Centre for Internet and Society

IP Meetup #02: Prabir Purkayastha on the CRI Guidelines and software patenting in India

sinha — 2016-03-29T17:06:13Z

Prabir Purkayastha will deliver a short talk on what the Guidelines on Computer Related Inventions mean for software patenting, and the way forward, on Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at the CIS Delhi office, at 4 p.m.

We would like to invite you to the second session of a series of IP focused meetups. The meetups are aimed at bringing folks together working within or interested in IP law, to discuss recent developments with reference to access to knowledge, climate change, health, trade, etc.

The talk will be followed by a round of discussion, after which the floor will be thrown open for other pressing/relevant IP developments.

Please join us for tea and refreshments at 3.30 pm.

Please RSVP by dropping a line at anubha@cis-india.org.

CIS Delhi's location on Google Maps: https://goo.gl/maps/nPKkoQFhRSt

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/ip-meetup-02-prabir-purkayastha-on-the-cri-guidelines-and-software-patenting-in-india

IP Meetup #01: Prof. Biswajit Dhar on 'Intellectual Property issues: The Way Forward post Nairobi WTO Ministerial'

sinha — 2016-02-04T13:25:34Z

Prof. Biswajit Dhar will deliver a short talk on what the WTO Nairobi Ministerial means for intellectual property issues, and the way forward, on Sunday, February 7, 2016 at the Centre for Internet & Society's Delhi office, at 4 p.m.

We would like to invite you to the inaugural session of a series of IP focused meetups. The meetups are aimed at bringing folks together working within or interested in IP law, to discuss recent developments with reference to access to knowledge, climate change, health, trade, etc.

The talk will be followed by a round of discussion, after which the floor will be thrown open for other pressing/relevant IP developments.

Please join us for tea and refreshments at 3.30 pm.

Please RSVP by dropping a line at anubha@cis-india.org.

CIS Delhi's location on Google Maps: https://goo.gl/maps/nPKkoQFhRSt

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/ip-meetup-01-prof-biswajit-dhar-on-intellectual-property-issues-the-way-forward-post-nairobi-wto-ministerial

Invisible Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen

pranesh — 2012-01-04T08:59:14Z

The Indian government wants to censor the Internet without being seen to be censoring the Internet. This article by Pranesh Prakash shows how the government has been able to achieve this through the Information Technology Act and the Intermediary Guidelines Rules it passed in April 2011. It now wants methods of censorship that leave even fewer traces, which is why Mr. Kapil Sibal, Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology talks of Internet 'self-regulation', and has brought about an amendment of the Copyright Act that requires instant removal of content.

Power of the Internet and Freedom of Expression

The Internet, as anyone who has ever experienced the wonder of going online would know, is a very different communications platform from any that has existed before. It is the one medium where anybody can directly share their thoughts with billions of other people in an instant. People who would never have any chance of being published in a newspaper now have the opportunity to have a blog and provide their thoughts to the world. This also means that thoughts that many newspapers would decide not to publish can be published online since the Web does not, and more importantly cannot, have any editors to filter content. For many dictatorships, the right of people to freely express their thoughts is something that must be heavily regulated. Unfortunately, we are now faced with the situation where some democratic countries are also trying to do so by censoring the Internet.

Intermediary Guidelines Rules

In India, the new 'Intermediary Guidelines' Rules and the Cyber Cafe Rules that have been in effect since April 2011 give not only the government, but all citizens of India, great powers to censor the Internet. These rules, which were made by the Department of Information Technology and not by the Parliament, require that all intermediaries remove content that is 'disparaging', 'relating to... gambling', 'harm minors in any way', to which the user 'does not have rights'. When was the last time you checked wither you had 'rights' to a joke before forwarding it? Did you share a Twitter message containing the term "#IdiotKapilSibal", as thousands of people did a few days ago? Well, that is 'disparaging', and Twitter is required by the new law to block all such content. The government of Sikkim can run advertisements for its PlayWin lottery in newspapers, but under the new law it cannot do so online. As you can see, through these ridiculous examples, the Intermediary Guidelines are very badly thought-out and their drafting is even worse. Worst of all, they are unconstitutional, as they put limits on freedom of speech that contravene Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution, and do so in a manner that lacks any semblance of due process and fairness.

Excessive Censoring by Internet Companies

We, at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, decided to test the censorship powers of the new rules by sending frivolous complaints to a number of intermediaries. Six out of seven intermediaries removed content, including search results listings, on the basis of the most ridiculous complaints. The people whose content was removed were not told, nor was the general public informed that the content was removed. If we hadn't kept track, it would be as though that content never existed. Such censorship existed during Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union. Not even during the Emergency has such censorship ever existed in India. Yet, not only was what the Internet companies did legal under the Intermediary Guideline Rules, but if they had not, they could have been punished for content put up by someone else. That is like punishing the post office for the harmful letters that people may send over post.

Government Has Powers to Censor and Already Censors

Currently, the government can either block content by using section 69A of the Information Technology Act (which can be revealed using RTI), or it has to send requests to the Internet companies to get content removed. Google has released statistics of government request for content removal as part of its Transparency Report. While Mr. Sibal uses the examples of communally sensitive material as a reason to force censorship of the Internet, out of the 358 items requested to be removed from January 2011 to June 2011 from Google service by the Indian government (including state governments), only 8 were for hate speech and only 1 was for national security. Instead, 255 items (71 per cent of all requests) were asked to be removed for 'government criticism'. Google, despite the government in India not having the powers to ban government criticism due to the Constitution, complied in 51 per cent of all requests. That means they removed many instances of government criticism as well.

'Self-Regulation': Undetectable Censorship

Mr. Sibal's more recent efforts at forcing major Internet companies such as Indiatimes, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, to 'self-regulate' reveals a desire to gain ever greater powers to bypass the IT Act when censoring Internet content that is 'objectionable' (to the government). Mr. Sibal also wants to avoid embarrassing statistics such as that revealed by Google's Transparency Report. He wants Internet companies to 'self-regulate' user-uploaded content, so that the government would never have to send these requests for removal in the first place, nor block sites officially using the IT Act. If the government was indeed sincere about its motives, it would not be talking about 'transparency' and 'dialogue' only after it was exposed in the press that the Department of Information Technology was holding secret talks with Internet companies. Given the clandestine manner in which it sought to bring about these new censorship measures, the motives of the government are suspect. Yet, both Mr. Sibal and Mr. Sachin Pilot have been insisting that the government has no plans of Internet censorship, and Mr. Pilot has made that statement officially in the Lok Sabha. This, thus seems to be an instance of censoring without censorship.

Backdoor Censorship through Copyright Act

Further, since the government cannot bring about censorship laws in a straightforward manner, they are trying to do so surreptitiously, through the back door. Mr. Sibal's latest proposed amendment to the Copyright Act, which is before the Rajya Sabha right now, has a provision called section 52(1)(c) by which anyone can send a notice complaining about infringement of his copyright. The Internet company will have to remove the content immediately without question, even if the notice is false or malicious. The sender of false or malicious notices is not penalized. But the Internet company will be penalized if it doesn't remove the content that has been complained about. The complaint need not even be shown to be true before the content is removed. Indeed, anyone can complain about any content, without even having to show that they own the rights to that content. The government seems to be keen to have the power to remove content from the Internet without following any 'due process' or fair procedure. Indeed, it not only wants to give itself this power, but it is keen on giving all individuals this power.

It's ultimate effect will be the death of the Internet as we know it. Bid adieu to it while there is still time.

The article was translated to Marathi and featured in Lokmat

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship

International Workshop on the Impact of the TRIPS Agreement on key sectors and its continuing relevance in the context of Regional and Bilateral Trading Agreements

praskrishna — 2015-10-28T02:57:33Z

On the occasion of 20 years of TRIPS Agreement, Centre for WTO Studies and Indian Institute of Foreign Trade is holding a workshop at Naland, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi on October 26 and 27, 2015. Pranesh Prakash is a speaker in the concluding session.

26^th October 2015 (Monday)
1000-1030 hrs	Registration
1030-1100 hrs 1030-1035hrs 1035-1045 hrs 1045-1055 hrs 1055-1100 hrs	Inaugural Session Welcome Remarks by Prof. Abhijit Das, Professor & Head, Centre for WTO Studies, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade Remarks by Dr. V. Bhaskar, Former Special Chief Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh and Joint Secretary Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India Inaugural Address by Shri Rajeev Kher, Former Commerce Secretary* Vote of Thanks by Ms Chandni Raina, Professor, Centre for WTO Studies, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade
1100-1130 hrs Tea
1130-1330 hrs	Session 1 Implementation of the TRIPS Agreement by developing countries and the growth of the Regional and Bilateral Trading Agreement The TRIPS Agreement placed on the developing countries onerous commitments with respect to protection of IPRs leading to a complete overhaul of their legislations. In the process more than half of the LDCs implemented their obligations under TRIPS even before the timelines set for them for compliance. Many developing countries have moved beyond TRIPS in their legal regimes. At the same time, further tightening of the regime as part of the FTA commitments is also a concern. The session discusses the manner in which countries met their commitments under TRIPS and the pulls and pressure that led to the TRIPS plus positions adopted by many. The plethora of FTAs and BITs has set additional commitments. The lessons learnt from recent arbitration proceeding and the positions adopted by countries such as South Africa, Indonesia, Thailand and India need to be examined. In the context of increasing pressure to harmonize enforcement standards, the reasonableness of this given the differing domestic priorities and developmental goals also needs to be studied. Questions for discussion: What were the pulls and pressures faced by the developing countries as they sought to comply with the TRIPS Agreement? Have the developing countries largely accepted TRIPS Plus commitments in their IPR regimes including on crucial issues such as public health and enforcement? What are the areas in which the FTA and RTAs are further enhancing protection? Are the developed countries seeking commitments that are even beyond the protection provided in their own jurisdiction? What are the various mechanisms of influence exercised by the developed countries? Chair: Shri Jayant Dasgupta, Former Permanent Representative of India to the WTO Speakers: Prof. Peter Drahos, Australian National University Prof Carlos Correa, University of Buenos Aries Prof Frederick Abbott, Florida State University Shri R. Saha, Senior Advisor, Confederation of Indian Industry Shri KM Gopa Kumar, Third World Network
1330-1430 hrs	Lunch
1430-1630 hrs	Session 2 IP and Economic Development The reasonableness of high level IPR protection is often explained in the context of the beneficent impact it has on economic growth and development. The session will examine the strength, if any, of this correlation. Is the level of IP protection alone responsible for higher growth? What are the preconditions if any and empirical evidence on the level of development when this correlation really sets in? An important factor in development is the ability of countries to access technology and knowhow. What has been the experience of the developing countries in getting new technology? The session will discuss cross country studies with a view to gain clarity on this issue. Questions for discussion: Most developed countries have benefitted from fairly lax IPR regime, but the argument being given now for a high level of IPR protection is the beneficent impact it is likely to have on economic growth. Are the developed countries seeking to ‘kick away the ladder’ with which they climbed up to the top? Or is there a basis for the argument extended by them? What is the empirical evidence of the correlation of enhanced IPR protection on economic growth and development of a country? How important is IPR as a factor in economic growth? What is the evidence on the extent of technology transfer from the developed to the developing countries in the past two decade? Chair: Shri Sudhansh Pant, Joint Secretary, Department of Pharmaceuticals, Government of India Speakers: Prof. Peter Drahos, Australian National University Prof Sunil Mani, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram Prof Sunil Kanwar, Delhi School of Economics, Delhi University Mr Bobby Bedi, Film Producer and Director, Chairman, FICCI committee on Film and Industry
1630-1700 hrs	Tea

27^th October 2015 (Tuesday)
0945-1300 hrs	Session 3 TRIPS and Public Health Pharmaceutical and biotech sectors had the maximum divergence in IP protection regimes across countries prior to the TRIPS Agreement. The TRIPS Agreement was therefore a watershed for these sectors. However the flexibilities and subsequently the Doha declaration on TRIPS and Public Health have allowed countries to model the laws taking into account their developmental and societal objectives. Questions for discussion: Pharmaceuticals and the biotech sectors were possibly the most impacted by the TRIPS Agreement. However, the flexibilities allowed countries to take into account their public health concerns while formulating the Patent regimes. How did the Agreement impact access to medicines? Does this remain an unfinished agenda for the developed countries? What would be the areas where further action could be seen? Chair: Justice (retd.) Prabha Sridevan, Former Chairperson of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board Speakers: Mr D.G Shah, Secretary General, Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance Mr. Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Partner, Corporate Law Group Ms Leena Menghaney, ‎Access Campaign India Co-ordinator at Médecins Sans Frontières Prof Frederick Abbott, Florida State University Mr Anand Grover, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India* Prof Sudip Chaudhuri, Indian Institute of Management, Kolkata
1300-1400 hrs	Lunch
1400-1530 hrs	Concluding Session Shape of things to come The twenty years since the TRIPS Agreement came into existence, saw widespread changes in the legislative framework of most developing countries. While they grappled with fulfilling the obligations of the Agreement, the developed world has looked towards further strengthening these norms. The FTA/RTA’s with their tighter IPR chapters are but an outcome of this exercise. *Questions for discussion:* With FTAs/RTAs a norm, where are we headed? Will TRIPS lose its relevance? Or will the TRIPS be renegotiated? What are the new issues that will figure prominently in any prospective negotiations? What are the likely implications? Chair: Dr. V. Bhaskar, Former Special Chief Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh and Joint Secretary Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India Speakers: Prof Frederick Abbott, Florida State University Mr Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet Society Ms. R V Anuradha, Partner, Clarus Law Associates Ms Sanya Reid Smith, Legal Adviser, Third World Network
1530-1600	Tea

*- tbc

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/international-workshop-on-the-impact-of-the-trips-agreement-on-key-sectors-and-its-continuing-relevance-in-the-context-of-regional-and-bilateral-trading-agreements

International Conference on Innovation for Shared Prosperity

praskrishna — 2016-08-25T02:40:59Z

Rohini Lakshane attended a conference on IP Rights, Competition and Standard Setting in the IT industry on August 20 and 21, 2016. The conference was organized by O.P. Jindal Global University and Jindal Initiative on Research in IP & Competition.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/international-conference-on-innovation-for-shared-prosperity

Intellectual Property Rights as seen in a graphic novel

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T06:32:01Z

While most engagements with the issue of Intellectual Property Rights take the form of academic papers and scholarly articles, the Centre for Internet and Society is approaching the subject through another medium – an online graphic novel. Commissioned by the organisation, and conceived, written and drawn by Mumbai-based Anand Ramachandran (a man who keeps himself busy in a number of ways, from writing satire columns to developing videogame designs), the novel, titled Learning to Floo, is being serialised on the CIS website.

“People are aware of the implications of IPR issues when it comes to movies and music,” said Ramachandran, over the phone from Mumbai. “Less so when it comes to patents and medicines. We’re trying to throw light on some of these issues through the comic.” One attraction of dealing with the subject through a story is that it becomes possible to avoid proselytising. “We’re telling a story, not taking a moral stand,” said Ramachandran.

The premise – an India many centuries in the future. IPR laws have slowly become so restrictive that people can’t even hum a popular tune without first paying a license fee. As a result creativity and originality have been strangled, and people’s brains have turned to mush. A band of rebels holds out, including an individual named Teech who, as the story opens, is in prison awaiting execution. Unknown to him and his cohorts, the government actually needs them because, as pirates, they have access to knowledge that has been lost to the rest of mankind. A prison break sets the story off at a cracking pace.

Ramachandran uses Celtx to write his scripts, and Xara Xtreme and the GIMP pencil and airbrush tool for the illustrations – all free software, he pointed out. The art is minimalist, with one or two facial features defining each character (Teech himself has no facial features), and the story is sped along by snappy dialogue and smooth storyboarding. CIS also has plans to produce a print version of the comic once it is complete. Ajay Krishnan

Learning to Floo can be read here
Read the original article in TimeOut Bengaluru

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ipr-in-graphic-novel

Intellectual Property Rights & TRIPS: An Overview

Job Michael Mathew — 2016-01-31T05:54:02Z

The Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariff began in 1986 with a Ministerial Deceleration in Punta del Este.

One of the 13 subjects for negotiation in Part I of the declaration dealing with trade in goods was the mandate on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The essence of the mandate was to develop an effective and adequate standard of protection of intellectual property rights and a multilateral framework of principles, rules and disciplines dealing with international trade in counterfeit goods. The agreement laid the architecture for a uniform global treatment of IPR by providing for minimum standards of IP protection, national enforcement mechanisms and dispute settlement mechanisms.

GATT and IPR

Article IX: 6 was the only provision in the GATT that specifically dealt with the protection and promotion of IP. The Article dealt with distinctive regional or geographical names and did not lay down any standards of protection but rather called on States to corporate with each other on its protection. The first attempt at addressing questions of IPR within the GATT framework was made by the United States in 1978 towards the end of the Tokyo Round of multilateral trade negotiations. The focus at this point of time was to develop a plurilateral agreement on trade in counterfeit goods. No progress was made on this front due to lack of support from any country/bloc apart from the EC.The matter was raised again in the 1982 Ministerial meeting and the Ministerial Declaration included an instruction to the GATT council to look into the question of counterfeit goods and the appropriateness and modalities of joint action within the GATT framework to counter the same. The expert group constituted pursuant to the Ministerial Declaration called for enhanced international action to tackle the problem of trade in counterfeit goods but stopped short of agreeing that GATT was the right forum for this. The preparations for the Uruguay Round in 1986 arrested any further progress by the expert group, even as active efforts were made to include IP in the Round.

IPR in the Uruguay Round

The United States was the major force behind the inclusion of IP in the Uruguay Round. Ineffective protection of US IP abroad was thought to be undermining the competitiveness of the US industry by both the US Government and industry. The objective was to evolve substantial standards of protection of IP in other countries along with effective enforcement mechanisms. This objective had earlier found expression in the US Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 which states explicitly that adequate foreign IP protection is a major US objective in trade negotiations.

In the initial stages of the Uruguay Round it was only US and Japan that were at the forefront for the inclusion of IPR’s in the mandate of negotiations. As a consequence of this, the first two years of the TRIPS Negotiating Group was an effort towards clarifying its negotiating mandate. The United States wanted the mandate to extend to substantive standards of protection of IP and internal enforcement; other developed countries were measured in their response. In particular, EC had an ambivalent stand at the beginning due to the added complication of distribution of competences between member states as EC institutions now had exclusive competence in GATT related matters. However as negotiations proceeded industrialized countries including Australia, Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand and the Nordic countries joined the pro IP bandwagon recognizing their shared interests in the deal. Even as industrialized countries were on one page in relation to the need for substantial IP protection to be part of multilateral trade rules there were still differences among them on the scope of protection of certain IPRs and with respect to special measures for developing countries such as transition periods , ‘pipeline protection’ and compulsory licensing. The underlying consensus on the need for IP protection within the GATT framework among these countries ensured that differences as noted above did not end up derailing the agreement.

Developing countries on the other hand were apprehensive about the inclusion of IPR within the GATT framework. The reasons for such a stand include, the belief that the mandate of GATT should not extend beyond ‘goods’, that such an inclusion will intrude into the domestic policy space of these countries and adversely affect their sovereignty in pursuing socio-economic policies according to their own needs and finally that there was nothing to be gained from undertaking obligations when 99% of the global patents and other forms of IP are owned by industrialized countries. However in the midterm review meeting held at Montreal in 1988 it started to appear that some of these developing countries shifted their stand in favour of inclusion of IPR in the GATT framework. This change in stand was not due to any new found clarity on the need for stricter and stronger IP protection at a global level. The future of multilateral trading system and the market access it secured came to be linked with the success of the Uruguay Round and a successful completion of TRIPS agreement was increasingly seen as a prerequisite for such an outcome. This belief was buttressed by the fact that the WTO agreement created new trade rights and did not incorporate pre-existing rights of the GATT with the result that any Government not joining it would lose the rights they enjoyed prior to the agreement. There was growing acceptance that refusing to deal with IP within the GATT will lead to a situation where developing countries will have to address it through bilateral agreements where the balance of power is further skewed in favour of developed countries. Further the potential benefits the agreement could bring in, in the fields of agriculture and textile was becoming clearer. Most importantly developing countries believed that using their collective bargaining power they could build into the agreement adequate flexibilities which will achieve a better balance of the interests of the developed and developing world.

Inherent Flexibilities in TRIPS

Although the mandate of TRIPS was to evolve a uniform global IP system with minimum standards of protection and effective enforcement mechanisms it does include a number of flexibilities that facilitate development and protection of public interest. In 1990 even as negotiations were in full swing to iron out differences between developed and developing countries , a draft TRIPS agreement was tabled by industrialized countries the focus of which was minimum protection , enforcement mechanisms and dispute settlement measures. In response to this draft, developing countries proposed their own draft legal text which aimed to maintain some flexibility in the agreement to allow countries to implement economic and social development objectives. The idea that was being emphasized was that intellectual property is not an end in itself and its objective should be the overall benefit of society as opposed to mere private benefit. These concerns of the developing countries found expression in Article 7 and 8 of the TRIPS of the agreement.

Article 7 and 8 of the agreement explicitly provide the important objectives and principals that need to be considered in the interpretation of the Agreement. Article 7 sets out the objective of the agreement to be promotion of technological innovation, transfer and dissemination of technology, production and use of technological knowledge while giving due attention to social and economic welfare. Article 8 gives countries the freedom to amend their laws to protect public health, nutrition and to promote public interest. Further, the preamble of the agreement recognizes underlying public policy objectives of countries in the protection of intellectual property rights which include developmental and technological objectives. A combined reading of Article 7, 8 and the Preamble of the agreement ‘in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty’ reveals that the agreement shows due deference to the domestic policy considerations of member countries. Thus even though TRIPS had its genesis in the strategic interests of the developed world , by the time the agreement was agreed and entered into , the developing world by virtue of its collective bargaining power had managed to incorporate certain flexibilities to make the agreement a more balanced framework for the protection and promotion of intellectual property.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/intellectual-property-rights-trips-an-overview

Indian Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Discussion Paper on Standard Essential Patents

nehaa — 2016-05-10T15:23:21Z

India’s Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“DIPP”) released in March, earlier this year, a discussion paper on standard essential patents and their availability on fair, reasonable and non discriminatory terms.

Available here – http://dipp.nic.in/english/Discuss_paper/Feedback.aspx

DIPP should also be publishing all of the feedback that it receives on the above link. The deadline was submission of comments was (extended to) 29 April, 2016. CIS’ comments are here and a summary is here.

We’re also collecting and uploading other submissions to the DIPP on this issue. Some are here.

This post was published by infojustice.org on May 4, 2016. It can be read here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/indian-department-of-industrial-policy-and-promotion-discussion-paper-on-standard-essential-patents

Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (as amended by Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010)

admin — 2011-08-24T06:58:10Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/amended-copyright-act.html

India's Opening Statement on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired at SCCR 24

pranesh — 2012-07-23T15:24:26Z

This was the opening statement of the Indian delegation, delivered by G.R. Raghavender, on Thursday, July 19, 2012, at the 24th meeting of the SCCR at WIPO in Geneva. The statement called upon all countries to conclude textual work on the treaty and call for a Diplomatic Conference to finalize it. This statement received applause, which is highly unusual at the SCCR.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Indian delegation is a little bit disappointed about the way we have started this topic of the Treaty for the Visually Impaired. Forgive me, Mr. Chairman, we have confidence in your abilities, but unfortunately we have already lost one hour in this afternoon session. We have only two hours left, unless and until we decide to work beyond 6:00 P.M.

We have a document, SCCR/23/7, on the table. Everybody has this document. We all decided in the last SCCR that we will work on this document and move towards a meaningful treaty. We said, in this very 24th SCCR, we will be ready for that. We should have started article-by-article discussions by now. And as we are involved in the general statements in our agenda, I can go on reading a statement for another 20 minutes as I have about five pages written out. But given our support for the treaty, I won't.

I'm sorry, I respect all the distinguished delegations: they have their own concerns, but Mr. Chairman, under your leadership we should have started article-by-article discussions by now. Yesterday, in the evening at the Chairman plus group leaders plus 3, we all requested that. Whatever happened during the 14, 15 intersessional meetings, we have no objection to that, but people raise the issue of transparency and availability of the document. Whatever changes have been made to the document must be public. If no one is ready to post that document either during the informal discussions, or here in the plenary, they can always come out with the changes made to particular articles, or para in the preamble, when the discussion starts.

We should be ready to work towards finalizing this treaty. We are even open to working on Saturday and Sunday, Mr. Chairman.

If we don't finalize in this SCCR, we cannot go to the General Assembly in the first week of the month of October. If we lose that time, we will have to wait until the next General Assembly, because we cannot have a General Assembly in between.

So we will be simply wasting our time in the November SCCR and again next July SCCR, waiting for the next General Assembly.

So kindly guide us to start text-based article-by-article discussions, so that we won't go back empty-handed. The Indian delegation won't go back empty-handed, facing the 15 million blind people in India, which is almost 50 percent of the world blind population, that is 37 million.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/india-opening-statement-sccr24-tvi

India - Europe Conference on Building a Sustainable IPR - ICT Ecosystem for Promoting Innovation

praskrishna — 2015-12-22T02:48:04Z

Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), Pune organized a one-day conference in Bangalore on November 20, 2015. Rohini Lakshané attended this event.

Intellectual property is at the core of business ventures and critical to successfully compete internationally. However, skills to commercialize technological innovations remain a crucial impediment to innovative entrepreneurs and innovators aspiring to become world leaders in global ICTE markets. A robust IPR-ICT ecosystem can help capitalize on the growth-enhancing effects of innovation vis-à-vis ICTE. In order to fulfill the aspiration of its stakeholders, the IPR-ICT ecosystem has to be global in geographic scope, spearhead shaping appropriate framework conditions for innovation and assist in charting out policy roadmaps for sustainable and inclusive growth.

With this in mind Deity and EPO is working together in developing a close cooperation to promote IPR in ICTE domain, especially with respect to sharing of best practices and procedures for filing and processing ICTE patents in India and Europe by Indian and European firms.

The one day conference on “India-Europe Conference on Building a Sustainable IPR-ICT Ecosystem for Promoting Innovation” organised by Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), a premier R&D organisation, aims to address the challenges in building a sustainable global IPR-ICT ecosystem, discuss IP policy issues relevant to Indian and European ICTE industries and concord on various nuances of patenting technology and activities with an ICTE perspective.

Sessions

Parallel 1

11.00 - 13.00: Challenges and Opportunities in Building a Sustainable Global IPR Ecosystem for Promotion of Innovation in ICTE Sector
14.00 - 15.30: IPR Policy Perspective for Promoting Innovation -India and Europe

Parallel 2

14.00 - 15.30: Standard Essential Patent Issues and Perspective with regard to ICTE
15.45 - 17.15: Patent Information and Analysis: A Tool for Building Business Strategies

For more information and brochure of the event, visit this website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/india-europe-conference-on-building-a-sustainable-ipr-ict-ecosystem-for-promoting-innovation

IJLT-CIS Law Essay Competition

pranesh — 2011-08-04T04:35:20Z

The Indian Journal of Law and Technology and CIS are conducting a legal essay competition to encourage law students across India to think critically about the techno-legal issues facing us today. Students can write on any of the four themes, with the top prize being Rs. 7500 and an internship at CIS.

The Indian Journal of Law and Technology (IJLT) is an annual law journal published by the Law and Technology Committee of the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. IJLT aims to provide a platform for promoting discussion on issues relating to the interface between law and technology, particularly from the perspective of the developing world.

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a leading research organisation that engages with issues of digital pluralism, public accountability and pedagogic practices, in relation to the field of Internet and Society, with special emphasis towards South-South dialogue and exchange. IJLT and CIS are proud to announce the 1st IJLT-CIS Annual Law Essay Competition 2009, which is a competition open to undergraduate law students across India. The competition seeks to encourage creative thinking and promote research and writing about crucial legal issues in the field of Information Technology and the Internet.

Themes

Criminality and Second Life: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Trademark and the Internet: Cybersquatting and the Google Adwords-Consim Controversy -- Reasonable Limits to Trademark Protection
3G Services and Spectrum Allocation: Fair Competition, Welfare and Freedom of Speech and Commerce on the Airwaves
Easier to Be Criminals: Judicial and Legislative Responses to Cyber Crime in India.

Judging

The winning law essays shall be determined through a blind review by a panel of eminent academicians in the field of law and technology.

Prizes

Ist Prize: Rs. 7500 and an internship at CIS

2nd Prize: Rs. 5000

3rd Prize: Rs. 4000

Please note that the terms of the above internship shall be decided by CIS on its own initiative, and as such shall not be negotiable. The winning law essay shall be considered for publication in the next issue of IJLT in accordance with the Editorial Policy of IJLT.

Eligibility

The competition is open to all undergraduate law students in any college/law school in India.

Submission Guidelines

The entries must be between 5000-7500 words inclusive of all footnotes. The entries that fall short of or exceed the above word limit shall be penalised.
Substantive footnoting is not permitted and shall be penalised. The use of endnotes or other citation methods is not permitted.
The entries should be accompanied by a 150-word abstract. The abstract is not counted towards the word limit.
All entries should be in Times New Roman, size 12, 1.5 line spacing. The footnotes used should be in Times New Roman, size 10, single line spacing.
The footnotes used should follow a uniform and complete system of citation. However, the use of the Harvard Blue Book (18th edition) system of citation is encouraged.
The entries must be submitted in the Microsoft Word format and with all identifying information removed from the text of the entries and the file properties. The covering e-mail should contain the name, e-mail address, postal address, institution, course and year of study of the author.
The entries must be submitted via e-mail to essay@ijlt.in.
The deadline for entries is 11:59 P.M., 23rd January, 2010.

For any clarifications, please send an e-mail to editorialboard@ijlt.in.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ijlt-cis-law-essay

Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions in abeyance

sinha — 2015-12-23T10:06:53Z

The CRI Guidelines were heavily criticised for their failure to address the ambiguities created by Section 3(k) and for expanding the scope of software patent eligibile subject-matter, inter alia. Following several representations and submissions by interested stakeholders, the Controller General has moved the Guidelines into abeyance, until discussions with stakeholders are complete and contentious issues are resolved, and is a welcome step.

CIS has consistently made submissions to the Indian Patent Office on the issue of software patenting( 2015, 2013, 2010). The latest submission was made in September 2015, in response to the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions, 2015(“CRI Guidelines/ Guidelines”) in which we highlighted several concerns and presented solutions, and also proposed a definition of "computer programme per se".

In view of the representations made to the Patent Office, on 14th December 2015, the Controller General issued an order to keep the Guidelines in abeyance. Till the issues therein are resolved, the existing provisions on S. 3(k) of chapter 08.03.05.10 of the Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure will continue to be applicable.

The primary fault with the Guidelines lay in the fact that, legally, its scope of was in excess of section 3(k) of the Indian Patent's Act, 1970 (parent statute). The Controller General's order acknowledging the representations and submissions made in response to the Guidelines, and consequently keeping the Guidelines in abeyance is a welcome step.

You may access the order here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-in-abeyance

Govt for Legalising Parallel Import of Copyright Works; Publishers Oppose

Shamnad Basheer — 2011-08-30T10:19:35Z

Section 2(m) legalises the parallel imports of books and other copyrighted material into India and was part of the initial Copyright Amendment Bill introduced in the Parliament of India in 2010.

Section 2(m) reads as below:

"[P]rovided that a copy of a work published in any country outside India with the permission of the author of the work and imported from that country into India shall not be deemed to be an infringing copy."

Unfortunately, the government did a sudden volte face owing to pressure from publisher lobbies and deleted it from the latest version of the Bill. The provision would have helped students gain access to the latest affordable versions of text books from around the world.

When the Bill was referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee for review, the said Committee strongly supported the introduction of section 2(m) and stated as below:

"that availability of low priced books under the present regime is invariably confined to old editions. Nobody can deny the fact that the interests of students will be best protected if they have access to latest editions of the books."

"Nobody can deny the fact that the interests of students will be best protected if they have access to latest editions of the books. Thus, apprehensions about the flooding of the primary market with low priced editions, may be mis-founded as such a situation would be tackled by that country's law. The Committee would, however, like to put a note of caution to the government to ensure that the purpose for which the amendment is proposed i.e., to protect the interest of the students is not lost sight of."

Despite the Standing Committees support, it is curious as to why the government dropped this provision, particularly when it would have tremendously helped a number of students gain access to latest low priced editions of text books from around the world. It ought not to have succumbed to the pressures of the publishing lobby.

Empirical studies done on this count clearly demonstrate that publishers only introduce old versions of books in India. The latest versions have to be imported, and they are very expensive, often times costing more than what they cost in the US and EU. See the Economic Times article documenting this empirical study here.

Further, an easy right of import enables any third party to import books which could also then be made available in accessible formats to the visually impaired.

Download the Economic Times article by Shamnad Basheer here. [PDF, 470 Kb]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/govt-legalising-parallel-import-of-copyright-work

Governance in the Age of the Internet and Free Trade Agreements

praskrishna — 2013-07-03T05:04:39Z

Sunil Abraham was a speaker at this event organized by Thai Netizen Network on June 8, 2013 at Queen Sirikit National Convention Center. The Ministry of Information and Communication and the National Science and Technology Development Agency were co-hosts for the event.

Click to read the details of the event published on Internet Society website

In the age of accelerated international trade and the promotion of free flowing cross-border data transactions, countries and regions are working towards forming a commonly agreed modus operandi and protocols. These protocols seek to facilitate the growth of e-trade, ensure a secure data flow(economic transactions) and protection of its data in the network. In the recent, there has been strong attention by consumers and businesses with the growing scope and content of these agreements addressing Intellectual Property (IP). Emerging trend studies show that there is a growing practices to incorporate mutually exclusive arrangements without involving other stakeholders which happens in closed door negotiations i.e. government to government.

For instance, the European’s Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) proposal and the U.S. Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).

The bigger concern raised by other stakeholders has been the secrecy of these arrangements and the insufficient protection of consumers and citizens rights in its consideration. So far, the lack of legitimacy and proportionality of legal policy measures has created unintended consequences and collateral damages in far reaching manners whether socially, economically or technologically. Citing practices of filtering technology, deep packet inspection, and Internet cut-off, are introduced by internet service providers to meet legal requirements. Activities in question may vary from country to country, some focus on violations of intellectual property, some on the control of political voices.

Notably, list of concerns have been raised explicitly by UN Special Rapporteur to adhere to the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression were recommended.

This workshop is aim to create discussion on the related topics among stakeholders both in Thailand and in the region of the direct and indirect implications of various developments.

Target: Regulators, consumer rights, human rights activities, Lawyers

Expected Outcomes

Understanding the dynamics of free trade agreements (i.e. APEC, TPP, and ACTA) and its implications on Internet regulations, national sovereignty, and civil rights from various perspectives. (Big picture)
Basic understanding of how various policy and technology related measures or solutions (i.e. digital rights management technology and deep-packet inspection) are used to address Intellectual Property (IP) and how it directly impacts freedom of expression and individual privacy.
Looking Ahead: The developments and upcoming legislations/regulation challenges in both Thailand and the region i.e. new draft of Computer-related Crime Act, new draft of Copyright Act, and the Personal Data Protection Bill.

Panelists

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor, Internet Society, Geneva
Nakorn Serirak, Policy Advisor, Thai Netizen Network, Bangkok
Sawatree Suksri, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Thammasat University, Bangkok
Lokman Tsui, Policy Advisor, Google Asia Pacific, Hong Kong

Moderator

Mike Hayes, Chair, International MA Program in Human Rights, Mahidol University

Click the PDFs below to download the full details and the presentation:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/inet-bangkok-june-8-2013-governance-in-the-age-of-internet-and-fta