Centre for Internet and Society

29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS Intervention : Questions to Prof. Kenneth Crews on his Updated Study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives

nehaa — 2014-12-14T02:56:46Z

Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) on December 11 during one of the sessions in WIPO asked two questions to Prof. Kenneth Crews.

In 2008, WIPO commissioned a study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives.This was prepared by Prof. Kenneth Crews. On December 10-11, 2014, at SCCR 29, Prof. Crews presented an updated (2014) version of this study and addressed comments and questions from Member States and Observers.

CIS Statement:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Professor Crews for your presentation yesterday, and for this comprehensive study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, very timely, and very important to us, from the perspective of access to knowledge and information.

I have two questions:

My first question: Did you find, in your examination, that, in terms of/ or on the question of limitations and exceptions, did you find, that there was an equal or equitable treatment of digital resources in comparison to resources available in more traditional formats? And if not, where do you think that lever of change lies to ensure that fair dealing provisions are extended equitably to the digital environment as well?

My second question, is on the interoperability of Limitations and Exceptions: Given that copyright is a very national thing, and, as your study has also well established, countries have a whole range of very diverse approaches and practices on Limitations and Exceptions; but also given that we live in an increasingly globalized world, we need a system that is interoperable with respect to the trans-boundary movement of works, with as little friction as possible, both- in the physical as well as in the digital environments. So, what did your examination show us of how interoperable- or not- the range of Limitations and Exceptions actually are?

Those are my two questions.

Thank you very much.

Response by Prof. Kenneth Crews:

Thank you very much. On the second question, I'm afraid I might mind myself only repeating some of the concepts that have already said about transborder and really about in the statutes anyway, a lack of recognition of transborder. And the transborder concept, so I will add this piece to the conversation, the transborder concept seldom if ever appears in these library exceptions to the extent that we are going to find it in copyright law or some other part of a national law it may very well be over in the import/export kind -- area of the law. But that also goes to the interoperability which think we have answered a few times just this sort -- the lack of exact harmonization and as others have reminded me I have said before that I may not be a fan of exact precise harmonization and indeed it may not be possible or even desirable. But some degree of harmonization can help with that interoperability. Interesting question, you do -- you did raise a new point about digital. We have talked several times in this conversation about use of digital technologies in the exercise of the rights of use under the exception. However what I think you were asking about is the ability to apply the exception to works that are digital in the first place that are what we call born digital and that's a very interesting question. The statutes do not address that. Sometimes you will see a statute that refers to -- that says it applies to all these different kinds of works but not computer software. That tells you somebody was thinking it shouldn't apply to software but somehow software is different and there are problems with that. We know that software has changed and been incorporated in to many different works. But we generally see a statute almost always see a statute that's about books or archival materials or some other kind of work without specifying the technology. So can it apply to an e-book in addition to the paper book? The statutes don't go there. They don't sort that out. So in my common law tradition I look at that and see that as a question for interpretation. In a civil code system I might look at it and see it a little bit more firmly for lack of a better word about what the scope of that word book, for example, really means.

Really good question. And it is one that the statutes have not picked up on.

Thank you very much.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-intervention-questions-to-prof-kenneth-crews-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives

28th Session of the WIPO SCCR: Report on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations

nehaa — 2014-08-07T10:44:05Z

The 28th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“the Committee” / "SCCR") took place in Geneva from June 30, 2014 to July 04, 2014. In this article, Nehaa Chaudhari, who attended this meeting on behalf of CIS, discusses the developments that took place with reference to the proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (“Broadcast Treaty”).

At its 28^th Session, the WIPO SCCR devoted two and a half days to a discussion on the Broadcast Treaty. For the majority of this period informal discussions (“Informals”) were held between member states and there was no plenary. While Non- Government Organizations ( “NGOs”) and those member states who were not participating in the Informals were able to listen to the discussions taking place, we were requested to not report about them in any form whatsoever. Consequently, this article does not mention, cite or discuss the conversations in the Informals in any manner whatsoever, and is confined to deliberations at the plenary sessions.

Preliminary

Proceedings on Day 1 (June 30, 2014) began with a speech by the Director General of WIPO, Francis Gurry. Commending the “exceptional progress” made by the Committee over the past few years, Mr. Gurry cited the Marrakesh and Beijing Treaties as success stories. In talking about the Broadcast Treaty, Mr. Gurry said that the then ongoing FIFA World Cup, 2014 was “the perfect example” for member states on the economic and social importance of broadcasting. He went on to add that the Broadcast Treaty was the last component of the international legal framework which had not been “updated for the digital environment”. Identifying the challenge as developing a shared understanding of what and how to protect, Mr. Gurry was of the opinion that the Committee would make progress on the development of an instrument that was narrow in scope to combat cross border digital piracy.

In his statement following that of the Director General, the Chairperson, Edgar Martin Moscoso Villacorta (“the Chair”) explained that he had held consultations with the regional coordinators and three other nations from each group on June 27, 2014 to figure out how best to proceed at the upcoming 28^th Session of the Committee; before opening the floor to Regional Coordinators for their Opening Statements.

Group Opening Statements by Regional Coordinators : Reflections of a North-South Divide

Opening statements by Regional Coordinators on behalf of their groups reflected sentiments similar to those witnessed at the 26^th and 27 ^th Sessions of this Committee[1]. While there was broad consensus on having a well-balanced work plan that addressed the different issues of broadcasting, limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives as well as limitations and exceptions for education, teaching, research and persons with disabilities, statements also reflected the disagreements between various groups on the maturity (or the lack thereof) of the various items on the agenda, largely along the fault-lines of the classic Global North v. the Global South. For instance, statements by the European Union (“the EU”) and Group B, the group of developed countries emphasised the convening of a diplomatic conference for the Broadcast Treaty, but on the other hand, statements by the groups of developing countries highlighted the importance of limitations and exceptions.

The Regional Coordinator (presently, Paraguay) for the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (“GRULAC”) placed emphasis on a “well balanced work plan which envisages the different issues” but also stated that for their group, “the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and educational and research institutions (is) of the utmost importance.”

The representative of Bangladesh, in his capacity as the Regional Coordinator of the Asia-Pacific Group said that their group considered all issues to be equally important, notwithstanding the fact that they might enjoy different levels of discussion at the SCCR; and on the issue of protection of broadcasting organizations said that the group was “willing to work constructively” and hoped to continue “meaningful technical discussions in finalization of the scope of the protection of broadcasting organizations and to advance further to a balanced international instrument of rights and responsibility for the broadcasting organizations.”

The statement of the Central European and Baltic States (“CEBS”) Group, presently represented by the Czech Republic categorically stated that the CEBS Group was “striving for the successful conclusion of the work regarding the protection of broadcasting organizations with the aim to recommend to the General Assemblies to convene the Diplomatic Conference to take place, as soon as possible, preferably in 2015.” (sic)

Japan, speaking on behalf of Group B, in their statement recognised the “tradition…to allocate more time to discussion on more mature subject matters”, referring to the Broadcast Treaty and, like the CEBS Group, also touched upon the issue of convening a Diplomatic Conference as soon as possible.

The European Union (“the EU”) has perhaps been one of the most vocal proponents of the Broadcast Treaty at past sessions of the Committee, and carried forward this tradition into the 28^th session as well, labelling negotiations on the Broadcast Treaty “a high priority” for Member States. The EU also echoed the statements made by the CEBS Group as well as Group B on the need to call for a diplomatic conference “as soon as possible.” In order to achieve this, said the EU, there was a need to build a “broad consensus” on the problems that needed to be addressed as well as on the extent of protection envisaged.

Technical Assistance from Broadcasters

The United States of America placed an emphasis on a treaty that would address challenges posed by new technologies, indicated in their request to the Secretariat to inform the member states about different sizes and types of broadcasters using new technologies by conducting a survey, recognising that a lot had changed over the course of the past 12 years, when a report on this issue was last prepared; a proposal which was supported by the delegation of India as well.

Following these comments by the United States of America (but in an unrelated move), the Chair suggested technical assistance be sought from broadcasters. Surprisingly, he identified three NGOs (in this case associations of broadcasters), namely Asian Broadcasters Union, International Association of Broadcasters and National Association of Broadcasters, who could provide technical assistance if required.

This stance was supported strongly by the delegations of Egypt and the Russian Federation. While it also found support from the Japanese delegation, it also pointed out that a mere presentation might bring about some confusion, and instead thought that it might be a better idea to update the studies commissioned by WIPO in 2002.

Resistance to this proposition was offered by the delegation of Venezuela who questioned the “expertize of these experts to speak to the Member States about such a complicated issue” and “the selection criteria” among others. Exclaiming in surprise at the manner on which this proposal had been accepted, the delegate sough further clarifications on the issue, demanding to know “who these very important people are who are going to come in and help us solve a problem in which we have not been able to solve in 10 years.” (sic.) The concern on the absence of transparency was also echoed by the delegate of Uruguay, who expressed his great “astonishment” at “three technical experts” at the session, saying that it was “most inappropriate” to be informed about the presence of technical experts after regional coordinators had earlier expressed their refusal to have such an exercise. In response, the Chair said that this was a decision that he had taken in response to a request for technical consultations made at the earlier session of the Committee. He went on to add that the Committee could do without the technical assistance if perceived to be unnecessary and the process not transparent.

Scope of Protection: Article 6

The Scope of Protection under the Broadcast Treaty is laid out under Article 6 of WorkingDocument 27/2/Rev. (“Working Document”). This document lays out the text which forms the basis of the negotiations at the SCCR.

Confining the Broadcast Treaty to a signal based approach versus broadening the scope of the treaty to a more technologically neutral rights based approach was the chief point of conflict between the developed and the developing nations, reflect in their statements discussed below.

Opening the proceedings, the United States of America (“the US”/ “USA”) placed complete support on the statement of Group B; but also added that the way forward “to finding consensus” was to “focus on a narrow treaty based on the core need of broadcasters for protection from signal piracy.” The US proceeded to outline its proposal of “a single right to authorise the simultaneous or near simultaneous transmission of signal to the public over any medium.” Highlighting the key advantages to this proposal the US said that its proposal was “modern”, recognizing the importance of “new technologies that are used for engaging in signal piracy and avoids a number of negatives as to which concerns have been expressed in the discussions”. However, the US was also quick to clarify that the “right would be limited to protection for the signal and not to the content contained in fixations of the broadcast” and would also “avoid interference with the rights of the right holders in the content that was broadcast” as well as “avoid any impact on consumers who were engaged in private activities such as home copying”.

India reiterated its serious concerns regarding webcasting, simulcasting and retransmission over computer networks. Japan, on the other hand, while most other nations chose to reserve their comments for discussions in the Informals alone.

On the third day of this meeting, the Chair presented the progress that had been made over the course of the discussions taking place in the Informals. He said that webcasting had been removed from the scope of application. The concern, said the Chair, was that webcasting was also carried out by other actors- not just broadcasting organizations, and that having different rules for different actors carrying out the same activity would not be “a good message” (sic.)

Rights of Broadcasters: Article 9

The Rights of Broadcasters under the Broadcast Treaty are laid out under Article 9 of the Working Document. The US said that it “remained convinced” that a narrow scope of rights would make it possible for the SCCR to recommend convening a diplomatic conference. The Russian Federation on the other spoke of the need to take into account the “appearance of new technologies which provide new possibilities, particularly the use, and the unauthorized use of the signal.”

As in the case of the Scope of Application, in the case of Rights of Broadcasters as well, the Chair updated the plenary on the discussions in the Informals. The discussions were informed by two informal documents listing out the rights as well as the scope. While discussing the rights, said the Chair, it was decided to merge simultaneous and near simultaneous retransmission since they were closely related. The rights sought to be granted to the broadcasters include those of fixation, reproduction of fixations, distribution of fixations and performance of the broadcast among others.

In response to the Chair’s invitation for suggestions, the delegate of Sri Lanka suggested that one of the sentences be rephrased as follows: “Transmission or retransmission of the broadcast signal to the public over any medium whether simultaneous, near simultaneous or deferred including on demand transmission on a broadcast signal.” She also added fixation rights should be granted only to that extent of a file being copied for the purpose of transmission, before it has been transmitted. A few other delegations either echoed similar sentiments, or chose to remain silent until the Informals.

Comments by NGOs

On the third (and the final for the Broadcast Treaty), day of discussions, the Chair opened the floor to interventions, observations and comments by NGOs.

AIR, representing broadcasting organizations spoke of the “great need” to update the Rome Convention because of the prevalence of piracy, especially transmissions over the internet. The National Association of Broadcasters cited instances of television piracy as examples of the harm to broadcasters and need for such a treaty. The Japanese Commercial Broadcasters Association expressed its support for post fixation rights and said that they were important to broadcasters, “especially the right of making available a fixed broadcast is crucial in order to fight online piracy which we said a number of times before…” (sic.). Also recognising the need to be flexible, the Japanese Commercial Broadcasters expressed their support to the proposal made by the Japanese delegation in making some rights optional.

A different set of concerns was articulated by other NGOs, who were not associations of broadcasters. Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue ( “TACD”) spoke of the possible “collateral damange to public access and culture” and the addition of “new layers of complications barriers and costs added” to access to information and knowledge by consumers. Further, highlighting the irony of the SCCR with the strong push towards a binding Broadcast Treaty “with a wide scope”, the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue said that this was in “stark contrast on the part of some other Member States to discussing new global norms” to facilitating the role played by libraries and archives. Additionally, TACD also said that there was the danger of “opening up an endless and incomprehensive Pandora box of overlapping rights on content between non creators of broadcasts and the real creators” (sic.), and also expressed grave concern over the negative impact of post fixation rights on the use of news, culture and information by consumers ad users. “In consideration of a new international norm for broadcasters, we must not forget the common food for the free flow of information for citizens,” said TACD. It also said that the focus of the work should not be to satisfy the interests of one special group while ignoring the possible negative unintentional consequences on “normal users”, and asked for a social impact assessment of the Broadcast Treaty.

Knowledge Ecology International (“KEI”) in their statement stated that the broadcasters had failed to meet their burden of proving the need for “exclusive rights to fight piracy.” In order for the Committee to make progress, KEI suggested that the focus be on a “narrow treaty based on a single right corresponding to the key need of broadcasting organizations for protection from signal piracy.” KEI also questioned and opposed the extension of broadcasters’ rights to cable television and other services which were not only subscription based, but were also protected under theft of service laws. Further confining the scope of the Broadcast Treaty, KEI suggested that the treaty only deal with over the air broadcasts which were free to the public.

A powerful statement by CCIA referred to fixed signals as “fiction” and said that the existing model in the Brussels Satellite Convention was adequate to protect piracy of signals. Echoing the sentiments of various other organisations as well (including CIS as discussed below), CCIA stated that while broadcasters had stated that the present approach was not adequate to protect their interests, no reasons had been offered fir the same. In agreement with other nations as well as TACD before it, CCIA also sought information from WIPO on the “real world impact of the obligations” it intended to create.

Also joining the call for impact assessment was the Third World Network (“TWN”). TWN also spoke of restricting the scope of the Broadcast Treaty to the mandate accorded to the SCCR in line with the 2007 General Assembly decision, the need to base discussing on WIPO’s Development Agenda, and the “negative implications on the free flow of information over the Internet and the negative impact on the public domain and access to knowledge.”

The Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”), in agreement with CCIA pointed out that the broadcasters had not discharged their burden of justifying the need for the Broadcast Treaty and why “international instruments including, among others, the TRIPS and the Rome Convention” were insufficient to address the concerns of broadcasters. Joining other organizations including CCIA, TACD and TWN in a call for a further study, CIS requested an impact assessment of the Broadcast Treaty on all stakeholders. Further, CIS pointed out that if the rationale for seeking this protection was the protection of the underlying investment, IP based transmissions should be out of the scope of this treaty, since the investments involved in IP based transmissions and those in broadcasting in a traditional sense were very different. CIS also strongly opposed the inclusion of fixation and post fixation rights since they were inconsistent with a signals based approach and pointed out the irony in protecting a signal for twenty years, when the signal itself lasted milliseconds.

IFTA, the Independent Film and Television Alliance placed emphasis on the separation of the content and well as the broadcast signal as well maintaining a balance by also safeguarding public interest.

Chair’s Conclusions

After five days of deliberations, the 28^th Session of the SCCR, just like the 27^th Session, ended with no conclusions being adopted by the Committee, as a result of which the Chair’s Conclusions were prepared by the Chair, Martin Moscoso.

Clarifying that this item would be maintained on the agenda for the 29^th Session of the SCCR and that there had been no agreement on recommendations to the WIPO General Assembly, the Chair’s Conclusions state that the Committee conducted discussions on issues relating to “categories of platforms and activities to be included under the object and scope of protection to be granted to broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense, and initiated discussions on definitions.” The Chair’s Conclusions also clarify that “the Secretariat was requested by some Members to provide an update of the 2010 study on “Current Market and Technology Trends in the Broadcasting Sector” (Document SCCR 19/12), focusing on the use of digital technology by cablecasting and broadcasting organizations in the traditional sense whether public or commercial, including in developing countries, with the aim of presenting the results of the study and providing opportunities for technical discussion at the 29th session of the SCCR.”

[1] See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-consolidated-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-1 (last accessed 17 July, 2014), http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-2 (last accessed 17 July, 2014) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-26-session-consolidated-notes-part-3 (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for CIS’ report on the 26^th Session of the Committee.

See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/wipo-sccr-27-discussions-transcripts (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for transcripts of the discussions at the 27 ^th Session of the Committee.

See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-limitations-and-exceptions-education-training-research-institutions-persons-with-other-disabilities (last accessed 17 July, 2014) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-treaty-for-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for CIS’ Statements at the 26^th Session of the Committee.

See http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations (last accessed 17 July, 2014), http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-orphan-works-retracted-withdrawn-works-and-works-out-of-commerce-at-27-sccr-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 17 July, 2014) and http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-on-technological-measures-of-protection-27-sccr-on-limitations-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 17 July, 2014) for CIS’ Statements at the 27^th Session of the Committee.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-28-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations

25th Session of the WIPO SCP: Statement on Future work

rohini — 2016-12-16T23:01:40Z

Rohini Lakshané, attending the 25th session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) held in Geneva from December 12, 2016 to December 15, 2016, made this statement on Agenda Item #12, "Future Work".

Thank you, madam Chair.

On behalf of my organisation, the Centre for Internet and Society, India, I urge future SCPs to include the topics of standards as well as patents in the hardware and software domains. In many developed countries, the mobile phone is the only means of access to the Internet, and in turn, of access to knowledge and information. In a study published this year by CIS, we found that all mobile phone patents in India are owned by non-Indian entities. Like in the case of pharmaceuticals, we believe that a rise in prices should not drive affordable hardware out of the reach of the people. To that effect, I would like to reiterate that the SCP consider including this topic in future meetings.

Thank you, madam Chair.

See the agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/25th-session-of-the-wipo-scp-statement-on-future-work

25th Session of the WIPO SCP: Statement on Assessment of Inventive Step

rohini — 2016-12-16T22:27:03Z

Statement emailed by Rohini Lakshané on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society to the Secretariat for the WIPO Standing Committee for the Law of Patents, Twenty Fifth Session, with reference to agenda item 7, "Sharing session on examples and cases relating to assessment of inventive step including, but not limited to, the topics suggested in document SCP/24/3, paragraph 8.

Based on submissions by various stakeholders, the Indian Patent Office released a new set of guidelines for patent examiners to examine Computer Related Inventions or CRIs, in February 2016. The guidelines, inter alia, introduced a new three-step test, which The Centre for Internet and Society, India, had proposed to the IPO in its submissions. The test determines the applicability of section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, which excludes as inventions "a mathematical or business method or a computer program per se or algorithms".

The three-step test places a restriction on the patenting of software. An invention which merely uses or implements a computer programme is not granted patent on the basis of the inventiveness of the computer programme per se. Only if the contribution of the claim lies in both the computer programme as well as hardware, it would be considered for other steps of patentability. All in all, the new guidelines are in compliance with the legislative requirement for patentability of software.

Innovation in electronic hardware as well as in software is cumulative and often involves building upon previous inventions. Various small and medium enterprises in their submissions had requested a strict standard for patentability of software inventions. We hope that the implementation of these guidelines would enable start-ups and small and medium enterprises to innovate without the fear of patent infringement litigation.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/twenty-fifth-session-of-wipo-scp-statement-on-assessment-of-inventive-step

19th RCEP Meeting

Admin — 2017-08-23T00:57:08Z

Anubha Sinha participated in the 19th RCEP Meeting organized by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India in Hyderabad between July 17 to July 28, 2017.

The 19th round of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Trade Negotiating Committee (TNC) meetings and other related meetings were held from 17 to 28 July 2017 in Hyderabad, India. RCEP is a proposed comprehensive regional economic integration agreement amongst the 10-ASEAN countries (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam) and its six Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) partners, viz. Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, Korea and India.

During the 19th round, parallel meetings were held by the three main Working Groups on Trade in Goods, Trade in Services and Investment, including their respective Sub-Working Groups. Working Groups in other areas like Intellectual Property, electronic commerce, Legal and Institutional Issues etc. also had their meetings.

The Meeting was inaugurated by Ms. Rita Teaotia, Secretary, Department of Commerce, Government of India on 24 July 2017. The Secretary mentioned that it is important that RCEP offers a positive and forward looking alternative in the face of growing protectionism across the world. The Secretary further highlighted that while RCEP is a beacon of hope for free trade, its real success will be measured by its ability to bring prosperity, economic growth, decent living standards, creation of jobs and greater business opportunities for the people of the region, in an equitable manner. The Secretary reiterated the importance of being guided by the Guiding Principles and Objectives for Negotiating the
RCEP, for direction and assessing whether we are pursuing the balanced and commercially meaningful ambition it envisages. She mentioned that keeping this larger picture in view, India is constructively engaged in RCEP and hopes that the 19th RCEP Round in Hyderabad would find innovative ways to provide impetus to the negotiations.

During the 19th round, a set of key elements for significant outcomes, envisaged to be achieved by the end of 2017, were agreed. The Meeting also highlighted the need to have balanced discussions to progress negotiation across all areas, and to continue to deliver outcomes.

During the meeting, all RCEP Participating Countries (RPCs) agreed that a good RCEP agreement has immense potential to deliver on new economic opportunities including job creation that are much needed in today’s world of uncertainty. The Meeting expressed shared commitment to work collectively and in a cooperative manner, to progress the negotiations in an accelerated way, and achieve a modern, comprehensive, high-quality and mutually beneficial agreement that addresses and balances the aspirations and sensitivities of participating countries.

On the sidelines of RCEP, two Stakeholder events – with Business Stakeholders and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), were held to obtain feedback on the expectations and sensitivities of stakeholders from participating Countries. The CSO engagement was held with participation from over 28 international, regional and local CSOs. The RCEP Business Stakeholders’ Consultations were jointly organized by the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) and the East Asia Business Council (EABC).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/19th-rcep-meeting

14 Odia books re-released under Creative Commons license

subha — 2014-05-06T06:26:29Z

This blog entry by Subhashish Panigrahi (originally published in Wikimedia Foundation's Blog) was edited and re-published by Rohini Lakshane in DNA on April 26, 2014.

Read the article published in DNA on April 26, 2014.

Odisha became a separate state in British India on April 1, 1936. Odia, a 2,500 year old language recently gained the status of an Indian classical language. The Odia Wikimedia community celebrated these two occasions on March 29 in Bhubaneswar with a gathering of 70 people. Linguists, scholars and journalists discussed the state of the Odia language in the digital era, initiatives for its development and steps that can be taken to increase accessibility to books and other educational resources. 14 copyrighted books have been re-licensed under the Creative Commons license and the digitization project on Odia WikiSource was formally initiated by an indigenous educational institute, the Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences (KISS). Professor Udayanath Sahu from Utkal University, The Odisha Review’s editor Dr. Lenin Mohanty, Odisha Bhaskar’s editor Pradosh Pattnaik, Odia language researcher Subrat Prusty, Dr. Madan Mohan Sahu, Allhadmohini Mohanty, Chairman Manik-Biswanath Smrutinyasa and trust’s secretary Brajamohan Patnaik along with senior members Sarojkanta Choudhury and Shisira Ranjan Dash spoke at the event.

Eleven books from Odia writer Dr. Jagannath Mohanty were re-released under Creative Commons Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA 3.0) license by the “Manik-Biswanath Smrutinyasa” trust, a trust founded by Dr. Mohanty for the development of the Odia language. Allhadmohini Mohanty formally gave written permission to Odia Wikimedia to release and digitize these books. The community will be training students and a group of six faculty members at KISS who will coordinate the digitization of these books.	Group photo of Odia wikimedians participating in the advanced Wikimedia workshop at KIIT University.

Eleven books from Odia writer Dr. Jagannath Mohanty were re-released under Creative Commons Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA 3.0) license by the “Manik-Biswanath Smrutinyasa” trust, a trust founded by Dr. Mohanty for the development of the Odia language. Allhadmohini Mohanty formally gave written permission to Odia Wikimedia to release and digitize these books.

The community will be training students and a group of six faculty members at KISS who will coordinate the digitization of these books.

Group photo of Odia wikimedians participating in the advanced Wikimedia workshop at KIIT University.

“Collaborative efforts and open access to knowledge repositories will enrich our language and culture,” said linguist Padmashree Dr. Debiprasanna Pattanayak as he inagurated the event. Dr. Pattanayak and Odia language researcher Subrat Prusty from the Institute of Odia Studies and Research also re-licensed three books (Two Odia books; “Bhasa O Jatiyata“, “Jati, Jagruti O Pragati” and an English book “Classical Odia”) based on their research on Odia language and cultural influence of the language on other societies under the same license. KISS is going to digitize some of these books and make them available on Odia Wikisource.

An OpenType Odia Unicode font, “Odia OT Jagannatha” designed by Sujata Patel from Odialanguage.com was released under the OFL license. This is the first Odia OpenType font that the community actively tested. A new Odia offline input tool called “TypeOdia” by Wikipedian Manoj Sahukar was also released for public distribution. DVDs containing the font, the input tool, Odia language dictionaries, offline Odia Wikipedia in Kiwix, Wikipedia editing guide, ISCII to Unicode font converter, various free and open source software packages and Ubuntu operating system.

Active Odia Wikipedian and Admin Mrutyunjaya Kar gave the inaugural speech. Subhashish Panigrahi from the Center for Internet and Society read the annual report and vision of Odia Wikipedia. Chief guest Dr. Debiprasanna Pattanayak discussed about the efforts put forth that brought the Odia language as the sixth Indian classical language. A large majority of Odia publications are not available on the internet and readers are devoid of easy accessibility. He further discussed the process of digitization for preserving valuable books that are out of print and the old palm leaf manuscripts. Professor Udayanath Sahu presented on the process, progress and implementation of machine translation project in Utkal University.

Experienced Wikimedians conducted an advanced Wikipedia workshop on the second day of event at KIIT University, Bhubaneswar. It was attended by a majority of the existing Wikimedians from the community including new Wikipedians who signed up for the Odia Wikipedia Education Program at the Indian Institute of Mass Communication, Dhenkanal. Mrutyunjaya Kar presented on WikiData and various tools for linking and accessing information in multiple languages on various Wikimedia projects.

	Experienced Wikimedians conducted an advanced Wikipedia workshop on the second day of event at KIIT University, Bhubaneswar. It was attended by a majority of the existing Wikimedians from the community including new Wikipedians who signed up for the Odia Wikipedia Education Program at the Indian Institute of Mass Communication, Dhenkanal. Mrutyunjaya Kar presented on WikiData and various tools for linking and accessing information in multiple languages on various Wikimedia projects.

Ansuman Giri discussed advanced technical aspects such as the use of various gadgets, proper categorization, how to use subpages, how to auto-list archive pages, customizing WikiLove feature, user rights modification, including how important it is to cite biographies of living persons with secondary sources, etc. Shitikantha Dash discussed copyright and issues regarding uploading images and other media files on Wikimedia Commons.

Dr. Subas Chandra Rout presented on “notability, referencing and creating citations for the notable topics.” Subhashish Panigrahi discussed the work plan for the year, failure of program projects, collective learning and the dos and don’ts of community building.


“	We hope that more authors will come forward and re-release their books under CC-BY-SA license. The Odia community is excited to see or.wikisource.org go live. A few Wikipedians are even interested in typing their favorite free licensed books to make them available on Wikisource. I believe it’ll be challenging to train the KISS students to type and proof-read the written texts. In the CISA2K’s draft plan, the goal to have the number of editors seems overestimated. The students need to have some knowledge about Wikimedia and how it works in general before they start working. We hope that the books will be digitized properly and in coming days more users will join us in the process as we will have more free books in Odia Wikisource. I appeal to the Odia people to be a part of the Odia Wikimedia community and make Odia Wikisource a successful project, we need all the time you can devote. :-)	”
Ansuman Giri, Odia Wikipedian

Copyright notes: "A group photo of Odia wikipedians at kiit conference hall on 30th march 2014.jpg", "Odia wikipedian mrutyunjaya kar and ansuman giri on 30the march 2014.jpg" by Jnanaranjan Sahu , under CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported, from Wikimedia Commons, "Release of DVD containing Odia font, open source tools and Offline Odia Wikipedia.jpg" by Ahemadullah Shaikh , under CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported, from Wikimedia Commons.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dna-rohini-lakshane-april-26-2014-14-books-re-released-under-creative-commons-license

11th Century Kannada Literature Now on Wikisource

subha — 2014-04-06T05:01:14Z

This blog post by Pavithra Hanchagaiah and Omshivaprakash HI was edited by Rohini Lakshane for DNA. It was first edited by Subhashish Panigrahi, CIS-A2K on the Wikimedia Foundation blog where it was first published.

Click to read the post republished on DNA on March 30, 2014. The original posted on Wikimedia Blog can be seen here.

In Kannada poetry, Vachana Sahitya is a form of rhythmic writing that evolved in the eleventh century and flourished in the twelevth, as a part of the “Lingayatha” movement. More than 259 Vachanakaras (Vachana writers) have compiled over 11,000 vachanas. 21,000 of these verses, which were published in the 15-volume “Samagra Vachana Samputa” by the government of Karnataka have been digitised. Two Wikimedians, along with a Kannada linguist and author O. L. Nagabhushana Swamy, are involved in the Unicode conversions, corrections and writing preface for these verses. The entire work is now available as a standalone project called “Vachana Sanchaya” and ready to enrich Kannada Wikisource.

This project was started a year ago when Kannada Wikimedian Omshivaprakash was trying to help Professor O.L. Naghabhushana Swamy and Kannada author and publisher Vasudhendra access the vachana (verses) of Vachana Sanchaya. Swamy had trouble using publicly available content on Vachanas since the data was in ASCII standard and searching the text was a huge problem. I (Pavithra Hanchagaiah) started to help gather information about vachanas and document it in Unicode by writing scripts for open source software. Further discussions were made to get thousands of vachanas in the form of a database, so that they could be made easily searchable with an index. This demanded that we build a platform supporting all these activities, which would help the linguistic researchers, students and members of the general public who have an interest in reading and studying Vachana literature. With this idea, Omshivaprakash started designing the model, and his colleague Devaraju started building it. In the meantime I was running various scripts to fix errors in conversion of ASCII text to Unicode, confirming that the data was ready to consume by the modules developed for concordance. We spent weekends and holidays executing this project from home. With the constant feedback and guidance from Mr Swamy and Vasudendra, we learnt how concordance of text is used by researchers and what would make it easier for them to research on Vachana Sahitya. Omshivaprakash worked on the architecture of the platform, decided the infrastructure requirements – free and open source software technologies were used to keep the platform active while managing the entire project. I provided critical hacks for digitization and gave feedback through suggestions.

Working System

Currently, the system has around 200,000 unique words in its repository. Vachana Sanchaya is meant for research rather than just a repository of text on the web. While you search the words on our system, you can see who has used the word in all Vachanas. To make the research more readable, we highlight the text searched in each Vachana that would be displayed. To repeat the search for a specific Vachanakara (poet) you just need to click on his name on the graph on the results page. We have used MediaWiki’s jquery-ime input tool architecture that helped us provide a feature to directly enter Kannada text in Unicode for searches. So just type, and get results!

Public Response

We are glad to see people accessing vachanas from our Facebook, Twitter and Google+ channels. There have been approximately 500,000 pageviews to our site in the first few months of our platform’s public launch. Interestingly, commonly searched Kannada words like “ಕರ್ಮ”(Karma en:Work/Deed) , “ಸತ್ಯ” (Sathya -en:Truthfulness ) and “ನದಿ” (River) have resulted in quick and easy results.

Plans for the Future

Our system is extensible with respect to adding new feature – we have a review desk for researchers to help us with the review of content. Later we will also be adding required references to Vachanas from various research works that have been done around this literature. The content is available to the public through OpenData API and will be distributed as public domain through Wikisource once the review work is complete. This will open up the system for students, developers, researchers and anyone interested in working around building linguistic tools for Kannada and other Indic languages. This system is meant to evolves around other works rather than having to change and re-invent the wheel for more such projects. Vachana Sahitya will further help us to initiate Natural Language Processing (NLP) projects if more researchers get together to tag the words, glossary etc in the coming days. We can also fulfill the need of various language tools like spelling and grammar checker for users through crowd-sourcing the development. The next projects under the “Kannada Sanchaya” are Sarvagnana Vachanagalu and Dāsa Sanchaya which are in the pipeline with initial phases of work underway. Our idea is to extend this platform from Vyasa to Muddanna and possibly the contemporary literature work available in the public domain.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dna-march-30-2014-rohini-lakshane-11th-century-kannada-literature-now-on-wikisource

10th anniversary of Kannada wikipedia

praskrishna — 2013-11-20T09:03:30Z

Kannada wikipedia is celebrating its 10th anniversary on November 17.

The article by ND Shiva Kumar was published in the Times of India on November 15, 2013. Dr. U.B. Pavanaja is quoted.

Kannada wikipedia has 15,369 articles (as of September 2013) and attracts 14 lakh visitors a month. It undergoes 2,000 edits a month.

The wikipedia boom among the Indian languages started in 2003. Initially, the growth was very slow and it reached 1,000 articles only by 2006. Even today, the situation isn't great.

Among the Indian languages, Hindi tops the list with one lakh articles, Tamil has 56,000, Telugu 53,000 and Marathi 40,000. Kannada is ahead of only Oriya and Punjabi.

Kannada has a total of 400 editors, of which 41 are active and 7 very active. The two highest contributors are non-techies and they are around 80 years - H R Lakshmivenkatesh from Mumbai and B S Chandrashekar from Sagar.

Wikipedian U B Pavanaja says it has gained momentum recently and the future looks bright.

The 10th anniversary programme on November 17 will be held from 9.30 am to 1.30 pm at H N Multimedia Hall, National College, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. Guests of honour will be Dr U R Ananthamurthy and Prof G Venkatasubbaiah.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-times-of-india-november-15-2013-nd-shiva-kumar-tenth-anniversary-of-kannada-wikipedia

8th IBA International Conference

praskrishna — 2016-04-04T15:32:54Z

The 8th IBA International Conference was organized by Indus Business Academy in Bengaluru from March 24 to 26, 2016. The theme of the conference was Taking India to Greater Heights. Dr. U.B. Pavanaja gave a talk on Democratizing of Knowledge Access- Case of Regional Language Wikipedia.

India’s journey since independence has been eventful. The long struggle against colonialism left Indian private capital in a poor state. The Government intervention was essential and hence there was a need for the public sector. Experiments with socialism and national planning turned out to be a mixed success. The 1991 crisis propelled India towards a market driven economy. Politically, its unpopularity reverted India to a state of socialism once again. The 2014 elections have renewed interest in a market driven economy.

Indian achievements have been sizable. The successful Mars Mission, Agni mission, Green Revolution, White Revolution, IT industry growth all demonstrate the positive achievements that India has made in the last 60 odd years. In recent months, across the world, there is a renewed interest in India.

Yet we can hardly be complacent. The lowering oil prices, conflict in the Middle East, slowdown in Chinese economy, fears of Russian expansionism, decline in European growth, concerns about the state of US economy and rising trends in terrorism have created turbulence across different parts of the world. India cannot be immune to these changes.

India’s response can manifest itself in multiple forms. There could be rapid expansion of defence procurement and preparedness both on external as well as internal fronts. It could involve building alliances with countries aligned strategically to Indi’s interests.

It could manifest through the rapid growth of manufacturing sector. The services sector could move higher in the value chain. The spillovers generated by the establishment of industries could spawn a major entrepreneurial ecosystem.

With the UN approval to celebrate International Yoga Day, India’s soft spiritual power is also rising in the horizon. Indian philosophical and ideological thoughts are getting renewed interest across different parts of the world. Indian talent, youth demographics etc. have literally placed India on the centre stage. No doubt, exciting times are ahead.

This Conference aims to deliberate on such changes and suggest ways and means to leverage this growing interest in India and identify the new perspectives emerging in Business, Management, Leadership and Consciousness as a result of these changes.

The schedule for 8th IBA International Conference can be accessed here. More info on the event here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/8th-iba-international-conference

8 Challenges In Growing Indian-Language Wikipedias

praskrishna — 2016-06-18T17:11:05Z

While speaking at BHASHA: Indian Languages Digital Festival, a day-long discourse at New Delhi on Indian languages and their state in new media, especially digital platforms, I touched upon Wikipedia in Indian languages. Most people, in fact, do not even know that Wikipedia exists in many Indian languages.

The article was first published in Huffington Post on March 19, 2016. This was cross-posted in Medianama titled as Multiple key factors preventing Indic Wikipedia growth on March 21, 2016.

I personally did not know about the Odia Wikipedia until 2011 when a friend told me about its existence. Back then the project was completely inactive. And then a couple of friends and I started contributing, and the project grew to what it is today. The site now has more than 300,000 visitors every month and it is the most-visited Odia language site on the internet. Other languages, I believe, could follow a similar trajectory on Wikipedia, but there are several challenges along the way.

Many people do not even know how to search for information online in their own language, typed in its script.

1. Ignorance of language communities

Many people do not even know how to search for information online in their own language, typed in its script. Some even share that because Google's home page does not have their script it means that their language does not exist on the internet. This ignorance perpetuates the gap.

2.Wikipedia's editor community

Wikipedia, as you all know, is written and edited by people like you and me who volunteer their efforts. Many people probably do not know or do not try to learn that they themselves can correct the mistakes and inaccuracies that exist in many Wikipedia articles and become editors. The Wikipedia editor communities for several Indian languages are really small. When these languages are spoken by millions of people, only a handful of editors contribute in editing the Wikipedia in these languages.

3.Language input in computers

A vast majority of people in this country do not know how to type in their own language. There is also little documentation for users to learn about language input. Even though many government-run schools in India are seeing more computers and internet, native language input is not widely. However, there is a lot of free software for language input and the challenges of typing in Indian language that existed a few years back have almost gone. You just have to look for the right tools.

4. Language input in mobile devices

With over 1 billion people with mobile phones, the 15% internet penetration rate will soon grow. This in turn will help a lot many Indians to get access to the internet. If these people are not educated about native language input then they will be unnecessarily constricted by the English-centric internet. Many Indians that have smartphones need inbuilt input methods to be able to contribute in their own language Wikipedia.

Many Indians that have smartphones need inbuilt input methods to be able to contribute in their own language Wikipedia.

5. Low availability of Indian-language content on the Internet

Lack of native language content on the Internet bars many from accessing knowledge. As per the Internet and Mobile Association of India survey conducted in 2012, over 6% of the population is deterred from going online because of lack of content in their languages. Take the example of my state. When the Kerala government's official tourism portal is available in Odia and other Indian languages, the Odisha government's tourism portal has no information in Odia language today. Our languages are neglected in our own states.

6. Mismatch of conventional and new media

Many conventional media houses still use non-standard variants of ASCII/ISCII script encoding systems instead of adopting the Unicode standard. Unicode being a global standard and having the advantage of unifying the world has been available for Indian languages for about 25 years now. But many of our traditional media have failed to adopt this. Many popular Indian-language newspapers are yet to become available in Unicode.

7. Lack of open access

Most of the information produced on the internet in general and by the government, in particular, is copyrighted. The paywalled garden of copyright restrictions keeps the information closed and stops people from sharing and learning more. On the contrary, Wikipedia is available under a Creative Commons Share-Alike license which allows anyone to make use of the content and even distribute commercial copies of it. The idea of opening up information for the masses in a free license could make the information reach millions of people.

Many conventional media houses still use non-standard variants of ASCII/ISCII script encoding systems instead of adopting the Unicode standard.

8. People with disabilities

Many people cannot read, speak and write. India has over 60 million people with hearing impairment. There is a need for a good quality text-to-speech and speech-to-text engine for people with physical disabilities. Also, these software products have to be free so that common people who cannot afford to buy expensive proprietary software like JAWS can contribute to Wikipedia in their language. Many text-to-speech engines that are available today for Indian languages sound so mechanical that it is tough for common speakers to use them.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/huffington-post-march-19-2016-subhashish-panigrahi-8-challenges-in-growing-indian-language-wikipedias

8 Challenges for Improving Indian Language Wikipedias

subha — 2016-03-29T17:05:15Z

After more than 10 years in existence, the Indian-language Wikipedias still are not known to many Indian language speakers. Wikipedia became the largest encyclopedia in history as a result of thousands of volunteer editors.

The article was originally published in the Wire on March 17, 2016 and later mirrored on Opensource.com on March 28, 2016.

Whereas native-language Wikipedias are becoming game changers in other corners of the world, the scenario in India is skewed. While speaking at the "BHASHA: Indian Languages Digital Festival," a day-long discourse at New Delhi on Indian languages and their state in the new media (especially on the digital platforms), I shared challenges that Indian language Wikipedias are facing.

1. Language communities

Many native Indian language speakers do not know how to search online using language typed in their script. Because Google's home page does not display their language script as an option, people often think that their language does not exist on the Internet. Google now has nine Indian languages. But this does not stop a Santali or Manipuri speaker from searching in Unicode Ol chiki (script for Santali) or in Unicode Meithei (script for Manipuri). Google and other search engines will display content in any script on the Internet, but not knowing this keeps many people off the Internet, which also means off of Wikipedia.

2. Wikipedia's editor community

Wikipedia is created by people like you and me. From writing to editing, everything happens voluntarily. Many people do not understand that they can correct mistakes and help improve Wikipedia articles. The Wikipedia editor communities for several Indian languages are really small. Although these languages are spoken by millions of people, only a handful of editors contribute in editing the Wikipedia in these languages. As of January 2016, the Hindi Wikipedia had only 89 editors, whereas Hindi falls right behind English on the list of top languages by number of native speakers.

3. Language input in computer

A majority of people in India do not know how to type in their own language. Also, there is little documentation for users to learn about language input. Even though many government-run schools in India are seeing more computers and have Internet access, native language input and several other basic computer training are not widely taught in schools in all states. Free software for language input is available, and the challenges of typing in Indian languages (PDF) that existed in the past are mostly resolved.

4. Language input in mobile devices

With more than 1 billion people in India (PDF) with mobile phones, the 15% Internet penetration rate will soon grow at a faster pace. This growth and tough competition is compelling telecom service providers to drop data charges, which will help more Indians get access to the Internet. If these people are not educated about native language input, then they will be stuck inside an English-centric Internet rather than being able to navigate in their own languages. Many Indians who have smartphones need full Indian language support—and especially built-in input methods—to contribute in their own language Wikipedia.

5. Low availability of Indian-language content on the Internet

Lack of native language content on the Internet is a barrier to accessing knowledge. For example, let's look at my state Odisha. The Kerala (Indian state) government's official tourism portal is available in Odia and other Indian languages, but the Odisha government's tourism portal has no information in the Odia language today. Our languages are largely neglected in our own states.

6. Mismatch of conventional and new media

Many conventional media houses still use non-standard variants of ASCII/ISCII script encoding systems instead of adopting the Unicode standard. As a global standard, Unicode can help unify the world and has been available for Indian languages for almost 25 years. But many of our print media have failed to adopt this, and many popular Indian-language newspapers still aren't available in Unicode.

7. Lack of open access

Much information online, including content created by the government, is under copyright licensing. The pay-wall gardens and copyright restrictions keep information closed and prevents people from sharing content. Wikipedia content, on the other hand, is available under Creative Commons Share-Alike licensing, which allows anyone to use the content (and even distribute commercial copies of it). The idea of opening up content under free licenses can help information reach countless additional people.

8. Accessibility

India has more than 60-million people with hearing impairments. Many people with physical disabilities need good text-to-speech and speech-to-text engines. And these software solutions must be free, so that anyone, regardless of their finances, can contribute to Wikipedia in their own languages.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/open-source-march-28-2016-subhashish-panigrahi-8-challenges-for-improving-indian-language-wikipedias

7th Emerging Markets Finance Conference

praskrishna — 2016-12-17T00:51:00Z

Anubha Sinha participated as a panelist in the "Intellectual Property, Copyright and Patent Finance" session in Mumbai on December 15, 2016. The event was organized by Finance Research Group in association with Vanderbilt Law School.

Programme Committee

N. Prabhala, Centre For Advanced Financial Research And Learning
Tarun Ramadorai, Imperial College London
Subrata Sarkar, IGIDR
Ajay Shah, National Institute for Public Finance and Policy
Avanidhar Subramanyam, University of California, Los Angeles
Ram Thirumalai, Indian School of Business
Susan Thomas, IGIDR
Pradeep Yadav, University of Oklahoma, Business School
Yesha Yadav, Vanderbilt Law School

For more info and the agenda click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/7th-emerging-markets-finance-conference

6th Annual International Conference on Law & Policy issues "68th Constitution Day"

Admin — 2017-11-27T13:53:07Z

Anubha Sinha attended the 68th Constitution Day on November 25, 2017 at Shangri-La's Eros. Indian National Bar Association in association with “Make in India” organized this event.

Download the brochure

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/6th-annual-international-conference-on-law-policy-issues-68th-constitution-day

5th Global Congress On IP And The Public Interest: Successes, Strategies Highlighted

Admin — 2018-10-31T01:57:59Z

More than 400 activists, academics and practitioners from over 50 countries gathered at this year’s Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, according to organisers.

The story by David Branigan was published in Intellectual Property Watch on October 3, 2018.

At the Congress, participants shared success stories, developed strategies, and engaged in critical dialogue to re-think and re-invent intellectual property systems that serve the public interest.

The 5th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and The Public Interest was hosted by American University Washington College of Law in Washington, DC from 27-29 September. The core goal of the Congress, according to the website, is “to promote evidence-based policy-making by fostering partnerships between academics and policy advocates from around the world.”

The Congress featured three concurrent, but interconnected, tracks centred around copyright user rights, access to medicines, and trade. A list of the many panels, workshops and other events of the Congress can be found in the event agenda.

Key themes that emerged from the plenary sessions of the Congress include the need to take a critical look at the association between intellectual property and development, the important roles that both IP activism and academic research play in shifting practice, and the complex tension between pursuing incremental IP reform in the short-term, while envisioning and building toward IP system change in the long-term.

Participants were asked by organisers to contribute statements and to vote in an online poll to chart and map participant perspectives at this year’s Congress. The interactive results of the poll can be viewed here.

Access to Medicines Track

Intellectual Property Watch followed the access to medicines track throughout the Congress, to develop a broad picture of the persistent challenges and new strategies in this field, and to identify key initiatives to feature in the coming months. Below are some of the themes that emerged over the course of the sessions, along with key highlights.

Compulsory Licensing

Some participants highlighted their countries’ use of compulsory licensing to reduce drug prices and to maximise health budget capacity, with notable examples from Ecuador, Chile and Malaysia. Participants identified that many other countries, however, are not taking full advantage of these flexibilities, which can be partly attributable to a lack of awareness regarding these flexibilities, and a lack of systems to employ them. They noted that this is often compounded by IP-centric technical assistance that frames strong IP systems as necessary for development. Many participants argued that compulsory licensing, along with other intellectual property flexibilities, should be fully normalised, and that IP law should be structured to maximize the use of these flexibilities, rather than treat them as exceptions. Some also argued for the institution of international or regional coordination mechanisms for compulsory licensing.

Competition Law

Many participants, representing activist organisations working for access to medicines, noted that their campaigns were largely focused on the price of a particular drug in a particular country. Pursuing access to medicines on such a piecemeal basis, they explained, does not produce sustainable change within the IP system itself. This, they noted, is a similar challenge faced when issuing compulsory licences. Participants explained that pursuing strategies based in competition law could perhaps offer a more sustainable solution to address excessive pricing across a range of drugs. This strategy, they explained, could move forward key legal reforms to systemically challenge pharmaceutical monopolies and bring about more competitive drug pricing.

Innovation

According to participants, the term innovation infers a particular narrative, similar to “intellectual property,” and has been used by industry to justify the pharmaceutical patent system. One participant explained that patents are currently being granted on the basis of utility, rather than real inventiveness. He explained that the term innovation has come to represent the industry-led process of shaping markets and cycles of consumption, and that therefore, we need to reconsider our use of the term.

Research and Development

Many participants highlighted the dysfunction of the current monopoly incentive system for pharmaceutical research and development, and advocated for other systems such as delinking the price of pharmaceuticals from the cost of research and development and the volume of sales. Others highlighted examples of how drugs for neglected diseases can be developed and manufactured without intellectual property incentives, and still others how drug licences can be efficiently pooled to facilitate widespread generic drug production. Another participant further illustrated the dysfunction of the current system, noting that much of the research and development of patented pharmaceuticals was publicly funded, and that there needs to be greater public accountability in drug pricing.

Medicines as Non-Patentable

One important perspective, expressed by participants across tracks, is simply that medicines should be non-patentable and accessible to all people, without restriction.

Intellectual Property Watch will feature some of the key access to medicines initiatives highlighted at the Congress in greater depth and detail in the coming months.

Background of the Global Congress

The First Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest was held in 2011 at American University Washington College of Law in Washington, DC, and the specific policy goals of the Congress were summarized in the 2011 Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest.

The Congress was subsequently hosted in 2012 by Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade of FGV Direito, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 2013 by University of Cape Town IP Unit, in Cape Town, South Africa, and in 2015 by the Centre for Internet and Society, in New Delhi, India. Intellectual Property Watch has attended them all.

More background information on the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest can be found at infojustice.org.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/5th-global-congress-on-ip-and-the-public-interest-successes-strategies-highlighted

5th Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest

Admin — 2018-10-02T03:01:50Z

Sunil Abraham, Anubha Sinha and Swaraj Paul Barooah attended the Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, in Washington DC, from September 24 - 29, 2018. The event was co-organized by PublicCitizen, Washington College of Law, American University, O'Neill Institute and the American Assembly, Columbia University.

CIS participated in several of the sessions spread over the 5 days:

Anubha Sinha attended the pre-Congress trainings on Users' Rights, and Internet and Trade on September 24 and 25, 2018.
Sunil Abraham and Anubha Sinha attended a WIPO SCCR Strategy meeting organised by Knowledge Ecology International, DC.
Swaraj Paul Barooah made a presentation at the Microsoft Panel Event titled "Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence" held at the Microsoft Innovation and Policy Centre. His co-panelists were Pam Samuelson (Berkeley Law), Niva Elkin-Koren (Uni of Haifa) and Pedro Mizukami (Founder of Centro, Brazil). The session was moderated by Mike Carroll and Christine Farley (both of American University).
Anubha Sinha and Sunil Abraham along with Jorge Contreras (University of Utah), spoke on the panel titled "Fueling the Affordable Smartphone Revolution in India" where they presented work on the PT project.
CIS signed on as supporting members to the Civil Society Proposal for a Treaty on Education and Research Activities (TERA) which was formally finalized and made ready for organizational and individual endorsements. The treaty can be viewed here.

For more info on the sessions click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/5th-global-congress-on-ip-and-the-public-interest