topics. Prior to this, he was at Intel and Nvidia. He has been working with Linux since 1994. A gold medallist from IISc, Linux & knowledge sharing are two of his many passions. Creating and playing with open source hardware is one of his hobbies, which he materializes through his company eSrijan, which can be accessed at:
Website: http://profession.sarika-pugs.com/

2. Jadine Lannon
Jadine is a research intern at the Centre for Internet and Society. She is currently working on the “Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Marketplace” research project. More information on the research project can be found here: http://cis-india.org/a2k/pervasive-technologies-access-to-knowledge-in-the-market-place

3. Khasim Syed Mohammed
Khasim leads Open Hardware and Software Initiatives at Texas Instruments. Blog: http://www.khasim.in/; http://khasim.blogspot.in/

4. Sudar Muthu
Sudar does open hardware as hobby; Arudino is his playground. He is passionate about programming (particularly web-based) and loves to design and build web sites/services from scratch. AJAX, Web2.0, Semantic Web, Comet, RDF or any of those latest buzz-field jargons.

Blog: http://SudarMuthu.com; http://hardwarefun.com;

Supporting Communities:

NULL: http://null.co.in/
SecurityXploaded: http://securityxploded.com/
Computer Club India: http://computerclub.in/Main_Page

Register at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?fromEmail=true&formkey=dG1UcHBYR2xRLWhPZ0QwVWlaaEg0SXc6MQ

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/workshop-exploring-the-internals-of-mobile-technologies-1

A Wikipedia Workshop at SRM University, Chennai

noopur — 2012-12-27T05:57:34Z

The Centre for Internet & Society, Delhi in association with Metawings Institute organized a one-day workshop on contributing to Wikipedia at SRM University on December 17, 2012. About 40 students from different engineering colleges in Chennai participated in the workshop. Metawings coordinated for the logistics and for spreading the word among the students.

The three-hour workshop was mostly interactive. Since most students had a fair idea of what Wikipedia is and who writes articles on Wikipedia, they had many queries on who the 'editors' were, who selects them, how one can become an editor, how to determine reliability and authenticity of Wikipedia articles and so on. This was a pattern that I observed in many workshops that we conduct where people who have a level of ease and familiarity with using Wikipedia to get information, have often wondered if the information they are using is reliable or not. This also gives us a chance to explain how their contributions can make the encyclopedia more inclusive, informative and reliable.

One student was called upon to create a user account and instead of answering his query on patrolling edits, I encouraged him to vandalize a popular article just to see how quickly it is reverted and the correct version is restored. Some students were also interested in knowing about Indian language Wikipedias. So, I invited a student to create his account in Tamil Wikipedia and create his user page subsequently.

After the workshop the students wanted to stay in touch and receive more information on Wikipedia projects they could contribute to and filled up contact forms.

Special thanks to Metawings for helping us out with the logistics and to the student coordinators at SRM University for their cooperation!

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/wikipedia-workshop-at-srm-chennai

A Wikipedia Workshop at NMAIT

subha — 2013-01-04T16:30:28Z

The Centre for Internet & Society, Delhi collaborated with Metawings Institute to spread the words about Wikipedia for Indian languages. A one-day workshop was organized to educated the students on contributing to Wikipedia on December 21, 2012. About 170 engineering students took part in this event.

The workshop began with interaction with the students about their understanding. I asked few questions like what is Wikipedia, who edits articles on Wikipedia, is it paid or free, did they ever try to edit Wikipedia, etc. I took them through a presentation to explain basics of Wikipedia, five pillars, notability and copyright issues related to vandalism. One of the students were called to create his user account. Students were showed the simpler sign up process. To explain how articles are edited we introduced errors in the article on Bengaluru and made it the capital of India for few minutes! Students were explained how Wikipedia editors correct mistakes like these in real time and correct facts are published in Wikipedia. A majority of the students asked about the authenticity of articles which is open to anyone. So I got a chance to refresh the page and show how the error introduced was reverted within a few minutes.


Above is a picture of the participants from the Wikipedia Workshop at Karkala

The session went on with such interaction and students were explained more about the importance of citing references to add credibility to the facts they can add on Wikipedia articles.

We also had Dr. Ashok Kumar, prof, Computer science department, a wikipedian and columnist for Kannada newspaper Udaya Vani. Dr. Kumar introduced Kannada Wikipedia to the students. At the end of the session I had a discussion with him about organizing more workshops for Kannada Wikipedia and supporting participant students. Special thanks to Metawings for finding the venue and supporting for the event.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/wikipedia-workshop-at-nmait

A Wikipedia Workshop at IISC

praskrishna — 2013-12-31T03:38:30Z

Along with Wikipedian Shiju Alex we supported the Assamese Wikipedians to organize a workshop at IISC.

Assamese Wikipedian Gitartha Bordoloi took a session explaining about Wikipedia. Almost 13 scholars from Assam who are currently researching at IISC took part in this workshop. This also opened a new avenue for us to start an Assamese Wiki community in Bangalore.

Click to download the original published by Amarasom Gl Publications. The link to the original is here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/wikipedia-workshop-iisc

A Wikipedia Presentation at BITS, Goa

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

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

How it Started?

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Wikipedia Mini-hackathon in Delhi

Yuvraj Pandian — 2012-12-04T07:31:21Z

Wikipedian Yuvaraj Pandian visited the CIS office in Delhi and helped the Access to Knowledge team conduct a super-ad-hoc mini-hackathon with two other volunteers, Sheel from Delhi and Harsh from Ahmedabad. The aim was to get them a kickstart in developing userscripts/gadgets, and get them to a point where the prior existing documentation makes sense to them.

The ad-hoc plan had three parts:

The execution environment (Concept of userscripts vs gadgets, ResourceLoader)
The API concepts (Special:ApiSandbox, concept of 'actions' in the API)
Accessing the API from JS (mediawiki.api module, concept of AJAX)

Here is the account of what they did, written by Yuvi:

"We covered all parts of them slowly, with both Harsh and Sheel working at things until they fully understood what they were doing and why whatever they were doing was working.

I introduced them to the environment first by having them execute code in Chrome's JS Console, and then in their own common.js. Once they understood the context in which the code was getting executed, the 'ResourceLoader default modules'[1]documentation started making sense to them, and they could pick up other modules from there.

We then explored the API via the API Sandbox[2], which is a relatively new (and not very well known) way of letting people play around with the API. It is a massive improvement over the older, non-interactive docs[3], and both Harsh and Sheel were very excited about being able to discover all the things they could do with the API. A fair amount of time was spent messing around with it on different wikipedias (en, hi and gu) and reading bits of the API Documentation[4] to understand the concepts behind the actions - and for filling in the gaps.

Finally we had them use the API from a userscript to make calls. I went through the entire process line by line, explaining how AJAX works and how asynchronous programming works. We traced the flow of code together to understand how the seamingly nonlinear asynchronous programming model works. Then we dug into a bit of how to use the mw.loader module to make dependencies work, and why the same code that was working in the chrome js console was not working in their common.js.

It ended with them trying to port HotCat to their native language wikipedias. Harsh started to explore more about getting started with MediaWiki dev itself (rather than just gadgets), but the clone took a looooong time and we had run out of time by then. I directed him to a WMF tech open chat happening today, and hopefully that could help!

[1].https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ResourceLoader/Default_modules
[2].https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ApiSandbox
[3].https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php
[4].https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Main_page

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/mini-hackathon-delhi

A Wikipedia Editing Workshop in Goa

praskrishna — 2013-03-05T09:10:24Z

On the occasion of International Women's Day, the Access to Knowledge team from the Centre for Internet & Society is organizing a wikipedia editing workshop on March 8, 2013 at Nirmala Institute of Education, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., followed by an offline and online editathon.

The online editathon is a month-long affair, which will be held every weekend starting with the weekend after March 8. The goal of the month-long event is to encourage more women to contribute to Wikipedia and increase representation of articles related to women in Wikipedia.

The event aims at creating new articles, expanding the existing stubs and translating English articles to various Indian languages. Members are requested to start edithons in regional language Wikipedias.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/events/wikipedia-editing-workshop-in-goa

A Wiki Workshop at Raj Kumar Goel Institute of Technology, Ghaziabad

subha — 2013-01-22T03:09:25Z

The Centre for Internet & Society's Access to Knowledge team organized a Wikipedia workshop at Raj Kumar Goel Institute of Technology (RKGIT), Ghaziabad in collaboration with Metawings on January 17, 2013. Subhashish Panigrahi summarizes the happenings from the one-day workshop in this blog post.

As part of the soft skill development training program, RKGIT, an engineering college is working on a series of activities to empower the students with practical approach and competence for their professional life. We were invited to conduct a workshop for the students of mechanical engineering and help them understand the real reasons for contributions to Wikipedia as a volunteer.

Some of the focus areas we set for the workshop were:

Number of students not to exceed 60 to make sure that we get enough time and space to interact actively and pay individual attention.

Number of coordinators to support with logistics to conduct the workshop smoothly.
Active participation of teachers.
Arrangement of internet labs with multiple IP addresses for smooth user account creation.

Around 65 mechanical engineering students from second and third year participated in this workshop. We began the workshop with an interactive discussion about their practical relation with Wikipedia as students and the usability and difficulties that they face. I presented about some important facts about Wikipedia and voluntary contribution in different ways. During and after the presentation students asked a lot of questions about the notability and authenticity of articles, collaboration vs. fights among editors, references and its significance, etc.

There was a short break to make way for students to settle in the internet lab for a hands on training session. We faced problems with the LAN and 3G network for mobile broadband which made this session longer than expected. There were problems for creating accounts because of the Internet explorer and X based systems and the students couldn't create their user accounts. So, we had to manage with them contributing anonymously from IP addresses. Despite these unexpected technical problems all of them edited various articles. Some of them tried to vandalize and observe the quick reversal of the vandals.

Subhashish presenting about Wikipedia to the participants

I had a discussion with the director about conducting more such workshops, especially technical workshops where students can code and contribute to MediaWiki.

Quick links:

Presentation used for this workshop: www.slideshare.net/psubhashish/you-can-also-wikipedia
English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org (Click here to create an account on Wikipedia)

Presentation

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/wikipedia-workshop-at-rkgit-ghaziabad