Centre for Internet and Society

Competition Commission of India chairman's participation in Assocham conference raises conflict of interests

praskrishna — 2015-09-19T15:33:11Z

The chairperson of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and three of the six commission members are participating in a conference organised by Assocham and sponsored by private companies like Ericsson, trade associations and two legal firms specialising in intellectual property cases.

The article by Rema Nagarajan was published in the Times of India on August 6, 2015.

This, civil society organisations argue, raises issues of conflict of interest in a quasi-judicial body like CCI participating in a conference organised by private parties that have cases before the commission.

For instance, the event partner Ericsson is facing CCI investigations on matters related to standard essential patents (SEPs), one of the conference topics, and issues related to licensing of technologies on fair and equitable terms. The vice president and head of the legal section of Ericsson also has a speaking slot in the inaugural event. The brochure clearly states that the event partner on payment of Rs 5 lakh gets several privileges including a speaker's slot in the inaugural and business sections.

Several civil society organisations including Alternative Law Forum, Centre for Internet and Society and IT for Change from Bangalore, Knowledge Commons Collective, National Working Group on Patent Laws, and Software Freedom Law Centre from Delhi have written to the CCI protesting against its participation in the conference.

In their letter to CCI chairperson Ashok Chawla, they pointed out that the day-long conference titled Interface between Intellectual property (IP) and Competition Law, being held in a five star hotel on August 7, was focusing on issues being adjudicated by CCI. While Chawla is listed in the brochure as giving the inaugural address, CCI members GP Mittal and MS Sahoo are chairing two technical sessions and a third member SL Bunker is giving a special address at the valedictory function.

Other speakers include Rajiv Aggarwal, Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, representatives of Google, Intel, Microsoft, the UK IP Office, senior advocates from three Indian law firms specialising in IP and representatives of international law firms and consultancy firms.

"It is a well-set precedent that judicial and quasi-judicial bodies never directly or indirectly discuss matters pending before them. The conference is centred on discussing issues that are currently under the investigation of CCI along with commercial entities, including one which is facing the investigation," stated the letter adding that all the judicial or quasi-judicial bodies were expected to avoid not only actual conflict of interest but also perceived conflict of interest.

The civil society signatories pointed out that the event was not an academic event but a commercial one organised by a chamber of commerce along with the industry with clear commercial objectives. "The participation of CCI in the event would compromise the credibility and independence of CCI. Therefore, CCI as a guardian of public interest should not be subject to the lobbying efforts of IP owners. Providing privileged access to lobbying efforts of private enterprises like Ericsson, Qualcomm, Microsoft and Intel would cast a dark shadow on the neutrality of CCI," stated the letter requesting Chawla not to participate in the conference and to direct CCI members and CCI staff involved in investigations to avoid participation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/times-of-india-rema-nagarajan-august-6-2015-competition-commission-of-india-chairman-participation-in-assocham-conference-raises-conflict-of-interests

Comparison of National IPR Strategy September 2012, National IPR Strategy July 2014 and Draft National IP Policy, December 2014

amulya — 2016-03-08T01:49:07Z

This is an analysis of the first draft of India's National IPR Policy with an earlier document "India's National IPR Strategy".

Nehaa Chaudhari provided inputs, analysed, reviewed and edited this blog post.

As part of our IPR Policy Series, we have so far CIS has submitted comments to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion on the proposed IPR Policy and the first draft of the National IPR Policy, traced the development of the National IPR Policy, evaluated how the IPR Policy holds up to WIPO’s suggestions , filed RTI’s regarding the formation of the IPR Think Tank and the functioning of the Sectoral Innovation Council.

In this blog post Amulya.P compares the National IPR Strategy September 2012 prepared by the Sectoral Innovation Council, the National IPR Strategy July 2014 and the Draft National IP Policy, December 2014 to understand the commonalities and differences between the three.

Vision/ Mission

The vision stated in the IPR Strategy, July 2014 is “To develop India during the decade of Innovation into a major Innovative competitive and knowledge based economy by strategic utilization of IP as an engine for accelerated growth and sustainable and inclusive development.” This is comparable to the vision statement laid out in the Draft National IP Policy, December 2014 (Draft Policy) that states as follows: “An India where IP led growth in creativity and innovation is encouraged for the benefit of all; an India where IPRs promote advancement in science and technology, arts and culture, traditional knowledge and bio-diversity resources; an India where knowledge is the main driver of development, and knowledge owned is transformed into knowledge shared.” The Mission Statement laid out in the Draft Policy reads as follows “Establish a dynamic vibrant balanced intellectual property system in India to : foster innovation and creativity in a knowledge economy, accelerate economic growth, employment and entrepreneurship, enhance socio-cultural development and protect public health, food security and environment among other areas of socio-economic importance”

Clearly the Draft Policy strives for more balance and envisions IPRs as not only a tool to ensure social welfare alongside economic growth, but also envisions IPR as a tool to ensure the sharing of knowledge.

Objectives/ Approaches

The objectives of both the September 2012 National IPR Strategy and the July 2014 National IPR Strategy are more or less to “ Transform India into an innovative economy that would be reflected in high rankings in development and innovation indices from a global standpoint and develop, sustainable and innovation-promoting IPR management system in India while ensuring that the IP system continues to have appropriate checks and balances conducive to social and economic welfare and to a balance of rights and obligations. Besides measures that need to be taken, the strategy also needs to have an implementation matrix and a time bound schedule.”

In addition to this, the September 2014 IPR Strategy Document lays down a four pronged approach- to promote respect for IP, to simulate creation of IPRs ,creation of new IP regimes to address needs of the country and strengthening protection of IP, and to facilitate commercialization of IP. The IPR Strategy of July 2014 expands on this to include the establishing of cost effective, efficient, service oriented administration, institutional capacity building and development of human capital and the integrating of IP components of national sectoral policy and the Addressing of IP issues in international fora.

The Draft Policy though has enumerated seven objectives throughout the report. They are: a) “To create public awareness about economic social and cultural benefits of IP among all sections of society for accelerating development, promoting entrepreneurship, enhancing employment and increasing competitiveness”.b) “To stimulate creation of growth of IP through measures that encourage IP generation.”c) “To have strong and effective laws with regard to IPRs that are consistent with national priorities and international obligations which balance the interests of rights owners with public interest.” d) “To modernize and strengthen IP administration for efficient, expeditious and cost effective grant and management of IP rights and user oriented services.” e) “To augment the commercialization of IP rights, valuation licensing and technology transfer.” f)”To strengthen the enforcement and adjudicatory mechanisms for combating IP violations, piracy and counterfeiting, to facilitate effective and speedy adjudication of IP disputes to promote awareness and respect for IPRs among all sections of society.” f) “To strengthen and expand human resources, institutions and capacities for teaching, training, research and skill building in IP.”

Clearly the Draft Policy lays more emphasis on raising public awareness about the benefits of IP, strengthening the enforcement and adjudicatory mechanisms to combat violations and on balancing different interests during the creation of new IP laws and regulations.

Raising Awareness

While the September 2012 IPR Strategy speaks of raising awareness as a tool in encouraging creation of IP and facilitating commercialization of IP, the Draft Policy envisions an elaborate awareness raising and publicity program. Some of the schemes suggested in the Draft Policy include: Adoption of the slogan “Creative India: Innovative India” and launching an associated campaign on electronic , print and social media by linking IPRs and other national initiatives such as Make in India, Digital India, Skill India and Smart Cities. Reaching out to industry, MSMEs, R&D institutions, science and technology institutes, universities, colleges, inventors, creators, farmers/plant variety users, traditional knowledge holders, designers and artisans through campaigns tailored to their needs and concerns. Promoting the idea of high quality and cost effective innovation as a particularly Indian competence leading to competitive advantage, Involving of eminent personalities as ambassadors to spread awareness of India’s IP, Using audio visual material in print/electronic/social media for propagation, Creating moving exhibits that can travel to all parts of the country, Establishing Innovation and IPR museums, announcing a National IPR day and celebrating world IPR day etc.

The Draft Policy has a much more elaborate program for awareness raising and publicity and this is reflected throughout the document with almost every stakeholder and department being involved in the awareness programme.

MSMEs

The July 2014 IPR Strategy and the September 2012 IPR strategy both call for very similar policies with regard to MSMEs. Both lie emphasis on educating and incentivizing MSMEs to create new IP and formalize existing ones, on government intervention in setting up IP facilitation centers to bring about collaboration between the facilitation centers and the activities of existing industrial clusters, provision of access to databases on patent and non-patent literature to enable prior art research to IITs and NITs free of cost so that they can assist MSMEs or individuals with determining novelty in their inventions free of cost and other provide assistance with the patent application for a fee. While the September 2014 strategy called for identifying such institutions, the July 2014 Strategy does. Both of these strategies however, call for favorable tax treatments toward MSMEs for R&D Expenditures. Both also call for support mechanisms to offset IP costs and facilitate technology transfer through in-licensing from publicly funded research.

The Draft Policy discusses MSMEs in less detail, but still calls for creation of educational materials for MSMEs and highlighting special mechanisms for them to develop and protect IP, encouraging IP creation by establishing and strengthening IP facilitation centers especially in industrial and innovation university clusters, Introducing “first-time patent” fee waiver and support systems for MSMEs and reduce transaction costs in other ways (e.g. prior art search). It does not specifically mention favorable tax treatment to MSMEs or access to databases to determine novelty or provision of assistance with patent application or call for government intervention to better the IP facilitation centers.

Academia and Research Organisations

The July 2014 IPR Strategy and the September 2012 IPR strategy again recommend similar strategies when it comes to academia and research organisations. They both recommend some sort of education/awareness rising targeted at researchers and innovators regarding precautions to be exercised before patent application such as not selling inventions to company at early stages / not publishing research to public etc. they also recommend promoting university startups to motivate scientists to take up technology ventures. They both promote encouraging IITs and other similar institutions to undertake research on national issues like poverty, health, food, security, energy, information technology, bio-technology etc. They both recommend that IP creation be a key performance indicator for universities and institutions that participate in publicly sponsored/collaborative research and development and that this be gradually introduced in Tier 1 and Tier 2 institutions. And finally they both recommend that basic concepts of IP creation and respect for IP as part of formal education at school/college/university/vocational level including a course on IPR that is to be included in the curriculum of all technical programmes recognized by AICTE and in post grad/research programme in science and applied fields in universities.

The Draft Policy recommends all this and more. It recommends the formulation of institutional IP policy/strategy in higher education, research and technical institutions. Even though it recommends educating researchers and innovators regarding IP and precautions to be taken with respect to protecting their invention before publishing, it doesn’t go into detail or state that there is a need to protect against inventions being sold prematurely to companies. The Draft Policy also recommends that public funded research organisations and private sector are to be tapped to create campaigns highlighting the process of IPR creation and the value generated therefrom. It also recommends that IITs NITs etc. be encouraged to focus on research in areas such as nanotechnology, data analytics and ICT in addition to areas such as food security, healthcare and agriculture. Further in addition to creating educational material about IPR at school and university levels, the Draft Policy also calls for online and distance learning programs for all categories of users that focus on IPR. And for IP courses/modules to be introduced in all major training institutes such as judicial academies, National Academy of Administration, Police and Customs Academies, IIFT, Institute of Foreign Service Training, Forest Training Institutes etc., creating IPR cells and technology development and management units in such institutes. The Draft Policy also recommends that IPR be a compulsory subject in all legal educational institutions, NIDs NIFTs, agricultural universities and management institutes, and making IP teaching a part of accreditation mechanism in institutes under the purview of UGC, AICTE MCI as well as IITs and IIMs.

Large Organisations

The September 2012 IPR Strategy recommends that the government encourage large organisations to take a long term view of R&D and make research investments to create strong self-reliant tech portfolio and also acquire the scale to build strategic global positions, it recommends that the government encourage these organisations to share their expertise and resources for national benefit through PPPs, development of high technology base requires strategic relationships with overseas players, it recommends that it be made mandatory for MNCs to align with innovation strategy and the National Innovation systems and that the MNCs be encouraged by the state to leverage their standing and reach to ensure inflow of best practices and investments.it also recommends sops and preferential treatment in public contracts to large Indian organisations with a strong culture of IP creation. And that these organisations be encouraged to tap open innovation platforms and tie ups with academia. The July 2014 IPR Strategy recommends more or less the same strategies with regard to large organisations.

The Draft Policy recommends that public funded research organisations and private sector be encouraged to create campaigns highlighting the process of IPR creation and its value, that MNCs and large organisations develop IPR programs for their employees, that government encourage large organisations to create, protect and utilize IP in India and that the government create an industry-academia interface for encouraging cross-fertilization of ideas and IPR driven research and innovation in jointly identified areas. It makes no mention of requiring large organisations to align with the National IPR Policy, to ensure best practices but also doesn’t particularly mention tax cuts or other sops to encourage large organisations with a strong IP culture. The Draft Policy makes no mention at all of open innovation platforms. In large parts the Draft Policy is vague and lacks specifics with regard to strategies toward large organisations.

Startups and Individuals

The September 2012 IPR Strategy and the July 2014 IPR Strategy both make separate recommendations aimed at startups and individuals. They both recommend that information on the delivery mechanism for support services including things like venture capital funding should be made expedient and that identified public institutions should offer end to end support for creation, protection and commercialization of IP. The September 2012 Strategy also recommends that procedural mechanisms adopted for giving financial support for patent filing should be made smoother and that the assistance provided should be improved. The Draft Policy does not include any specific recommendations with regard to start ups or individuals apart from involving them in the publicity/awareness campaigns. In this measure the Draft Policy seems to fall short.

Strengthening IP Protection/ Creating New IP Regimes

The September 2012 IPR strategy generally called for improvement in institutions that grant IPRs and in institutions that are responsible for its enforcement and expansion of rights to include new IPRs.

The July 2014 IPR Strategy had a significant advance to this and recommended periodic review and streamlining procedures and process and guidelines for search, grant examination, maintenance and registration of IPRs in consultation with relevant stakeholders and benchmarked with best practices. It also recommended that full benefit be taken of global protection systems of WIPO, Patent Cooperation Treaty, Madrid System for International Registration of Marks etc. and that consequent upon amendment in 2012 of the Copyright Act, 1957, consideration be given to acceding to the Marrakesh Treaty for the blind, that avenues for international cooperation in IPR be studied. And finally it recommended that with respect to traditional knowledge and grant of patents in other countries, the Nagoya protocol is a step in the right direction and while the Patents Act, 1970, Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and the Plant Variety Protection and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 address the issue, a sui generis system of protection to check misappropriation is required at the international level.

The Draft Policy generally recommends that there be a review of existing IP laws to update and improve them and remove any inconsistencies, a review of IP related rules and procedures etc. to ensure clarity, simplification, streamlining, transparency and time bound process in administration and enforcement of IP rights. The Draft Policy also recommends that the government actively engage in negotiating international treaties and agreements in consultation with stakeholders, examine accession to some multilateral treaties that are in the countries interest and become a signatory to those treaty that India has defacto implemented so that India can participate in their decision making process. The central problem here is of course that what is in the countries interest may be open to debate, the Draft Policy does not at any point for example indicate whether or not the Government would consider taking on TRIPS plus obligations, the Draft Policy does not clarify what the Governments general stance on such issues would be.

The Draft Policy further recommends that important areas of study and research for future policy development be identified, some examples provided are: a) Interplay between IP laws and other laws to remove ambiguities or inconsistencies, b) Interface between IP and competition law and policy, c) Protection of undisclosed information not extending to data exclusivity, d) Guidelines for authorities whose respective jurisdictions impact the administration or enforcement of IPRs such as patents and bio-diversity, e) Exceptions and limitations and f) Exhaustion of IP rights. A prominent concern here would be data exclusivity, while the policy uses vague language and only wants these issues to be studied, Data exclusivity among others are demands made by the EU and others in Free Trade Agreements that go beyond our obligation under TRIPS and could harm the public interest.

Establishing Cost Effective, Efficient and Service Oriented IP Administrative Infrastructure

The July 2014 IPR Strategy recommends that IPOs be restructured to aim for ISO 9002 model to increase efficiency, quality and cost effectiveness; that after a review of the need of human resources to enable IPOs to discharged workload efficiently the required amount of manpower be employed; that recruitment training and career development of officials has to be reviewed to recruit and retain best personnel in the IPO; that the possibility of providing advisory services and value added products be studied; and recommends that there should be cooperation with IPOs in other countries in the area of capacity building, human resource development and awareness.

The Draft Policy recommends that IPOs be restructured, upgraded and be granted greater responsibility and autonomy taking into account the rapid growth and diversity of IP users and services, it also recommends an increase in manpower according to findings after a review to ensure speedy liquidation of backlog, requirements of global protection systems and productivity parameters. And that the process of recruitment training, cadre structure and career development of officials be studied and reviewed to retain the best talent to enhance efficiency and productivity. The Draft Policy also recommends that the government collaborate with R&D institutions universities, funding agencies, chambers of industry and commerce in providing advisory services which will improve IP creation and management and utilization, promote cooperation with IP offices in other countries in areas of capacity building, HRD, training, access to databases, best practices in search and examinations, use of ICT and user oriented services, enhance international and bilateral cooperation and post IP attaches in select countries to follow IP developments and advice on IP related matters.

Office of CGPDTM

The September 2012 IPR Strategy recommended that Grant/registration procedure to be quickened through recruitment and increasing human resources, that the functioning of IPOs be improved by measures such as: complete digitization of IP records and uploading for public view to improve transparency, communication with applicant/agents to be improved to bring in transparency meticulousness, database to be made searchable so that researchers can conduct effective searches to identify state of the art technology, electronic filing of applications and subsequent examination through electronic mode to be mandatory, Increase in filing fee with specific discounts for identified sectors such as MSEs.

The 2012 IPR Strategy observed that the quality of examination of IP applications needs to be improved and suggested reassessment of procedures followed in IPO to reduce timelines toward statutory actions.

The July 2014 IPR Strategy recommended that the grant and registration procedure be quickened through recruitment and increasing human resources, and that there be regular meetings between the CGPDTM and the National Biodiversity Authority to resolve issues that arise from implementing guidelines about grant of patents on inventions using genetic resources and TK.

The Draft Policy recommended that the government establish close cooperation between IPOs and create a common web portal for ease of access to statutes regulations, guidelines, databases and for better coordination.

The Draft policy also recommended that the CGPDTM examine joining centralized access for search and examination (CASE) and WIPO digital access services (DAS), that the CGPDTM fix and adhere to timelines for grant of registration and disposal of opposition matters, create a service oriented culture, include appointing public relations officers who would make the IP office user friendly, that the CGPDTM conduct periodic audits of processes being adopted in IP administration for efficient grant and management of IP rights.

The Draft Policy also recommended that the CGPDTM implement quality standards at all stages of operations with the aim to obtain ISO certification and adopt best practices with respect to filing and docketing of documents, maintenance of records and digitizing the same including document workflow and tracking systems, and take steps to expedite digitization of the design office and enable online search and filing in the design office

The Draft Policy also recommended that the CGPDTM ensure that public records in IP office are easily available and accessible both online and offline and establish effective coordination between its office and NBA to enable harmonious implementation of guidelines relating to grant of patents on inventions using genetic resources and associated TK, that the CGPDTM remove disparities among different branches of the trademark registries and patent offices and adopt standardized procedures in examination/grant of applications including maintenance of rights, implement centralized priority field wise on a national basis and provide value added services in form of helpdesks, awareness and training materials, patent mapping, licensing and technology transfer support services, ease of remote access of the international patent search mechanisms and other IP related databases. And that the CGPDTM implement incentives for MSMEs to encourage filing by the said sector like waiver of official fee, support of examiners and pro-bono legal help for the first time filing.

Administrative Departments of Other IP Institutions

The September 2012 IPR Strategy and the July 2014 IPR Strategy both generally recommended that the administrative departments of other IP institutions also take up similar actions as the CGPDTM.

The Draft Policy however, goes into this with some detail. The Draft Policy recommends that with regard to the office of Registrar of Copyright, the Government take measures to expedite modernization of the office both in terms of office space and infrastructure and in terms of introducing e filing facility including e- applications, electronic processing and issuance of final extracts of registrations etc. It also recommends that all copyright records be digitized and that the government introduce an online search facility and provide necessary manpower and adequate training facilities to personnel in the copyright office. It further recommends that the government take urgent measures for the effective management and administration of copyright societies to ensure transparency and efficiency in the collection and disbursement of royalties in the best interests of rights holders and that the government provide user friendly services in the form of help desks, awareness raising and training materials.

The Draft Policy recommends that the registrar of Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Design study the reasons for lack of interest in filings under the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Design Act, 2000 and suggest appropriate measures. The Draft Policy also recommends that the government formalize a consultation and coordination mechanism between the National Biodiversity Authority and the IPOs with a view to harmonious implementation of guidelines for grant of IP rights and access to biological resources and associated traditional knowledge and benefit sharing.

Institutional Capacity Building

The July 2014 IPR Strategy recommended that the RGNIIPM act as a think tank, carry out research on IP matters, formulate and deliver training courses and develop teaching curricular for academic institutions, develop linkages with other national and international institutions involved in similar fields and develop joint training programs and conduct joint research studies on IPRs including programs for plant variety protection and issues related to traditional knowledge and bio resources. And establish IP institutes with state governments for raising awareness and training and teaching.

It also recommended that the MHRD IPR chairs provide support to all ministries and departments in policy making law making and negotiations under bilateral or multilateral frameworks. The Strategy also recommended that institutes responsible for training customs, police, judiciary, forest research institutes have IP training as an essential part of the curriculum, that National level institutes associated with creation enforcement or commercialization should be encouraged to incorporate IP training and capacity building in their operations and finally that industry, business, IP professional bodies, inventers associations, venture capital funds etc. should be encouraged to develop IP training modules for their members as well.

The Draft Policy recommends all this and more and suggests that RGNIIPM Nagpur conduct training for IP administrators , managers in the industry, academicians, R&D institutions, IP professionals, inventors, civil society apart from training the trainers, developing training modules and links with other similar entities at the international level and set up state level institutions. Further it recommended that the MHRD IPR Chairs provide high quality teaching and research, develop teaching capacity and curricula and evaluate their work on performance based criteria.

The Draft Policy also recommends that the CGPDTM provide continuous training to the IPO staff and update them with developments in procedures, substantive laws and technologies along with the RGNIIPM.

The Draft policy also recommends that the government establish national level institutes of excellence to provide leadership in IP, conduct policy and empirical research, examine trends and developments in the field of IP at the national and international level, support the government in strategic development of IP systems and international negotiations, establish links with similar institutes and experts in other countries for exchange of ideas, information and best practices and suggest approaches and guidelines for inter-disciplinary human capital development. And that the government facilitate industry associations, inventors and creators associations and IP support institutions to raise awareness of IP issues for teaching, training and skill building.

Strengthening Institutional Set-up to Improve Enforcement of IPRs and Create Respect for IPRs

The September 2012 IPR Strategy and the July 2014 IPR Strategy both recommend that the government encourage small and niche businesses to protect their products through trademarks, the September 2012 Strategy also adds that these businesses should be encouraged to seek international protection to participate in global competition and contribute to international trade activities. The Draft Policy recommends increasing awareness of international mechanisms and treaties (e.g. PCT, Madrid and The Hague) to encourage creation and protection of IP in global markets.

The 2012 IPR Strategy and the July 2014 Strategy go into further detail, they recommend that the service sector be encouraged to adopt strategies for registration of trademarks to ensure competitiveness and to leverage the goodwill of strong indigenous brands that have acquired traction in international markets. They also recommend that SME clusters be encouraged to develop a comprehensive database of their products to ensure that a parent isn’t issued on unprotected innovations.

As far as GI is concerned, both the July 2014 and the September 2012 IPR Strategy recommend that central public bodies such as the development commissioner for handicrafts and handlooms etc. partner with the suitable state, district and Panchayat level entities to educate communities on the benefits of registering GIs, to put in place examination protocols to ensure GI owners comply with quality standards. They further recommend that these bodies develop a roadmap to build brands for better market presence for products registered as GIs and coordinate with relevant state authority on enforcement and provide periodical updates to enforcement taskforce on issues that need redressal.

The Draft Policy only recommends that the government encourage registration of GI through support institutions and assist GI producers to define and maintain acceptable quality standards and providing better marketability.

As far as designs are concerned, both the July 2014 IPR Strategy and the September 2012 IPR Strategy recommend that the government encourage a move from informal to formal practices of protecting designs by administrative intervention, while the Draft Policy recommends the encouraging of creation of design related IP rights by identifying, nurturing, and promoting aspects of innovation protectable under the design law and educating designers to utilize and benefit from their designs , involve the NIDs , NIFTs and other institutions in sensitization campaigns.

With regard to plant varieties, both the 2014 and 2012 IPR Strategies recommend awareness generation programmes to encourage filings of new extant and essentially derived varieties. While the 2012 IPR Strategy further stated that there was a need to evaluate whether restructuring institutions/merging all IP issues under one umbrella would improve efficiency and a need for centrally managed National IP Enforcement Taskforce that could :a) Maintain database on criminal enforcement measures instituted for trademark infringement and copyright piracy, civil cases filed to be collated also, b) Mandated to deliberate upon operational issues of enforcement with the concerned Central and State agencies, c) Conduct periodic industry wise infringement surveys d) Coordinate capacity building programmes for the central and state enforcing agencies.

The Draft Policy recommends that the protection of plant varieties and farmers rights authority should: a) Support increased registration of new, extant and essential derived varieties and streamline procedures, b) Facilitate development of seeds and their commercialization by farmers., c) Establish links with agriculture universities, research institutions, technology development and management centers and Krishi Vikas Kendras, d) Coordinate with other IPOs for training sharing expertise and adopting best practices, e) Augment awareness building, training and teaching programs and modernize office infrastructure and use of ICT.

With regard to Traditional Knowledge, the Draft Policy also recommends that the government create a sui generis system for protecting TK which will safeguard misappropriation of traditional knowledge as well as promote further research and development in products and services based on traditional knowledge.

Creation of New IP Rights to Address Gaps

The September 2012 IPR Strategy recommended protection of utility models, utility patents as they have Protection of utility model. Utility patents / models proposed as they have less stringent patentability criteria, faster examination/grant, shorter term of protection as a cost effective way to incentivize incremental innovation and encourage creation of IPRs, with sector specific exemptions to ensure TRIPS compliance. And included a proposal for a predictable recognizable trade secret regime to improve investor confidence and facilitate flow of information.

The Draft Policy also recommended that the government facilitate creation and protection of small inventions through a new law on utility models, enact laws to address national needs to fill gaps in protective regimes of IPRs such as utility models and trade secrets to keep up with advancements in science and technology to strengthen IP and innovation ecosystem from example IP created from public funded research, to protect and promote traditional knowledge. As pointed out in the CIS Submission to the IPR Think Tank, the creation of utility models should by no means be assumed to be completely uncontroversial, many countries that had this system have now given it up, further this could lead to granting of frivolous patents and thereby harming development.

Facilitating Commercialization of IPRs

Both the July 2014 and the September 2012 IPR Strategies have similar recommendations with respect to facilitating commercialization of IPRs; they both recommend policy interventions to create strong and transparent national strategies to encourage: licensing of rights to another entity for commercialization, cross licensing agreements, leveraging the intellectual assets for future R&D growth and improved services, sale merger acquisition of either IPR or entire business distinguished and appropriately valued by their intellectual capital, patent pooling, reinforcing stability of IP license contracts.

And they both recommend that National research laboratories and academia and public institutions to stimulate commercialization of research resultants: intervention in building strengthening institutional capacity of research led organisations to enable utilization of IP.

The 2012 IPR Strategy also recommends national level policy changes to encourage development of indigenous technologies, that government fund (grants/loans) demonstration projects of new technologies that require large investment, suitable tax breaks for indigenously developed and commercialized products till attainment of some maturity levels, that qualification requirements during tendering process to accord acceptance to indigenously developed products where heavy development investments have been incurred, strengthening the indigenous R&D ecosystem policy frameworks should provide for flexibility in outsourcing technical expertise in niche areas and type testing of prototypes. Further it visualizes the emergence of open innovation systems and the role of voluntary SSOs.

The Draft Policy does all this and more. It recommends that the government establish an IP Promotion and Development Council (IPPDC) as a nodal organization for promotion and commercialization of IPR, the IPPDC is supposed to, among other things, promote licensing and technology transfer of IP, devise suitable contractual and licensing guidelines to enable commercialization of IP, promoting patent pooling and cross licensing to create IP based products and services and also establishing links with similar organisations for exchange of information and ideas as also to develop promotional educational products and services for promotion and commercialization, to facilitate access to databases on Indian IP and global databases of creators/innovators, market analysts, funding agencies, IP intermediaries, to study and facilitate implementation of best practices for promotion and commercialization of IP within the country and outside. IPPDC to establish IP Promotion and Development Units (IPPDU) in various regions The IPPDC is also tasked with identifying opportunities for marketing Indian IPR based products and services to a global audience.

The government is also recommended to provide statutory incentives like tax benefits linked to IP creation for the entire value chain from IP creation to commercialization, to support financial aspects of IP commercialization by: a)Enabling valuation of IP rights by application of appropriate methodologies including for better accounting as intangible assets, b) Facilitating investments in IP driven industries and services through the proposed IP exchange for bringing investors/funding agencies and IP owners /users together, c) Providing financial support to less empowered groups of IP owners or creators like farmers weavers, artisans, craftsmen etc. through financial institutions like rural banks or cooperative banks offering IP friendly loans, d) Taking stock of all IP funding by the government and suggesting measures to consolidate the same to the extent possible generating scale in funding and avoiding duplication, enhancing the visibility of IP and innovation related funds so that utilization is increased, performance based evaluation for continued funding, c) Regulating IP created through publicly funded research by a suitable law.

The Draft policy also recommends that the government promote going to market activities by: a) Creating mechanisms to help MSMEs and research institutions to validate scale and pilot through market testing, b) Providing seed funding for market activities such as participating in trade fairs, industry standards bodies and other forums, c) Providing guidance and support to IPR owners about commercial opportunities of e commerce through internet and mobile platforms. And that the government study the role of IPRs in setting standards in various areas of technology, actively participate in standards setting processes at national, international and industry SSO levels and to encourage the development of global standards that are influenced by technologies and IP generated in India

Facilitating and Encouraging Commercialization of IP Assets

The July 2014 IPR Strategy had specific recommendations to make in this regard. It recommended that the government forge links between creators and inventors , universities, industry and financial institutions for commercialization, that the government establish an IP exchange to stimulate trading of IP and creating markets for IP assets, to facilitate MSMEs to identify protect and commercialize their IP, creations through facilitation centers by providing package of services, to encourage technologies acquired under the patent pool of the Technology Acquisition and Development Fund (TADF) and licensed as per provision in manufacturing policy.

The Draft IP policy recommends all of these, tasking the IPPDC with most of these tasks and also recommends that the government improve awareness of the value of copyright for creators, the importance of their economic and moral rights and the rationalization of payment mechanisms for them, and to support initiative taken by public sector research entities to commercialize their IPRs for commercialization and lastly to develop skills among scientists to access , interpret and analyze the techno-legal and business information contained in IP documents.

Enforcement and Adjudication

The Draft Policy makes very specific recommendations with regard to enforcement and adjudication, apart from suggestions that go toward creating awareness and sensitizing the public, students, industry and inventors about IP, the policy also recommends that the government establish a Multi-Agency Task Force for coordination between various agencies and providing direction and guidance on enforcement measures, creating a nationwide database of known IP offenders, coordination and sharing intelligence and best practices at the national and international levels, studying the extent of IP violations in various sectors, examining the implications of jurisdictional difficulties among enforcement authorities and introducing appropriate technology based solutions for curbing digital piracy.

The government is also tasked with working with state governments in establishing IP cells and including IP crimes under their special laws, increasing manpower and infrastructure of the enforcement agencies and building capacity to check proliferation of digital crimes, providing regular training for officials in enforcement agencies, encouraging application of tech-based solutions in enforcement of IP rights, initiating fact finding studies in collaboration with stakeholders concerned to assess the extent of counterfeiting and piracy and the reasons behind it as well as the measures to combat it and taking up the issue of Indian works and products being pirated and counterfeited abroad with countries concerned.

On improving IP dispute resolution, the Draft Policy recommends the designation of specialized patent bench in the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras, the designation of one IP court at the district level depending on the number of IP cases filed, working with judicial academies to conduct regular workshops for judges, promoting ADRs in the resolution of IP cases by strengthening mediation and conciliation centers and developing ADR capabilities, creating regional benches of the IPAB in all five regions where IPOs are located, increasing the powers of IPAB in its administration including autonomy in financial matters and selection of technical and judicial members and providing necessary infrastructure for its effective and efficient funding and also taking urgent steps to make the copyright board function effectively and efficiently and provide adequate infrastructure and manpower to it.

Work Plans

In addition to all of the above, the July 2014 IPR Strategy also recommends a work plan which includes commissioning a study on schemes and programs financed by the government including under the PP mode for innovation, signing and acceding to the Marrakesh Treaty, the NICE agreement on international classification of goods and services for the purpose of registration of trademarks, assessing the Hague Agreement regarding registration of industrial design vis a vis India’s Designs Act with a view to accede to the treaty, assessing the possibility of accepting facilitation centers run by universities/academic institutions/departments of science and technology as receiving offices for patent applications where there are no patent offices.

The Draft IP Policy also makes recommendations to integrate IP with other government Initiatives like Make in India and Digital India, and plans to integrate into these government initiatives the different schemes of the Department of Electronics, and IT for IP promotion and global protection. It further recommends the establishing of a high-level body in the government to co-ordinate, guide and oversee the implementation and development of IP in India in accordance with the National IP Policy. The body will be responsible for bringing cohesion and coordination among different ministries and departments with regard to how they deal with IP matters, laying down priorities for IP development and preparing plans of action for time bound implementation of national and sector specific IP policies, strategies and programs, monitoring the progress and implementation of the National IP policy linked with performance indicators, targeted results and deliverables, annual evaluation of the overall working of the policy and a major review of the policy ever three years.

Concluding Observations

The National IPR Strategies of 2012 and 2014 contain more or less similar recommendations, the key differences being that the 2014 IPR Strategy emphasizes the need to address IP issues in international fora and in establishing cost effective, efficient and service oriented IP administrative infrastructure. It does not, in contrast to the 2012 IPR Strategy, recommend the introduction of laws on utility models or protection of trade secrets, policy changes to encourage development of indigenous technologies, but it does more specifically address facilitating commercialization of IP.

The Draft Policy is an important advance over the National IPR Strategy of July 2014 and September 2012. It places makes important new recommendations with regards to publicity and awareness raising, creation of legal regime with regard to traditional knowledge, utility patents and trade secrets, enforcement and adjudication- including the setting up of new courts, creation of the IPPDC and of a new high-level government body to oversee the implementation of the policy. It does however miss out on the chance to help start-ups, MSMEs and individuals in contrast to recommendations of the previous IPR Strategies. And in context of its avowed aim to turn knowledge owned into knowledge shared does little to encourage open access and focuses heavily on IP creation assuming that increase in IP would promote innovation and thereby lead to national development.

Table - Comparison of National IPR Strategy September 2012, National IPR Strategy July 2014 And Draft National IP Policy, December 2014

Sectoral Innovation Council, National IPR Strategy, September 2012, Available at: http://dipp.nic.in/english/Discuss_paper/draftNational_IPR_Strategy_26Sep2012.pdf (Hereafter : National IPR Strategy, September 2012)

National IPR Strategy, July 2014, Available at: http://dipp.nic.in/English/Schemes/Intellectual_Property_Rights/national_IPR_Strategy_21July2014.pdf (Hereafter: National IPR Policy, July 2014)

IPR Think Tank, Draft National IP Policy, December 2014, Available at: http://dipp.nic.in/English/Schemes/Intellectual_Property_Rights/IPR_Policy_24December2014.pdf (Here after: Draft Policy)

National IPR Strategy, July 2014, p.5

Draft Policy, p.5

[5] National IPR Strategy, July 2014, p.5

Draft Policy, p.5

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.11 and Draft Policy, December 2014, pp.5

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.11

National IPR Strategy, July 2014, pp.5-6,

Draft Policy, p.6,

Draft Policy, p.8.

Draft Policy, p.11.

Draft Policy, p.13.

Draft Policy, p.17.

Draft Policy, p.20.

Draft Policy, p.23.

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 7, 11, 12, 19 20

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 21

Draft Policy, p.6-8

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.6-7 , 12-13 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.6-8

Draft Policy, p.5, 9-10, 15,18-19

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 7, 13-14 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.8-9.

Draft Policy, p.8,11,24

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.6, 14-15 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.9-10

Draft Policy, p.7-8, 10

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 7, 15 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.10

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 7, 15

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 15

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.10-12

Draft Policy, p.12-13,

Draft Policy, p.13

Swaraj Paul Barooah, Data Exclusivity back on the table for India, SpicyIP, March 27, 2015, Available at: http://spicyip.com/2015/03/data-exclusivity-back-on-the-table-for-india.html

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.11-12

Draft Policy, p.14

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 15-16

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 16

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp. 12-14

Draft Policy, p. 15-16

Draft Policy,p. 16

Draft Policy, p.15

Draft Policy, p. 15-16

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.16 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.14

Draft Policy, p.16

Draft Policy, p.17

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.14-15

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.15

Draft Policy, p.24

Draft Policy, p.23

Draft Policy, p.24

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.18 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.15-16

Draft Policy, p.11

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.17-18 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.16-17

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.19 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.16

Draft Policy, p. 11

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.19-20 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp. 17-18

Draft Policy, p.11

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 20 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.18

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 18

Draft Policy, p.11

Draft Policy, p. 12

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 20-22

Draft Policy, p.12

See, CIS Comments to the First Draft of the National IP Policy, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-cis-comments-to-the-first-draft-of-the-national-ip-policy

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 22 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp. 18-19

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.22 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.18

National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.23

Draft Policy, p. 18-19

Draft Policy, p.19

Draft Policy, p.10,19

Draft Policy, p.19-20

Draft Policy, p. 12-13

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.19

Draft Policy, pp. 10, 18-19.

Draft Policy, pp. 20-22

Draft Policy, p. 22

Draft Policy, p.22-23

National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.22

Draft Policy, pp. 25-26.

Draft Policy, p.26

Draft Policy, p.27-28

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comparison-of-national-ipr-strategy-september-2012-national-ipr-strategy-july-2014-and-draft-national-ip-policy-december-2015

Comments to the Ministry on WIPO Broadcast Treaty (March 2011)

pranesh — 2012-12-14T10:29:20Z

As a follow up to a stakeholder meeting called by the MHRD on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty, CIS provided written comments on the April 2007 Non-Paper of the WIPO Broadcast Treaty, emphasising the need for a signal-based approach to be taken on the Broadcast Treaty, and making it clear that India should continue to oppose the creation of new rights for webcasters.

On February 22, 2011, the Ministry of Human Resource Development held a meeting to decide on the Indian position on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty. The Ministry asked the participants at the meeting to send in written submissions on four matters. We sent in submissions on those four issues, as well as a few others.

Comments on the non-paper for the WIPO Broadcast Treaty by the Centre for Internet and Society

On February 23, 2011, the Ministry of HRD had asked for comments on four matters:

Article 3 of the Non-paper which was circulated earlier
Term of protection for signal
Nature of limitations and exceptions
Protection of signal and retransmission

We have made submissions on those and a few other matters as well. Unless noted otherwise, all comments made in this note pertain to the final non-paper (April 2007) and not the draft non-paper (March 2007).

Article 3

Article 3 of the draft non-paper that was circulated (March 2007) for comments from country delegates stated:

3. Scope of Application

The provisions of this Treaty shall not provide any protection in respect of

(i) mere retransmissions;

(ii) any transmissions where the time of the transmission and the place of its reception may be individually chosen by members of the public (on-demand transmissions); or

(iii) any transmissions over computer networks (transmissions using the Internet

Protocol, “webcasting”, or “netcasting”).

A number of people present at the recent MHRD-organized meeting noted that “mere retransmissions” is a confusing term. In the revised non-paper (April 2007), it has been clarified that protection is not granted to third parties for merely retransmitting another’s signal (Art. 3(4)(i)).

3. Specific Scope and Object of Protection

(4) The provisions of this Treaty shall not provide any protection

(i) to retransmitting third parties in respect of their mere retransmissions by any means of broadcasts by broadcasting organizations;

(ii) to any person for transmissions where the time of the transmission and the place of its reception may be individually chosen by members of the public (on-demand transmissions); or

(iii) to any person for transmissions over computer networks

In addition, Art. 3(4)(iii) is currently ambiguous since it is not clear whether “retransmissions” are subsumed under the word transmission. By allowing for separate rights for retransmission over computer networks, the Treaty allows for the creation of two classes: traditional broadcasters who will have rights over retransmissions over computer networks, and all other persons who will have no rights over transmissions. Thus, if “retransmission” is not subsumed under the word “transmission”, it would be advisable to alter that clause to read “to any person for transmissions or retransmissions over computer networks”.

Lastly, Art. 3(4) should additional prevent protection for persons broadcasting materials for which they have not acquired copyright, or for broadcasting materials in the public domain.

Term of Protection of Signals

No term of protection should be provided. As was noted by the US government in its response to the draft non-paper, it is questionable “whether a 20-year term of protection is consistent with a signal-based approach”. The Brazilian delegation also states: “Article 13 should be deleted. A twenty-year term of protection is unnecessary. The agreed “signal-based” approach to the Treaty implies that the objected of protection is the signal, and therefore duration of protection must be linked with the ephemeral life of the signal itself.” Thus, a term is only needed if we stray away from a signal-based approach. As we do not wish to do so, there should be no term of protection.

Limitations and Exceptions

The limitations and exceptions (L&E) currently provided for allow for mirroring of copyright L&E limited by a Berne-like three-step test.

However, reasons for providing protection over broadcasting are not the same as those for copyright. For instance, a country may wish to make exceptions to signal protection for cases such as broadcast of a national sport, as India has done with the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act.

This might well afoul of the three-step test proposed in Article 10(2). Furthermore, a country may wish to limit the application of broadcasters rights for national broadcasters (whose programming is paid for by taxpayers, and thus should be available to them), but may not be able to do so under the provisions of Article 10(2). Thus, Article 10(2) should be deleted, and Article 10(1) should be expanded to include issues of national interest and for free-to-air broadcast signals.

Protection of Signal and Retransmission

It should be a sine qua non condition of India’s that that this be a purely signal-based treaty with no fixation or post-fixation rights. Thus, it should restrict itself to protection of signals, and simultaneous retransmission.

As a result, no separate right to prevent unauthorized “decryption” should be granted, since signal-theft is already a crime. For instance, this provision would also cover decrypting an unauthorized retransmission without authorization from the retransmitter. This provides the unauthorized retransmitter rights, even though s/he has no right to retransmit. This leads to an absurd situation.

As stated by the Brazilian government:

“[Article 10 of the draft non-paper and Article 9 of the non-paper] is inconsistent with a “signal-based approach”. It creates unwarranted obstacles to technological development, to access to legitimate uses, flexibilities and exceptions and to access to the public domain. It does not focus on securing effective protection against an illicit act, but rather creates new exclusive rights so that they cover areas unrelated with the objective of the treaty, such as control by holder of industrial production of goods, the development and use of encryption technologies, and private uses. The prohibition of mere decryption of encrypted signals, without there having been unauthorized broadcasting activity, is abusive.”

Other comments

Article 7

Article 7 of the non-paper provides broadcasters rights post-fixation (“Broadcasting organizations shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing … the deferred transmission by any means to the public of their fixed broadcasts. ”). This is contrary to a signal-based approach. A signal-based approach would necessarily mean that it is only signal theft (which happens only via unauthorized simultaneous retransmission) that should be protected. Deferred transmission should implicate the rights of the owner of copyright, but not of the broadcasting organization.

Article 4

As suggested by the Brazilian government, Article 4(1) which proposes a non-prejudice clause should be amended to add the words “and access to the public domain” at its end. This is consistent with the WIPO Development Agenda.

Article 5

India should re-iterate its suggestion to add the following to the definition of “broadcast” under Art. 5(a): “‘broadcast’ shall not be understood as including transmission of such a set of signals over computer networks. ”

Further, the phrase “general public ” should be retained in Art.5 (as was present in the draft non-paper), and should not be made into “public”. The danger is that a limited public (say family members) could possibly be covered by the term “public”, while they will be excluded from “general public”, which in any case is the target audience of all broadcast.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-comments-march-2011

Comments on the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (Draft)

snehashish — 2012-12-01T15:36:38Z

The Department of Science and Technology invited public comments on the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (Draft). Accordingly, the Centre for Internet and Society has made the following comments on the draft policy document.

Department of Science and Technology,
Ministry of Science and Technology,
Government of India

Subject: Comments on the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (Draft)

Dear Sir/Madam,

We at the Centre for Internet and Society commend the drafting of the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2013 (Draft). It is a well rounded policy which will pave the way for further informed policy decisions on innovation and research and development in the country.

Few of the notable and welcome policy statements are:

The Policy aims at ‘inclusive innovation’ and takes into consideration the “need to ensure access, availability and affordability of solutions to as large a population as possible”. It also aims at building a conducive environment for research and development by modifying the IPR policy to include marching rights with respect to social goods funded by public. This in line with the aim of the policy to provide access new technologies. The use of government funding in commercially viable research would not only assure better access to medicine and other technological innovations but also ensure knowledge transfer.

The policy decision to "foster data sharing and access" is most welcome and will act as a catalyst for further research and development through open and collaborative research and development.

Policy also lays emphasis on open source discoveries for "public and social good" and it is indeed a pleasure to note that the Policy wishes to build knowledge commons by collaborative generation of IPR. This will definitely go a long way in encouraging further innovation in the country.

It is also appreciated that the policy will aim at "increasing accessibility, availability and affordability of innovations" and will establish a fund for innovation in this direction.

The Policy also states that the "people" and "decision makers" should be made aware of the implications of emerging technologies, including their ethical, social and economic dimensions. Implementation of such policy is a necessity and will enable the government to make informed policy decisions in the future.

Suggestion:

It is submitted that the policy document should take into account that in order ensure ‘inclusive innovation’ and accessibility, the policy should specifically include mandates to encourage and foster innovation in technology related to accessibility tools for persons with disabilities.www.dst.gov.in/sti-policy.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-science-technology-and-innovation-policy-draft

Comments on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations: Technical Background Paper Prepared by the WIPO Secretariat

Nehaa Chaudhari and Amulya Purushothama — 2015-09-03T01:47:59Z

Technical Background Paper prepared by the WIPO Secretariat in relation to the Broadcast Treaty (“Technical Background Paper) provides information on new and emerging technologies and on legal developments in the broadcasting sector. This Technical Background Paper will be discussed at the upcoming 30th session of the SCCR in Geneva on 29th June- 3rd July 2015. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India had called for comments on the same. This is a submission made by Nehaa Chaudhari and Amulya Purushothama on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society in this regard.

We thank Amulya Purushothama for her assistance with research and other assistance on this subject. While Amulya was acknowledged as the co author in the actual submission itself, the blurb didn't say so and this has now been changed. Click to view the PDF.

I. Preliminary

1. This submission presents preliminary comments by the Centre for Internet and Society ("CIS") on the Technical Background Paper prepared by the WIPO Secretariat in relation to the Proposed WIPO Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations ("Broadcast Treaty").

2. This submission is based on the Technical Background Paper Submitted By the Secretariat at the Seventh Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights ("SCCR") held at Geneva from May 13 to 17 2002 (SCCR/7/8) dated April 4, 2002.[1]

3. CIS commends the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India for its efforts at seeking inputs from various stakeholders prior to framing India's response to this document. CIS is thankful for the opportunity to provide this detailed submission.

II. Overview

Governing Principles

4. CIS is a non-governmental organization engaged in research and policy work in the areas of, inter alia, access to knowledge and openness. [2] CIS values the fundamental principles of justice, equality, freedom and economic development. This detailed submission is consistent with CIS' commitment to these values, the safeguarding of general public interest and the protection of India's National Interest at the International Level. Accordingly, the comments in this submission aim to further these principles and are limited to those sections of the document in question that most directly have an impact on these values.

Adoption of a Signals-Based Approach

5. CIS has consistently recommended the adoption of a Broadcast Treaty consistent with the signals based approach, [3] in consonance with the 2007 mandate of the WIPO General Assembly, binding on the SCCR. In this submission as well, we re-iterate our commitment to the same.

III. Detailed Comments

On the 'Introduction'

6. The Technical Background Paper was prepared twelve years ago, in 2002. Accordingly, more recent legal and technological developments, national approaches and industry practices would need to be addressed. Accordingly, it is submitted that at SCCR 30, the Indian delegation request that the SCCR be presented with an updated study. This would be in line with the stated aims of the Technical Background Paper itself, i.e., to focus on technological changes that affect the activities of broadcasting organizations.[4] Further CIS believes that the current Technical Background Paper reads as a justification for the Broadcast Treaty as opposed to a neutral study. It is submitted that an updated version of this paper with including inter alia, some of the safeguards discussed later in this submission might address this imbalance.

7. The Technical Background Paper excludes from its scope the rationale for protection as well as the scope of protection for broadcasters. [5] CIS is of the opinion that this limits the Technical Background Paper - issues such as the justification/ need for the treaty, the scope of protection to be offered and the kind of protection, go to the very heart of the issue and must be discussed in the Technical Background Paper if it is to inform a meaningful debate on the subject.

8. CIS further believes that the very need for a Broadcast Treaty has not been clearly established in the Technical Background Paper. As we have indicated earlier,[6] investments made by broadcasters in broadcasting infrastructure, licensing of copyrighted works and creation of copyrighted works are already protected under existing legal systems. While the licensing and creation of copyrighted works are protected under copyright law, the investment in broadcasting infrastructure might be construed to be a "broadcast right", which is enshrined [7] in the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, 1961.[8] A detailed discussion on the existing legal framework is available in the next section of this submission.

On 'Broadcasting Organizations and the Rome Convention'

The Legal Framework Applicable to Broadcasting

9. This part of the Technical Background Paper discusses in detail the various provisions of the Rome Convention. However, it is noted that there is a very limited discussion of legal developments that have happened since the Rome Convention.[9]

10. CIS believes that for a complete understanding of the legal framework applicable to broadcasting, it is important that the Technical Background Paper document the evolution of international law on the subject since the Rome Convention. This is particularly critical when the need for this treaty itself is disputed.[10] In this regard CIS believes that the Technical Background Paper is inadequate and must be revised and updated to include other legal developments[11] including but not limited to the WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996 ("WCT"), WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, 1996 ("WPPT"), the Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme -Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite, 1974, ("Brussels Convention") and the Beijing Treaty on Audio-Visual Performances, 2012 ("Beijing Treaty").

11. CIS further believes that for a complete understanding of the legal framework applicable to broadcasting, it is imperative for the Technical Background Paper to document national level legal developments in all member countries on this issue. Precedent for this exercise exists in the form of the study conducted in related to the Proposed International Legal Instrument on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives. [12] In this regard CIS calls for a comprehensive study on legislation surrounding broadcasters rights - both as related rights and as a separate right - and on the nature and extent of protection offered to broadcasters under the national legislations of all member states.

12. CIS believes that for a complete understanding of the legal framework applicable to broadcasting, it is important for the Technical Background Paper to further document any other widely followed industry practices and contractual arrangements that might have developed in the field. In this regard CIS believes that the present Background Paper should be edited and the above mentioned information be made available to the SCCR.

Signal, Content and Program

13. This part of the Technical Background Paper documents how a signal is defined and how it is different from the content carried on the signal. Further this part also states that it has been generally indicated that protections should be granted to broadcasting organisations for their signals independent of the copyright and related rights protection of the content.[13] In this regard CIS submits that definition of a signal is well settled under various international legal instruments, which have adopted uniform terminology that excludes content underlying the signal.[14] It is submitted that the Technical Background Paper must be edited to include all of this information to allow for informed debate on the matter. It is further submitted that technologically neutral terminology must be avoided and only terminology based on the "signals based approach" decided at the 2007 WIPO General Assembly must be adopted. [15] It is lastly submitted that any deviation from the signals based approach would lead to a Para-copyright regime for broadcaster's rights which would substantially harm public interest and increase costs to access to knowledge. [16]

14. This part of the Technical Background Paper also avers "during the discussions in the Standing Committee, it has generally been indicated that protection should be granted to broadcasting organizations for their signals independently of the copyright and related rights protection of the content." [17] It is submitted that this statement is not entirely accurate. Several Member States and Observers have submitted at various sessions of the SCCR that any protection granted must be limited to signal to address signal theft only; and that any other sort of protection would create a legal fiction that would lead to uncertainty, the creation of multiple rights holders, a Para-copyright regime and increased costs for legitimate use of copyrighted material.[18]

On 'Legal Issues to be Considered'

15. CIS reiterates the impetus to fully establish the need and the justification for the Broadcast Treaty, before considering other substantive legal issues. CIS strongly believes that the need for the treaty has not been fully established.[19]

16. It is also suggested that a recommendation be made for the Technical Background Paper to include a section on limitations and exceptions as 'legal issues to be considered', critical from the perspective of the protection of freedom of speech and expression and access to knowledge.

Broadcasting and Piracy

17. This part of the document discusses the signal piracy and its effect on markets in developing and developed countries. [20]

18. CIS submits that since the justification for this treaty is based on signal piracy, this section of the Technical Background Paper ought to be more detailed. Illustratively, this section must be updated to include studies on the losses that occur due to signal piracy in various countries, and the exact lacunae in the current legal system that render it inadequate to address this issue.

Program-Carrying Signals

19. In this part the Technical Background Paper discusses program carrying signals that are sent from point to point before the broadcast that could possibly be pirated.[21]

20. CIS believes that the claim that pre-broadcast signals have been stolen before[22] must be backed up by adequate data and studies. As of this document they remain assertions. CIS further believes that any steps taken in this regard must adopt the 'signals based approach' mandated by the 2007 WIPO General Assembly[23] and ensure that the underlying content is not subject to an additional layer of protection.[24]

The Object of Protection

21. This part of the paper provides a cursory overview of the different definitions adopted to define the object of protection, i.e., the broadcast under the Rome Convention, the Brussels Convention, and the WPPT.[25]

22. CIS believes that a more in-depth study of definitions of broadcast under all international instruments [26]is called for. CIS further believes that in keeping with the 2007 WIPO General Assembly mandate as mentioned above, 'signals based approach' is to be adopted which would preclude technologically neutral terminology from being adopted in the object of the protection.

The Subject of Protection

23. This part of the paper provides a cursory overview of the different definitions adopted to define the subject of protection, i.e., the broadcast under the Rome Convention, the Brussels Convention, the WPPT and the ITU Radio Regulations.[27]

24. CIS believes that the mandate of 'signals based approach' as mentioned in the 2007 WIPO General Assembly mandate must be adhered to (as stated earlier) and only those entities that broadcast signals and are therefore vulnerable to signal theft must be considered beneficiaries under the Broadcast Treaty. As stated above, technologically neutral terminology would fall outside of this mandate. CIS believes that this should be made clear in the Technical Background Paper.

IV. Concluding Observations

25. In conclusion, CIS submits the following recommendations on the Technical Background Paper.

a) Updating the Technical Background Paper to include legal and technological developments to better inform the discussion on the Broadcast Treaty.

b) Updating the Technical Background Paper with an expanded scope that explores all issues relevant to discussion including the scope for protection and the justification for protection.

c) Updating the Technical Background Paper to include provisions made under all relevant international conventions, even those that have come into existence after the Rome Convention.

d) Updating the Technical Background Paper to include widely prevalent industry practices that could affect the discussion around the Broadcast Treaty.

e) Conducting a comprehensive study on legislations regarding broadcasters' rights and broadcasting under all national regimes to enable a more informed discussion on the possible effects of the proposed treaty.

f) Updating the Technical Background Paper to include a discussion on limitations and exceptions under the proposed treaty.

g) Conducting a separate study on the extent of signal piracy and losses incurred due to signal piracy including a section that traces the causes behind signal piracy and explores whether or not a legal lacunae is to blame.

h) Updating the Technical Background Paper keeping in mind the WIPO 2007 General Assembly mandate on 'signals based approach' especially in parts relating to object, subject and scope of protection.

V. Other Resources

Statements made by CIS to the SCCR on Broadcast Treaty

1. 29^th Session of the WIPO SCCR :CIS 2^nd (brief) Intervention on the Broadcast Treaty, http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-second-brief-intervention-on-broadcast-treaty (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

2. CIS Intervention on Proposed Treaty of Broadcasting Organizations, SCCR 29: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-intervention-on-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

3. CIS Statement at SCCR 28 on the Proposed Treaty for Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Available at: http://lists.keionline.org/pipermail/a2k_lists.keionline.org/2014-July/002720.html (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

4. CIS Statement at 27^th SCCR on the WIPO Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-27-sccr-on-wipo-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

5. CIS' Statement at SCCR 24 on WIPO Broadcast Treaty, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-broadcast-treaty (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

6. Statement of CIS on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at the 23^rd SCCR, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-23-broadcast-cis-statement (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

7. Statement of CIS, India on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at the 22^nd SCCR, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-22-broadcast-cis-statement (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

8. CIS Statement on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at SCCR 19, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr19-broadcast-treaty (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

Submissions made by CIS on the Broadcast Treaty

1. CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Protection of Broadcasting Organisations under the Proposed Treaty as Compared to Other International Conventions, 21 December 2014, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/protection-of-broadcasting-organisations-under-proposed-broadcast-treaty (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

2. CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Comment on the Broadening of Definitions in the Proposed Braodcast Treaty Compared to Other International Conventions, 11 December 2014, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-broadening-of-definitions-in-the-proposed-broadcast-treaty-compared-to-other-international-conventions (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

3. CIS Comments to the Ministry of Human Resource Development on the Proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, 7 December 2013, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-to-hrd-ministry-on-wipo-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

4. Comments to MHRD on WIPO Broadcast Treaty, March 2013, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-wipo-broadcast-treaty

5. Comments on the Broadcast Treaty and Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives, 29 November 2012, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-broadcast-treaty-and-exceptions-and-limitations-for-libraries-and-archives (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

6. Comments to the Ministry on WIPO Broadcast Treaty, March 2011, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-broadcast-treaty-comments-march-2011 (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

On behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society,

Nehaa Chaudhari Amulya Purushothama

Lawyer/Programme Officer Lawyer/Research Assistant

nehaa@cis-india.org amulyaindavar@gmail.com

[1] Hereafter "Technical Background Paper"

[2] See www.cis-india.org (last accessed 25 June, 2015) for details about CIS' work.

[3] WIPO General Assembly, 34th (18th Ordinary Session, Geneva, September 24- October 3 2007,WO/GA/34/16, p. 55-56;

[4] Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Technical Background Paper Prepared by the Secretariat, WIPO, Seventh Session, Geneva , April 4 2002, SCCR/7/8, p.3.

[5] Id at p.2.

[6] See for Instance CIS' Statement at SCCR 24 on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/cis-statement-sccr24-broadcast-treaty (last accessed 25 June, 2015).

[7] Id.

[8] Hereafter, the Rome Convention.

[9] Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Technical Background Paper Prepared by the Secretariat, WIPO, Seventh Session, Geneva , April 4 2002, SCCR/7/8, p.4-5

[10] See 'Overview' of this submission.

[11] See for instance CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Protection of Broadcasting Organisations under the Proposed Treaty as Compared to Other International Conventions, CIS, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/protection-of-broadcasting-organisations-under-proposed-broadcast-treaty#_ftn79 (last accessed 25 June, 2015) ; See Also CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Comment on the Broadening of Definitions in the Proposed Broadcast Treaty Compared to Other International Conventions, C IS, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-broadening-of-definitions-in-the-proposed-broadcast-treaty-compared-to-other-international-conventions#_ftn1 (last accessed 25 June, 2015).

[12] See for example, Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, Available at: www.wpio.int/copyright/en/limitations/libraries_and_archives.html (last accessed 25 June, 2015).

[13] Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Technical Background Paper Prepared by the Secretariat, WIPO, Seventh Session, Geneva , April 4 2002, SCCR/7/8, p.5

[14] CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Comment on the Broadening of Definitions in the Proposed Broadcast Treaty Compared to Other International Conventions, C IS, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-broadening-of-definitions-in-the-proposed-broadcast-treaty-compared-to-other-international-conventions#_ftn1 (last accessed 25 June, 2015).

[15] WIPO General Assembly, 34th (18th Ordinary Session, Geneva, September 24- October 3 2007,WO/GA/34/16, p. 55-56;

[16] CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Protection of Broadcasting Organisations under the Proposed Treaty as Compared to Other International Conventions, CIS, Available at http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/protection-of-broadcasting-organisations-under-proposed-broadcast-treaty#_ftn79 : http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/protection-of-broadcasting-organisations-under-proposed-broadcast-treaty#_ftn79(last accessed 25 June, 2015) ; See Also CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Comment on the Broadening of Definitions in the Proposed Broadcast Treaty Compared to Other International Conventions, C IS, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-broadening-of-definitions-in-the-proposed-broadcast-treaty-compared-to-other-international-conventions#_ftn1 (last accessed 25 June, 2015)

[17] Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Technical Background Paper Prepared by the Secretariat, WIPO, Seventh Session, Geneva , April 4 2002, SCCR/7/8, p.5

[18] For details see CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Protection of Broadcasting Organisations under the Proposed Treaty as Compared to Other International Conventions, CIS, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/protection-of-broadcasting-organisations-under-proposed-broadcast-treaty#_ftn79 (last accessed 25 June, 2015) ; See Also CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Comment on the Broadening of Definitions in the Proposed Broadcast Treaty Compared to Other International Conventions, C IS, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-broadening-of-definitions-in-the-proposed-broadcast-treaty-compared-to-other-international-conventions#_ftn1 (last accessed 25 June, 2015).

[19] See comments under Introduction in this submission.

[20] Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Technical Background Paper Prepared by the Secretariat, WIPO, Seventh Session, Geneva , April 4 2002, SCCR/7/8, p.15

[21] Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Technical Background Paper Prepared by the Secretariat, WIPO, Seventh Session, Geneva , April 4 2002, SCCR/7/8, p.15-16

[22] Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Technical Background Paper Prepared by the Secretariat, WIPO, Seventh Session, Geneva , April 4 2002, SCCR/7/8, p.15

[23] WIPO General Assembly, 34th (18th Ordinary Session, Geneva, September 24- October 3 2007,WO/GA/34/16, p. 55-56;

[24] CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Protection of Broadcasting Organisations under the Proposed Treaty as Compared to Other International Conventions, CIS, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/protection-of-broadcasting-organisations-under-proposed-broadcast-treaty#_ftn79 (last accessed 25 June, 2015).

[25] Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Technical Background Paper Prepared by the Secretariat, WIPO, Seventh Session, Geneva , April 4 2002, SCCR/7/8, p.16-17

[26] CIS Submission to the Expert Committee: Comment on the Broadening of Definitions in the Proposed Broadcast Treaty Compared to Other International Conventions, C IS, Available at: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-broadening-of-definitions-in-the-proposed-broadcast-treaty-compared-to-other-international-conventions#_ftn (last accessed 25 June, 2015).

[27] Protection of Broadcasting Organisations, Technical Background Paper Prepared by the Secretariat, WIPO, Seventh Session, Geneva , April 4 2002, SCCR/7/8, p.17-18

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations-technical-background-paper

Comments on the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs)

sinha — 2015-10-27T14:46:24Z

Recently, the Indian Patents Office released the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (“2015 Guidelines/ Guidelines”) in an attempt to clarify examination of software related patents in India. This post is a pure analysis of the 2015 Guidelines. The new Guidelines, essentially, narrow the exclusions of secttion 3(k), thereby enlarging the scope of software related applications eligible for a patent grant. More alarmingly, there is low emphasis on the application of the subject matter test, increased ambiguity on the nature of subject matter and an exclusionary list of examples appended to the document. In the following post, CIS highlights these concerns and presents solutions, and also proposes a definition of "computer programme per se". Read on to understand how the new guidelines will potentially lead to an increase in software patenting activity by expanding the scope of patentable subject matter – in negation of the legislative intent of section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.

(Prepared with comments from Pranesh Prakash)

The 2015 Guidelines were stuck in the pipeline for a long time. The first draft was released in 2013 and a round of public consultation later, it paved the way for the current guidelines. The guidelines exist to supplement the practices and procedures followed by the Patent Office (as prescribed in the Indian 'Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure')[1], with the specific objective of ensuring consistent and uniform examination of CRI applications.

To begin with, the Guidelines have been significantly trimmed down from their draft version. CIS had commented on the Draft Guidelines in 2013 and broadly observed/recommended the following:

That the explanation to section 3(k) (Para 2.4) include the subject matter test.
That the Guidelines clarify that section 3(k) intending to exclude “computer programs per se” means excluding computer programs by themselves.
Supplying clarifications to the meaning of Inventive Step

Para 5.3 stated: (ja) "inventive step" means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art;

Ambiguity around the terms “technical advance” and “person skilled in the art” persists.

The Guidelines place CRIs in the same pool as other inventions, to the extent of suggesting that CRIs be evaluated on same standards of novelty, non-obviousness and industrial applicability as other inventions. This is problematic, because CRIs are inventions with features such as obsolence and being largely incremental innovations.
That the guidelines prescribing dictionary meanings for undefined terms (in Indian statutes) – was a dangerous prescription to make because the words “firmware”, “software”, “hardware” and “algorithm” have different meanings in different contexts.
That the guidelines had a misguided sense of ordering the paragraphs. The subject matter test (which should be undertaken first) was mentioned after the narrower test for computer programs per se. To ensure correct examination re CRIs the application of the subject matter test should precede all other patent criterion evaluations.[2]

All the above observations/recommendations still hold true – unfortunately, none of them have been incorporated into the 2015 Guidelines. The few unwanted changes that eventually made their way have nullified the progress the 2013 draft made in terms of providing clarity to section 3(k) and narrowing down the scope of software patents. For instance-

Instead of supplying clarity to terms such as “technical effect”, “technical advancement”, the 2015 Guidelines removethe definition of these terms. However, section 6 lists six questions that must be addressed by the examiner to determine the technical advancement of the invention.
Similarly, the explanation to section 3(k) has been deleted in the 2015 text.
The explanation to “inventive step” made reference to the Enercon case (thereby Windsurfing International Inc. and Pozzoli case), for the determination of inventive step. The explanation has also been discarded in the 2015 Guidelines.
Other changes include providing better definition of Algorithms, making thescope of mathematical model and business method claims under section 3(k) more expansive.

Narrowing down excluded subject matter relating to CRIs

Under the crucial section “Determination of excluded subject matter relating to CRIs” (section 5.4 in the draft Guidelines; section 4.5 in 2015 Guidelines), the 2013 draft deemed inventions consisting of computer programmes combined with general purpose computers as non-patentable. However, a computer programme couple with novel hardware was deemed possibly patentable subject matter. That version stated “5.4.6....In cases where the novelty resides in the device, machine or apparatus and if such devices are claimed in combination with the novel or known computer programmes to make their functionality definitive, the claims to these devices may be considered patentable, if the invention has passed the triple test of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. ” In the 2015 Guidelines, however, section 4.5 does not shed substantive light on the matter of patentability of software combined with novel hardware. Instead a new section titled “Determinants” has been introduced:

5. Determinants

5.1 For being considered patentable, the subject matter should involve either

- a novel hardware, or

-a novel hardware with a novel computer programme, or

-a novel computer programme with a known hardware which goes beyond the normal interaction with such hardware and affects a change in the functionality and/or performance of the existing hardware.

A computer program, when running on or loaded into a computer, going beyond the “normal” physical interactions between the software and the hardware on which it is run, and is capable of bringing further technical effect may not be considered as exclusion under these provisions.

And,

6. Indicators to determine technical advancement

6.1 While examining CRI applications, the examiner shall confirm that the claims have the requisite technical advancement. The following questions should be addressed by the examiner while determining the technical advancement of the inventions concerning CRIs:

(i) whether the claimed technical feature has a technical contribution on a process which is carried on outside the computer;

(ii) whether the claimed technical feature operates at the level of the architecture of the computer;

(iii) whether the technical contribution is by way of change in the hardware or the functionality of hardware.

(iv) whether the claimed technical contribution results in the computer being

made to operate in a new way;

(v) in case of a computer programme linked with hardware, whether the programme makes the computer a better computer in the sense of running more efficiently and effectively as a computer;

(vi) whether the change in the hardware or the functionality of hardware amounts to technical advancement.

If answer to ANY of the above questions is in affirmative, the invention may not be considered as exclusion under section 3 (k) of the Patents Act, 1970.

It is evident from section 5 that the Patent Office intends to expand the scope of patentable subject matter, and narrow down applicability of section 3(k). The clause “a novel computer programme with a known hardware which goes beyond the normal interaction with such hardware and affects a change in the functionality and/or performance of the existing hardware.” contributes to the expansion. There is no definition as to what will constitute“...normal interaction with such hardware...” Neither do the Guidelines set a standard for assessment of “normal interaction.” Should “normal interaction” be determined from the definition/perspective supplied by the vendor, or from the known universe of interactions possible from that device?

Further, as a stakeholder (Anand and Anand) in their comments on the 2013 draft pointed out, increasing the threshold to a novel hardware (and not just a general purpose computing machine) would go against the legislative intent as the requirement of a novel hardware was not mentioned anywhere in the Act.

These gaps may pave the path for a rather broad scope of patentable software inventions.

Secondary application of the subject matter test

“...Therefore, if a computer programme is not claimed by “in itself” rather, it has been claimed in such manner so as to establish industrial applicability of the invention and fulfills all other criterion of patentability, the patent should not be denied. In such a scenario, the claims in question shall have to be considered taking in to account whole of the claims. ”

The way 3(k) functions is that it's a subject matter test for what an invention is (with non-inventions excluded, since an application that has not been found to be in order may not be granted a patent
under s.43, and to be 'in order', the application has to be "for an invention" (s.6, s.10, etc.)). The tests for novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability have to in any case be applied, regardless of the subject matter test. So what the above-quoted sentence does is removes the subject matter test, as it uses "in itself" to mean to the exclusion of patentability tests other than subject matter.

Proposed definition of “computer programme per se”

Further, CIS suggests a definition to "computer programme per se":

"Computer programme per se in the relevant clause means (a) any computer programme in the abstract, (b) any computer programme expressed in source code form, including source code recorded on an information storage medium, or (c) any computer programme that can be executed or executes on a general purpose computer, including computer programme object code designed for execution on a general purpose computer that is recorded on an information storage medium."

Furthermore, since the inclusion of computer programmes in a broader application should not render the application ineligible subject matter, CIS previously proposed an addition to the test:

"We propose a new part to the above test to make the clause clearer. The Manual should specify that “the computer programme portions of any claimed invention should be treated as if it were covered by prior art and patentability should thus be determined with respect to the other features of the invention”. This way, we can ensure that 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."

Issues with illustrative examples

CIS observes that most of the examples provided in the document are things that should *not* be awarded patents as per section 3(k).

8.2 describes a computer programme per se, and awarding a patent to this would (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step)
8.4 describes a computer programme per se. General Purpose Computer. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step)
8.5 describes a computer programme per se. The "repeaters", etc., are software. General Purpose Computer. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step)
8.6 describes a computer programme per se. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step)
8.8 describes a computer programme per se. It can be implemented on any general purpose computer. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step)
8.1 is a simple algorithm, and forms the basis of parallel processing in a computer, of which a wireless device is a subset. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step)
8.1, 8.3, 8.7 have no novelty, no inventive step, despite not being computer programmes per se.

This issue was also raised by stakeholders in their comments to the IPO on the 2013 draft.

Conclusion

The 2015 Guidelines have narrowed the exclusions in section 3(k) – which does not bode well for innovation, especially innovation by startup enterprises. The new guidelines will permit a larger scope of applications to be granted, which will lead to bigger players in the market amassing huger patent portfolios. There is also an urgent need for clarification on “ novel hardware”.

On a broader level, CIS has repeatedly argued for discarding patent protection for software inventions, because of the unique nature of such inventions and the repercussions software patenting has on subsequent innovative activity. The 2015 Guidelines disappoint on rolling back and clarifying software patenting in India.

[1]Chapter 08.03.05.10 of the Manual, containing provisions pertaining to section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 shall stand deleted with coming into force of these Guidelines for examination of CRIs.

[2]The flow chart in the 2013 draft guidelines show a step by step process of examining CRIs. However, the subject matter determination is done towards the end. There is debate on whether there should be a set order for examining patents. However, in the case of CRIs there must be an exception as the statute explicitly prohibits certain types of patents (business method, algorithm etc). As argued earlier, in order to reduce transaction costs, the subject matter test must be made at the very beginning. There should at least be a preliminary determination as to Section 3(k) to reject patent applications for those inventions that can easily be classified under this provision.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-cris

Comments on the Draft Rules under the Information Technology Act

pranesh — 2011-09-21T06:13:42Z

The Centre for Internet and Society commissioned an advocate, Ananth Padmanabhan, to produce a comment on the Draft Rules that have been published by the government under the Information Technology Act. In his comments, Mr. Padmanabhan highlights the problems with each of the rules and presents specific recommendations on how they can be improved. These comments were sent to the Department of Information and Technology.

Comments on the Draft Rules under the Information Technology Act as Amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008

Submitted by the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore

Prepared by Ananth Padmanabhan, Advocate in the Madras High Court

Interception, Monitoring and Decryption

Section 69

The section says:

Where the Central Government or a State Government or any of its officer specially authorised by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in this behalf may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence, it may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource.
The procedure and safeguards subject to which such interception or monitoring or decryption may be carried out, shall be such as may be prescribed.
The subscriber or intermediary or any person in-charge of the computer resource shall, when called upon by any agency referred to in sub-section (1), extend all facilities and technical assistance to-

(a) provide access to or secure access to the computer resource generating transmitting, receiving or storing such information; or

(b) intercept, monitor, or decrypt the information, as the case may be; or

The subscriber or intermediary or any person who fails to assist the agency referred to in sub-section (3) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Recommendation #1
Section 69(3) should be amended and the following proviso be inserted:

Provided that only those intermediaries with respect to any information or computer resource that is sought to be monitored, intercepted or decrypted, shall be subject to the obligations contained in this sub-section, who are, in the opinion of the appropriate authority, prima facie in control of such transmission of the information or computer resource. The nexus between the intermediary and the information or the computer resource that is sought to be intercepted, monitored or decrypted should be clearly indicated in the direction referred to in sub-section (1) of this section.

Reasons for the Recommendation
In the case of any information or computer resource, there may be more than one intermediary who is associated with such information. This is because “intermediary” is defined in section 2(w) of the amended Act as,

“with respect to any electronic record means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record, including telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, webhosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes”.

The State or Central Government should not be given wide-ranging powers to enforce cooperation on the part of any such intermediary without there being a clear nexus between the information that is sought to be decrypted or monitored by the competent authority, and the control that any particular intermediary may have over such information.

To give an illustration, merely because some information may have been posted on an online portal, the computer resources in the office of the portal should not be monitored unless the portal has some concrete control over the nature of information posted in it. This has to be stipulated in the order of the Central or State Government which authorizes interception of the intermediary.

Recommendation #2
Section 69(4) should be repealed.

Reasons for the Recommendation
The closest parallels to Section 69 of the Act are the provisions in the Telegraph Rules which were brought in after the decision in PUCL v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301, famously known as the telephone tapping case.

Section 69(4) fixes tremendous liability on the intermediary for non-cooperation. This is violative of Article 14. Similar provisions in the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, which demand cooperation from members of the public as regards production of documents, letters etc., and impose punishment for non-cooperation on their part, impose a maximum punishment of one month. It is bewildering why the punishment is 7 years imprisonment for an intermediary, when the only point of distinction between an intermediary under the IT Act and a member of the public under the IPC and CrPC is the difference in the media which contains the information.

Section 69(3) is akin to the duty cast upon members of the public to extend cooperation under Section 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by way of providing information as to commission of any offence, or the duty, when a summons is issued by the Court or the police, to produce documents under Sections 91 and 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The maximum punishment for non-cooperation prescribed by the Indian Penal Code for omission to cooperate or wilful breach of summons is only a month under Sections 175 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code. Even the maximum punishment for furnishing false information to the police is only six months under Section 177 of the IPC. When this is the case with production of documents required for the purpose of trial or inquiry, it is wholly arbitrary to impose a punishment of six years in the case of intermediaries who do not extend cooperation for providing access to a computer resource which is merely apprehended as being a threat to national security etc. A mere apprehension, however reasonable it may be, should not be used to pin down a liability of such extreme nature on the intermediary.

This would also amount to a violation of Articles 19(1)(a) as well as 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, not to mention Article 20(3). To give an example, much of the information received from confidential sources by members of the press would be stored in computer resources. By coercing them, through the 7 year imprisonment threat, to allow access to this computer resource and thereby part with this information, the State is directly infringing on their right under Article 19(1)(a). Furthermore, if the “subscriber” is the accused, then section 69(4) goes against Article 20(3) by forcing the accused to bear witness against himself.

Draft Rules under Section 69

Rule 3
Directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource under sub- section (2) of section 69 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) shall not be issued except by an order made by the concerned competent authority who is Union Home Secretary in case of Government of India; the Secretary in-charge of Home Department in a State Government or Union Territory as the case may be. In unavoidable circumstances, such order may be made by an officer, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, who has been duly authorised by the Union Home Secretary or by an officer equivalent to rank of Joint Secretary to Government of India duly authorised by the Secretary in-charge of Home Department in the State Government or Union Territory, as the case may be:

Provided that in emergency cases –
(i) in remote areas, where obtaining of prior directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of information is not feasible; or
(ii) for operational reasons, where obtaining of prior directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource is not feasible;

the required interception or monitoring or decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource shall be carried out with the prior approval of the Head or the second senior most officer of the Security and Law Enforcement Agencies (hereinafter referred to as the said Security Agencies) at the Central Level and the officers authorised in this behalf, not below the rank of Inspector General of Police or an officer of equivalent rank, at the State and Union Territory level. The concerned competent authority, however, shall be informed of such interceptions or monitoring or decryption by the approving authority within three working days and that such interceptions or monitoring or decryption shall be got confirmed by the concerned competent authority within a period of seven working days. If the confirmation from the concerned competent authority is not received within the stipulated seven working days, such interception or monitoring or decryption shall cease and the same information shall not be intercepted or monitored or decrypted thereafter without the prior approval of the concerned competent authority, as the case may be.

Recommendation #3
In Rule 3, the following proviso may be inserted:

“Provided that in the event of cooperation by any intermediary being required for the purpose of interception, monitoring or decryption of such information as is referred to in this Rule, prior permission from a Supervisory Committee headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Courts shall be obtained before seeking to enforce the Order mentioned in this Rule against such intermediary.”

Reasons for the Recommendation
Section 69 and the draft rules suffer from absence of essential procedural safeguards. This has come in due to the blanket emulation of the Telegraph Rules. Additional safeguards should have been prescribed to ensure that the intermediary is put to minimum hardship when carrying on the monitoring or being granted access to a computer resource. Those are akin to a raid, in the sense that it can stop an online e-commerce portal from carrying out operations for a day or even more, thus affecting their revenue. It is therefore recommended that in any situation where cooperation from the intermediary is sought, prior judicial approval has to be taken. The Central or State Government cannot be the sole authority in such cases.

Furthermore, since access to the computer resource is required, an executive order should not suffice, and a search warrant or an equivalent which results from a judicial application of the mind (by the Supervisory Committee, for instance) should be required.

Recommendation #4
The following should be inserted after the last line in Rule 22:

The Review Committee shall also have the power to award compensation to the intermediary in cases where the intermediary has suffered loss or damage due to the actions of the competent authority while implementing the order issued under Rule 3.

Reasons for the Recommendation
The Review Committee should be given the power to award compensation to the loss suffered by the intermediary in cases where the police use equipment or software for monitoring/decryption that causes damage to the intermediary’s computer resources / networks. The Review Committee should also be given the power to award compensation in the case of monitoring directions which are later found to be frivolous or even worse, borne out of mala fide considerations. These provisions will act as a disincentive against the abuse of power contained in Section 69.

Blocking of Access to Information

Section 69A

The section provides for blocking of websites if the government is satisfied that it is in the interests of the purposes enlisted in the section. It also provides for penalty of up to seven years for intermediaries who fail to comply with the directions under this section.
The rules under this section describe the procedure which have to be followed barring which the review committee may, after due examination of the procedural defects, order an unblocking of the website.

Section 69A(3)
The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine.

Recommendation #5
The penalty for intermediaries must be lessened.

Reasons for Recommendations
The penal provision in this section which prescribes up to seven years imprisonment and a fine on an intermediary who fails to comply with the directions so issued is also excessively harsh. Considering the fact that various mechanisms are available to escape the blocking of websites, the intermediaries must be given enough time and space to administer the block effectively and strict application of the penal provisions must be avoided in bona fide cases.

The criticism about Section 69 and the draft rules in so far as intermediary liability is concerned, will also apply mutatis mutandis to these rules as well as Section 69A.

Draft Rules under Section 69A

Rule 22: Review Committee
The Review Committee shall meet at least once in two months and record its findings whether the directions issued under Rule (16) are in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 69A of the Act. When the Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions referred to above, it may set aside the directions and order for unblocking of said information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource for public access.

Recommendation #6
A permanent Review Committee should be specially for the purposes of examining procedural lapses.

Reasons for Recommendation
Rule 22 provides for a review committee which shall meet a minimum of once in every two months and order for the unblocking of a site of due procedures have not been followed. This would mean that if a site is blocked, there could take up to two months for a procedural lapse to be corrected and it to be unblocked. Even a writ filed against the policing agencies for unfair blocking would probably take around the same time. Also, it could well be the case that the review committee will be overborne by cases and may fall short of time to inquire into each. Therefore, it is recommended that a permanent Review Committee be set up which will monitor procedural lapses and ensure that there is no blocking in the first place before all the due procedural requirements are met.

Monitoring and Collection of Traffic Data

Draft Rules under Section 69B

The section provides for monitoring of computer networks or resources if the Central Government is satisfied that conditions so mentioned are satisfied.

The rules provide for the manner in which the monitoring will be done, the process by which the directions for the same will be issued and the liabilities of the intermediaries and monitoring officers with respect to confidentiality of the information so monitored.

Grounds for Monitoring
Rule 4
The competent authority may issue directions for monitoring and collection of traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource for any or all of the following purposes related to cyber security:
(a) forecasting of imminent cyber incidents;
(b) monitoring network application with traffic data or information on computer resource;
(c) identification and determination of viruses/computer contaminant;
(d) tracking cyber security breaches or cyber security incidents;
(e) tracking computer resource breaching cyber security or spreading virus/computer contaminants;
(f) identifying or tracking of any person who has contravened, or is suspected of having contravened or being likely to contravene cyber security;
(g) undertaking forensic of the concerned computer resource as a part of investigation or internal audit of information security practices in the computer resource;
(h) accessing a stored information for enforcement of any provisions of the laws relating to cyber security for the time being in force;
(i) any other matter relating to cyber security.

Rule 6
No direction for monitoring and collection of traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource shall be given for purposes other than those specified in Rule (4).

Recommendation #7
Clauses (a), (b), (c), and (i) of Rule 4 must be repealed.

Reasons for Recommendations
The term “cyber incident” has not been defined, and “cyber security” has been provided a circular definition. Rule 6 clearly states that no direction for monitoring and collection of traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource shall be given for purposes other than those specified in Rule 4. Therefore, it may prima facie appear that the government is trying to lay down clear and strict safeguards when it comes to monitoring at the expense of a citizens' privacy. However, Rule 4(i) allows the government to monitor if it is satisfied that it is “any matter related to cyber security”. This may well play as a ‘catch all’ clause to legalise any kind of monitoring and collection and therefore defeats the purported intention of Rule 6 of safeguarding citizen’s interests against arbitrary and groundless intrusion of privacy. Also, the question of degree of liability of the intermediaries or persons in charge of the computer resources for leak of secret and confidential information remains unanswered.

Rule 24: Disclosure of monitored data
Any monitoring or collection of traffic data or information in computer resource by the employee of an intermediary or person in-charge of computer resource or a person duly authorised by the intermediary, undertaken in course of his duty relating to the services provided by that intermediary, shall not be unlawful, if such activities are reasonably necessary for the discharge his duties as per the prevailing industry practices, in connection with :
(vi) Accessing or analysing information from a computer resource for the purpose of tracing a computer resource or any person who has contravened, or is suspected of having contravened or being likely to contravene, any provision of the Act that is likely to have an adverse impact on the services provided by the intermediary.

Recommendation #8
Safeguards must be introduced with respect to exercise of powers conferred by Rule 24(vi).

Reasons for Recommendations
Rule 24(vi) provides for access, collection and monitoring of information from a computer resource for the purposes of tracing another computer resource which has or is likely to contravened provisions of the Act and this is likely to have an adverse impact on the services provided by the intermediary. Analysis of a computer resource may reveal extremely confidential and important data, the compromise of which may cause losses worth millions. Therefore, the burden of proof for such an intrusion of privacy of the computer resource, which is first used to track another computer resource which is likely to contravene the Act, should be heavy. Also, this violation of privacy should be weighed against the benefits accruing to the intermediary. The framing of sub rules under this clearly specifying the same is recommended.

The disclosure of sensitive information by a monitoring agency for purposes of ‘general trends’ and ‘general analysis of cyber information’ is uncalled for as it dissipates information among lesser bodies that are not governed by sufficient safeguards and this could result in outright violation of citizen’s privacy.

Manner of Functioning of CERT-In

Draft Rules under Section 70B(5)

Section 70B provides for an Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) which shall serve as a national agency for performing duties as prescribed by clause 4 of this section in accordance to the rules as prescribed.
The rules provide for CERT-In’s authority, composition of advisory committee, constituency, functions and responsibilities, services, stakeholders, policies and procedures, modus operandi, disclosure of information and measures to deal with non compliance of orders so issued. However, there are a few issues which need to be addressed as under:

Definitions
In these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires, “Cyber security incident” means any real or suspected adverse event in relation to cyber security that violates an explicit or implied security policy resulting in unauthorized access, denial of service/ disruption, unauthorized use of a computer resource for processing or storage of information or changes to data, information without authorization.

Recommendation #9
The words ‘or implied’’ must be excluded from rule 2(g) which defines ‘cyber security incident’, and the term ‘security policy’ must be qualified to state what security policy is being referred to.

Reasons for Recommendation
“Cyber security incident” means any real or suspected adverse event in relation to cyber security that violates an explicit or implied security policy resulting in unauthorized access, denial of service/disruption, unauthorized use of a computer resource for processing or storage of information or changes to data, information without authorization.

Thus, the section defines any circumstance where an explicit or implied security policy is contravened as a ‘cyber security incident’. Without clearly stating what the security policy is, an inquiry into its contravention is against an individual’s civil rights. If an individual’s actions are to be restricted for reasons of security, then the restrictions must be expressly defined and such restrictions cannot be said to be implied.

Rule 13(4): Disclosure of Information
Save as provided in sub-rules (1), (2), (3) of rule 13, it may be necessary or expedient to so to do, for CERT-In to disclose all relevant information to the stakeholders, in the interest of sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence relating to cognizable offence or enhancing cyber security in the country.

Recommendation #10
Burden of necessity for disclosure of information should be made heavier.

Reasons for the Recommendation
Rule 13(4) allows the disclosure of information by CERT-In in the interests of ‘enhancing cyber security’. This enhancement however needs to be weighed against the detriment caused to the individual and the burden of proof must be on the CERT-In to show that this was the only way of achieving the required.

Rule 19: Protection for actions taken in Good Faith
All actions of CERT-In and its staff acting on behalf of CERT-In are taken in good faith in fulfillment of its mandated roles and functions, in pursuance of the provisions of the Act or any rule, regulations or orders made thereunder. CERT-In and its staff acting on behalf of CERT-In shall not be held responsible for any unintended fallout of their actions.

Recommendation #11
CERT-In should be made liable for their negligent action and no presumption of good faith should be as such provided for.

Reasons for the Recommendation
Rule 19 provides for the protection of CERT-In members for the actions taken in ‘good faith’. It defines such actions as ‘unintended fallouts’. Clearly, if information has been called for and the same is highly confidential, then this rule bars the remedy for any leak of the same due to the negligence of the CERT-In members. This is clearly not permissible as an agency that calls for delicate information should also be held responsible for mishandling the same, intentionally or negligently. Good faith can be established if the need arises, and no presumption as to good faith needs to be provided.

Draft Rules under Section 52

These rules, entitled the “Cyber Appellate Tribunal (Salary, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2009” are meant to prescribe the framework for the independent and smooth functioning of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal. This is so because of the specific functions entrusted to this Appellate Tribunal. Under the IT Act, 2000 as amended by the IT (Amendment) Act, 2008, this Tribunal has the power to entertain appeals against orders passed by the adjudicating officer under Section 47.

Recommendation #12
Amend qualifications Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003, to require judicial training and experience.

Reasons for the Recommendation
It is submitted that an examination of these rules governing the Appellate Tribunal cannot be made independent of the powers and qualifications of Adjudicating Officers who are the original authority to decide on contravention of provisions in the IT Act dealing with damage to computer system and failure to furnish information. Even as per the Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003, persons who did not possess judicial experience and training, such as those holding the post of Director in the Central Government, were qualified to perform functions under Section 46 and decide whether there has been unauthorized access to a computer system. This involves appreciation of evidence and is not a merely administrative function that could be carried on by any person who has basic knowledge of information technology.

Viewed from this angle, the qualifications of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal members should have been made much tighter as per the new draft rules. The above rules when read with Section 50 of the IT Act, as amended in 2008, do not say anything about the qualification of the technical members apart from the fact that such person shall not be appointed as a Member, unless he is, or has been, in the service of the Central Government or a State Government, and has held the post of Additional Secretary or Joint Secretary or any equivalent post. Though special knowledge of, and professional experience in, information technology, telecommunication, industry, management or consumer affairs, has been prescribed in the Act as a requirement for any technical member.

Draft Rules under Section 54

These Rules do not suffer any defect and provide for a fair and reasonable enquiry in so far as allegations made against the Chairperson or the members of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal are concerned.

Penal Provisions

Section 66A

Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,
    (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
    (b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,
    (c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.
Sec. 32 of the 2008 Act inserts Sec. 66A which provides for penal measures for mala fide use of electronic resources to send information detrimental to the receiver. For the section to be attracted the ‘information’ needs to be grossly offensive, menacing, etc. and the sender needs to have known it to be false.

While the intention of the section – to prevent activities such as spam-sending – might be sound and even desirable, there is still a strong argument to be made that words is submitted that the use of words such as ‘annoyance’ and ‘inconvenience’ (in s.66A(c)) are highly problematic. Further, something can be grossly offensive without touching upon any of the conditions laid down in Article 19(2). Without satisfying the conditions of Article 19(2), this provision would be ultra vires the Constitution.

Recommendation #13
The section should be amended and words which lead to ambiguity must be excluded.

Reasons for the Recommendation
A clearer phrasing as to what exactly could convey ‘ill will’ or cause annoyance in the electronic forms needs to be clarified. It is possible in some electronic forms for the receiver to know the content of the information. In such circumstances, if such a possibility is ignored and annoyance does occur, is the sender still liable? Keeping in mind the complexity of use of electronic modes of transmitting information, it can be said that several such conditions arise which the section has vaguely covered. Therefore, a stricter and more clinical approach is necessary.

Recommendation #14
A proviso should be inserted to this section providing for specific exceptions to the offence contained in this section for reasons such as fair comment, truth, criticism of actions of public officials etc.

Reasons for the Recommendation
The major problem with Section 66A lies in clause (c) as per which any electronic mail or electronic mail message sent with the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience is covered within the ambit of offensive messages. This does not pay heed to the fact that even a valid and true criticism of the actions of an individual, when brought to his notice, can amount to annoyance. Indeed, it may be brought to his attention with the sole purpose of causing annoyance to him. When interpreting the Information Technology Act, it is to be kept in mind that the offences created under this Act should not go beyond those prescribed in the Indian Penal Code except where there is a wholly new activity or conduct, such as hacking for instance, which is sought to be criminalized.

Offensive messages have been criminalized in the Indian Penal Code subject to the conditions specified in Chapter XXII being present. It is not an offence to verbally insult or annoy someone without anything more being done such as a threat to commit an offence, etc. When this is the case with verbal communications, there is no reason to make an exception for those made through the electronic medium and bring any electronic mail or message sent with the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience within the purview of an offensive message.

Section 66F

The definition of cyber-terrorism under this provision is too wide and can cover several activities which are not actually of a “terrorist” character.
Section 66F(1)(B) is particularly harsh and goes much beyond acts of “terrorism” to include various other activities within its purview. As per this provision,
“[w]hoever knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons for the security of the State or foreign relations, or any restricted information, data or computer database, with reasons to believe that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause or is likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, group of individuals or otherwise, commits the offence of cyber terrorism.”

This provision suffers from several defects and hence ought to be repealed.

Recommendation #15
Section 66F(1)(B) has to be repealed or suitably amended to water down the excessively harsh operation of this provision. The restrictive nature of the information that is unauthorisedly accessed must be confined to those that are restricted on grounds of security of the State or foreign relations. The use to which such information may be put should again be confined to injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order. A mere advantage to a foreign nation cannot render the act of unauthorized access one of cyber-terrorism as long as such advantage is not injurious or harmful in any manner to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order. A mens rea requirement should also be introduced whereby mere knowledge that the information which is unauthorisedly accessed can be put to such uses as given in this provision should not suffice for the unauthorised access to amount to cyber-terrorism. The unauthorised access should be with the intention to put such information to this use. The amended provision would read as follows:

“[w]hoever knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons for the security of the State or foreign relations, with the intention that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order, commits the offence of cyber terrorism.”

Reasons for the Recommendation
The ambit of this provision goes much beyond information, data or computer database which is restricted only on grounds of security of the State or foreign relations and extends to “any restricted information, data or computer database”. This expression covers any government file which is marked as confidential or saved in a computer used exclusively by the government. It also covers any file saved in a computer exclusively used by a private corporation or enterprise. Even the use to which such information can be put need not be confined to those that cause or are likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, or friendly relations with foreign States. Information or data which is defamatory, amounting to contempt of court, or against decency / morality, are all covered within the scope of this provision. This goes way beyond the idea of a terrorist activity and poses serious questions. While there is no one globally accepted definition of cyberterrorism, it is tough to conceive of slander as a terrorist activity.

To give an illustration, if a journalist managed to unauthorisedly break into a restricted database, even one owned by a private corporation, and stumbled upon information that is defamatory in character, he would have committed an act of “cyber-terrorism.” Various kinds of information pertaining to corruption in the judiciary may be precluded from being unauthorisedly accessed on the ground that such information may be put to use for committing contempt of court. Any person who gains such access would again qualify as a cyber-terrorist. The factual situations are numerous where this provision can be put to gross misuse with the ulterior motive of muzzling dissent or freezing access to information that may be restricted in nature but nonetheless have a bearing on probity in public life etc. It is therefore imperative that this provision may be toned down as recommended above.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-draft-rules

Comments on the Broadcast Treaty and Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives

smita — 2012-12-04T23:11:34Z

This November at WIPO the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights was witness to a tough negotiation on the proposed Treaty providing access to copyrighted materials to visually impaired persons. In between these discussions, the SCCR also found time to have two short plenary sessions on the proposed broadcast treaty as well as working documents on exceptions for libraries and archives.

Although we were unable to make a statement at the SCCR due to logistical constraints, CIS had the following comments prepared on both these issues:

Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations:

The Centre for Internet and Society would like to reiterate the statement on principles provided in the 22nd SCCR by many civil society non-governmental organizations, cable casters and technology companies opposing a rights-based Broadcast Treaty. While we are encouraged by the inclusion of more suitable alternatives in many of the areas that civil society organizations had expressed concern, it is important that these alternatives be considered carefully. Some of the alternatives in the working document are not in keeping with the mandate of this Committee and we need to ensure that any new treaty provides a balanced protection to broadcast organizations.

We wish to enumerate a few key areas that need to be emphasized once again in this regard –

To begin with, the definition of ‘broadcast’ itself should not be too broad. The treaty needs a clear and precise definition that limits the protection to signals and does not extend to retransmissions or transmissions over computer networks.

Similarly, it is essential that the protection granted to a broadcasting organization should be limited to broadcast signals. The current working document extends this protection to public accessibility/performance of the broadcast signal and such restrictions might not be feasible in developing and least developed countries. One alternative even extends the protection available to fixations of the broadcasts and this is entirely unacceptable in a signals based treaty. The obligations with regard to technological protection measures, if any, should also be limited to protect only those broadcasts that are lawful.

Limitations and exceptions to the protections granted by this treaty are also of great importance, especially so in light of the Development Agenda. These exceptions and limitations should be made mandatory and be expanded to include issues of national interest and for free-to-air broadcast signals (such as the laws governing broadcast of cricket games in India).

Lastly, as pointed out many times already, we are of the opinion that a fixed term of protection, whether 20 or 50 years, is inconsistent with the idea of a signals based approach to the treaty.

Proposed Legal Instruments on Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives and Educational, Teaching and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities:

The Centre for Internet and Society would like to thank the Secretariat and the entire Committee for the hard work being put in this week at the SCCR.

International instruments that govern exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives as well as educational, teaching and research instruments and persons with other disabilities is key to ensure a balanced global copyright system that protects both right holders and users. Such instruments will not only allow the preservation of copyrighted works, but also provide greater access to these materials, especially in developing countries.

The working documents before us cover a number of issues and we would like to address a few of them today.

First, the three-step test. This has been a contentious issue with regard to all three instruments that are being discussed here this week. We would like to reiterate that a narrow interpretation of the three-step test should not be adopted, it is important that any and all flexibilities that can be made available to libraries and archives.

Second, libraries, archives, educational, research and teaching institutions should definitely be allowed to import and export copyrighted works and parallel trade in these works should be allowed. The language used in the current working document (SCCR/24/8) needs to be improved upon (Article 14, under 4.1 on page 12). This provision should indicate that as long as the copy of the work is lawfully produced, an educational institution, library, research organization or student is free to acquire, sell, import, export or otherwise dispose of that copy.

Thirdly, we wish to emphasize once again, the importance of protecting works that are in a digital format, as well as online libraries and archives. Additionally, the transmission of these works in a digital form as well as any internet service providers engaged in facilitating access to materials under this treaty should also be granted protection.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-broadcast-treaty-and-exceptions-and-limitations-for-libraries-and-archives

Comment by CIS at ACE on Presentation on French Charter on the Fight against Cyber-Counterfeiting

pranesh — 2011-12-01T11:59:45Z

The seventh session of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Advisory Committee on Enforcement is being held in Geneva on November 30 and December 1, 2011. Pranesh Prakash responded to a presentation by Prof. Pierre Sirinelli of the École de droit de la Sorbonne, Université Paris 1 on 'The French Charter on the Fight against Cyber-Counterfeiting of December 16, 2009' with this comment.

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society. First, I would like to congratulate you on your re-election.

And I would like to congratulate Prof. Sirenelli on his excellent presentation.

I would like to flag a few points, though:

One of the benefits of normal laws, as opposed to the soft/plastic laws, which he champions, is that normal laws are bound by procedures established by law, due process requirements, and principles of natural justice. Unfortunately, the soft/plastic laws, which in essence are private agreements, are not.
The report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Expression and Opinion made it clear in his report to the UN Human Rights Council that the Internet is now an intergral part of citizens exercising their right of freedom of speech under national constitutions and under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That report highlights that many initiatives on copyright infringement, including that of the French government with HADOPI and the UK, actually contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The right of privacy is also flagged by many as something that will have to be compromised if such private enforcement of copyright is encouraged.

I'd like to know Prof. Sirinelli's views on these three issues: due process, right of freedom of speech, and the right to privacy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ace-7-french-charter-cis-comment

Civil Society Letter Against TRIPS-Plus IP Enforcement

pranesh — 2011-09-22T12:48:51Z

This open letter was sent to the president of Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and high-level government officials on the eve of the Third International Conference on Counterfeiting & Piracy organized by CII. This conference aims to strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights and thus creating an imbalance in the protection that intellectual property offers to both those who own it as well as those who don't.

An Open Letter to the President of Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) on the Third International Conference on Counterfeiting & Piracy

To
Mr. Venu Srinivasan
The President
Confederation of Indian Industry (CII)
The Mantosh Sondhi Centre, 23,
Institutional Area, Lodi Road
New Delhi - 110 003

Dear Mr. Srinivasan,

We understand that Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) is hosting the Third International Conference on Counterfeiting and Piracy from 19-20th August 2009 in partnership with the Embassy of the United States and the Quality Brand Protection Committee (QBPC), China. As stated in the invitation letter the primary objectives of the conference are: 1) to initiate coordinated action for cross border enforcement; 2) to highlight the importance of protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs); 3) to combat the growing threat of piracy and counterfeiting; 4) to facilitate a global meeting of customs officials across the globe; 5) to recommend the creation and setting up of a governmental “National Brand Protection” group; 6) to serve as a forum to discuss legal guidelines related to the prosecution of IPR infringement and to eliminate ‘loopholes’ within the existing laws; and 7) to strengthen cooperation between enforcement agencies and chalk out strategies for enforcement agencies a industry action both at national & international level. We also understand that this international conference is part of CII Intellectual Property Division’s special initiative on enforcement of IPRs. As part of this special initiative CII aims at “engaging government to create conducive legislative measures, policy levels reform and impressing [upon them] to adopt stringent enforcement initiatives and exemplary punitive and monetary measures to further safeguard and secure the interest of industry”. CII also wants to “create a global partnership to synergise efforts of international community and to support and participate in India's efforts in combating counterfeiting both at domestic and international levels”. We, the undersigned, representing various civil society organizations in India, write this letter to express our strong reservation on the conference as well as on CII’s special initiative on IP enforcement. Without raising any question on CII’s right to organize events we would like to convey the following concerns with regard to the conference and CII’s initiative on IP enforcement.

Many of the above mentioned objectives of the conference and the special initiative are directed towards the enhancement of intellectual property (IP) standards like coordinated action on border measures, common guidelines for prosecution of IP infringement, exemplary punitive and monetary measures, etc. In other words, enhancement of IP standards means using more public money to protect private rights; very often protecting the monopoly over intangible property rights of multi-national corporations (MNCs).

As you may be aware, MNCs and their developed country hosts are currently engaged in the implementation of a multi-pronged strategy to enhance IP enforcement standards.[1] This is similar to the MNC’s initiatives in the mid 80s to enhance international IP protection, which resulted in the Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Unlike the 80s, now MNCs and developed countries use multiple forums to pursue the objective of enhancement of IP enforcement standards. Some developed countries have unilaterally enhanced their IP enforcement strategy to force other countries, especially developing countries, to accept the same through various multilateral organizations, namely the World Customs Organization (WCO), World Health Organization (WHO), Universal Postal Union (UPU), Interpol, WIPO and WTO. Developed countries are also using Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), Bilateral Agreements on IP Enforcements as well as financing lobbyist studies, conferences and policy recommendations to impose higher IP enforcement standards. These efforts for the enhancement of IP enforcement standards are a matter of grave concern for the people of developing countries and their governments. By partnering with the US Embassy and Quality Brand Protection Committee of China (QBPC)[2] in the organization of this conference, CII is allowing itself to play in the hands of MNCs and some developed countries, whose interests do not match with that of India industries and that of the Indian people.

As you are aware, the Government of India is taking a very strong position in resisting enhancement of IP enforcement standards in all the multilateral forums. India along with like-minded developing countries successfully pushed back TRIPS-plus[3] IP enforcement agenda at WCO and WHO. India is also trying its level best to convince other developing countries the need to stick to TRIPS-compliant standards rather than adopting TRIPS-plus enforcement standards. In the wake of the controversial generic drug seizures by EU customs authorities, India has also raised the issue of TRIPS-plus IP enforcement standards contained in the EU IP Enforcement Directive at least two times at the TRIPS Council.[4] The Indian political leadership has unequivocally raised its concern over the enhancement of IP enforcement standards at other forums also.[5] In adopting this stance, the Government of India has cited public interest as well as the operating freedom of Indian industry as its justifications.[6] By partnering at this vital stage with an MNC lobby group and a heeding to developed country governments, CII is not acting in furtherance of the legitimate public interests of Indian domestic industry and the Indian people.

It is a well-evidenced fact that TRIPS-plus enforcement standards adversely impact not only legitimate trade between nations (as shown by the EU seizures) but also the day-to-day life of millions of people especially in India and other developing countries.[7] Unfounded IP enforcement measures would adversely impact access to life saving medicines and educational materials. Thus the IP enforcement measures also have the potential to deny right to development to people in the global South. Hence an organization like CII should not view IP as only a business tool but should look at the larger scheme of things especially in the social and economic realities of India. In fact, by promoting enhancement of IP enforcement standards CII is advocating a policy, which would violate the right to health, the right to knowledge, as also the right to development.

We would also like to point out that Indian pharmaceutical industry is one of the victims of TRIPS-plus IP enforcement standards. In 2008 alone, 17 consignments[8] were seized in transit at Europe using the EU Directive on IP Enforcement, which allows seizure of goods in transit.[9] These consignments were being exported from developing countries (such as India and Brazil) to other developing countries, and the contents of the consignments are perfectly legal in both the exporting as well as the importing nations. These highly questionable seizures resulted in the crisis of health programmes as it resulted in delays in and prohibitive costs of access to life-saving medicines in developing countries of Africa and Latin America. CII can barely claim to be representative of the interests of Indian industry if it ignores such episodes and partners with self-promoting MNCs and developed countries’ governments to advocate for the enhancement of IP enforcement standards.

In the light of above-mentioned issues, we request you to consider the following:

Rejecting the TRIPS-plus enforcement agenda in toto. We demand CII, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry(ASSOCHAM) and other Indian business associations to reject any and all attempts of bringing in a TRIPS-plus enforcement agenda in India, in the interests of Indian industry and the Indian people.
Completely disengaging from any collaborative efforts with foreign institutions to further TRIPS-plus standards of IP protection in India and also abstaining from any engagements on the anti-counterfeiting efforts with foreign agencies. CII should attempt to engage with domestic institutions and build national consensus before engaging with foreign institutions with the claim of representatives of Indian industry.
Taking necessary proactive steps to safeguard the interests of access to medicine and access to knowledge along with interest of the Indian domestic industry.
Participating in a more creative discussion on IP and development rather than simply accepting the simplistic and largely discredited view that stronger IP regime leads to more innovation and is a necessary condition for socio-economic development.

CC:
Shri Anjan Das
Senior Director & Head
Technology, Innovation, IPR & Life Sciences
Confederation of Indian Industry (CII)
Plot No. 249-F, Sector-18; Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV,
Gurgaon-122015, Haryana

Shri. P. Chidambaram
Minister
Ministry of Home Affairs
Government of India
North Block, Central Secretariat
New Delhi 110001

Shri G. K. Pillai
Secretary Justice
Department of Justice
Ministry of Home Affairs
Government of India
North Block, Central Secretariat
New Delhi 110001

Shri Naresh Dayal,
Secretary, Dept. of Health and Family Welfare
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Government of India
149-A, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 011

Shri Ajay Shankar
Secretary
Department Of Industrial Policy & Promotion
Ministry of Commerce and Industry
Room 153, Udyog Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 011

Signatories to this letter

Centre for Trade and Development (Centad), New Delhi
Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
National Working Group on Patent Laws, New Delhi
Lawyers Collective (HIV/AIDS Unit)
All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN)
International Treatment Preparedness Coalition (ITPC), India
Consumers Association of India, Chennai
IndoJuris Law Offices, Chennai
All Indian People’s Science Network, New Delhi
Delhi Science Forum
Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore
Knowledge Commons
Moving Republic
IT for Change
Centre for Health and Social Justice(CHSJ), New Delhi
Navdanya, New Delhi
Support for Advocacy and Training to Health Initiatives (SATHI)
Centre for Enquiry Into Health and Allied Themes (CEHAT)
Initiative for Health Equity & Society
International Peoples Health Council (South Asia)
Drug Action Forum – Dharwad, Karnataka
Dr. Mira Shiva, New Delhi
Tina Kuriakose, PhD Scholar, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
Dr Gopal Dabade, Dharwad
Dinesh Abrol, Scientist NISTADS, CSIR, New Delhi
Madhavi Rahirkar, Lawyer/Consultant, Pune
Gautam John, Bangalore
Achal Prabhala, Bangalore

Endnotes

[1] See Susan K Sell, The Global IP Upward Ratchet, Anti-counterfeiting and Piracy Enforcement Efforts: The State of Play.
[2] QBPC barely qualifies as a representative of Chinese interest, as it comprises more than 180 multinational member companies.
[3] ‘TRIPS-plus’ refers to any protection of IPRs that surpasses the standards and requirements spelt out in WTO-TRIPS provisions.
[4] See Jonathan Lyn, India Brazil raise EU drug Seizures issue at WTO, available at http://www.livemint.com/2009/02/04232721/India-Brazil-raise-EU-drug-se.html
[5] Indian Minister of State for External Affairs Broaches Seizures of Generics at ECOSOC, available at http://www.keionline.org/blogs/2009/07/08/india-ecosoc-seizures/#more-2404
[6] Indian Commerce Secretary’s Speech to the African Community Ambassadors. available at http://www.centad.org/focus_77.asp.
[7] For two very recent examples, see Intellectual Property Enforcement: International Perspectives, Xuan Li & Carlos Correa (eds.) (2009); Anand Grover, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, A/HRC/11/12 (2009).
[8] Jyoti Datta, 16 out of 17 drug consignment seizures in the Dutch were from India available at http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/06/08/stories/2009060851700300.htm
[9] The EC Regulation No 1383/2003 allows for seizure of goods in transit.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/civil-society-letter-against-trips-plus-ip-enforcement

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

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:47:36Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article by Ramesh Shankar appeared in Pharmabiz.

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

CIS-TWN Analysis of WIPO Treaty for the Print Disabled (SCCR/22/15)

pranesh — 2011-10-12T08:29:01Z

CIS and the Third World Network (TWN) conducted a quick analysis of the "Consensus document on an international instrument on limitations and exceptions for persons with print disabilities presented by Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, and the United States of America" presented as WIPO document numbered SCCR/22/15.

SCCR/22/15

ORIGINAL: English

DATE: June 20, 2011

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights

Twenty-Second Session Geneva, June 15 to 24, 2011

Consensus document on an international instrument on limitations and exceptions for persons with print disabilities presented by Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, and the United States of America

PREAMBLE

Recalling the principles of non-discrimination, equal opportunity and access, proclaimed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,

Mindful of the obstacles that are prejudicial to human development and the fulfillment of disabled persons with regard to education, research, access to information and communication,

Emphasizing the importance of copyright protection as an incentive for literary and artistic creation and enhancing opportunities for everyone to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits,

Recognizing the importance of both accessibility to the achievement of equal opportunities in all spheres of society and of the protection of the rights of authors in their literary and artistic works in a manner as effective and uniform as possible,

Aware of the many barriers to access to information and communication experienced by persons who are blind or have limited vision, or have other disabilities regarding access to published works,

Aware that the majority of visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability live in countries of low or moderate incomes,

Desiring to provide full and equal access to information, culture and communication for the visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability and, towards that end, considering the need both to expand the number of works in accessible formats and to improve access to those works,

Recognizing the opportunities and challenges for the visually impaired/persons with a print disability presented by the development of new information and communication technologies, including technological publishing and communication platforms that are transnational in nature,

Recognizing the need to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers,

Aware that national copyright legislation is territorial in nature, and where activity is undertaken across jurisdictions, uncertainty regarding the legality of activity undermines the development and use of new technologies and services that can potentially improve the lives of the visually impaired/persons with print disabilities,

Recognizing the large number of Members who, to that end, have established exceptions and limitations in their national copyright laws for visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability, yet the continuing shortage of works in ~~special~~accessible formats for such persons,

Recognizing that the preference is for works to be made accessible by rightholders to people with disabilities at publication and that, to the extent that the market is unable to provide appropriate access to works for visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability, it is recognized that alternative measures are needed to improve such access,

Recognizing the need to maintain a balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest, particularly education, research and access to information, and that such a balance must facilitate effective and timely access to works for the benefit of visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability,

Emphasizing the importance and flexibility of the three-step test for limitations and exceptions established in Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention and other international instruments,

Considering the discussions within the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights on the issue of exceptions and limitations for the benefit of visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability and the various proposals tabled by Member States,

Prompted by a desire to contribute to the implementation of the relevant recommendations of the Development Agenda of the World Intellectual Property Organization,

Taking into account the importance of an international legal instrument/joint recommendation/treaty both to increase the number and range of accessible format works available to visually impaired persons/persons with a print disability in the world and to provide the necessary minimum flexibilities in copyright laws that are needed to ensure full and equal access to information and communication for persons who are visually impaired/have a print disability in order to support their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others and to ensure the opportunity to develop and utilize their creative, artistic and intellectual potential, for their own benefit and for the enrichment of society,

Have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE A

DEFINITIONS

For purposes of these provisions

"work" means a work in which copyright subsists, whether published or otherwise made publicly available in any media.

"accessible format copy" means a copy of a work in an alternative manner or form which gives a beneficiary person access to the work, including to permit the person to have access as feasibly and comfortably as a person without a print disability. The accessible format copy must respect the integrity of the original work and be used exclusively by beneficiary persons~~persons with print disabilities~~.¹

[Possible enumeration of different formats.]²

"authorized entity" means a governmental agency, a non-profit entity or an~~non-profit~~ organization³ that has as one of its ~~primary missions~~activities to assist persons with print disabilities by providing them with services relating to education, training, adaptive reading, or information access.

An authorized entity maintains policies and procedures to establish the bona fide nature of persons with print disabilities that they serve.

An authorized entity has the trust of both persons with print disabilities and copyright rights holders. It is understood that to obtain the trust of rightholders and beneficiary persons, it is not necessary to require the prior permission of said rightholders or beneficiary persons.⁴

~~If an authorized entity is a nation-wide network of organizations, then all organizations, institutions, and entities that participate in the network must adhere to these characteristics.~~

"reasonable price for developed countries" means that the accessible format copy of the work is available at a similar or lower price than the price of the work available to persons without print disabilities in that market.

"reasonable price for developing countries" means that the accessible format copy of the work is available at prices that are affordable in that market, taking into account the humanitarian needs of persons with print disabilities.

References to 'copyright' include copyright and any relevant rights related to copyright that are provided by a Contracting Party in compliance with ~~the Rome Convention, the TRIPS Agreement, the WPPT or otherwise~~any applicable international treaties or otherwise.⁵

ARTICLE B

BENEFICIARY PERSONS

A beneficiary person is a person who

is blind;
has a visual impairment or a perceptual or reading disability, such as dyslexia, which cannot be improved by the use of corrective lenses to give visual function substantially equivalent to that of a person who has no such impairment or disability and so is unable to read printed works to substantially the same degree as a person without an impairment or disability; or
is unable, through physical disability, to hold or manipulate a book or to focus or move the eyes to the extent that would be normally acceptable for reading.

ARTICLE C

NATIONAL LAW EXCEPTIONS ON ACCESSIBLE FORMAT COPIES

Member State/Contracting Party should/shall provide in their national copyright law for an exception or limitation to the right of reproduction, the right of distribution and the right of making available to the public, as defined in article 8 of the WCT, for beneficiary persons as defined herein.
A Member State/Contracting Party may fulfill Article C (1) by providing an exception or limitation in its national copyright law such that
1. Authorized entities shall be permitted without the authorization of the owner of copyright to make an accessible format copy of a work, supply that accessible format copy or an accessible format copy obtained from another authorized entity to a beneficiary person by any means, including by non-commercial lending or by electronic communication by wire or wireless means, and undertake any intermediate steps to achieve these objectives, when all of the following conditions are met:
  1. the authorized entity wishing to undertake said activity has lawful access to that work or a copy of that work;
  2. the work is converted to an accessible format copy, which may include any means needed to navigate information in the accessible format, but does not introduce changes other than those needed to make the work accessible to the beneficiary person;
  3. copies of the work in the accessible format are supplied exclusively to be used by beneficiary persons; and
  4. ~~4. the activity is undertaken on a non-profit basis.~~ ⁶
  5. A beneficiary person or someone acting on his or her behalf may make an accessible format copy of a work for the personal use of the beneficiary person where the beneficiary person has lawful access to that work or a copy of that work.
2. A Member State/Contracting Party may fulfill Article C (1) by providing any other exception or limitation in its national copyright law that is limited to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.
3. The Member State/Contracting Party may limit said exceptions or limitations to published works which, in the applicable ~~special~~accessible format, cannot be otherwise obtained within a reasonable time and at a reasonable price.
4. It shall be a matter for national law to determine whether exceptions or limitations referred to in this Article are subject to remuneration.
ARTICLE D

CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGE OF ACCESSIBLE FORMAT COPIES
1. Member States/Contracting Parties should/shall provide that if an accessible format copy of a work is made under an exception or limitation or export license in their national law, that accessible format copy may be distributed or made available to a beneficiary person in another Member State/Contracting Party by an authorized entity ~~where that other Member State/Contracting Party would permit that beneficiary person to make or import that accessible copy~~.⁷
2. A Member State/Contracting Party may fulfill Article D(1) by providing an exception or limitation in its national copyright law such that:
  1. Authorized entities shall be permitted without the authorization of the owner of copyright to distribute or make available accessible format copies to authorized entities in other Member States/Contracting Parties for the exclusive use of persons with print disabilities, where such activity is undertaken on a non-profit basis.⁸
  2. Authorized entities shall be permitted without the authorization of the owner of copyright to distribute or make available accessible format copies to persons with print disabilities in other Member States/Contracting Parties where the authorized entity has verified the individual is properly entitled to receive such accessible format copies under that other Member State/Contracting Party's national law.⁹
The Member State/Contracting Party may limit said distribution or making available to published works which, in the applicable ~~special~~accessible format, cannot be otherwise obtained within a reasonable time and at a reasonable price, in the country of importation.
1. Without prejudice to other exceptions to the exclusive rights of authors that are otherwise permitted by the Berne Convention or the TRIPS Agreement, a Member State/Contracting Party may fulfill Article D(1) by providing any other exception or limitation in its national copyright law that is limited to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.
ARTICLE E

IMPORTATION OF ACCESSIBLE FORMAT COPIES

To the extent that national law would permit a beneficiary person or an authorized entity acting on the beneficiary person’s behalf to make an accessible format copy of a work, the national law should/shall permit a beneficiary person or an authorized entity acting on that person's behalf to import an accessible format copy.¹⁰

ARTICLE F

CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL PROTECTION MEASURES

Member States/Contracting Parties should/shall ensure that beneficiaries of the exception provided by Article C have the means to enjoy the exception where technological protection measures have been applied to a work.

In the absence of voluntary measures by rightholders and to the extent that copies of the work in the accessible format are not available commercially at a reasonable price or via authorized entities, Member States/Contracting Parties should/shall take appropriate measures to ensure that beneficiaries of the exception provided by Article C have the means of benefiting from that exception when technical protection measures have been applied to a work, to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception.¹¹

~~ARTICLE G~~

~~RELATIONSHIP WITH CONTRACTS~~

~~Nothing herein shall prevent Member States/Contracting Parties from addressing the relationship of contract law and statutory exceptions and limitations for beneficiary persons.~~

ARTICLE H

RESPECT FOR PRIVACY

In the implementation of these exceptions and limitations, Member States/Contracting Parties should/shall endeavour to protect the privacy of beneficiary persons on an equal basis with others.

[End of document]
1. This change must be replicated everywhere where appropriate. ↩
2. Formats should not be enumerated, since even the disabilities are not enumerated. ↩
3. Non-profit organizations alone cannot cope with the needs of visually impaired people in the developing world. Thus, while it may sound like the ideal, it is impractical given the realities of the situation in the developing world. ↩
4. A "trust" system would make it impossible for developing countries to actualize these provisions. If despite this, copyright infringement happens, then national remedies exist for such infringement. ↩
5. To clarify: what is the purpose of these and not mentioning WCT, Berne, etc.? ↩
6. To be deleted for the same reasons as above. Non-profit basis, if insisted upon, can be retained in Article D(2)(A), but not here. ↩
7. Import law provisions are already there in Article E, and should remain there. In Art. E, it states, “shall permit” import, and here, “would permit”. ↩
8. This instance of "non-profit basis" may be retained if necessary. ↩
9. To clarify: what would such verification require? Would self-certification suffice? ↩
10. It should be clarified, possibly through an agreed statement, that nothing in this article shall derogate from the flexibility provided in Art. 6 of the TRIPS Agreement, which allows for countries to provide international exhaustion.
  
  Thus, if the principle of international exhaustion is in place (i.e., parallel importation is allowed), then importation can be carried out by anyone, and not just by a beneficiary person or an authorized entity. ↩
11. This second paragraph weakens the principle established in the first by adding more conditions. They are almost phrased as alternatives, and the first alternative (paragraph) is the better one. ↩

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-analysis-july2011-treaty-print-disabilities

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

pranesh — 2012-07-22T12:01:28Z

This was the statement read out by Pranesh Prakash at the 24th meeting of the WIPO Standing Committee for Copyright and Related Rights in Geneva, on Friday, July 20, 2012.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to associate CIS with the statements made by the WBU, eIFL, IFLA, KEI, ISOC, and CLA.

We NGOs been making statements at SCCR on this the topic of a treaty for the reading-disabled since 2009 now.

In this room there are a number of organizations that work with and for persons with disabilities which come here to Geneva, SCCR after SCCR. They do not come here to watch the enactment of an elaborate ritual, but to seek solutions for the very real knowledge drought that is being faced by the reading-disabled everywhere, and particularly in developing countries.

The way work on this treaty — or rather this binding-or-non-binding international instrument — has been stalled by some member states is a matter of shame. In India our Parliament recently passed an amendment to our copyright law that grants persons with disabilities, and those who are working for them, a strong yet simply-worded right to have equal access to copyrighted works as sighted persons.

An instrument that lays down detailed guidelines on rules and procedures to be followed by authorized entities will not work. An instrument that subjects the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms by persons with visual impairments to market forces and bureaucratic practices will not work.

Importantly, an instrument that ignores realities of the world: that the vast majority of persons with visual impairment live in developing countries just will not work.

I implore the delegations here to keep up the constructive spirit I have seen most of them display in the past two days, and ensure that the 2012 General Assembly convenes a Diplomatic Conference on this topic.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-treaty-visually-impaired

CIS's Statement at SCCR 24 on Exceptions & Limitations for Libraries and Archives

pranesh — 2012-07-25T10:54:38Z

This was the statement delivered by Pranesh Prakash on Wednesday, July 25, 2012, at the 24th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyrights and Related Rights on the issue of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We would like to associate ourselves with the statements made by International Federation of Library Associations, Electronic Information for Libraries, Knowledge Ecology International, Conseil International des Archives, Library Copyright Alliance, Computer and Communications Industry Association, and the Canadian Library Association.

The Centre for Internet and Society would like to commend this house for adopting SCCR/23/8 as a working document on the issue of exceptions and limitations on libraries and archives. This issue is of paramount interest the world over, and particularly in developing countries. I would like to limit my oral intervention to three quick points, and will send a longer statement in via e-mail.

First, we feel that this committee should pay special attention to ensuring that digital works and online libraries and archives such as the Internet Archive, also receive the same protection as brick-and-mortar libraries.

Second, we are concerned that we have been seeing some delegations advancing a very narrow interpretation of the three-step test. Such a narrow interpretation is not supported by leading academics, nor by practices of member states. A narrow interpretation of the three-step test must be squarely rejected. In particular, I would like to associate CIS with the strong statements by IFLA and KEI to maintain flexibilities within exceptions and limitations, instead of overly prescriptive provisions encumbered by weighty procedures and specifications.

We have comments about parallel trade as well, drawing from our experience and research in India, and will send those in writing.

Libraries and archive enhance the value of the copyrighted works that they preserve and provide to the general public. They do not erode it. Exceptions and limitations that help them actually help copyright holders. The sooner copyright holders try not to muzzle libraries, especially when it comes to out-of-commerce works, electronic copies of works, and in developing countries, the better it will be for them, their commercial interests, as well as the global public interest.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-statement-sccr24-libraries-archives

CIS's Closing Statement at Marrakesh on the Treaty for the Blind

pranesh — 2013-07-03T12:01:25Z

Pranesh Prakash read out an abridged version of this statement as his closing remarks in Marrakesh, where the WIPO Treaty for the Blind (the "Marrakesh Treaty") has been successfully concluded. The Marrakesh Treaty aims to facilitate access to published works by blind persons, persons with visual impairment, and other print disabled persons, by requiring mandatory exceptions in copyright law to enable conversions of books into accessible formats, and by enabling cross-border transfer of accessible format books.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I am truly humbled to be here today representing the Centre for Internet and Society, an Indian civil society organization. If I may assume the privilege of speaking on behalf of my blind colleagues at CIS who led much of our work on this treaty, and the many blindness organizations we have been working with over the past five years who haven't the means of being here today, I would like to thank you and all the delegates here for this important achievement. And especially, I would like to thank the World Blind Union and Knowledge Ecology International who renewed focus on this issue more than 2 decades after WIPO and UNESCO first called attention to this problem and created a "Working Group on Access by the Visually and Auditory Handicapped to Material Reproducing Works Produced by Copyright".

While doing so, I would like to remember my friend Rahul Cherian — a young, physically impaired lawyer from India — who co-founded Inclusive Planet, was a fellow with the Centre for Internet and Society, and was a legal adviser to the World Blind Union. He worked hard on this treaty for many years, but very unfortunately did not live long enough to see it becoming a reality. His presence here is missed, but I would like to think that by concluding this treaty, all the distinguished delegations here managed to honour his memory and work.

I am grateful to all the distinguished delegations here for successfully concluding a reasonably workable treaty, but especially those — such as Brazil, India, Ecuador, Nigeria, Uruguay, Egypt, South Africa, Switzerland, and numerous others — who realized they were negotiating with blind people's lives, and regarded this treaty as a means of ensuring basic human rights and dignity of the visually impaired and the print disabled, instead of regarding it merely as "copyright flexibility" to be first denied and then grudgingly conceded. The current imbalance in terms of global royalty flows and in terms of the bargaining strength of richer countries within WIPO — many of who strongly opposed the access this treaty seeks to facilitate right till the very end — is for me a stark reminder of colonialism, and I see the conclusion of this treaty as a tiny victory against it.

It is historic that today WIPO and its members have collectively recognized in a treaty that copyright isn't just an "engine of free expression" but can pose a significant barrier to access to knowledge. Today we recognize that blind writers are currently curtailed more by copyright law than protected by it. Today we recognize that copyright not only may be curtailed in some circumstances, but that it must be curtailed in some circumstances, even beyond the few that have been listed in the Berne Convention. One of the original framers of the Berne Convention, Swiss jurist and president, Numa Droz, recognized this in 1884 when he emphasized that "limits to absolute protection are rightly set by the public interest". And as Debabrata Saha, India's delegate to WIPO during the adoption of the WIPO Development Agenda noted, "intellectual property rights have to be viewed not as a self contained and distinct domain, but rather as an effective policy instrument for wide ranging socio-economic and technological development. The primary objective of this instrument is to maximize public welfare."

When copyright doesn't serve public welfare, states must intervene, and the law must change to promote human rights, the freedom of expression and to receive and impart information, and to protect authors and consumers. Importantly, markets alone cannot be relied upon to achieve a just allocation of informational resources, as we have seen clearly from the book famine that the blind are experiencing. Marrakesh was the city in which, as Debabrata Saha noted, "the damage [of] TRIPS [was] wrought on developing countries". Now it has redeemed itself through this treaty.

This treaty is an important step in recognizing that exceptions and limitations are as important a part of the international copyright acquis as the granting of rights to copyright holders. This is an important step towards fulfilling the WIPO Development Agenda. This is an important step towards fulfilling the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This is an important step towards fulfilling Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and Article 30 of the UN Convention on Persons with Disabilities, all of which affirm the right of everyone — including the differently-abled — to take part in cultural life of the community.

While this treaty is an important part of overcoming the book famine that the blind have faced, the fact remains that there is far more that needs to be done to bridge the access gap faced by persons with disabilities, including the print disabled.

We need to ensure that globally we tackle societal and economic discrimination against the print disabled, as does the important issue of their education. This treaty is a small but important cog in a much larger wheel through which we hope to achieve justice and equity. And finally, blind people can stop being forced to wear an eye-patch and being pirates to get access to the right to read.

I also thank the WIPO Secretariat, Director General Francis Gurry, Ambassador Trevor Clark, Michelle Woods, and the WIPO staff for pushing transparency and inclusiveness of civil society organizations in these deliberations, in stark contrast to the way many bilateral and plurilateral treaties such as Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, the India-EU Free Trade Agreement, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement have been, and are being, conducted. I hope we see even more transparency, and especially non-governmental participation in this area in the future.

I call upon all countries, and especially book-exporting countries like the USA, UK, France, Portugal, and Spain to ratify this treaty immediately, and would encourage various rightholders organizations, and the MPAA who have in the past campaigned against this treaty and now welcome this treaty, to show their support for it by publicly working to get all countries to ratify this treaty and letting us all know about it.

I congratulate you all for the "Miracle of Marrakesh", which shows, as my late colleague Rahul Cherian said, "when people are demanding their basic rights, no power in the world is strong enough to stop them getting what they want".

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-closing-statement-marrakesh-treaty-for-the-blind

Centre for Internet and Society

Competition Commission of India chairman's participation in Assocham conference raises conflict of interests

Comparison of National IPR Strategy September 2012, National IPR Strategy July 2014 and Draft National IP Policy, December 2014

Vision/ Mission

Objectives/ Approaches

Raising Awareness

MSMEs

Academia and Research Organisations

Large Organisations

Startups and Individuals

Strengthening IP Protection/ Creating New IP Regimes

Establishing Cost Effective, Efficient and Service Oriented IP Administrative Infrastructure

Office of CGPDTM

Administrative Departments of Other IP Institutions

Institutional Capacity Building

Strengthening Institutional Set-up to Improve Enforcement of IPRs and Create Respect for IPRs

Creation of New IP Rights to Address Gaps

Facilitating Commercialization of IPRs

Facilitating and Encouraging Commercialization of IP Assets

Enforcement and Adjudication

Work Plans

Concluding Observations

Comments to the Ministry on WIPO Broadcast Treaty (March 2011)

Comments on the non-paper for the WIPO Broadcast Treaty by the Centre for Internet and Society

Article 3

Term of Protection of Signals

Limitations and Exceptions

Protection of Signal and Retransmission

Other comments

Article 7

Article 4

Article 5

Comments on the Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (Draft)

Comments on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations: Technical Background Paper Prepared by the WIPO Secretariat

Comments on the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs)

Narrowing down excluded subject matter relating to CRIs

Secondary application of the subject matter test

Proposed definition of “computer programme per se”

Issues with illustrative examples

Conclusion

Comments on the Draft Rules under the Information Technology Act

Comments on the Draft Rules under the Information Technology Act as Amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008

Interception, Monitoring and Decryption

Section 69

Draft Rules under Section 69

Blocking of Access to Information

Section 69A

Draft Rules under Section 69A

Monitoring and Collection of Traffic Data

Draft Rules under Section 69B

Manner of Functioning of CERT-In

Draft Rules under Section 70B(5)

Draft Rules under Section 52

Draft Rules under Section 54

Penal Provisions

Section 66A

Section 66F

Comments on the Broadcast Treaty and Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives

Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations:

Proposed Legal Instruments on Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives and Educational, Teaching and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities:

Comment by CIS at ACE on Presentation on French Charter on the Fight against Cyber-Counterfeiting

Civil Society Letter Against TRIPS-Plus IP Enforcement

An Open Letter to the President of Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) on the Third International Conference on Counterfeiting & Piracy

Signatories to this letter

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

CIS-TWN Analysis of WIPO Treaty for the Print Disabled (SCCR/22/15)

SCCR/22/15

PREAMBLE

ARTICLE A

DEFINITIONS

ARTICLE B

BENEFICIARY PERSONS

ARTICLE C

NATIONAL LAW EXCEPTIONS ON ACCESSIBLE FORMAT COPIES

ARTICLE D

CROSS-BORDER EXCHANGE OF ACCESSIBLE FORMAT COPIES

ARTICLE E

IMPORTATION OF ACCESSIBLE FORMAT COPIES

ARTICLE F

CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL PROTECTION MEASURES