Centre for Internet and Society

SCCR 29 Libraries, Archives and Public Interest NGOs in Q&A with Dr. Crews

praskrishna — 2014-12-27T16:54:58Z

While the many publishers representatives took the floor to explain that there are truly no problems with limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives (and anyway according to them if there are problems that can be solved with licenses), libraries & archives as well as public interest groups make their case: the committee must continue its work on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and find solutions.

This blog entry was published on the website of Knowledge Ecology International on December 11, 2014.

Here are excerpts from some of the interventions:

Hasmik Galstyan, Yerevan, Armenia speaking for the Electronic Information for LIbraries (eIFL.net):

>> EIFL: I'm speaking on behalf of the electronic information for libraries and that works with libraries and library con sort Sha in more than 60 developing and transition economy countries. We thank the Secretariat for commissioning the updated study that provided a comprehensive overview in the IP law. We thank professor crews for his clear presentation.
The report contains positives and negatives from our Point of View. The positives include the fact that law makers are to some degree responding to the need for legal change and a small number of countries have over the last six years created new exceptions especially with regard to digital services. These changes are to be commended. On the other hand, it is discouraging that 18% of countries including five EIFL partner countries have new exceptions for libraries and over one-third located almost totally in the developing world still do not have an exception allowing libraries to make copies of their works for the users. The trend regarding digital library services doesn't look good. Even for states that introduce amendment 2008 digital is barred in 50% in some cases for preservation and it states with anti-circumvention protection while some have applied library exceptions as mentioned by professor crews half of the countries have provided no library exceptions. So while a small number of countries are moving ahead and reforming their copyright laws the digital divide is being perpetuated at a time when libraries everywhere are adopting new technologies and Developing Countries are rapidly moving to mobile. My question is how can the situation be addressed. How can WIPO as an UN agency with a commitment to work with Developing Countries to enhance their participation in the global innovation economy most effectively support countries to be at the forefront of digital developments. To ensure that our libraries that are working hard to support education and development are not operating with one hand tied behind our backs.

My second question is considering that between 2008 and 2014 only a handful of countries have been implemented made changes benefitting libraries and their users and imagining that the current rate of support for a change stays the same, how long do you think it will take before all WIPO Member States have exceptions good enough to support library activities in the Digital Age? And the last question, please. Libraries collections contain materials of unique cultural and historical significance to people in other countries to the national border changes shared languages and a host of other reasons. In addition collaboration among researchers today is international. Therefore libraries increasingly need to send and receive information across borders. In our examination of copyright laws how do they accommodate or not these activities? Thank you very much.

The libraries representatives were echoed by archives representatives. William Maher, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, representing the Society of America Archivists.

Thank you for producing a study that brings such clarity to the quite confusing maze of the laws that librarians and archivists must work with. Archives has been mentioned a lot over the past couple of days but I am only the second archivist to be addressing this issue at SCCR. Archivists know that the general populations does not understand what archives are and how and why we do what we do. However, it seems reasonable that those who draft copyright laws should understand that archives are fundamentally about the unpublished legacy of humankind. Yet, when looking at the 70 or so countries in the 2014 study, archives are seriously overlooked–Despite whatever minimal improvement for libraries, archives have been left out of 53% of the exceptions for preservation and 72 % of the exceptions for copying for research. Is this absence of provisions also reflected in the fact that the laws lack definitions of archives? Can this oversight be read as meaning that archives do not matter to the nations copyright system, or does it mean that copyright should not matter to archives?
>> KENNETH CREWS: Well, thank you very much. Yes, I think you have also heard me speak very strongly about the distinct interests of archives and maybe I should say even more important the distinct interests of our citizens in archives and in the works that they are -- the work that they are doing. And their ability to use these copyright provisions for the benefit of the country and of its citizens. I certainly can't emphasize that enough. So I -- I'm not going to read in to the lack of reference to archives. The kind of meaning that you are asking about. But instead I think we can certainly say that it makes you wonder if archives have been recognized by the drafters of many of these statutes and if in the case of following through on the example of the models influencing domestic law it really is have archives come to the attention of the individuals who have been responsible for developing some of the models. So I believe very strongly that the future statutes in individual countries and the drafting of different kinds of instruments or models that may come from WIPO or any other organization need to encompass archives. And the -- because the preservation and research access and other kinds of beneficial uses of archival material goes directly to the preservation of the culture and the history of our countries and our people. And it is vital that we be able to do that and keep archives at the table. And I thank you very much for being here.

Another stakeholder, Nehaa Chaudhari, Lawyer, Programme Officer at the Centre for Internet and Society questioned Dr. Crews on provisions regarding digital works:

CIS: Thank you Madame Chair. Thank you very much professor crews for your presentation yesterday and this comprehensive study on libraries and archives. Very timely and very important to us from the [...] access to knowledge and information most critically.
I have two questions. My first question: did you find in your examination that in terms of or on the question of limitations and exceptions did you find that there was an equal or equitable treatment of digital resources in comparison to resources available in more traditional formats? And if not, where do you think that are lever of change lies to ensure that fair use of fair dealing provisions are extended e equitably to the digital environment as well.

My second question is on the interoperability of limitations and exceptions. Given that copyright is a very national thing and as your study has also well established countries have a whole range of veridy veers approaches and practices on limitations and exceptions. But also given the fact that we live in an increasingly globalized world we need a system that is interoperable with respect to the transboundary movement of works with as little fiction as possible. Again both in the physical as well as in the digital environments. So what did your examination show of how interoperable or not the range of limitations and exceptions actually have. Those are my two questions. Thank you very much.

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

So in my common law tradition I look at that and see that as a question for interpretation. In
a civil code system I might look at it and see it a little bit more firmly for lack of a better word
about what the scope of that word book, for example, really means. Really good question. And it is one that the statutes have not picked up on. Thank you very much.

Finally, the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) representative David Hammerstein made the following political and philosophical intervention:

Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Crews for your presentation. I would like to say a few general words. Internet and the digital obviously is global. Copyright laws are national. Economic power is global. Politics is national. This is very relevant to our discussion.
And other relevant factor is that copyright law and the idea of exceptions and limitations are very complicated. It is for small circles of specialists usually and when these things come out in to the open to the greater public opinion things change radically. I can only remind peep of this room for the debate on ACTA or the debate for SOPA and PIPA in the United States. When these issues come out of the closet things are seen in a very, very different light. The opinion of copyright specialist especially where I know in the European Union and totally different with the opinions of the general public. And the general public the vast majority are frustrated by copyright law because social reality that applies de facto and I am not talking about piracy, I am talking about de facto flexibilities and exceptions and limitations are very, very far from the legal reality of the copyright. The vast majority of Europeans would like to have a harmonized and mandatory exceptions and limitations that we are speaking about, whether it be more text and data mining, whether it be for libraries whether it be cross-border, whether it be preservation of cultural heritage, they would like that. Now the opinions of the often of political structures are captured by certain experts and very special groups that are interested in what they want. Especially the European Union is at a cross roads and we can see it politically because around a year ago the European Union launched a process called lnss for Europe where some of the ideas presented by some of the industry people were brought up memorandums of understanding and that the solution to exceptions and limitations for these issues could be found in voluntary measures between stakeholders. This was a failure. This was a terrible failure. We had letters many many many Nobel Prize winners who are asking tore a legal exceptions and limitations for text and data mining for other scientific research and we think that many orphan works legislation does not go far enough. Et cetera, et cetera, self generated user content. How can that Democratic debate take place and these cross roads can be made a positively by real decisions. And I think those real decisions have to be deal with the public dough minute yon, what is public knowledge and things about the commons, we are talking about the knowledge commons here need to have a democratic debate and need to have democratic management. Now this could be done by very delayed mediation to end up in the hands of a few copyright experts that are very close to very narrow industry that I think is defending outdated models or we could open a democratic debate where exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives for preservation for scientific limitation would be beyond borders. Even inside the European Union today it is almost hard to imagine there to be harmonization in the internal market. And the people making money prefer a fragmented market even though European site sents want a harmonized market for these things. My question is impossible question. I am sorry to put you on spot of how to open up the door, how to bring this issue out of the closet and how to involve millions of people who really want that change. Thank you very much

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/knowledge-ecology-international-sccr-29-december-11-2014-libraries-archives-public-interest-ngos-q-a-with-dr-crews

RTI Responses - MHRD IP Chairs: Details of Funding & Expenditure

nehaa — 2015-02-02T13:28:30Z

In an earlier blog post titled "MHRD IPR Chairs — Underutilization of Funds and Lack of Information Regarding Expenditures", we discussed the lack of information regarding the expenditure by various MHRD Chairs in the country. We sent out RTI requests to find out more. This blog post discusses the responses that we have received so far. (Many thanks to CIS intern Varnika Chawla for her assistance)

See the earlier post on MHRD IPR Chairs — Underutilization of Funds and Lack of Information Regarding Expenditures

A wide variation in the allocation of funds among different Universities was observed. Further, it was noted that no information was available on any platform, regarding the actual utilization of these funds, and therefore, CIS had filed a Right to Information request for the same with the concerned authorities.

A four-pronged Right to Information query (dated 17.11.2014) was filed by CIS with various Universities, seeking the following:

A report on the implementation of the IPERPO Scheme and the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the Scheme at different Universities across India, for the year 2013-14;
Documents on the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO Scheme at different Universities, for the year 2013-14;
Documents relating to the receipt of utilization certificates and audited expenditures statements and matters related to all financial sanctions with regard to funds granted to the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO Scheme for the year 2013-14;
Documents regarding all matters related to finance and budget related to the MHRD IPR Chair under the IPERPO Scheme for 2013-14 established across different Universities.

Accordingly, CIS received the following information from Universities:

Name of University	Implementation of IPERPO Scheme	Release of Grants	Utilization Certificates & Exp. Stmts.	Finance & Budget Matters
WBNUJS, Kolkata	Information not yet available	-	-	-
DU, Delhi School of Economics, Tezpur University	Information not yet available	-	-	-
Jawaharlal Nehru University	Information not yet available	-	-	-
IIM, Ahmedabad	No MHRD IPR Chair	-	-	-
IIM, Bangalore	Established a Chair	Rs. 23,50,000	Rs. 23,50,000	Submitted
IIT Delhi	No MHRD IPR Chair	No money has been received	-	-
NLU, Jodhpur	Established a Chair	Rs. 36,00,000	Rs. 18,86,566	Submitted
University of Madras	No MHRD IPR Chair	No money has been received	-	-
Nalsar University of Law, Hyderabad	Established a Chair	Rs. 40,00,000	Rs. 37, 88,349	Submitted
NLSIU, Bangalore	Established a Chair	Rs. 45,00,000	Rs. 45,31,927	-
CUSAT, Kerala	Information not yet available	-	-	-
IIT, Bombay	No IPR Chair for 2013-14	Rs. 35,00,000	Rs. 15,66,179	Submitted

The RTI Requests were returned by NUJS Kolkata as well as IIT, Kanpur, in a response dated 28.11.2014.

IIM Ahmedabad in its response (dated 9.12.2014), informed of the fact that no MHRD IPR Chair has been established under the IPERPO Scheme at the institution.

Details of the activities undertaken by the MHRD IPR Chair, as well as their finance and budget allocation were received from IIM, Bangalore (dated 16.12.2014). It was disclosed that the focus of the IPR Chair is on research on the economic and management dimensions of IPR with special reference to the corporate, SME and agricultural sectors. Since 2011-12, the Chair has focused on creative content management and protection with reference to cinema, electronic media and classical performing arts. Several activities were undertaken by the Chair, including finalization of a Research Monograph; inclusion of IPR Economics into the Core Course in Microeconomics for the Post Graduate Programme in Software Enterprise Management; a National Workshop on “Macro Policy Environment, IPR’s and Competition Policy” was organized; and 2 Research Assistants were appointed under the Chair. Against a request for Rs. 26,10,000, a grant of Rs. 23,50,000 was received, utilized for the payment of the Chair’s salary (Rs. 19,20,000), RA honorarium (Rs. 5,40,000) and Round Table Expenses.

IIT, Delhi, in its response (dated 16.12.2014) informed that no MHRD IPR Chair has been established under the IPERPO Scheme at the University. Further, no grant money has been received by the University under the Scheme.

NLU, Jodhpur submitted a detailed reply (dated 16.12.2014). A number of IPR research and learning initiatives have been undertaken under the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO Scheme, including IPR Awareness Programmes, formulation and conduction of various undergraduate and postgraduate IPR Courses, research and suggestions on IPR Law Reforms and IPR Policies etc. NLU Jodhpur conducted a training session for researchers and teachers of IPR, a workshop for students on IP Litigation, a conference on “The Impact of IPR on Access to Medicine”, Training, Sensitization and Outreach Programmes as well as lectures and paper presentations. Funding received from the grant was utilized towards payment of the coordinator’s salary (Rs. 5,78,800) RA honorarium (Rs. 6,00,000), Ph.D. fellows’ honorarium (Rs. 3,38,000), travel grants (Rs. 2,00,000) and miscellaneous expenditure. A total of Rs. 17,00,000 was spent on sensitization and outreach programmes, workshops, conferences as well as the IP Depository.

The University of Madras in its response (dated 29.12.2014) submitted that no MHRD IPR Chair has been established under the IPERPO Scheme and no grants were sanctioned to the University.

The requisite documents detailing expenditure incurred (Rs. 37,88,349) as well as the financial budget were made available by NALSAR University of Law (dated 22.12.2014). Expenditure was incurred towards the payment of the Chair Professor’s salary (Rs. 17,50,093), payments to the staff (Rs.7,11,544), the IPR Journal (Rs. 40,000), Travel (Rs.6,45,864), books (Rs. 2,67,740) and other miscellaneous expenditure. A link to an online report, was also made available. However, this is a dead link.

The website established for MHRD IPR Chairs itself is not functioning.

No information has been made available by Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi University, Delhi School of Economics and Tezpur University as well as CUSAT, Kerala as of now. Further, IIT, Kharagpur in its reply (dated 17.12.2014), sought exemption from providing the required information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.

IIT Bombay, in its reply (dated 15.01.2015) submitted that having established a MHRD IPR Chair under the IPERPO Scheme, activities such as research, training, academic courses (Introductory Foundation Course at U.G., P.G. Level, Elective Course at P.G. Level), conducting workshops, conferences and outreach programmes and maintaining an IP Depository have been undertaken. Details about budgetary allocation were also made available. From a grant of Rs. 35,00,000, a total amount of Rs. 15,66,179 has been utilized. However, there was no IPR Chair for the year 2013-14. Out of a cumulative grant of Rs. 1,95,00,000 received till March 31, 2014, the institution has spent a total of Rs. 1,62,60,265 on IPR Activities, workshops, honorariums, salaries, conferences etc. from 2007.

Lastly, as per the information received from NLSIU, Bangalore (dated 14.01.2015), an MHRD IPR Chair has been established at the University. Several activities have been organized at NLSIU, including a Workshop on IPR in S.J.R. College of Law, the release of an IP Newsletter publication “March of the IP Law”, a conference on the Advantages of Madrid Protocol, a conference on Patents, Innovation and Trade Secrets for MSMEs in IT/ITES Sectors in Karnataka, research activities such as the Fact-Screening-and-Transforming-Processor Project, the release of a website http://iprlawindia.org which is currently under construction, conducting awareness and outreach programmes etc. The MHRD IPR Chair at NLSIU was awarded a grant of Rs.45,00,000 which was largely spent on the payment of the Chair’s salary (Rs. 24,17,378), RA honorarium (Rs. 5,88,415), workshops and conferences (Rs.1,27,805), creation of a depository of IP books (Rs. 1,00,105), publication of newsletters (Rs.1,00,000) and staff payments.

It is therefore observed that firstly, there was a variation in replies to the RTI queries filed under the same format, with some Universities providing information, some blatantly refusing to do so (IIT Kharagpur), and some delaying the process for what appear to be minor procedural irregularities.

Four Universities have still not sent the requisite information, whereas no MHRD IPR Chair has been established in four of them. Only four replied with some information.

Moreover, for the year 2013-14, MHRD allocated a grant of Rs. 1,79,50,000 among 5 Universities, disproportionately (ranging from Rs.23 lakhs-Rs. 45 lakhs per University). Out of this grant, the Universities have incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 1,41,23,021, largely for the payment of salaries of the IPR Chair (Rs. 66,66,271), honorariums for Research Assistants (24,50,183), and conducting workshops, conferences and travel for the same.

The various responses received to the RTI queries filed reveal a great variation in not just the allocation of funds by the Ministry, but also on the utilization of these funds (if at all), as well as in the range of activities conducted by the Chairs.

We're still tracking this. Watch this space for more, including copies of our RTIs and the responses as well as details from other Universities who are yet to get back to us.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-responses-mhrd-ip-chairs-details-of-funding-and-expenditure

RTI request to Indian Patents Office for Form 27 (Statement of Working of patents), March 2016

rohini — 2017-10-13T04:35:46Z

The Centre for Internet and Society filed this request under the Right to Information Act in March 2016 as part of research for the paper: Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products: An Empirical Assessment of India's Form 27 Practice and Compliance (July 2017). We sought forms pertaining to 61 of the patents found in our patent landscaping study. These forms were not available on the online public databases, InPASS and IPAIRS, at the time of the filing the RTI request. Research assistance was provided by intern Shreshth Wadhwa.

Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products: An Empirical Assessment of India's Form 27 Practice and Compliance (July 2017)

Patent landscaping study -- Patents and Mobile Devices in India: An Empirical Survey (April 2016)

We filed our first application under the RTI Act with the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks in Mumbai in June 2015 for procuring Form 27 not available through their online databases, but received a generic response about how to download Form 27 from the online databases. The IPO also stated, “The desired information relates to about 1700 patents for all the years, to supply and trace out the information physical form requires huge humane resource and need to divert the office staff for some days which would hampers the day-todays- official work therefore, the information is proactively disclosed in the office website for the public”. (View the application and response here)

In view of this response, we filed another RTI application with the same office in March 2016, and restricted the number of patents to 61. The patents represent a cross-section of owners in our landscaping study. (View methodology). We also stated in the RTI request that we had already searched the online databases for the forms and did not find any. The IPO replied in April 2016 that it could provide CIS with forms for eleven of the requested patents. As for the rest of the forms, the IPO stated, “As thousand of Form-27 are filed in this office, it is very difficult to segregate Form-27 for the patent numbers enlisted in your RTI application as it needs diversion of huge official/ staff manpower and it will affect day to day work of this office.”

A few days after CIS received the reply from the IPO, Form 27 pertaining to patents in the landscape happened to start appearing on InPASS and IPAIRS E-register portal.

Text of the application and the IPO’s response

(View a scanned copy of the application here and of the response here)

11 March 2016

Central Public Information Officer

Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks

Boudhik Sampada Bhawan

Near Antop Hill Post Office, S.M. Road,

Antop Hill, Mumbai - 400037

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Subject: Request for information under section 6 of the Right To Information Act, 2005; regarding Form 27 submissions for patents

Full name of the applicant: Ajoy Kumar
Address of the applicant: 194, 2^nd C Cross, Domlur 2^nd stage, Bangalore 560071
Details of the information required: Please consider this an application under Section 6 of the Right To Information Act, 2005. This is an application for three pieces of information.

Firstly, you are requested to provide us with the Form 27 submissions for all the following patents for all the years for which they are available.

Secondly, we also request a record of all the years for which such Form 27 submissions have not been made for each of the patents listed here.

In the event that you do not possess these documents, please transfer this application to the concerned authority within five days of its receipt and inform us of the same; as mandated under Section 6(3) of the Act.

Patent Numbers:

264868
264414
218424
236178
250862
264266
263473
264878
264343
257411
263618
258568
264451
222947
263817
258983
196731
256864
262863
264764
259008
196474
264532
265027
258788
248749
259831
265788
214641
252360
250406
209397
226831
235014
229789
265069
220354
254083
264352
231642
258698
261503
241959
214988
237117
264824
263358
235688
251240
236556
203034
203036
234157
203686
213723
229632
240471
241747
223183
243980
200572

I submit that I have searched for copies of Form 27 filings of the above patents on the online portals of the Indian Patent Office, including the IPAIRS search engine and INPASS. As the search results did not yield the Form 27 documents, I am making this request under the Right To Information Act. Screenshots of three instances in which Form 27 was not found are attached in Annexure I. The respective patent numbers are mentioned along with the screenshots.

[Annexure I]

****************************************************************************************

Response from the IPO (reproduced verbatim)

Government of India

Patent Office, Boudhik Sampada Bhavan

S.M. Road, Near Post Office,

Antop Hill, Mumbai 400037, India

Email: mumbai-patent@nic.in

Website: www.ipindia.nic.in

Letter No: RTI/ 03

06/04/2016

To,

Shri Ajoy Kumar,

194, 2^nd C Cross,

Domlur 2^nd Stage

Bangalore - 560071

Sub: Supply of information sought under RTI Act, 2005 - reg.

Sir,

With reference to your application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 16/03/2016 in this regard the detailed parawise information as follows.

As thousand of Form-27 are filed in this office, it is very difficult to segregate Form-27 for the patent numbers enlisted in your RTI application as it needs diversion of huge official/ staff manpower and it will affect day to day work of this office.
It is difficult to create such a record for the Patent numbers; you have listed for the same reason given above.

However, copies of Form 27 for Patent nos. 222947, 259008, 258788, 250406, 235014, 203034, 203036, 234157, 203686, 213723, 240471 could be made available to you on paying prescribed copying charges of Rs. 480/- (120 x 4 = 480/-)

Yours faithfully,

Dr. Ujjwala Haldankar

Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Central Public Information Officer

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-request-to-indian-patents-office-for-form-27-statement-of-working-of-patents-march-2016

RTI request to Indian Patents Office for Form 27 (Statement of Working of patents), 2015

rohini — 2017-10-13T04:37:13Z

The Centre for Internet and Society filed this request under the Right to Information Act in 2015 as part of research for the paper: Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products: An Empirical Assessment of India's Form 27 Practice and Compliance (July 2017). We sought Form 27 (also known as Statements of Working) pertaining to randomly selected patents found in our patent landscaping study. These forms were not available on the online public databases, InPASS and IPAIRS, at the time of the filing the RTI request. Research assistance was provided by intern Nayana Dasgupta.

Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products: An Empirical Assessment of India's Form 27 Practice and Compliance (July 2017)

Patent landscaping study -- Patents and Mobile Devices in India: An Empirical Survey (April 2016)

This was our first RTI request filed with the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks for the research on practices and compliance of patent holders to the Form 27 requirement. The response contained generic instructions about how to download Form 27 from the publicly-accessible online databases. The IPO also stated that, “The desired information relates to about 1700 patents for all the years, to supply and trace out the information physical form requires huge humane resource and need to divert the office staff for some days which would hampers the day-todays- official work therefore, the information is proactively disclosed in the office website for the public”.

We subsequently filed another RTI request with the Indian Patents Office while limiting the number of patents to 61. (View the application and response here).

Text of the application and IPO's response

(View a scanned copy of the application here and the response here)

10 June 2015

To
Central Public Information Officer
Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks
Boudhik Sampada Bhawan
Near Antop Hill Post Office, S.M. Road,
Antop Hill, Mumbai - 400037

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Subject: Request for information under section 6 of the Right To Information Act, 2005; regarding Form 27 submissions for patents

Full name of the applicant: Ajoy Kumar
Address of the applicant: 194, 2^nd C Cross, Domlur 2^nd stage, Bangalore 560071
Details of the information required: Please consider this an application under Section 6 of the Right To Information Act, 2005. This is an application for three pieces of information.

Firstly, you are requested to provide us with the Form 27 submissions for all the following patents for all the years for which they are available.

Secondly, we also request a record of all the years for which such Form 27 submissions have not been made for each of the patents listed here.

Thirdly, we request a record of all the patents among those listed here which do not have a single Form 27 submission from the year of application/ grant.

[List of patent numbers]

*************************************************************

Response from the IPO (reproduced verbatim)

Government of India

Patent Office, Boudhik Sampada Bhavan

S.M. Road, Near Post Office,

Antop Hill, Mumbai 400037, India

Email: mumbai-patent@nic.in

Website: www.ipindia.nic.in

No. RTI/Mum/38

Date: 17/06/2015

To,

Shri Ajoy Kumar,

194, 2^nd C Cross,

Domlur 2^nd Stage

Bangalore - 56007

Sub: Supply of information sought under RTI Act - reg.

Sir,

With reference to your application under RTI, dated 15.06.2015, wherein the information sought for form 27 details (commercial working of patent) for all the years for about 1700 patents application.

Reply:

a) The requested information can be had from the office website for the filing of form 27 www.ipindia.nic.in,, go to http;//ipindiaservices.in/workingofpatents/

b) Pelase see the print screen from where one can access the desired information

[Screenshot from ipindiaservices.gov.in/workingofpatents]

c) Or the desired information also can be obtained under section 153, Rule.27 of the patents Act and Rules, as the information can be inspected the physical records under the Act.

d) The desired information relates to about 1700 patents for all the years, to supply and trace out the information physical form requires huge humane resource and need to divert the office staff for some days which would hampers the day-todays- official work therefore, the information is proactively disclosed in the office website for the public.

[Screenshots from ipindiaservices.gov.in/workingofpatents]

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully

(N. Ramchander)

Astt. Controller of Patents & Designs

& CPIO, Patent Office, Mumbai

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-request-to-indian-patents-office-for-form-27-statement-of-working-of-patents-2015

Response to the Call from Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry for Review of the Copyright Act

sachia — 2011-08-17T08:51:23Z

This blog entry contains a letter sent by Rahul Cherian of Indojuris and Nirmita Narsimhan of the Centre for Internet and Society in response to a call from the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry for review of the Copyright Act.

The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) has recently constituted a Consultative Working Group to analyse various issues in the Copyright Act. This has been approved by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP). The group is to be chaired by Shri Amit Khare, Joint Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development. The purpose of the Consultative Working Group would be to look into the existing provisions of the copyright law and the proposed amendments, as well as into the international arrangements and suggestions. The Consultative Working Group is expected to submit its report along with amendments or suggestion, as required.

Rahul Cherian of Indojuris and Nirmita Narasimhan of CIS have submitted a report on the provisions of the Copyright Act with respect to the limitations for print disabled persons. This has been submitted in the form of a letter to Sheetal Chopra of FICCI; the letter is reproduced below.

-----

Sheetal Chopra

Senior Assistant Director and Head

IPR Division

FICCI

Dear Madam:

Subject: Consultative Working Group on Copyright Issues – issues to be addressed by the Consultative Working Group.

As required by you we give below the issues to be addressed by the Consultative Working Group. This document is prepared by Nirmita Narasimhan of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, and Rahul Cherian Jacob of IndoJuris Law Offices, Chennai.

Scope - Exceptions and Limitations for Print Impaired Persons

The scope of the issues raised here are limited to the exceptions and limitations under the Copyright Act that are required to facilitate access of books by the visually impaired and other print impaired persons.

Problem faced by Print Impaired Persons

India has approximately 70 million Print Impaired Persons (loosely defined as persons who are unable to access print as a result of disability and include persons who are visually impaired, persons who have learning disabilities such as dyslexia and persons who due to physical disability are unable to hold a book or turn pages) who do not have access to knowledge due to a lack of reading material in accessible formats. It is estimated that even in developed countries not more than 5% of publications get converted into accessible formats for the benefit of Print Impaired Persons. As a result, Print Impaired Persons are excluded from the education system, are unable to seek meaningful employment and are on the whole excluded from all aspects of civil society.

It is observed that publishers do not make available books in formats accessible by Print Impaired Persons and the Copyright Act does not provide exceptions and limitations to the rights of the copyright owner for third parties to convert and make available books in accessible formats for Print Impaired Persons. This has lead to a “book famine” from the perspective of Print Impaired Persons.

Technological Advances and Accessible Formats

Till a few years ago, Print Impaired Persons had to rely on audio files and Braille (in the case of the persons who became visually impaired at a young age) to enjoy printed matter. Each of these formats have severe limitations. For example audio files have to be played serially and navigation is severely limited. In the case of Braille, the printing costs are expensive, reading a Braille book is up to 4 times slower than a normal book, Braille is extremely difficult to learn if you loose sight at a later age, and persons using Braille can communicate only with others who know Braille. However with the information technology revolution and the creation of text-to-speech screen readers that read out documents in electronic formats to Print Impaired Persons there are now countless ways in which Print Impaired Persons can access books in any easy and simple manner. Specialized electronic formats such as the DAISY Format not only permit the visually impaired to “read” the material using screen readers but also permit a digital file to be printed in Braille for the blind, in large print for the partially sighted and also provide audio with inbuilt search and indexation features for those Print Impaired Persons who have computers. The key is that technological innovation now provides the much-needed flexibility required by Print Impaired Persons to access material in formats they are most comfortable with. However the availability of these technology solutions alone does not solve the problem of dearth of books in formats that can be enjoyed by Print Impaired Persons.

Legal compulsions for providing exceptions and limitations for the benefit of Print Impaired Persons

At present Indian copyright law does not provide exceptions and limitations to the rights of copyright owners for the benefit of Print Impaired Persons. The Indian Constitution expressly provides for “equality” (Article 14), “non-discrimination” (Article 15), “freedom of speech and expression” (Article 19), and “right to life” (Article 21). Indian courts have not yet had the opportunity to pronounce any judgment on whether the Constitution requires copyright law to provide exceptions and limitations for the benefit of Print Impaired Persons. However, Indian courts have routinely upheld the rights of persons with disability and the Supreme Court has specifically recognized that the “right to life” as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution includes right to dignity including basic necessities such as reading and writing. Right to education has also been recognized as a fundamental right. For Print Impaired Persons to enjoy their fundamental rights it is essential that they have access to material, including but not limited to educational material, in accessible formats. As present, 70 million Indians cannot enjoy their fundamental rights due to the fact that the Copyright Act does not provide exemptions and limitations for Print Impaired Persons. It is to be noted that about 50 countries around the world already provide copyright exceptions and limitations for the benefit of the visually impaired/printed impaired.

India has also ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the objects of the aforesaid convention include providing persons with disability, access, on an equal basis with others, to information and communication. Indian courts have read into Indian law provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It is also to be noted that the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights of the World Intellectual Property Organisation is currently discussing the proposed WIPO Treaty for Blind, Visually Impaired and Other Reading Disabled Persons.

India has also recognized the requirements of Print Impaired Persons and had circulated draft amendments to the Copyright Act in _________ for feedback and comments from the public. All the leading organisations representing visually impaired persons has submitted their responses stating that the proposed amendments did not adequately meet the requirements of visually impaired persons.

In light of the above the question is not whether exceptions and limitations for the benefit of Print Impaired Persons must be provided (they must), but what form these exceptions and limitations must take.

Exceptions and Limitations – Issues to be considered

Given below are the issues that must be considered when providing exceptions and limitations for the benefit of Print Impaired Persons.

Beneficiaries – The beneficiaries of any amendment should include all persons with disability who, due to that disability, need an accessible format to access a book to substantially the same degree as a person without a disability. This definition should be functional and not medical since medical definitions cannot be exhaustive.

Formats – Print Impaired Persons should be able to enjoy the benefits of the information technology revolution in the same way that non-disabled persons have been able to. Any amendment should therefore take into account technological developments and should be format neutral to give full flexibility and utility to Print Impaired Persons. As mentioned above Braille as a format has limited application and a majority of visually impaired persons are not able to use Braille. Moreover, Braille cannot be used by persons with other print impairments such as dyslexia or persons with physical disabilities.

Permitted Activities – The activities permitted by any amendment should include the making of accessible formats of a work, supplying that accessible format, or copies of that format, to Print Impaired Persons by any means, including by lending or by electronic communication by wire or wireless means, and undertaking any intermediate steps to achieve these objectives.

Who can conduct the Permitted Activities – It is noted that the cost of making an accessible copy of a book is far higher than the cost of the book itself. It is observed that non-profit organisations have been able to convert only a few thousands books till date due to lack of funds. Print Impaired Persons, their families and other members of their support group also convert books into accessible formats at very high cost. The number of books converted by these persons is also minimal. Keeping in mind the fact that publishers are not selling books in accessible formats there appears to be complete market failure in this area. The solution for this problem appears to be that, apart from non-profit organisations, Print Impaired Persons and their support group being permitted to conduct the Permitted Activities, volunteers and for-profit organisations should also be able to conduct the Permitted Activities. If any of the Permitted Activity is undertaken for profit, then the entity carrying out the Permitted Activity must give notice to, and pay prescribed royalty to the copyright owner. The quantum of royalty payable should be determined keeping in mind the fact that the average income of Print Impaired Persons is far lower than the income of non disabled persons. The possibility of creating a collecting society for this purpose can also be explored.

Conclusion

“Inclusiveness” is the underlying theme of the Indian Constitution and “Inclusion” is a word used liberally by the courts and politicians alike. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. The United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons of Disabilities aims to support the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in social life and development; and to advance the rights and protect the dignity of persons with disabilities and to promote equal access to employment, education, information, goods and services.

However, these concepts mean nothing to Print Impaired Persons as long as their most basic fundamental rights continue to be denied due to the fact that Indian copyright law does not provide exceptions and limitations for the benefit of Print Impaired Persons.

In light of the above, appropriate amendments must be made to the Copyright Act as soon as possible to remove the barriers placed before Print Impaired Persons that prevent their exercise of fundamental rights.

If you require any additional information or any clarification regarding the above please let us know. Thank you and best regards,

Nirmita Narasimhan and Rahul Cherian

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/response-to-ficcis-call-for-review-of-the-copyright-act

Research Project on Open Video in India

pranesh — 2011-08-23T02:51:36Z

Open Video Alliance and the Centre for Internet and Society are calling for researchers for a project on open video in India, its potentials, limitations, and recommendations on policy interventions.

Project Timeline

From mid-April to mid-July.

Summary of Outputs

A 15-20 page paper surveying the online video environment in India and the opportunities it presents for creative expression, political participation, social justice, and other such concerns. The paper should deal with the structural limitations of the medium (e.g.: limited bandwidth, IP lobbies discourage re-appropriation of cultural materials, online video is inaccessible to the deaf, and so on) and how they can be addressed. Recommendations should be bold but in touch with the real policy and business frameworks of present-day India.
Several 1-2 page briefs on specific policy matters like: where is jurisdiction being exercised? what are the policy inflections? and, what interventions are needed to solve the structural limitations of the medium?

Survey Paper

The survey paper should describe the online video scenario in India, and three or more policy tensions. The paper should focus on areas of intellectual property rights, network issues, standards, device freedom and interoperability, accessibility, etc. The Open Video Alliance website[ova] for a complete list of relevant issues.

Overall, it should paint both a qualitative as well as a quantitative picture of online video in India, and in which structural improvements are needed (if any) to empower individuals.This paper should not be viewed as a recommendation to policymakers but instead as a general interest document which will inform and appeal to many audiences. While we expect the paper to span several distinct issues, there should be a prevailing narrative to weave them together.

Basic Assumptions

We want online video to be a participatory and collaborative social medium powered by open source. We also value the ability of individuals to express themselves using these tools, and the ability of new entrants to challenge incumbents and innovate on top of existing technologies. No time is needed to be spent establishing these values—instead, through this paper we try to identify structural improvements to the online video medium. How do we get from the status quo to the ideal open video environment? What investments must be made? What protections must be put into place for users, producers, etc.? Further, we should be able to make some broad recommendations to governments, foundations, and big institutions.

Because the network and IP enforcement environment in India are still malleable, we want to stress that there are many possible shapes that the online video medium could take. Our goal is to shine some light on how a medium that privileges the values outlined above could take shape.

Suggested Methodology

First, you would need to carry out a basic survey of the literature. Second, you should talk to various organizations using video, discover what they consider the structural limitations of online video, and what might be considered open video practices: some are legal, some are technical. You would use this data to direct original research and weave your findings into an engaging narrative.

Next Steps

You send 2 writing samples, a CV, and letter of recommendation;
We'll discuss the unifying themes and identify a more detailed timeline;
We produce a contract;
We Pick a regular time to meet every other week, to track progress.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/open-video-research

Report: Global Intellectual Property Convention 2015

rohini — 2015-06-21T13:36:18Z

The Global Intellectual Property Convention was held in January 2015 in Mumbai. Interns Anna Liz Thomas and Nayana Dasgupta assisted with the making of this report.

Conference Schedule [PDF]

National IPR Policy Recommendations [PDF]

Harshvardhan Lale, Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC)

Digital piracy in India

Special 301 Report:

India is second among 10 countries on the Priority Watch List of the United States Trade Representatives (USTR), according to the Special 301 Report published in May 2014. Once every two years, the US, through its trade representatives releases the Special 301 Report, which deals with piracy across the globe, especially in the places where US business interests lie. Though the police conduct at least 25 raids every week across India, it has made no difference to the rate of piracy in the country. When a couple of software publishers entered India, they were very confident that none of their products, in any shape and form, could be pirated in India. I took one of the heads of Compliance to the [pirated goods] market where we got a product worth Rs. 5 crores for Rs. 100.

The Special 301 Report also suggests that none of the previous governments or government bodies in India have taken any initiative whatsoever to ensure that even the products used in the government offices are not pirated. According to US government agencies (2013), there were serious difficulties in attaining constructive engagement on IPR issues with the UPA government.

Video piracy:

India is rated as one of the countries with the highest incidence of video piracy by MPDA, well above Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Greece, and Peru. We [supporters of stricter IP] are now trying to get the digital rights management provision in the [Indian] Copyright Law [redacted], but that is still in the future.

Broadcast piracy:

A few Indian television channels are facing this problem because of demand [to view their content] from Indians living abroad.

Online piracy:

The Internet has been an enabler for the movie and music industry. Many cinema and music publishers have their own channels, say, on YouTube. Although content cannot be directly downloaded from YouTube, "YouTube grabber" software enables piracy.

Surreptitious recording of public performances on mobile phones and recording of cinema screenings using camcorders are other instances of piracy. These recordings are later circulated on the Internet.

Software piracy:

Recently, one automobile manufacturer had to recall a set of its vehicles from the Indian market. Investigations revealed that one of the automobile components, which was procured from a supplier, was created using pirated software. There is a fair chance that a pirated product won't provide all the functionalities that you might otherwise get, or that some APIs (Application Programming Interface) may be missing, which may lead to erroneous or inaccurate design.

Counterfeiting, online piracy, end user piracy, client overuse, and hard disk loadings [sideloading] amount to most of the software piracy in India. One of the software companies for whom we [PWC] are doing an audit - it happens to be one of the leading information technology companies in India - we identified a gap of 20 million [US] dollars for one software publisher in their India operations. Whether this was deliberate or not can be debated, but it is a serious problem.

A survey on software piracy conducted across the globe by Business Software Alliance indicates that India has improved from bring ranked tenth to twelveth. Estimated use of unlicensed software stands at 43% globally; India is at 60% [as per the latest figures]. In 2010, India was at 64%, in 2011 at 63%. There is a recent case of a patent getting rejected because the organisation that had applied for it had used unlicensed software for designing the product. Another serious impact with regard to RnD and patents is on privacy. [Pirated software could contain] malware with the potential of stealing information].

Some of the major problems are that organisations are not aware of the implications of using pirated software and media, leading to potential non-compliances. [Owing to] lack of knowledge of licensing, the different software licenses, software publishers not using a standard format of licensing, the end consumer does not understand what licensing is. In the license terms, there is a "Right to Audit", which gives every software publisher the right to evaluate your organisation at any time.

Corporates are trying to align themselves with consultants like us [PWC] to support the industry in curbing piracy. The Make in India program has a dedicated section on intellectual property (IP). There is a special focus on intellectual property rights (IPR) for the manufacturing sector, which is directly affected by digitalisation. We hope that with the new government, some change will happen in the software piracy space.

Omesh Puri, Senior Associate, LexOrbis

Effective Copyright Enforcement in the Digital Era: Relevance of John Doe Orders

Copyright enforcement challenges in the digital world:

Rapid growth in digital technology presents enormous opportunities for copyright owners as it expands their customer base, reduces distribution costs, and makes territorial boundaries almost a nullity. The disadvantage is that, unless regulated properly, it exposes copyrighted work to threat of blatant infringement spread across different media including the Internet. The main problem before copyright owners is ever-growing online piracy. The Internet grants anonymity to copyright infringers. There can be a number of occasions where copyright owners are not able to ascertain the infringer's identity even after spending considerable time or money. In such cases, a John Doe order comes as an effective enforcement tool.

The name John Doe is used to identify unknown and nameless infringers or defendants who have allegedly committed some wrong, but whose identity is unknown to the plaintiff. To avoid delay and injustice, the court names the defendant John Doe, until such time as the defendant is identified. The orders passed by courts in such cases are known as John Doe orders, and is an internationally accepted practice to enforce IPR, especially with respect to copyright and trademark. This is prevalent in various jurisdictions including the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. This order has also been formalised in the statutory provision of these countries. It is an ex-parte interim injunction with the added benefit that the plaintiff is given the liberty to add to the array of parties who would be identified after the filing of the suit. These orders are an exception to the general rule which requires the defendant to be identified prior to the filing of the suit. The ex-parte interim injunction then applies even against the later defendants. It is also against the defendants whose identities are unknown during the filing of the suit. The orders enjoin unknown defendants from engaging in any infringing activity.

Why are John Doe orders so popular?

These orders allow for immediate action in case any instance of infringement comes to light. As the copyright owners only need to serve a copy of the order to the erring parties instead of filing of a new suit. By filing a single action, and after obtaining a single John Doe order, the plaintiff would be able to cover all alleged and even potential infringements and violators, which would ultimately save a lot of time and costs. The plaintiff would not be required to file separate court actions before different courts in India. Once they obtain this order, it will block all unknown defendants and infringers. It is also able to reduce online piracy by mandating that internet service providers block access to infringing websites.

Some of the important John Does copyright injunctions passed in India:

The first John Doe order was passed in the famous case of Ten Sports entitled Taj Television v. Rajan Mandal. The plaintiff, Taj Television, a Dubai-based company, owned and operated an exclusive sports channel by the name Ten Sports. They had acquired the exclusive rights to broadcast the 2002 FIFA World Cup. They entered into agreements with various cable operators for transmission of the channel. However, many unlicensed cable operators started displaying Ten Sports without any permission or authorisation from Taj Television, which then instituted a suit against named and unnamed cable operators. In 2002, the Delhi High Court passed a pathbreaking order which stopped the unauthorised broadcast of FIFA World Cup matches.

The Indian Court has specifically held that such orders may be enforced against persons whose identities are unknown at the time of instituting the suit.

Whose identities fall within the scope of action?

So long as the litigating finger is directed at an unknown person, the inability to identify him by name is a mere misnomer. The principle of litigating finger was affirmed in this case. After this there have been a series of John Doe orders. However it is only in recent times that the Indian Judiciary has started granting these orders on a regular basis, especially for blocking websites. In another case in 2014, Star India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haneeth Ujwal, the plaintiff was one of the leading broadcasters in India. They had acquired the exclusive broadcasting rights, which includes television, mobile, Internet or on-demand rights with respect to the 2014 India vs. England Test Series. Star India filed the suit against websites, many of which were unidentifiable in nature or the owners could not be located. They were showing these cricket matches live without the permission of Star India. The websites' viewers could either view the ad-supported free version or the video-on-demand or pay-per-view subscription-enabled version. The availability of this content is supported by advertisements found on these websites.

How could the exclusive rights of the plaintiff be protected, and what can be the appropriate remedy?

Should the websites be blocked completely or only the specific URL providing access to the infringing content? The court held that both known and unknown defendants were liable for infringement as there was no remedy available to the plaintiff other than blocking the entire website. Blocking URLs was considered to be insufficient remedy by the court because, in its opinion, the website owners could easily change the specified URL by merely one character to circumvent the John Doe order passed by the Court.

Challenges:

While it has become routine to seek John Doe copyright injunctions before every big movie release or any major sporting event, many claim that they have largely remained unsuccessful in checking and controlling small street pirates. Lack of police cooperation may also render these orders unenforceable. There is another dispute going on whether these orders should be limited to entire websites or specific URLs. The Delhi HC has previously granted orders to extend the inclusion of these orders on the entire website. However, there is another opinion by Madras HC which said that these orders would be limited to specific URLs. In the absence of specific judicial guidelines, there is no clarity on the scope of these orders or under what circumstances these may be granted. There is a risk of misuse and improper implementation of these orders.

James Martin, Director, Fieldfisher

Online Infringement In the European Union

(Recent Court Rulings in the European Union Regarding Online Copyright Infringement and Database Rights)

The Svensson case:

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that the owner of a website may use hyperlinks to redirect Internet users to protected works available on other websites without the authorisation of the copyright holder of the linked website, provided that the linked website is freely available, that is, it can be accessed by anyone on the Internet.

The Retriever Sverige website operated to provide clickable links to articles published by other websites on the internet. The claimants were journalists who wrote articles for the Goteborgs-Posten website, and those articles were being linked by the Retriever Sverige website. The claimants argued that the Retriever Sverige hyperlink constituted an infringement of the claimant's copyright by making a communication to the public without the author's permission and they alleged that this was contrary to Article 3 of the Information Society Services Directive, commonly known as the InfoSoc Directive, which is the European Directive that harmonises copyrights across the 28 member states of the EU within the Information Society. The case made its way to the Swedish Court of Appeal which stayed the proceedings pending references to four questions to the CJEU.

1. If anyone other than the holder of copyright in a certain work supplies a clickable link to the work on his website, does that constitute communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive?

2. Is the assessment under Q1 affected if the work which the link refers is on a website on the Internet, which can be accessed by anyone without restrictions or if access is restricted in some way?

3. When making the assessment under Q1, should any distinction be drawn between a case where the work, after the user has clicked on the link, is shown on another website and one where the work, after the user has clicked on the link, is shown in such a way as to give the impression that the content is appearing on the same website, in other words, framing the content.

4. Is is possible for a [an EU] Member State to give wider protection to the author's exclusive rights by enabling communication to the public to cover a greater range of acts than provided for in Art. 3(1) of the Info Soc Directive?

In answer to the first question, the Court of Justice determined that "communication to the public " requires both a "communication" and a "public". The hyperlinks were determined to be making available, and therefore, they were an act of communication. However, there is a sting in the tail, because the Court of Justice held that the public must be a new public, and the communication must be directed to a new public. A public that wasn't taken into account by the copyright holders when they first authorised their initial communication to the public. In the second stanza for Svensson, the public targeted by the journalists' original articles consisted of all potential visitors to the Goteborgs-Posten website, which was unrestricted. Therefore they could be freely used and read by any Internet user. Consequently the links provided by the Retriever Sverige website were not to a new public and there was no need to obtain the author's consent.

In response to the second question, the situation would be different if the link allowed users to bypass restrictions designed to limit access to the public such as a paywall as can be found on The Times London websites, the Wall Street Journal websites and many others. Such users were not taken into account by the original copyright holders when the initial communication was authorised. So those people would constitute a new public.

Regarding the third question, the framing, the Court of Justice unusually held that it was irrelevant. The Internet user who clicks on a hyperlink is given the impression that the link is appearing on the site that contains the link, in other words, framing somebody else's content that is already freely available on the internet on your own website is absolutely fine, and there are obviously issues that arise out of that concerning advertising revenue streams that some people have on their websites where they are effectively making money by putting content freely on the internet by having advertising revenue surrounding their content. But of course if somebody can freely embed that content on their website, those adverts aren't necessarily seen. But as far as the European Court of Justice is concerned in the context of copyright, this is perfectly acceptable, and this applies across all 28 EU Member States.

In answering the fourth question, the CJEU held that member states do not have the right to give wider protection to copyright holders by widening the concept of "communication to the public" from that which is given in the InfoSoc Directive, as this would otherwise give rise to legislative differences between member states contrary to the purposes of the directive.

Bestwater ruling:

The Bestwater case reconfirmed the liberal approach that the Court of Justice takes towards embedding copyright material on a third party website. The judgement has been stayed pending the outcome of the decision handed down in the Svensonn case. And the CJEU has ruled that unless an original publisher uses technical access restrictions, then embedded content does not reach a new public. The effect of this judgement, combined with the Svensonn judgement is likely to lead to more restrictive publishing practices within the EU. Copyright holders will seek to avoid free riders taking advantage of the loophole that the court seems to have legitimised. So to provide background,

The Bestwater case was referred to the Court of Justice by the German Federal Court of Justice. It deals with a promotional video about water pollution that was produced by Bestwater International, a company that makes water filters. The film was originally published by Bestwater on its own company website and later uploaded to YouTube, allegedly without the permission or knowledge of Bestwater. The defendants were competitors of Bestwater, and they embedded the video on their websites, with the frames pointing to the YouTube copy. Now Bestwater objected to this use and sought an injunction against the two representatives of the rival company from the German Court. Bestwater's position was that the video was protected by copyright and that the exclusive rights to use the film belonged to Bestwater. So the German court referred the case to the CJEU asking whether the embedding of content of a third-party website on one's own website constitutes a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive.

After the Svensonn decision, the Court of Justice felt that it had already put an end to the debate regarding content on the Internet and it reverted to the German Court suggesting that the latter should withdraw its submission. In other words, saying that they did not want give an answer, saying that they had already answered it. The German Court insisted on a decision, one of the main reasons apparently being that in the Bestwater case, the YouTube video which the defendants were linking to and embedding on their website was itself a copyright violation. Nevertheless, in delivering its decision the CJEU followed the same rationale as in Svensonn and held that embedding content from another website does not amount to communication to the public if the uploader did not restrict access to the content and communicated it to the entire web community. There was no new public accessing the Bestwater video when it was embedded on the defendant's website, because when the video was uploaded on YouTube, whether lawfully or unlawfully, it was intended to be accessed by all who have access to the Internet. So this ruling somewhat cast doubt on the technical and economic understanding of modern media publication because the CJEU's position seems to be that the Internet is a medium rather than a mere technology. In other words, by analogy, a website does not compare to a particular magazine, newspaper, or a particular TV channel, but print media, TV in general, i.e, the relevant audience being all those who have access to magazines and newspapers rather than access to a particular newspaper, and all those who have access to TVs rather than a specific channel. So from a purely economic perspective these decisions raise concerns as they open up numerous possibilities to take advantage of copyright holders and content of other parties on the Internet. Based on these decisions, it's now possible to use written content, images or other videos that are hosted on another website for one's own website simply by embedding them. Apart from using somebody else's Internet bandwidth (which wasn't addressed by the CJEU at all), the CJEU in these copyright cases haven't taken account that the embedded content is actually taken out of its original context, and the advertisements displayed on the original website alongside the uploaded content may not appear on the embedded website, and the embedder may therefore spoil an important source of revenue for the copyright owner and use third-party copyright content for its own economic benefit. The most obvious response to these decisions will be that copyright owners will need to protect their content by implementing paywalls or other restrictive measures from the outset.

Another decision that the ECJ handed down involved the low-cost European Airline, RyanAir. This has been a long running dispute with various third parties, but one third party in particular, which accessed content on the RyanAir website to enable the sale of RyanAir flights and details about RyanAir time tables and schedules available on that third-party website, and interestingly, one thing that the Court of Justice raised in that decision is that it may be possible for owners of content to bind third parties in contract, but obviously you need to ensure that you are binding that third party in contract by accessing the website so that even if you cannot sue them for copyright infringement, you may be able to sue them for breach of contract for accessing your content and placing it on their website.

Database rights (AutoTrack v. GasPedaal)

The Court of Justice ruled in 2014 that the use of a meta-search engine can, in certain circumstances, constitute re-utilisation of the contents of the database in the meaning of Article 7(2)(b) of the Database Directive.

Database rights is an unusual concept, very newly come into the EU, and they provide protection above and beyond copyright protection. You don't necessarily need to have original content in a database, it's really protecting the investment an individual makes in actually producing the database, and that investment can be assessed on a qualitative or quantitative basis.

The Database Directive introduced the bespoke new form of legal protection. It is commonly referred to as the sui generis right . Article 7(1) in particular provides a "right for the maker of a database which shows that there has been qualitatively and/ or quantitatively a substantial investment in either obtaining, verification or presentation of the content to prevent extraction and/or re-utilisation of the whole or of a substantial part, evaluated quantitatively and/or qualitatively, of the contents of that database". Now for this purpose, Article 7(2)(b) provides that "re-utilisation means any form of making available to the public of all or a substantial part of the contents of a database by the distribution of copies, by renting, by online, or other forms of transmission". Article 7(5) provides that "the repeated and systematic extraction and/or re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the contents of the database implying acts which conflict with a normal exploitation of that database or which unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the maker of the database shall not be permitted."

The recitals to the Directive also back this up. So recital 42 of the Directive provides for "The right to prevent extraction and/or re-utilization related to acts by the user which go beyond his legitimate rights and thereby harm the investment". "The right to prohibit extraction and or re-utilization of all or a substantial part of the contents of a database relates not only to the manufacture of a parasitical competing product but also to any user who, through his acts, causes significant qualitative or quantitative detriment to the investment".

Turning to the facts of this case, Wegener operated a website called AutoTrack which carried car sale advertisements updated daily of to a 190,000 to 200,000 second hand cars of which around 40,000 were to be found on the AutoTrack website. Now Innoweb operated an online car advertisement website called GasPedaal. Rather than having its own database, it used a dedicated meta-search engine which then searched third party websites including AutoTrack's, using those websites to obtain results. So when a user typed in search terms on the GasPedaal website, the site's search engine would translate the relevant command into a language that could be understood by the AutoTrack web search engine. The AutoTrack search engine would then find any relevant advertisements and make them available on the GasPedaal search engine, which would then sort and collate those results from other dedicated search engines on other websites as well. The GasPedaal search engine would then note where more than one site produced the same advertisement and then made a single search result of those, presenting the user with links to the multiple sources. For each search performed, the GasPedaal search engine only returned results representing a small number of the advertisements on the AutoTrack site, but that is because it was only returning results that matched the relevant search terms given by the Internet user. Now Wegener successfully sued Innoweb for infringement of its database right. Innoweb appealed and the Hague Court of Appeal stayed the proceedings pending reference to the CJEU for a ruling on nine questions. The Court of Justice did not consider it necessary to consider all the nine questions. It ruled that it would be an infringement to the database right to use the meta-search engine in circumstances such as that involved in such proceedings. Under Article 7(1), an operator who makes available on the internet a dedicated meta-search engine such as GasPedaal re-utilises the whole or substantial part of the contents of a protected database, when that database's meta-search engine:

1) provides the end user with a search form which essentially offers the same range of functionality as the search form on the original database site.

2) where it translates queries from end users into the search engine for the database site in real time so that all the information on that database is searched through.

3) where it presents the results to the end user using a format of the website grouping duplications together into a single block item in an order that reflects the criteria comparable to those used by the search engine of the database site concerned for presenting results.

A dedicated meta-search engine is different from a general search engine based on an algorithm (like Google), primarily because a meta-search engine does not have its own data itself. It makes use of search engines of third party websites by transferring the queries from its users to the other search engines having first translated them into the relevant format required. It therefore offers the public a service where it searches the entire contents of the third-party databases or part of them in real time.

So Article 7(2)(b) has been broadly drafted to include "any other form of making available". The EUCJ attributed a broad meaning to the concept of reutilisation in its case law focusing on the objective of the database right which is to stimulate investment in data storage and processing systems. So in light of this objective, the re-utilisation has been construed as referring to any unauthorised act of making available to the public the results of the database maker's investment. Accordingly, in this case, it included any distribution to the public of the contents of the database regardless of the nature and form of the process used. When a website operator makes a dedicated meta-search engine available on the Internet, it does more than just point out the third-party databases that exist that a user can go to and consult. It gives the end user the means of searching all that data in most third-party databases without even visiting those third party databases' websites and akin to the Svensson and Bestwater case, this might mean that advertisers might stop advertising on the original third-party's site and might start placing advertisements on the meta-search engine's site. Now in this case we are looking at database rights, the EUCJ considered this dedicated meta-search engine to be close to a parasitical competing product. But it made a reference to the fact that this wording exists in Recital 42 of the Preamble of the Database Directive. The legislation is different, so this is why it has reached a different result, but still, it leads to a conflicting approach. So the Court of Justice held that the meta-search engine sites are close to being parasitical competing products and they've gone on to explain the fact that they resemble databases even though they themselves do not contain databases. And therefore in this case, and in similar cases, operators of such search engines would be making available to contents of third party websites within the meaning of Article 7(2)(b).

What are the effects of this judgement?

By bypassing the homepage and most other pages of the site that actually contain the database, meta-search engines can divert hits, and potentially advertising revenues. Operators of websites that scrape data from third parties and enable those third party sites to be searched, and by doing so thereby risks diverting advertising revenue may therefore need to review their technical business model in light of this judgement.

Chaitanya Prasad, Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks, India

In India, patents, trademarks, designs, and geographical indications are administered by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks. We have offices in New Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata and Ahmedabad. We have a Geographical Indications Registry located in Chennai as well as an Institute of Intellectual Property Management in Nagpur.

There are other IPR laws administered by different ministries. The Ministry of Human Resource Development looks after the Copyright laws. The Department of Information Technology looks after the Semiconductors, Integrated Circuits, and Layouts and Designs Act.

The number of patents in force in India in 2013 was 41,103 out of which 82 per cent were owned by non-resident Indians. The average age of patents in force in India is around 11.6 years, incidentally the second- highest in the world. The reason could be that India is a large market and companies want to exploit these patents and keep them in force.

National IP Trends

The filing of patents in India has gone up from around 35,000 to around 43,000 from 2007 to 2014, and the resident filing has gone up from 17% to 25%. In the year 2011-12, 11,000 patent applications were examined while in 2013-14, the number was 18,000. On a comparative basis, in India one patent examiner examined 140 patent applications in 2014 against 50 and 70 in the US and EU respectively. Therefore, it is the lack of human resources that is creating a backlog in the processing of patents in India vis-a-vis other countries.

Initiatives of the Indian Patent Office aimed at creating easy access to patents offices, and at Improving Its Quality and Services:

Comprehensive e-filing has been introduced where every document and form can be filed online, with regard to patent and trademarks. A payment gateway was launched in 2014, wherein Internet banking facilities of more than 70 banks can be used in addition to debit cards and credit cards for filing any patent or trademark. There is complete electronic processing in the patent and trademark office. Every paper that comes in is scanned, digitised and uploaded. Every paper that is issued from or received by the office is made available on the website.

An entry in the national phase can be done by filing Form 1 and the last page of the specification as we are directly streaming specifications from the WIPO patents scope. Incentives are being given for online filing. There is a 10% cost differential between online and offline filing since February 2014. One month after the incentive was introduced, online filing went up from 30% to 75%.

A new category has been introduced for Medium and Small Enterprises (MSMEs) in patents and designs. MSMEs get 50% discount for filing.

Quality management teams have been hired and skill development of personnel has been undertaken. Measures to introduce more transparency have been sought and efforts have been made to disseminate information with regard to IPRs. Real-time status of IP applications is available within tier file wrappers and e-registers.

The Indian Patent Office does weekly publication of online journals. We have a free public search facility. We have started instant email communications to applicants in trademarks specifically for filing purposes. We have started QR-coded communications for smartphones.

We have introduced a number of dynamic utilities where one can avail of information in real-time. Using the "stock and flow utility" one can find the stock of applications as well as the flow of applications from one process to another. From this, one can drill down to the office, the field, and the application itself and go to the file in the file wrapper and see the entire office thrown open to the world. One of the utilities counts and publicly displays the number of lapsed and expired patents in real-time. Because the patents have either lapsed or expired, these can be searched through fields of technology through any patent application that was not renewed or has expired. These applications are available on the website with the specification and search facility on a real-time basis. A number of other dynamic utilities for examinations, show-cause hearings, publications, registrations, et cetera have been made available online in real-time. We have started working as an international searching authority and have started giving high quality reports. These are currently available to all Indians.

We are shortly going to provide a searchable patent database. We are also bringing in an integrated search engine and are augmenting our human resources. The new government has approved 1,033 new posts in the patent and trademark offices, and with the training and skill of the increased human resources, we will stand on par with the best in the world with regard to the examination and disposal of both patent and trademark applications. We are completely overhauling our hardware and processing software. We will soon introduce new guidelines - one on computer-related inventions and another on search and examination generally.

Dr. Stefan V. Steinbrener, Consultant, Bardehle Pagenberg

Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions at the EPO

"Computer-implemented invention" (CII) is defined in the guidelines of the European Patents Office as an expression intended to cover claims which involve computers, computer networks, or other programmable apparatus, whereby prima facie one or more of the features of the claimed invention are realised by means of a programme or programs. Such a claim directed at computer-implemented inventions may take the form of a method of implementing said apparatus, apparatus set up to execute the method, or following the computer programme itself or as well as the physical media carrying the programme, computer programme product claims such as data carrier, storage medium, computer readable medium, or signal.

One can assume that an important part of all applications will fall under this definition. In 2010, the EPO granted 60,000 patents out of which 20,000 were covered by the said definition.

The core regulation is Article 52 of the EPC: European patents shall be granted for inventions in all fields of technology provided that they involve an inventive step and are susceptible for industrial application. Further, there is a list of non-inventions which include discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games, doing business, programmes for computers, and presentations for information. This will include or exclude patentability only to the extent to which the European patent application or patent related to such subject matter or activity.

The nature and language of such a regulation mandate the identification of a criterion delimiting excluded items from non-excluded ones. On the one hand, we have no definition of statutory subject matter apart from stipulation that inventions arise from all fields of technology. On the other hand we have a definition of a non-exhaustive list of exceptions, which are not patentable or have non-patentable subject matter. This regulation is, however, contrasting with respect to US regulations. In paragraph 101 in the US, the definitions of statutory subject matter can be found and the non-patentable subject matter is determined through findings of the Supreme Court, abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena.

Thus from a legal aspect, there are two hurdles for patent eligibility. The first is the patent eligibility of the subject matter. If this is in the affirmative, then the next hurdle is whether the elements of a patent are satisfied, namely, novelty, innovativeness, and industrial applicability.

According to European standards, an invention may not be innovative but may be patent eligible so long as the subject matter is patentable. The judicial issues that are to be addressed are the development of a coherent method of identifying the patentability of a subject matter and subsequently dealing with the grey areas in technicality by sifting through individual cases in order to arrive at certain guidelines for approaching individual cases of patent eligibility.

The finding of the case law upon the first issue is that an invention is such if the claimed subject matter has some technical matter. A subject matter is said to have technical character if it relates to a technical device, product or relates to technical means. "Technical means" has been liberally construed such that in a particular matter a method of storing information using paper and a pencil is patent eligible subject matter because the method employs technical means such as paper and pencil. However, the same would not be patented as the implementation of the same is trivial. The answer to the same question of patentability would be no if it is among the excluded subject matter or is similar to another invention. The barrier to patent eligibility will not disappear but the threshold is much lower. It is only when a subject matter is completely devoid of technical means can it be not called can invention. Barriers also come into play when the idea is abstract or even if there is a possibility of the use of technical means to some extent but claims for the same are not made.

Are computer-implemented innovations patent eligible under the EPC?

The answer would be yes, if explicitly tied to technical means.

When determining whether the invention has the required qualities of a patent, the answer would be in the affirmative if those of the technical features that contribute to the technical character are noble, inventive and industrially applicable. Thus only features of a technical character are taken into consideration while the others making no such contribution are ignored. For example, there have been a lot of patent applications for business methods from the United States, after the State's Street Bank Decision. These applications may have about forty pages of description of the business innovation with a disclaimer note at the end stating that the implementation of the same can be achieved through basic hardware that are already in use. Such applications lack an inventive step and can therefore cannot be patented. Thus, the basic test of patent eligibility with regard to the definition of an invention is the determination of whether there is a technical solution to a technical problem.

Some of the excluded subject matter may contribute towards technical character. Mathematical methods, for example, in the case of cryptography, wherein a mathematical algorithm may assist in the implementation of the same; then such a mathematical method may be patentable.

Further, "technical" should be understood to mean technological. But generally, it is difficult to define the term "technical", even through case laws. The meaning of the same in the core area is however undisputed while the semantics which lack definition are only at the fringes which may be identified in individual cases. We thus work with a dynamic concept of technology.

Ravi Bhola, Partner, KnS Partners

Patent Valuation and its Interplay with FRAND Terms

There are two broad methodologies for the valuation of patents. One is quantitative valuation by taking into consideration the income, the cost, and the market. However, the more relevant method is the qualitative analysis wherein one can look into the scope of the claims, geographical coverage, et cetera. Patent valuation is sometimes speculative. However, in an observation made by a court in the Federal Circuit, a judge directed a re-trial stating that in the study by the patentee, which was an SEP holder, the damages were predicted on speculation and unrealistic assertions. Thus one can ponder about whether there is a requirement to take into consideration a greater number of tools, software, or parameters for the valuation of intellectual property.

In order to strike a balance with society, SEP holders are obligated to licence their patents on FRAND terms to interested parties. The observed trend is that because SEPs are more important, they are valued higher than regular patents. Therefore, the question arises: Are SEPs are over- valued? For this purpose, reference must be made to four ongoing cases concerning SEPs.

Ericsson v. Micromax:

While the adjudication had commenced, it was observed that Ericsson has prior license agreements on FRAND terms of its 8 SEPs (under litigation in this case) with players in the West and other parts of the world. The court thus called forth these agreements for perusal.

Therefore, the first contentious concern is the manner or methodology adopted by the courts to arrive at the unrealistic rates of royalties. However, it is evident in this case that the court, by referring to prior agreements with the same set of SEPs, are trying to bring down the rates of royalty to more realistic values, even at the interim stage.

A similar situation has been observed in the case between Ericsson and Xiaomi, which is pending in the Delhi High Court. Here the court arrived at the amount of Rs. 100 as an interim arrangement, till the adjudication of the matter has been completed. It was again speculated here as to whether the amount was inflated.

The trend observed in the patent litigation at the Delhi High Court where most of such matters are adjudicated, is that unlike the pharmaceuticals sphere, there is a greater tendency in the telecommunication patent litigation to grant a temporary injunction, modify or even vacate the same while determining royalties payable, even at this stage.

How has the West handled these matters with regard to SEP valuation?

Motorola sued Microsoft in the US over the infringement of some of its SEPs. The former sought 2.25% royalty, but the court set a lower rate, such that the royalty amount fell from 4 million USD to about 1.8 million USD. The question which arises is with regard to the manner of determination of such royalties and whether sufficient parameters are in existence [to determine royalties].

Another example is of a European case wherein Apple was found to be infringing SEPS owned by Motorola Mobility. Apple's claim before the European Commission was that as an interested and willing licensee, it had made efforts to obtain a license for the said patents under FRAND terms which Motorola Mobility deterred vehemently. The European Commission upon investigation found that Motorola was exploiting its dominant position in the market and it intentionally sought to oust Apple from the usage of technology protected by means of the SEPs. Damages were accordingly awarded in this case.

Therefore, there is uniformity in the notion that there is an obligation on SEP holders to license their patents to interested licensees on FRAND terms.

What constitutes reasonableness?

The presumption with subjective issues such as these is that the courts will define the same through case laws. While FRAND terms have been dealt with by the courts and even the European Commission, it is pertinent to note whether there have been any anti-trust or competition matters pertaining to the ongoing litigation in telecommunication patent infringement. The Competition law comes into picture while determining the checks and balances to ensure that the SEP holder acts in a reasonable manner.

In Micromax v. Ericsson and Intex v. Ericsson placed before the Competition Commission of India (CCI), Micromax and Ericsson claimed that they had approached Ericsson as licensees but the immense royalty rates put forth by Ericsson deterred them. The CCI after investigation affirmed the claims of Micromax and Intex, with the finding that Ericsson has indeed abused its dominant position. However, the Delhi High Court has directed the CCI to abstain from passing the final order as long as the case is sub-judice.

Daniel R. Bereskin , Q.C. Founding Partner, Bereskin & Parr LLP

Patents as Catalysts to Economic Growth

The more I studied WIPO data and other sources, the more I came to the conclusion that patent numbers, whether in terms of filing or grants are a pretty poor indicator of the level of innovation in a country. Many commentators have taken the view that the patent system throughout the world is in crisis and there are many reasons for this. Far too many patents are granted for very trivial innovative steps, if they are even innovative at all. They are tiny sideways steps, even backwards steps.

When I started in 1965, in order to get a patent, you had to have an invention that was new, "unobvious" and useful. Now we see many thousands of patents granted annually for inventions that are of very dubious merit. Not only does this not encourage economic growth, it tends to retard economic growth. Think of small and medium-sized enterprises, for example. When they are confronted with many thousands of patents that are far too expensive for them to properly evaluate, covering very trivial or insignificant steps.

It is really up to the government to a large extent to encourage innovation and they do that in many countries in different ways such as through research and development tax incentives. The trouble is that if a government spends money in encouraging research and development, it tends to be invisible to the ordinary member of the public whereas building roads and doing other things that are much more concrete in nature are easier and better from the short-term political view. At the same time, if a country is to grow economically, and to prosper in the future, it is absolutely crucial that governments make an investment. I think a rough rule of thumb is for governments to devote up to about 2% of their GDP to encouraging R&D, and that money is significant, but it has to be spent wisely.

Now India has come up for criticism by the US Chamber of Commerce for not adequately protecting IP rights. The International Trade Commission is conducting a survey right now of US firms to understand how the policies of India discriminate against US exports and investment. Canada is also on the watch-list, although it is the US's greatest trading partner and is in close proximity to the US. I find these comments to be very ironic because the US has a history of discriminating against foreigners when it comes to protecting its own citizens. In fact Prof. Jane Ginsburg who is a prominent teacher and writer called the US in the 19th century a pirate nation, and the reason why she said that is because the US refused to grant copyright to works of foreign authors and that did not change till 1891. The reason for that was that Americans liked to read British authors in preference to the works of American authors. So the solution was to not give copyrights to British authors. When they finally, grudgingly, granted copyright protection, it was on the condition that the books of foreign authors had to be manufactured in the United States. This manufacturing clause was not repealed until fairly recently and that was done only because by then the US realized that the US had become a big exporter of books by authors. So we have to take with a grain of salt the comments we get about IP policies in every country. It is very important to take a realistic view of what is really going on.

China has grown steadily in the past eight years to the point where the growth is now over nine trillion dollars. The growth in filing patents in China is incredible. It is going up exponentially and shows no signs of abating. In 2012, WIPO showed that Chinese nationals were responsible for almost 150,000 granted Chinese patents and the number of issued patents to foreigners was roughly 75,000. The problem with China is that there is no way of knowing what the mix is between patents of invention and utility models. Given the enormous disparity between the number of applications filed by the Chinese people in China compared with those filed by them abroad, most of the inventions that are utility models, or patents that are of very dubious economic value. My feeling is that these huge numbers are due to government policy in dictating to Chinese companies that they have to file a lot of patent applications, because it is easy for a government to say, "Look at how impressive our filing statistics are". You have to dig deeper to try to find out what the value is of the innovations that are represented by these patents. My feeling is that since such a small number, roughly 4% of all applications filed by the Chinese in China were filed abroad, that is an indication that the vast majority of these huge Chinese filings are not of any great economic importance.

India's GDP is over 1.3 trillion dollars. Economists predict that in 15 years, the Indian economy is expected to rival that of the US. Of course, India has a population of over 1.3 billion. The US has, maybe, a quarter of that. So you cannot exactly compare them.

Patent applications in Indiai show a somewhat disturbing trend. Although there is some growth in the patent filings by resident applicants, non-residents' filings swamp [outnumber] those of the residents. The number of applications filed abroad by companies and individuals of Indian origin is less than 10,000, which is a very small number given the size of the Indian economy.

There has been a very sharp decline in the past four years in the number of patents that are actually granted to individuals or companies where the inventors are of Indian origin. In 2014, less than 600 patents were granted to Indian nationals [WIPO statistics]. The number of patents granted to foreign applications is likewise declining and it is surprising. It could mean that the Indian Patent Office is getting tougher on "unobviousness". Nevertheless, the numbers are still pretty low.

Korea is a real success story. Their GDP is not yet at the level of India or China, but it is at 1.3 trillion dollars, which is not insignificant. But take a look at their patent application filings. Korean inventors were responsible for almost 150,000 filings in 2012. Koreans filed more than 50,000 applications abroad in the same year. These grants are substantial compared with [erstwhile] figures for India and China.

The US GDP is close to 17 trillion dollars and the economy seems to be continuing to grow. Right now the US economy is about 27% of the worldwide GDP. It is reasonable to conclude that the US has a very strong and vested interest in trying to ensure that IP rights are protected outside of the US because their continued growth depends on the protection of their homegrown IP.

Questions-Answers

How do you compare and contrast recent litigation in pharma versus litigation in the high-tech space, especially Ericsson and Vringo?

Pravin Anand (Managing Partner, Anand & Anand): In the Francis Xavier case in New Delhi, a division bench of the Delhi High Court said that an ex-parte injunction must not be granted in patent cases. The law, however, changed subsequently. The first evidence is of a DCJI clearance required when an application was moved by a pharma company and the news reached the patent owner by means of a right-to-information (RTI) request and private investigation. The patent owner then approached the court in order to prevent to the marketing of the product. Thus, before the launch of the product, the patent holder obtained a status quo. The rules of the division bench did not apply because balance of convenience was observed in maintaining the status quo. But that order essentially acted as an ex-parte injunction in a patent matter. This was phase one. Phase two saw the grant of injunction as the number of status quo order had exceeded twenty five in litigation against well known companies such as Pfeizer and Bristol Meyers. These orders were converted to injunctions by the judges.

The third phase was brought on by the Ericsson, Vringo, and other electronics companies, which albeit through lesser litigations, were able to create quite a stir. Ex-parte injunctions were granted in these cases. However, the judges felt the need to arrive at interim arrangements in lieu of the injunctions. Earlier, pending trial, these arrangements involved the payment of money and royalty by the defendants through their sales, directly to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the present stance is that both status quo orders and temporary injunctions are in use in pharma litigation before the launch of the product. Subsequently, the grant of such orders is rare. The impediment after launch is that the price difference between the plaintiff's and the defendant's product are evident to the question. Prior to the launch, only the plaintiff's product exists in the market. Hence, the grant of such orders is said to be in favour of balance of convenience. The mobile phone patent litigation cases, however, are witnessing the grant of interim orders, rather, arrangements.

Why is it that the Courts cannot wait another day to hear both the parties before granting the ad interim injunction?

Abhay Pandey, Partner, LexOrbis: The main issue that is going to come up in electronic product litigation is the pleading which contains the product mapping. In the Ericsson cases, there is an indirect reference made to the infringements, i.e., the devices are following the standards and not the readings to the claims. Therefore, the issue of injunctions will arrive only once the product is broken down into the claims.

D.P. Vaidya (Lakshmikumaran Sreedharan)

Computer Related Inventions and Indian Patent Law

Section 2 of the Indian Patent Act defines “invention” as any new process or new product which has or which involves an inventive step and is capable of industrial applications. “Inventive step” as well as “capable of industrial application” are defined in the Act. Section 3 defines what are not inventions. With respect to computer related inventions (CRIs), section 3(k) is worded differently than the provision for CRIs in the European Patent Convention (EPC). In Indian law, mathematical methods, algorithms, and business methods are not considered “inventions”, irrespective of whether they are “as such”. Computer programs are qualified with the phrase “per se” instead. The only common thing between EPC and Indian patent law is that “computer programs per se” or “computer programs as such” are not inventions. So programs that do not quality “per se” or “as such” could be patentable.

What are CRIs?

CRIs can be classified as: CRIs related to general purpose computers and CRIs implemented by specific computers (and not special purpose computers). General purpose computers are inventions that work towards different types of solutions. The solutions could be purely mathematical calculations or technical problems.

The term “business method” is not precisely defined in law as much as the abstract idea is. Generally speaking, any commercial transaction will qualify as a “business method” going by my observations from various decisions in the US, UK, and Europe.

Example technical problem: What is the point of presence (PoP) for designing network topology or network architecture?

Based on rules and various parameters defined for the topology or architecture, a schematic is drawn up. It shows the locations where the PoPs should be placed to minimise the cost of operations and the investment. This is also an application that can be implemented over a general purpose computer.

Would it fall under the definition of an “algorithm”? The definition of “algorithm” in the guidelines is very broad. Whether or not it is implemented on a [general purpose] computer, it will be treated as a “computer” because there is no qualifier as “per se” or “as such”. If it is an algorithm, it is not patentable.

Then, what is not an “algorithm”? It could be argued that all methods will fall under the definition of “algorithm”. The IEEE definition of a “solution to a problem” is that it is a finite set of well-defined rules in a finite number of steps. For example, a complete specification for a sequence of arithmetic operations for evaluating the value of sin “x” for a given precision. When the aim is mainly to determine a certain value or function for optimisation or for arithmetic calculations, the method or process can be treated as an “algorithm”. From a legal point of view, methods are patentable, but paradoxically, algorithms are not considered inventions.

Then next level of general-purpose computer-implemented inventions (CII) are those that make changes in the operating systems [instead of sitting on top of the operating system]. By making changes in the operating system, the CII is changing the character of the computer. It is improving the computer, and therefore it is patentable. Also, a general purpose computer operating a machine or a technical process is patentable.

Embedded Computer-Implemented Inventions:

Wherever there is embedded software, the patent controllers generally do not have any issues related to patentability. They may have issues related to inventive step.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-global-intellectual-property-convention-2015

Report on the 31st Session of the Standing Committee on Trademarks

puneeth — 2014-05-06T07:22:11Z

Puneeth Nagraj reports about the 31st Session of the Standing Committee on Trademarks (SCT) that he attended.

The 31st meeting of the SCT was held from March 17 to 21, 2014.[1]The meeting was important as Members sought to finalise the issues in the Design Law Treaty (DLT) before the Diplomatic Conference. The session also saw proposals by the delegations of Jamaica, the United States and Hungary.[2].

Adil El Maliki of Morocco was elected Chair, and Mr. Imre Gonda of Hungary and Ms. Günseli Güven of Turkey were elected Vice-Chairs of the 31^st session. The Session was dominated by negotiations around the DLT and very little time was devoted to the Plenary attended by this observer.

Design Law Treaty

The 31^st session had a mandate from the WIPO General Assembly to finalise the text of the DLT before the Diplomatic Conference. However, disagreements over the technical assistance and capacity building provisions threatened to delay the process further. While Developing Countries preferred a provision in the Treaty on technical assistance, developed countries were against a binding provision and were in favour of a resolution on the issue.

Members of the African Group insisted that a Diplomatic Conference would be convened only if the Treaty included a provision on Technical Assistance and Capacity Building. The Delegate of Kenya said that the adoption of this treaty would require significant changes in the national IP systems of developing countries which are likely to go beyond the capacity and ability of individual countries to implement the treaty. The Delegate then emphasised the need for such a provision in upgrading their national IP system to conform with and to implement the treaty. The stance of the Kenyan delegate was further supported by Brazil, the GRULAC and Bangladesh in addition to other DAG members.

The delegate of Japan on behalf of Group B said that the text of the designs law treaty aimed to streamline and enhance design law formalities and would benefit all countries irrespective of their status of development. The delegate also stated that the issue of technical assistance should not stop the convening of a Diplomatic Conference. The EU on a similar note said that the convening of a Diplomatic Conference should be priority outcome of the 31^st Session.

Proposals

The delegate of Jamaica submitted a proposal for the protection of country names.[3]The proposal sought to establish a coherent and consistent framework to deal with trademark cases which deal with country names. The proposal received support from some delegations in addition to suggestions to revise it. Switzerland emphasised the need for “pragmatic affordable way to protect country names” and to ensure that product names were used only for countries that produce such products. The EU also noted that this issue has been under discussion since 2009 and called for an awareness mechanism to ensure refusal of trademarks for products with country names. The US raised many doubts as to whether such a proposal would be feasible arguing that the government would have to act as a brand owner like others and that this was not a historical role that governments have played. The US also stated that not all countries shared an interest in protecting such rights and that it was premature to initiate text based questions on the proposal. Instead, the delegate called on the chair to conduct research on whether a system to protect country names could exist. In response to suggestions, the delegation of Jamaica offered to consider them and present a revised proposal at the next session.

There were also two proposals on Geographical Indications. The US submitted a proposal to suggest a work plan for the reform of the GI filing system.[4] While some delegations supported this proposal, others expressed opposition. The delegation of Hungary submitted a joint proposal to conduct a study concerning the protection of geographical indications in the domain name system. Again opinion on this proposal was divided- with some asking for more time to consider the proposal since it was submitted late. The Chair cited the lack of agreement on these proposals to put off further discussions until the next session.

[1]. See http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=32083.

[2]. The Hungarian proposal was jointly sponsored by Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Moldova and Switzerland.

[3]. See SCT/31/5.

[4].See SCT/31/7.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-on-31-session-of-standing-committee-on-trademarks

Report of the 30th Session of the WIPO SCCR by the Centre for Internet & Society

nehaa — 2016-04-04T14:39:05Z

This report was edited by Nehaa Chaudhari, Programme Officer; compiled with assistance from Nisha S.K., Administrator, and, Aarushi Bansal, Amulya P., and Saahil Dama, interns.

I. Broadcast Treaty Negotiations

Day 1: June 29, 2015

Opening Statements from Regional Coordinators

Japan, speaking for Group B, said that the Group continued to attach importance to the negotiation of the Broadcast Treaty. It emphasized the importance of the information session by technical experts to strengthen the understanding of technical issues. A better understanding of the legal aspects and language of the Treaty text would prove advantageous during Treaty negotiation.

It acknowledged that the presentation by Professor Kenneth Crews indicated that the Member States required an informative reference to adopt the limitations and exceptions. It recommended that the reference be made more user-friendly and accessible. Additionally, it proposed for an exchange of national experiences and a background check on the collection of outcomes.

Germany spoke next, on behalf of the Central European and Baltic States (CEBS). It supported a "forward-looking approach that would take into account the technical progress achieved in broadcasting systems so far". It argued for the inclusion of new media platforms used by broadcasting organizations into the Treaty.

It appreciated Kenneth Crews' study on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives.
Germany believed that progress on these issues would be facilitated if the committee agreed on common objectives. It wanted to exchange best practices on both - limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with disabilities.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African group, wanted equal time to be given to both the issues on the agenda - the Broadcast Treaty and limitations and exceptions. The African Group supported a balanced Treaty on protection of broadcasting organizations as per the mandate of the 2007 General Assembly. It welcomed Kenneth Crews' study on copyright trends. It also suggested a discussion on copyright exceptions for museums.

Argentina, speaking on behalf of GRULAC (Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries), asked for equal time be given to all the issues on the agenda. This view was also supported by Mexico.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific group, Pakistan supported a balanced Treaty which followed the signal-based approach, for protecting broadcasting organizations as per the mandate of the 2007 General Assembly.

Belarus, representing the Central Eastern and Caucasian Countries, wanted a Diplomatic Conference for the conclusion of the Treaty soon.

The European Union (EU) stated that in building consensus on the Broadcast Treaty, the broad aim should be to make a meaningful Treaty that would be relevant to technological realities and needs of broadcasting organizations in the 21^st century.

Information Session on Broadcasting

Preceded by opening statements by regional groups and countries, the main event on Day 1 was an information session on broadcasting. The panel consisted of George Twumasi, Deputy Chairman and CEO of ABN Holdings Ltd.; Daniel Knapp, Director, Advertising Research; Shida Bolai, CEO of Caribbean Communications Network Ltd.; Anelise Rebello de Sa, Legal Manager of International Business and Contracts Compliance, TV Globo; Avnindra Mohan, President, Zee Network; and Tejveer Bhatia, Singh and Singh Associates, New Delhi.

Daniel Knapp started the information session by providing an outlook on broadcasting from a technical and revenue perspective. He highlighted that traditional broadcasting was different in different countries. In Greece, for example, there was little or no cable other than at the national level, while in the Middle East and Africa, a large proportion of access came from free satellite prescribers.

Knapp stated that despite digitization paid TV homes were growing at a 6% annual rate which was expected to slow down to 3.4% by 2018. While the growth was being led by India and China, pay TV homes in the US were declining as people were moving to over-the-top services. He added that users of connected devices such as smart-phones, broadband players and smart TVs were predicted to surge to more than 8 billion by 2017. This would result in the decline of TV-usage as audiences would move to online open source resources such as Facebook, YouTube, AOL and premium services such as Amazon and Netflix.

Kanpp voiced concerns about development in technology leading to piracy. He warned that traditional threats such as smart cards on set-top boxes and new methods of piracy such as online file-sharing needed to be checked.

John Simpson of the British Broadcasting Corporation ("BBC") outlined how broadcasting had changed through the years due to advancement of technology. He stated that the world was moving from analog TVs to digital services. Digital technologies had enabled broadcasters to offer more channels and programs, providing users with more choice and control. The definitional boundaries between broadcasting and digital video libraries were becoming increasingly blurred.

He argued that broadcasting was an important tool for social cohesion, economic development and ensuring public access to information. He believed that new content delivery mechanisms, such as computer networks or smart-phones, could bridge the knowledge-gap in developing countries. In Africa, for instance, the recent transition from analog television to digital television has the potential to improve both the quantity and the quality of content on television.

However, Simpson noted that the Treaty-text had no mention of the quality and accuracy of the information being broadcasted. It failed to discuss the need for televisions and videos to produce programs which did not just represent the beliefs of the government, but had a genuine observational truth to them. Simpson stressed upon maintaining quality and developing new ways in which things are broadcasted to people.

Shida Bolai of Caribbean Communications Network Limited spoke about challenges broadcasters faced during transition to digital technologies and migration of viewers and advertisers from traditional to new platforms. She noted that while most of the Caribbean was still grappling with standards and infrastructure to go digital, Bahamas and Surinam had already made the change. Legal protection offered to broadcasters in the Caribbean was inadequate and piracy in the form of CDs or fraudulent satellite use and internet were issues yet to be tackled.

Piracy was the result of the costly distribution of content on the internet leading to the broadcasters obtaining expensive licenses. Hence cable-operators pirated signals and free broadcasters had to look for new content. This showed that broadcasters were given inadequate protection. Bolai also indicated that it was difficult to invest in high-cost sports programmes due to financial losses arising out of piracy. She highlighted the need for the indigenous community to find primary channels of production and distribution.

George Twumasi from ABN Holdings LTD said that the central challenge for broadcasting in Africa was the creation of commercially viable content by Africans for Africans. If such content increased, the broadcast industry would grow to become a $75 billion industry over the next 15 years. With respect to piracy, he stated that Africans did not like foreign content and that it was not a pressing concern for them. He argued that the best way to stop piracy was through invasive technologies.

Twumasi wanted to create a lobby group to facilitate the growth of broadcasting. Given Africa's history, he emphasized on its need to define its role as a broadcaster and to entertain the world through its powerful mythology and culture.

Yaw Owusu from University of Ghana stated that copyright could be protected to the extent of monetizing what existed in the marketplace. He explained that the business strategy would operate by broadcasters driving the digital content and revenue system. Intellectual property and ownership would be protected through encryption software. Since English content had also been pirated in Africa, expert enhancement of existing content was required.

Anelise Rebello de Sa from International Business and Contracts Compliance, TV Globo said that the most important challenge to Latin American broadcasters were not other broadcasters, but Google, Facebook, Twitter and piracy. Audiences for the Brazilian advertising market had grown from 10 million in 2000 to 33 billion in 2014. Traditional TV had 72% of the advertisement market. Piracy was a problem since Brazilian signals would be picked up and used by broadcasters in other countries.

She also said that online piracy and set-top boxes were major causes for concerns. She explained the functioning of piracy using the example of Globo in Japan. Pirated content on Globo could not be removed since it did not originate in Japan. Hence the protection was inadequate.

Fingerprint technology would be useful against piracy since it automatically removes instead of comparing videos with one another. She concluded by stating that television also needed an updated legal framework and dependant businesses and investments to continue.

Avnindra Mohan from Zee Telefilms stated that by end of 2016, all of India would be on digital TV. The TV industry was set to increase its revenue from 7.8 billion USD to 12.1 billion USD in the future. However, piracy through DTH box cloning, IPTV, cable TV, inter-country smuggling and over the internet was a major concern. With regards to web-initiated transmissions, he argued that as long as the signal was hacked by someone, broadcasters should have the right to prevent that piracy or illegal transmission from happening.

Day 2: June 30, 2015

Day 2 began with the Chair calling for statements from Member States and regional groups on general principles and key objectives of the proposed Broadcast Treaty.

Regional Group Statements on General Principles

Japan, on behalf of Group B, reiterated that after the session it hoped to move forward with the discussion in line with the 2007 General Assembly mandate and to convene the diplomatic conference at the earliest opportunity.

Speaking on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that it supported the development of an international treaty based on the mandate of the 22 ^nd SCCR which was reiterated in 2012. It sought an agreement based on traditional broadcasting and cable casting; a balanced text that prioritized the interests of all the stakeholders. Pakistan said that the original mandate without new layers of protection would achieve this balance.

Nigeria, representing the African Group, stated that it wanted a pragmatic and effective outcome in conformity with the 2007 mandate, and looked forward to moving towards a Diplomatic Conference soon. Noting the efforts made at the 29^th SCCR, it welcomed the discussion on broadcasting protection. Nigeria concluded by reaffirming its commitment for constructive development in order to protect broadcasting rights within the directives of the 2007 General Assembly mandate.

Romania supported a Treaty that would provide adequate protection in line with modern technological developments. It sought a broad consensus on the signal-based approach. It also stated that it hoped to recommend the convening of a Diplomatic Conference to the General Assembly.

The EU considered the Broadcast Treaty to be a high priority. It wanted a treaty that would be meaningful in view of the technological realities and the needs of broadcasting organizations in the 21^st century. It argued that both - traditional broadcasting and broadcasting over the internet- - required international protection against piracy.

Iran supported the statements made by Pakistan and the Asia Pacific group. It wanted the Treaty to follow the signal-based approach decided in the 2007 General Assembly. Iran only wanted protection for traditional broadcasters. It argued that expanding protection to transmissions over the internet raised concerns of rising transaction costs and reducing access to broadcast in developing countries. It sought an assessment of the impact of the Treaty on the public domain, access to knowledge, freedom of expression, users, performers and authors.

South Korea believed that after the introduction of the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organization ("Rome Convention"), the protection of broadcasting organizations had not been updated to reflect advances in technology. Therefore, it wanted the Treaty to respond to changes in technology.

National Statements on General Principles

Japan wanted the SCCR to end with a recommendation for convening a Diplomatic Conference to adopt the Treaty. It hoped to discuss objectives of protection and rights to be granted. It wanted to move to textual work in the near future and have more elaborate discussions to expand the scope of common understanding.

The US wanted to continue discussions to obtain a general consensus on a meaningful and targeted text. In its opinion, a right that protected broadcasters against signal piracy on any platform without an extra layer of protection could attract such a consensus.

Russia wanted to adopt a new document on the protection of broadcasting organizations. It wished to confine the Treaty to traditional broadcasting, but also lay a basis for content for future protection. It suggested that new forms of broadcasting should be identified and new directions for future protection should be introduced. Russia conveyed its support to all collective decisions to be taken while discussing the text of the future Treaty, as well as a speedy adoption of a common approach.

Belarus, on behalf of the Central Asia and Eastern Europe group, hoped that the new Treaty would reflect specificities of different regions and possibilities of adaptation to changes in broadcasting.

Indonesia supported the statements delivered by Pakistan. It wanted the Treaty to be based on the 2007 General Assembly mandate and use a signal-based approach with broadcasting and cablecasting defined traditionally. It opposed the introduction of any new layers of protection and wanted to strike a balance between rights and responsibilities of broadcasting organizations.

India supported a Treaty with the 2007 General Assembly mandate and also sought the prevention of unauthorized live transmission over computer networks. It opposed expanding the mandate to include elements of webcasting, simulcasting and retransmission over computer networks or other platforms, as these were not a part of broadcasting as defined in a traditional sense. India wanted the Treaty to provide exceptions to private use, use by experts in connection with reporting of current events, use solely for the purpose of education and research and the fixation of a broadcast by means of its own facilities.

Objectives of Treaty, Scope of Protection and Object of Protections

The EU argued that there was a need to ensure that the Treaty was up to date and in line with technological advancements. It wanted protection to extend to broadcasters who used new technologies and urged for the inclusion of a broad retransmission right that would involve simultaneous retransmission and deferred retransmissions. It believed that the objective of the Treaty was to stop piracy whether it was in the form of simultaneous transmissions or organized by websites. It also expressed eagerness to go to text-based work as opposed to working on clarifications.

Speaking next, the US supported a Treaty that would respond to advancements in digital technology and address piracy concerns by eliminating loopholes that pirates could exploit. It said that piracy was a significant concern but not necessarily the suitable object for the Treaty in question. It was not a major part of broadcasters' protection, which could be resolved by enforcing only signal protection.

Romania, speaking next on behalf of the CBES group, stated that it believed in a Treaty that would protect broadcasters against piracy regardless of the platform. It wanted to protect cablecasting and simulcasting in addition to traditional broadcasting. It re-iterated the stand taken by US in saying that a broad retransmission right would be the way forward.

Japan believed that there was a need for separating traditional broadcasting from internet originated initial transmission. Since newer broadcasting organizations dealt with internet broadcasting, it wanted Member States to discuss methods of dealing with such a transmission.

Argentina supported a Treaty that would include broadcasters and cablecasters but would exclude internet originated transmissions except in the context of near simultaneous transmissions.

The EU noted that India, Iran, CEBS, South Africa, Argentina and Kenya seemed to agree that live signals transmitted over any platforms would be the object of protection of the Broadcast Treaty. It stated that it would support a Treaty that protected cablecasting in addition to traditional broadcasting.

Italy endorsed the stance of the EU. It explained that the broadcasting rights to fixation, reproduction of fixations and retransmissions of such fixations and protection of signals sent over the internet could find a background in Article 14 of the TRIPS. It further argued that even the idea of exclusive rights to broadcasters could find precedence in Article 14 of TRIPS and in the Rome Convention.

China argued that the Treaty should account for technological developments. While it fully supported a Treaty that only covered traditional broadcasting including cablecasting, it wanted to include simulcasting, on demand casting and near simulcasting within the Treaty.

India, in response to the EU and Italy, sought to emphasize the difference between a right to authorize and a right to prohibit broadcasting. It stated that the Broadcast Treaty should not provide for a positive right to authorize. It argued that internet companies often broadcast events based on a contract with the content creators, and such a right should not conflict with rights that may be given to broadcasters by virtue of the Treaty. India emphasized the need to stick to the signal-based approach as it balanced the interests of broadcasters and content creators. It pointed out that in cases where broadcasters doubled up as content creators, copyright law would be enough to prevent piracy.

Brazil, along with the US and South Africa, wanted to take into account the concerns of content owners in other platforms.

The US stated that the common ground would be the protection of live signals. If the signal is transmitted by any means, it should be protected. Since many broadcasters used the internet to transmit signals, it would be important to ensure that the signals thus transmitted were protected from piracy as well. It wanted a technologically neutral definition of broadcasting and argued that this would still be limited to a signal-based approach because there were no rights over the content per se.

India clarified its stance and stated that while it did believe that unauthorized retransmissions over the internet should be prohibited by the Treaty, providing broadcasters with a sole right to transmission over the internet would be beyond the signal-based approach. Internet transmissions could rarely be said to be signal theft in the traditional sense.

Iran, responding to the EU, stated that it supported a Treaty that covered traditional broadcasting, cablecasting and even live retransmissions on the internet. It expressed concerns with the Treaty granting exclusive rights to broadcasters, and stated that it would support a Treaty against signal theft as long as the signals belonged to traditional broadcasters.

Chile argued that only broadcasts open to the public should be protected by the Treaty and broadcasts requiring decryption without a cable should be excluded.

The EU restated that it supported a Treaty with technologically neutral terminology. It expressed concerns with the Treaty benefitting all kinds of broadcasters since technological developments had enabled everyone to become a broadcaster. Italy supported this caveat and stated that a workable definition of a "broadcast organization" would be an organization that transmits a broadcast signal. A "broadcast signal" would be a signal that includes only broadcasts or cablecasts; and broadcasting does not include the transmission over computer networks. It believed that such a definition would differentiate between broadcasts, cablecasts and webcasts.

Japan stated that broadcasting organizations would have to be defined as broadcasters in the traditional sense since the idea of a broadcasting organizations had not changed despite technological advancement. It wanted to start with the definition of broadcasting as it was laid out in the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty ("WPPT") and the Beijing Treaty on Audio-Visual Performances, 2012 ("Beijing Treaty").

Nigeria stated that broadcasting should be clearly defined before broadcasting organizations since the two were inevitably linked.

Russia believed that the discussion was becoming overly complicated. It argued that a simple method of understanding broadcasting would suffice to define broadcasting and broadcasting organizations. The means used by broadcasters were of little concern to Russia.

The US stated that along with being forward-looking, the definitions also needed to be consistent with treaties passed by the WIPO in the past, including the WPPT and Beijing Treaty. Broadcasting organizations should be defined as entities that would assemble and schedule programmes carried by the signal keeping in mind the distinction between a signal and a program.

As per the EU, the definitions in Document SCCR 27/2 needed to be discussed as they covered important elements of broadcasting such as broadcasting by wireless means including satellite for public reception. The EU also stated that while the definition of broadcasting organizations should not include transmissions over computer networks, transmissions over computer networks could be included as a part of the object of protection.

At the end of the evening, Ann Lear, of the WIPO, intervened to stress that definitions must be adopted keeping keep in mind that many broadcasters today viewed the internet as the main platform for distribution of their broadcast in the near future and were using streaming and downloading over the internet.

Day 3: July 1, 2015

Day 3 of the negotiations began with the Chair noting the general consensus emerging in the matter of protecting live signals over any platform, and, allowing broadcasters to prohibit unauthorized access regardless of the platform from which the signal was transmitted. The Chair opened the floor for debate on whether there was a need for defining 'broadcasting organizations' or whether defining 'broadcasting' as an activity would suffice, and on whether the definitions must reflect those existing in other international treaties.

Defining 'broadcasting organizations'

The EU spoke first, stating that the definition laid out in Alternative B to Article 5 in Document SCCR 27/2 was similar to what it wanted. It believed that defining broadcasting and cablecasting was crucial to defining the beneficiaries of the Treaty. But this did not mean that it was unimportant to outline who the beneficiaries of the Treaty were.

Australia argued that the Rome Convention operated well without having defined broadcasting organizations and the same would hold true for the Broadcast Treaty as well. It further argued that the definition of broadcasting should be based on the definitions that already existed in the Beijing Treaty and the WPPT.

Serbia stated that the definition of a broadcasting organization had to conform by the definition of broadcasting. Additionally, it felt the need to define the responsibility of broadcasting organizations for collecting information and editorial functions.

Russia argued that defining broadcasting organizations would be a misstep since different countries would have different definitions of broadcasters in their national legislations. Russia relied on the fact that the Rome Convention was operating well without having defined broadcasting organizations.

Brazil stated that while it wanted clarity on who would be the beneficiaries of the Treaty it was still debating whether broadcasting organizations had to be defined in the Treaty. It supported a technologically neutral definition of broadcasting as it would encompass different countries with different regulatory regimes.

Kenya stressed that it needed clarity on what broadcasting entailed as their national laws dealt with broadcasting in a particular manner. It required a clear definition to move things forward.

South Africa, agreeing with Kenya, spoke of its domestic legislation which defined broadcasting in several ways, and included both wired and wireless technology. It suggested accommodating different definitions of countries like Brazil and China which regulated broadcasting differently. It added that following a text-based definition would be difficult as discussions involving fundamental questions of broadcasting were constantly being raised.

Canada felt the need to examine national treatment with respect to defining or not defining broadcasting organizations. It said that a basic definition of the activity with a chance to accommodate differences in national legislations would be the best way to move forward.

The US proposed that text-based work would be more constructive in gaining clarity on these questions.

The EU commented that the definition of 'signal' could be based on the Beijing Treaty that makes a reference to public reception of sounds or images or images and sounds or representation thereof. Alternative A for Article 5 in Document SCCR 27/2 most closely reflected the definitions that already exist in other existing treaties as well. It stated that it would be sufficient to define broadcasting, cablecasting, broadcasting organizations and signal.

Romania endorsed the statement made by the EU. It stressed on the importance of defining the beneficiaries of the Treaty.

The EU intervened again to state that it was necessary to define broadcasting organizations, but that it could start with defining broadcasting based on existing treaties.

Romania intervened on behalf of the CEBS group to state that it was important to move to a text-based discussion to continue making progress. It emphasized on the need for updating the international legal framework to accord adequate protection to broadcasting organizations.

Russia supported the same proposal and stated that it was important to consolidate a text to eventually recommend convening a Diplomatic Conference.

Serbia aligned itself with the Romanian position. It further stated that it was important to identify the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries under the Treaty.

Iran intervened to urge the commencement of text-based negotiations on the draft Treaty as there was no consensus on important concepts such as objectives, scope or objects of protection of the Treaty. It supported the proposal made by Romania on behalf of CEBS. Iran also stated that deciding on convening the Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium before resolving divergent views and arriving at a consensus would be premature.

The US argued that text-based work would be the way forward. Though consensus was beginning to appear, a number of countries had not committed to anything. Hence the draft should leave options so that there is still room for negotiations. It further said that if an acceptable text was found over the next two meetings, then a Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium could have a successful outcome.

The EU stated that while there was progress on understanding different positions, a consensus was yet to emerge. Further discussions were needed on important issues such as the term of protection and technological protection measures. It aligned itself with the proposal of the CEBS group and hoped that the work would lead to a Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium.

India, South Africa, Japan, Nigeria, Senegal and Kenya also supported the CEBS proposal to move to text-based work.

Chair's Conclusions

At the end of the session on broadcasting, the Chair noted that there had been an exchange of views on the objectives of the Treaty, the scope of protection and the object of protection. While no consensus had been reached, there was greater clarity on different positions. The Chair stated that text-based work seemed to be the way forward and agreed to prepare the draft document. Further, with the exception of one delegation, there was a consensus on the protection being granted to broadcasting organizations to prohibit unauthorized use of broadcast signals in the course of a transmission over any technological platform. The Chair lastly said that the proposed timeframe for this would be to work towards the biennium when the proposed Diplomatic Conference could take place.

II. Report on Negotiations on International Instrument for Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives

Day 1: June 29, 2015

Opening Statements by Regional Coordinators

Japan spoke on behalf of Group B and stated that the presentation by Prof. Kenneth Crews (hereafter, Crews) had provided for a way forward by showing that Member States needed an informative session on this topic. This informative session should be in an accessible and user friendly environment where exchange of national experiences could take place. It believed that the SCCR should give further consideration to the objectives and principles proposed by the US in this regard.

Nigeria, on behalf of the Africa Group, wanted to establish legal instruments on this issue and on limitations on educational and research institutions for persons with disabilities. It wanted equal time to be given to all the instruments being discussed.

Representing the GRULAC, Argentina stated that the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was of particular importance to it. Argentina hoped that it would be dealt with in a balanced way. It attached importance to the work that had been done until then and to the report prepared by Crews. It supported an open and frank discussion on the issue and was interested in the proposal made by Brazil, Ecuador, Uruguay, the African Group and India. Mexico endorsed this statement as well.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan expressed disappointment since all the issues had not received equal commitment from all Member States, particularly the issue of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. It stated that while there were different priorities due to different economic realities in the various Member States, inclusiveness as an ideal meant that these priorities would be accommodated.

Pakistan believed that the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was of critical importance for individual and collective development of societies. Libraries and archives play an important role in the right to education, which remains a challenge in many developing countries due to lack of access to relevant educational and research material. While sharing national experiences and best practices was informative and useful, it was important to understand that the lack of development with regard to exceptions and limitations resulted in no decision at the 2014 General Assembly. Therefore it wanted to move to text-based work on the same.

The EU stated that the discussion could not be furthered without clarity on direction and objectives. It sought a surer understanding of what the outcome of the discussion could be to avoid wasting time and resources. It noted that the 2014 General Assembly had not provided the SCCR with a new mandate on libraries and archives. Even on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with disabilities, the acceptable way forward would be to encourage best practices in the broad and flexible boundaries of the current international copyright framework and not within the realm of further legally binding instruments.

Day 3: July 1, 2015

Regional Statements on General Principles

Work on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives resumed in the afternoon session of the third day of the meeting.

Brazil, on behalf of GRULAC, believed that Crews' report documented the important role played by libraries and archives and emphasized the need for library lending services. It supported an open and frank discussion without prejudging its outcome. It was interested in the proposal made by itself, Ecuador, Uruguay, the African Group and India on the same. It also underscored the importance of ratification with respect to any Treaty relating to limitations and exceptions.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that limitations and exceptions were essential requisites for all norm setting exercises. People in all countries would benefit from exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives since it would allow for materials to be accessible by all of humankind instead of being restricted to individual countries. Pakistan believed that any agreement on this would require harmonization of domestic laws and policies. It considered sharing national experiences of Member States to be beneficial in this regard. In a report to the 28^th session of the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur for Cultural Rights also supported the harmonization of exceptions and limitations in copyright for libraries in education.

Representing the African Group, Nigeria underscored the fundamental role of libraries and archives in facilitating access to knowledge for human and societal development. The principle of exceptions and limitations meeting specific objectives is an essential part of international instruments. As evidence, Nigeria pointed out legal precedents that contained specific limitations protecting educational institutions and facilitating access to learning. It sought a text-based discussion on the text prepared by the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay and the Chair's informal document streamlining various proposals.

Romania stated on behalf of the CEBS group that it welcomed the updated version of the study on copyright exceptions prepared by Crews. Romania recognized the important role that exceptions and limitations would play in facilitating library services and serving the social objectives of copyright law. It stated that the three-step test provided for by existing treaties offered a framework that was wide enough for states to establish their own exceptions and limitations but conceded that it may need more guidance on best practices. It considered an approach based on exchange of best practices to be superior to a normative approach.

Japan, on behalf of Group B, relied on Crews' study to show that many countries had already introduced exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives in their domestic legal systems. It wanted further work at the SCCR to be based on the recommendations of the Chair at the previous SCCR and the presentation by Kenneth Crews. It sought for a substantive discussion at an objective and principle level as proposed by the US.

China intervened and pointed out that there already existed a Chinese legislation regarding exceptions and limitations for libraries and museums and orphan works.

The EU stated that the study conducted by Kenneth Crews was illustrative of the fact that exceptions and limitations in domestic legal systems and other instruments were adequate. It considered this to be the basis for understanding effective ways to implement exceptions and limitations in different legal systems. It believed that an approach based on exchange of best practices and mutual learning would stimulate substantive discussions. It further stated that in the absence of a mandate by the 2014 General Assembly, there was a need for further clarity on the expected outcome of these discussions.

Brazil spoke next in its national capacity and aligned itself with the statements produced by GRULAC, the Asian Group and the African Group. It considered the discussion on exceptions and limitations to copyright law to be a subject of utmost importance. It pointed out that for libraries, the activities that could be linked to copyright exceptions were preservation of copies, making orphan works, public library lending and so on.

Mexico aligned itself with GRULAC. It reiterated that its government attached importance to exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives that were aimed at facilitating copying, preservation, archiving and the dissemination of works, and, encouraging the spread of knowledge for the common good.

India intervened and pointed out that access to knowledge was lacking in many jurisdictions despite increasing trends of digitization of information. In this context, libraries and archives act as balancing forces for increased access and it was important to strengthen this balance between ownership and access. Citing Crews' study, India argued that the diverse approaches in national laws, including that of absence of limitations and exceptions in many jurisdictions, necessitated work on an international instrument for limitations and exceptions. It stated that the work of the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay to get more countries aligned to a document on the eleven issues for an equitable balance relating to limitations and exceptions needed to be built upon for consensus among members. The best way forward would be to draft a legal instrument, as exchange of practices did not bring the necessary urgency to the subject.

Iran aligned itself with statements made by the Asia Pacific Group and the African Group. It stated that the rights to science, library and culture were basic human rights. It believed that limitations and exceptions played a key role in creating a balance of interests in the international copyright system and empowered creativity by increasing educational opportunities and promoting access to cultural works and inclusion. It further argued that since the existing international copyright system did not address technological developments, it needed rectification. It cited the UNHRC Special Rapporteur's recommendation to the WIPO to set a core list of minimum required exceptions and limitations. Iran strongly supported work towards a legally binding international instrument for limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and research and educational institutions. It sought to start text-based negotiations in this regard and suggested that the proposal by the African Group, India, Brazil and Ecuador would be a good base for preparing a consolidated text.

Indonesia agreed with the statement made by the Asia Pacific Group and sought to move on to text based negotiations. It highlighted the importance of developing a legal framework to enable libraries and archives to reproduce content without the authorization of copyright holders for the purpose of education, research and inter-library loans.

The Russian Federation pointed out that it had already partially solved the problem in its domestic legislation. It sought to strike a balance between the interests of the author and that of the society.

Ecuador endorsed the statement made by GRULAC. It had a Bill in its domestic legislature to address this issue. It wanted to proceed to text-based negotiations.

South Africa aligned itself with GRULAC, the African Group and the Asia Pacific Group and emphasized the critical role of libraries archives and educational institutions in the dissemination and preservation of their cultural heritage. It also called for progress on text based work and to send a clear message to the General Assembly and the international community that the issue was important.

The US believed in the development of non-binding principles and objectives relating to national copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives, and educational institutions. It noted that statements of such principles and objectives introduced by them in earlier sessions of the SCCR had been received positively. The US further stated that it supported work through symposia or seminars to examine different approaches to national implementation of these principles. It also went on to state that libraries and archives, being central to knowledge systems, provided valuable insights to people. She referred to a document formulated by the United States which discussed the importance of enabling libraries to function properly, along with the goals the US attempted to achieve. The approach would be for the Member States to tailor the exceptions to suit their needs within the constraints of international obligations to make libraries and archives available to the world.

Pakistan agreed with the statements made by the Asia Pacific Group, the African Group and GRULAC. It was concerned with the lack of uniformity and occasional absence of exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives and educational and research institutions in some countries, which restricted a large number of people from accessing information. Pakistan argued that reformation and harmonization of the current system was essential, and that mere incorporation into domestic laws was insufficient. There was a need to engage in text-based negotiations and work towards an appropriate international legal instrument.

Cameroon also aligned itself with the position of the African Group, GRULAC and the Asia Pacific Group. It emphasized the crucial role played by libraries and the importance of providing adequate exceptions and limitations for them. Cameroon said that it was also reviewing its own national legislation on the issue.

Armenia pointed out that it was drafting a new domestic law on the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It also emphasized the importance of minimum international standards for countries to adopt. Armenia wanted countries to implement these limitations in their national legislations and supported a legally binding instrument for limitations and exceptions.

Sudan supported the proposal put forward by the African Group, the Asian Group, Brazil Ecuador, Uruguay and India. Citing Crews' study, it stated that with advent of the digital age, all the memory and knowledge in the world could be easily converted into accessible formats and made available on databases for researchers and educational institutions. Therefore it was necessary for the SCCR to enable students and researchers to have access to this knowledge. The EU Directives passed in 2001 and 2012, and the work undertaken by the US and UNESCO were positive steps in this regard. It wanted to work towards an appropriate international instrument such as the Marrakesh Treaty.

Aligning with the African Group, Nigeria argued that since information sharing transcended national boundaries in the digital age, national solutions would be ineffective. There was a need to balance the interests of the creators and the larger public interest. It welcomed the report by Crews and the document prepared by the Chair to stimulate discussion along with the text-based proposal of the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay.

Japan supported Group B's statements and said that libraries and archives played a pivotal role in collecting and preserving materials and providing them to the public. It cited Crews' study to argue that international differences in conditions for application of limitations and exceptions would cause problems with the increasing digitizing of materials. Principles evolved from these discussions should serve as guidelines for establishing the legal framework for libraries and archives in each Member State. Japan considered the objectives and principles document released by the US to be a good basis for discussion.

Malawi wanted discussions to be guided by Crews' report.

Uruguay supported the statements made by GRULAC, the African Group and the Asia Pacific Group. It wanted to sponsor Document SCCR 29/4 submitted by Brazil, Ecuador, India and the African Group. It believed that libraries and archives were important for culture, leisure activities and welfare of the needy sections of society. Since archivists and librarians had approached the SCCR in every session to ask for an international solution, Uruguay urged the SCCR to continue with the discussion without prejudging the result.

Malaysia considered Crews' study to be useful for deliberation. It supported limitations and exceptions that contributed to the attainment of education for all. It wanted to appoint a facilitator or a friend of the Chair to further discussion and create concrete solutions.

Algeria valued the study submitted by Crews and recognized that copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives would enable the spread of cultural and scientific awareness. Algeria aligned itself with the statement made by the African group.

Congo believed that libraries and archival services had inherent rights to share knowledge and education. This would enrich cultural diversity and break the digital divide between the Global North and South. It argued that Crews' study demonstrated that domestic solutions would not solve this problem and an international instrument was necessary.

Zambia supported the statement made by the African Group. It remarked that libraries and archives played an essential role in disseminating information and provided a pool of historical knowledge which served as a base for our future. It believed that any solution should balance the interests of rights holders and that of the public.

Nepal aligned itself with the Asia Pacific Group. It stated that libraries and archives played an important role in education as they were often the only sources of materials for students and academics in countries like Nepal. An international legal instrument on exceptions and limitations would balance different interests. Nepal supported appointing a facilitator or a friend of the Chair to develop a working text on limitations and exceptions.

Australia supported the proposal given by the United States as a sound basis for developing principles and objectives of the suggested clusters. It wanted simple and immediate solutions within the existing legal framework to close the gap between ideals and the reality.

The US, agreeing with Australia, showed interest in developing principles and objectives in terms of how different countries arrived at the principles and objectives. It also agreed to filling gaps between these and find consensus on the approach.

Day 4: July 2, 2015

Approach Forward

The Chair asked the Secretariat to provide an overview of the situation on this topic. The Secretariat stated that there were two studies on the issue - the first compiled by Kenneth Crews which had updated previous studies conducted in 2008 and 2014 and another study on limitations and exceptions for museums, SCCR/30/2.

There was also a working document adopted in 2014, SCCR/26/2, that compiled the reference to eleven topics and identified them as priority topics on this issue. Two proposals had also been adopted - one which refers to objectives and principles presented by USA (SCCR/26/8) and another by the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay (SCCR/29/4). The SCCR pointed out that a chart/non-paper had been submitted by the Chair in December 2014 and that delegations were to consider this non-paper in this session.

The Chair clarified that the purpose of preparing the chart/non-paper was not to push the discussion in a particular way or to side with an issue. It was to help guide discussion in an organized fashion while remaining respectful of all views. The Chair opened the floor for comments on the same.

Speaking first, Australia was willing to work on the Chair's proposal. It believed that this should be done in a three-step process. Firstly, principles and objects as proposed by the US had to be clarified; secondly, reasons had to be identified for why those principles and objectives were not already in effect; and finally, solutions for implementing the principles and objectives had to be discussed. It believed that simple and immediate solutions should be preferred to complex solutions which would take longer to come into effect.

Brazil stated that it was ready to contribute to discussions on the non-paper drafted by the Chair as a framework for the discussion. It argued that following the framework proposed by the Chair would not exclude discussion on principles and objectives. It suggested that the discussion on principles and objectives be subsumed within the framework proposed by the Chair.

Japan questioned whether the list of issues compiled or the way discussions were structured would have had an impact on the direction taken by the SCCR.

The Chair answered that the list was not fixed and that the flexible structure of the framework allowed for discussion on other related issues also. The Chair also asked if there was consensus on moving forward on the structure outlined by him or if there were suggestions on improvements.

The US agreed with the Australian delegate on the importance of developing principles and objectives. The Chair pointed out that this discussion could be included as part of the approach within the chart/non-paper prepared by him.

The EU questioned the difference between the chart and Document SCCR 26/3. It also asked how the discussion on each issue was envisaged and whether it would be limited to a principled discussion.

The Chair responded to the first question by stating that while Document SCCR 26/3 was the source, it would be better to use the chart as a tool than to refer to a document even though it had been approved by the SCCR. To the second question, the Chair stated that while he could not predict the way in which the discussion would unfold, he foresaw a discussion which would first test whether the topic had consensus with regard to its inclusion in the topic and then try to set a principle that would be agreed upon. If solutions existed, an exchange of views based on the Australian approach of contrasting the principle with the findings in the Crews' study would take place, followed by methods of resolving the issue through exchange of best practices or an international instrument.

Day 4: July 2, 2015

Day 4 commenced from the previous day's discussion on the approach forward on libraries and archives.

Brazil spoke on behalf of GRULAC and supported the approach recommended by the Chair in the non-paper submitted to the SCCR. It believed that this allowed for flexibilities. It invited comments for improvements.

This was repeated by Pakistan on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group and Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Iran, Malaysia, Senegal, Mexico, Tanzania, Guatemala and Zimbabwe.

On behalf of the Asia Pacific group, Pakistan appreciated the proposal on the non-paper by the Chair.

Japan, speaking for Group B, required further clarifications on the approach proposed by the non-paper and reiterated its support to a discussion based on principles and objectives as proposed by the US. The Chair expressed his willingness to offer clarifications on questions from any of the delegations.

Nigeria supported the proposal on behalf of the Africa Group.

Iran supported Pakistan and the interventions made by Brazil and Nigeria. It saw these discussions as beneficial for developing a legally binding instrument. Since discussion on substantive issues was being delayed because of procedural matters, Iran asked Member States who believed that their positions would be hindered by the non-paper to express their concerns and suggest changes in the non-paper.

Uruguay speaking on behalf of their group stated that it supported the Chair's proposal and regretted that the discussion on substantive issues was being delayed due to procedural issues which, it believed, were settled in the 27^th SCCR.

The EU welcomed the proposal but raised concerns about clarity on the expected outcome of the approach suggested by the Chair.

South Africa supported the non-paper as a basis to proceed on the discussion.

Brazil, speaking for GRULAC, believed that it had a mandate on an international legal instrument in whatever form and asked whether all Member States agreed with the approach suggested by the Chair.

The EU stated that it did not find a mandate as described by Brazil in the general assembly 2014 records. It believed that the issue of the mandate would be controversial and would lead to unproductive and repetitive discussions. It asked the Chair to clarify the situation with respect to the mandate.

The Chair stated that before changing the topic to the mandate, he wanted to get more views on the proposal.

Venezuela supported the structure laid out by the Chair. Venezuela expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that even though it was supportive towards the Broadcast Treaty negotiations, which was not a priority for them, the same courtesy was not extended to them when it came to issues that were important to developing countries such as limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It was unhappy at substantive discussions on the latter being delayed due to procedural quarrels. It argued that if this was an indication of the way forward, it would first want to discuss exceptions and limitations at the next SCCR so that developing countries did not have to waste their time. Venezuela pointed out that even developed countries needed solutions on the issue of limitations and exceptions. It agreed with Brazil's interpretation with regard to the mandate.

Nigeria supported the statements made by the African Group, the Asia Pacific Group and GRULAC. It stated that procedural issues should not cloud discussions over substantive issues and that the approach put forward by the Chair allowed for sufficient flexibility.

Switzerland supported the Chair's proposal.

Australia believed that discussing procedures and concerns from Member States was important to ensure clarity on the way forward.

Canada supported the statements made by Switzerland and Australia.

The US supported the Chair's proposal. While it wanted a discussion on principles and objectives, it believed that the approach suggested by the Chair would help Member States. The US did not presuppose an outcome.

The Chair welcomed this statement and assured that the principles and objectives document submitted by the US would also be used as a tool to provide clarity on issues.

Ecuador supported the chart prepared by the Chair and agreed to using that chart as a starting point to guide discussions which would include principles and objectives as proposed by the US

Tanzania, on behalf of the African Group, supported the tool prepared as a means to reach a common understanding from the point of view of the different statuses of the countries.

Japan, in its national capacity, supported the statements made by Switzerland, Canada, Australia and the US.

Guatemala also showed great interest in the working of this tool for the purpose of the discussion.

Singapore realigned itself with the Asia Pacific Group's position and supported the Chair's proposal which it felt would be helpful in guiding the substantive discussions.

Zimbabwe appreciated the proposal made by Nigeria and showed its support for a constructive engagement without prejudice.

The Chair suggested that statements by NGOs should be taken only at the stage of discussing substantive issues. The Chair also welcomed questions seeking clarifications on the intention behind the preparation of the chart. The Chair agreed to write an introduction to the chart stating that the intention was not to prejudge any outcome. He encouraged Member States to discuss the substantive issue of preservation if all concerns were adequately addressed by an introductory text.

China expressed support for the Chair's proposal.

The EU sought clarifications on whether the Chair would write an introductory text and whether he would want discussions to proceed simultaneously. After receiving affirmations on both questions, the EU asked for bilateral discussions with the Chair.

After the coffee break the Chair announced that he had written an introductory text to the chart which would be circulated and sought to start discussion on the substantive issue of preservation and invited comments on the same from experts.

Preservation

Non-Governmental Organizations

Speaking first, the International Federation of Libraries and Archives (IFLA) stated that preservation was one of the most critical, frequently exercised and widely approved activities of libraries and archives and that preservation standards varied according to the medium - whether paper, film or digital. It pointed out that preservation was required only to preserve and not to create additional copies. Libraries and archives needed to collaborate across borders to preserve cultural heritage which may exist in libraries of different countries. Hence it was important to take international action.

The International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (IFRRO) stated that preservation included reproduction, digitization and other forms of electronic reproduction, for the sole purpose of preserving and archiving information. It noted that many Member States did not include exceptions for this in their domestic laws. IFRRO wanted such exceptions to conform to the Berne three-step test and not be used for commercial purposes. It argued that while works that were commercially available did not need preservation, works that were no longer commercially available required an exception so as to be preserved appropriately. It believed that libraries had an important role to play in preserving and providing access to knowledge and cultural heritage and appropriate licensing agreements needed to ensure that they can perform this role adequately.

The International Council on Archives (ICA) said that without archives, countries such as South Africa would lose their past and cultural roots. The Council argued that while preservation could be thought of as a purely national issue with the only possible solution being to encourage countries to introduce preservation standards in domestic legislations, this would ignore important international dimensions involved in the question. Materials such as diplomatic reports and reports of ambassadors sent to other countries were essential to the history of a country. Such cases required stable, harmonious legislations. Also, since preservation of modern materials involved the use of technology that was not available in all countries, preservation standards would ensure that electronic materials could be frequently migrated and copied could be stored anywhere in the world.

The Federation of International Journalists (FIJ) strongly supported its work being archived as long as parallel publication was avoided. FIJ stated that exceptions should be accompanied by fair remuneration to authors and performers since the world would be deprived of cultural works if authors in poorer countries could not make a living. Authors were in an equally vulnerable state to libraries in less wealthy countries due to contracts with publishing houses. Given the imbalance in power, the WIPO needed to address this with an international instrument.

The International Authors Forum (IAF) agreed with the technical comments made by IFFRO and FIJ and supported preservation and digitization. It pointed out that while authors around the world were vulnerable due to having low incomes, it still wanted their works to be preserved.

According to (SDM), while the publishing industry depended on copyright protection to innovate, some limitations and exceptions needed to be carefully crafted. It wanted these limitations and exceptions to comply with the Berne three-step test, taking into account the increased risk of misappropriation and misuse in the digital environment. It wanted to ensure that uses under this exception were limited to preservation and replacement and did not allow the creation of additional copies.

Civil Society Coalition (CSC) called for harmonized, broad and compulsory exceptions to the right of reproduction to allow libraries to fulfill their traditional functions and to provide access to knowledge and culture on non-commercial terms. It pointed out that the world wide web of the 1990s was not preserved and would be lost without immediate preservation thereby creating a memory hole for the 21^st century.

Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) supported preservation and wanted copyright and trade negotiators to sort out context-specific access related issues. It believed that preservation should be a minimum standard and that domestic laws must be harmonized in this regard. It also pointed out that preservation included exceptions to Technological Protection Measures, exceptions to related rights, etc. Citing Wikileaks as an example, KEI stated since knowledge about one country could reside in another, there was a need for an international treaty that harmonized minimum standards on preservation.

Union internationale des éditeurs (UIE) stated that though International Publishers Association (IPA) considered topics related to libraries and archives as unrelated to the agenda, their preservation was important nonetheless. It articulated the publishers' wish to have their publications as part of the nation's heritage. It envisioned for the libraries authorized to preserve these to be technically, financially and legally enabled to do so. UIE emphasized on the need for differentiating between copyrighted, unpublished and commercially available works and achieving a consensus between stakeholders. It mentioned the following reasons for collaboration between right holders and libraries - firstly, publish may publish works in different formats, or hold information in different databases; secondly, updated data can be preserved only with collaboration; and thirdly, agreement on the mode of providing digital files to preserve libraries was also essential.

The IPA wanted a substantive debate on preservation. It wanted distinctions drawn between unpublished works, commercially available works and works in the public domain as there were different interests and different levels of consensus amongst stakeholders for these categories. The IPA also pointed out that digital preservation of digital work required co-ordination between libraries and right-holders in understanding which copies had to be preserved, the format it had to be preserved in, and how the digital files should be provided to libraries.

The (SCR) stated that there was a need for a preservation exception in copyright law since fires and other natural disasters had often led to knowledge and cultural materials being lost. SCR considered digitization to be a reliable answer. It believed that preservation could not be done simply through licensing when exceptions for archivists were unavailable. It believed that an international treaty would also prove useful where collaborative cross-border digital preservation initiatives were taking shape.

The Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) considered preservation of a common past as a public good. It stated that current international copyrights law made it nearly impossible for librarians and archivists to engage in cross-border operations because uncertainty and possible litigation costs prevented them from engaging in preservation. It went on to state that even consumers in developed countries wanted these exceptions and limitations so that libraries could engage in cross-border preservation initiatives.

The Society of American Archivists (SAA) cited Crews' study to state that national measures and exchange of national best practices were both inadequate and instead an international instrument on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was necessary. It said that archivists could not preserve knowledge and serve global users without consistent and predictable laws. It also stated that 45% of WIPO's Member States provided for no exceptions on preservation and those who did were so varied in their approaches that librarians and archivists needed an international instrument to do their job. Further, according to SAA, three steps were involved in preservation - copying, updating the copies, and making the copies available when the original copy becomes damaged, obsolete, or is lost. As preservationists, it said, it needed the right to reproduce copies, migrate them either digitally or otherwise, and make them available.

The International Society for Development of Intellectual Property (the Society) pointed out that protection of IP strengthened creativity and innovation and contributed to building of a strong knowledge economy provided that it was balanced with public interest. To be successful, it said, any solution sought by the SCCR should balance different interests. It was of the opinion that this could be done either through limitations and exceptions or exchange of best practices. The Society pointed out that practical solutions were easily achievable and more likely to produce results than long term international measures.

The Canadian Library Association (CLA) explained that preservation included reproduction in digital and physical forms for the purpose of preserving and archiving a copyrighted work. It did not believe this could be adequately done with simple licensing contracts. It also pointed out that format shifting was important to ensure works remained preserved where the original mediums became obsolete or too fragile. It ended with emphasizing the importance of cross-border initiatives toward preservation.

The German Library Association stated that digital long-term preservation necessitated technical instruments. It opined that storing archives on CDs was not enough as the CDs might become unusable after a decade. It argued that multiple copies in newer formats were required to adequately preserve works. It further stated that publishers often refused to license works for this purpose and this necessitated an international instrument that harmonized laws across countries.

The European Bureau of Library Information and Documentation Associations (EBLIDA) considered libraries' role in preserving a nation's history to be a public good. It pointed out that licenses expired according to terms of subscription. It also said that libraries could not obtain back-up files for preservation and could only access them from the producer's website which provided no guarantee of preservation. Further, it stated that even in the EU, several Member States had not put in place clear comprehensive policies to ensure preservation; and, that an international solution which provided for a minimum standard for preservation regardless of the format of publication was necessary.

Member States

Brazil spoke first and underlined the importance of preservation. It proposed using technology-neutral and format-neutral terms in an exception for preservations.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, pointed out that there was an overwhelming consensus amongst NGOs on the need to have an international instrument for preservation. It felt that contracts and licensing agreements could not do the job. Crews' study was credible evidence to show the need for an international instrument.

The US pointed out that the objective of their document on principles and objectives was to enable libraries and archives to do their job. Limitations and exceptions would enable libraries and archives to preserve copyrighted works in a variety of media and formats, including migration of content from obsolete formats. Though the US appreciated Crews' study, it wished to understand why different Member States had decided differently on this issue, what works required preservation, and how preservation was affected by TPMs.

Algeria stated that exceptions in its domestic laws allowed libraries to preserve one copy of a copyrighted work. It believed that an international instrument was required to harmonize these exceptions throughout the world.

UK said that its copyright law was amended in June 2014, to enable libraries and archives to make copies of copyrighted work in any format to preserve cultural heritage. It considered the current international framework and the three-step test adequate to provide for this exception.

Chile stated that its domestic law authorized libraries and archives to reproduce works that were no longer commercially available. A maximum of twelve copies could be made for non-profit uses.

Mexico also mentioned that exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives were present in its national laws. The exceptions allowed creation of copies for preservation, especially when the original had been taken out of the catalogue, had disappeared or was in a fragile state.

Ecuador said that some of the issues it wanted to consider and discuss were the subject, the number of reproductions, the format of reproductions and the circumstances in which these reproductions could be made.

India stated its Public Internet Access Programme and Information for All depended on preservation. It considered preservation important for economic development and believed it to be the foundation for intergenerational equity. Therefore, the exceptions should be wide and public interest should be the overriding factor.

Belgium stated that as in their domestic legislation, a limit on the number of copies allowed should be put in place if the purpose is preservation. Also, all exceptions should conform to the Berne three-step test. Belgium's national law did not consider works that were exhausted or out of commerce.

The Chair stated that he had prepared the introductory paragraph to the chart which mentioned that it was merely a tool to guide discussion and not a negotiating paper or a basis for the drafting exercise. The introduction encouraged evidence-based discussion without prejudging outcomes. He opened the floor for clarifications and discussions on the same.

EU thanked the Chair and stated that it wanted an agreement on what the expected outcome was before engaging in discussion. It expressed reluctance on engaging in any normative work. It stressed that there was no consensus on an international instrument. It preferred an exchange of best practices. The EU said that while a discussion on objectives and principles as proposed by the US was important, a more important exercise would be to exchange best practices and understand the rationale behind these best practices. It called for a reworking of the study by Kenneth Crews which made data more easily accessible and regrouped discussions of national studies by topic. It suggested that the WIPO Lex search database and search engine could provide for national studies even on library exceptions.

The Secretariat stated that work on the last issue was in progress and suggested that it be discussed in detail in the next session. The Secretariat also stated that it intended to organize regional seminars to provide technical assistance in this area for those who did not have exceptions yet or wanted to upgrade their laws.

Pakistan argued that the discussion was meant to include the possibility of all outcomes and not confined to any conditionality in light of the statement by EU. The Chair confirmed the same.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, stated that while it was not prejudging an outcome from the discussions, it hoped that the exchange of best practices would seen as means to enhance the discussion and not as en end in itself.

Representing the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that it also did not want to prejudge outcomes but wanted to ensure that all the factual experiences were used and analyzed in a result-oriented manner. South Africa and Nigeria aligned themselves with Pakistan's position.

EU clarified that its acceptance of the chart as a tool did not mean that any outcome was acceptable or possible.

Iran aligned itself with Pakistan and South Africa.

The session on libraries and archives ended with no agreement on an international instrument.

Day 1: July 3, 2015

Agenda item 8 - Limitations and Exceptions for teaching, research, educational institutions and persons with other disabilities

Nigeria spoke first and said that the Committee should advance work on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities. It reiterated that it wanted to discuss all three issues in the future sessions of SCCR.

The Central European and Baltic states group expressed interest in sharing experiences and practices regarding copyright limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.

On behalf of the GRULAC countries, Brazil welcomed the discussion on limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities. It stated that there was no study on persons with other disabilities
and their relationship with limitations and exceptions and their right to culture.

The EU welcomed discussions on how copyright could support educational and research institutions and people with other disabilities in the analogue world. It stated that these exceptions could be adopted since the existing international copyright framework had adequate legal space and flexibility. It suggested that the Committee work on adopting exceptions and limitations such that national and international frameworks concur.

China, discussing its legal provisions regarding topics on the agenda, welcomed equal education and fair regulations.

Georgia, speaking on the importance of balancing the interests of copyright holders and the society, suggested that a strong and sustainable copyright system could be established through limitation and exceptions.

The US spoke about the need for exceptions and limitations for educational purposes to be consistent with international obligations. It considered collaborations with copyright industries to be essential to its education system. Firstly, it emphasized encouraging members to adopt exceptions and limitations which allowed using copyrighted works for educational purposes while ensuring a balance between rights of authors and public interest. Secondly, it encouraged the promotion of access to educational content through innovative licensing models. Thirdly, it wanted to adopt limitations and exceptions through technological learning. Finally, it included general ideals like monetary grants for non-profit education, ensuring access of copyrighted works. Owing to technological advancements and changes in the educational environment, the US welcomed the plans of WIPO to update the study on other disabilities for discussions in the Committee.

Mexico believed that education and scientific research could be encouraged by facilitating access to protected works. It also discussed executive strategies to allow the promotion of enterprises and the development of education to encourage technological innovation.

Trinidad and Tobago supported Brazil's views. It opined that the issues of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and educational and research institutes are in tandem with each other.

Supporting this view, Russia stated that these issues did not have to be divided, and a single common approach could be used to resolve this conflict. It opined that it was a way of respecting the interests of authors and copyright holders, and also providing access for promoting development of science, culture and providing opportunities to citizens.

Algeria stated that the Berne Convention had established the stages for the exceptions and limitations for research and education. It argued that the exceptions and limitations should not only fulfill the needs of developing countries but other stakeholders as well. Algeria supported exceptions for research and teaching institutes.

South Africa supported a study on the challenges faced by education and research institutions and people with other disabilities, especially in the digital environment.

Sudan supported the statements of the African Group, Asia Pacific Group and GRULAC. It spoke on the need to make balanced efforts on all the issues on the Agenda to reach a consensus. In its opinion, the Marrakesh Treaty indicated that the study on exceptions and limitations and people with disabilities was required. It supported updating the study using previous studies of the International Bureau. In conclusion, it stated that libraries and archives should benefit from limitations and exceptions and should be accessible to all.

Pakistan supported the statements issued by the Asia Pacific Group, the African Group and GRULAC. It wanted time to be allocated for all three issues in future SCCR sessions. It also supported the study proposal of the African Group.

Ecuador also supported the statement of GRULAC and wished to dedicate more time to these issues in the session. It believed that all these elements, on better understanding, could help the proceedings of the committee.

Nigeria supported the intervention made by the Africa Group and the statements of Pakistan and Brazil. It considered exceptions and limitations for educational and teaching institutions, and persons with other disabilities to be important for advancement of knowledge. It highlighted the need for adjusting the international copyright system to facilitate access and usage of digital content by all.

Guatemala aligned itself with Brazil's statement. It attached importance to limitations and exceptions since it considered access to be a human right. It wanted a legal instrument covering limitations and exceptions in the digital area which considering the three-step test.

The Secretariat recalled that at SCCR 26, it had been asked to identify whether resources could be found to update the existing studies on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions. There were five regional studies conducted about five years ago on this topic. It reported to the Committee that it would identify the resources and start work the same year. It also sought funds in the work plan to work on it in the next bi-annum, assuming it was approved by the Member States. The Secretariat clarified that it had also been asked to look if there were resources to conduct a scoping study on the intersection of persons with other disabilities and the copyright system to understand the areas which needed to be addressed. There was an event on hearing impairment and captioning and how that intersected with this topic. There had also been a discussion on conducting additional studies and whether there would be resources for the same.

Sudan, speaking on persons with disabilities, pointed out that the same organizations which had previously tackled the subject should conduct the study since these organizations had more experience on limitations and exceptions. Sudan suggested holding seminars for direct interaction with them.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, sought clarifications on whether this pertained strictly to the topics that the Secretariat had outlined - marking and scoping for persons with impaired hearing. It also wanted to know whether the captioning was for exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions.

South Africa supported the intervention made by Nigeria.

Brazil sought further information from the Secretariat on whether it would be more efficient to have a compilation and a consolidation of the studies in one global study on the situation of exceptions and limitations under agenda item 8 than having a series of regional studies.

Japan, with regard to artists' resale rights, said that the related provision existed in the Berne Convention. However, the flexibility provided by the Berne Convention meant that the protection of resale right was left to the declaration of national laws. Japan wanted the Committee to stick with the agenda and did not support the proposal of including artists' resale rights as a new agenda item of the committee.

The US fully supported enriching the agenda, and encouraged all delegates to engage in discussions to develop it.

Chair's Summary

The Chair's draft summary was given to the regional coordinators for their inputs.. Members were free to present and reflect upon the document. But since it was the Chair's summary, he refused to enter into approval procedure for this. He suggested a set of recommendations for the Committee to discuss. The Chair advised the committee to discuss their recommendations and not the summary.

Iran raised an issue on the legal status of the summary. It pointed out that the summary had not been discussed, negotiated and approved by the Committee which went against WIPO practice.

The EU reserved the right to make comments on points of substance. These related to paragraphs that mentioned what the Committee decided, or those that mentioned individual positions taken by groups of states. It agreed with everything that was said by Japan on behalf of Group B. It also favoured the general point raised by Iran in relation to the paper carrying a disclaimer on the fact that it did not commit to the Committee in any way.

Romania, on behalf of the CEBS, expressed support for the remarks made by the Group B coordinator.

Nigeria commented on the Chair's summary as a tool for providing balance on all the concerns raised by the different regional groups. It added that even the African Group's concerns had not been reflected in the summary. However, it reiterated its confidence in the summary for the purpose of moving forward.

The Chair stated that there were fifty pages which did not appear in summary shape but did on the record shape. However a record containing different views and specific positions had been made. The Chair's view was reflected here and because it was not approved or subjected to approval by the Committee, it did not take decision on that. The Chair sought to avoid starting an exercise on common drafting of each paragraph. It invited Members to consider the approach adopted by Nigeria and some delegates from the CEBS countries without taking that as a decision of the Committee. The Chair urged members to move to the next stage of recommendations. It invited oppositions from those against this view.

The Chair distributed a separate paper to all the delegates, and a discussion was commenced to arrive at a common view for the three items on the agenda. The Chair highlighted that regarding the third topic, which was related to exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities, there was a mandate to deliver the Committee's recommendation to the 2015 General Assembly.

Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, asked the Chair to have a disclaimer in the summary and set the desired precedent. It was concerned that it could lead to the Committee being extended.

Pakistan said that the Asia-Pacific Group supported text-based negotiation on agreed topics and discussions on those requiring clarification. Pakistan considered it premature to talk about the exact timing of a Diplomatic Conference which could be decided in due course after evaluating progress.

Nigeria recommended that the 2015 WIPO General Assembly direct the Committee to expedite its work towards an international legal instrument in whatever form on the topic of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. For agenda item 8, it recommended repetition of the same language.

Brazil, on behalf of the GRULAC group, supported the statement made by Nigeria. It supported working towards an international legal instrument in whatever form as an objective for the future work on proposed recommendation on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives.

Pakistan, on behalf of a majority of the Asia-Pacific Group, showed support to the proposal made by Nigeria.

Iran supported the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of Asia. It pointed out that the text-based negotiations on the Treaty had not been conducted. There was also no common understanding on key issues and Articles. Iran recommended that the Committee continue its work on text-based negotiations, finding solutions for key issues and achieving consensus on key provisions in the draft Treaty. Depending on the progress of the text-based negotiations, the Committee could decide on the date for convening a Diplomatic Conference. It supported the statement made by Nigeria and Brazil, and seconded by Pakistan regarding items 7 and 8.

India supported the views expressed by Nigeria, Brazil, Pakistan and Iran on both agenda items dealing with limitations and exceptions. It suggested that the mandate of the General Assembly should reflect in the language, which was presently not the case. It sought to know the basis on which it had been decided that the Diplomatic Conference would be held in 2017 since there was no consensus of opinions yet. It suggested that the reference be left open, depending upon the two future SCCR meetings.

The Chair clarified that a recommendation without consensus could not be accepted. On observing that no Delegate requested the floor, he welcomed concluding remarks and called for closing the session.

The EU expressed disappointment on the failure to formulate a roadmap on the Treaty in 2017 and reaching a conclusion on the exception items.

Nigeria, in line with the comment made by South Africa, recommended that more effort could be made towards finalizing a language that achieves consensus.

The Chair, showing interest in the suggestion of Nigeria, expressed the desire to see whether the other delegates were keen on receiving suggestions and welcomed different views regarding this.

South Africa requested the floor and supported the statement made by Nigeria. It felt that the Committee had something on the paper and if the regional coordinators met, a consensus could be achieved.

The Chair proceeded to listening to closing remarks. The meeting closed with closing remarks by delegates.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-of-the-30th-session-of-the-wipo-sccr-by-the-centre-for-internet-society

Putting a Lid on Royalty Outflows — How the RBI can Help Reduce India's IP Costs

Sanjana Govil — 2012-01-26T17:11:29Z

While entrepreneurs, IP rights-holders and everyone else who has a stake continue to voice their opinions on the appropriate shape that the Indian IP regime ought to take, they tend to narrow their discussions to the language of substantive IP laws. However, there are regulations that cannot be found in the Patent Act, Copyright Act or Trademarks Act which nevertheless have an impact on how much one is paying for intellectual property. Paying attention to these external factors might just provide a simple solution to your IP woes.

One such factor is the regulation of foreign technology agreements. A foreign technology agreement is an agreement under which a transfer of technology occurs from a foreign source to an Indian entity. This transfer may include anything from the creation of an Indian wholly-owned subsidiary of a foreign parent company to the transfer of manufacturing or design know-how.

Regulation of these agreements in India is carried out by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry as well as the Reserve Bank of India. In 1991, the Ministry’s Department of Industrial Development (DID) released Press Note No.10 which stated the following:

“39 C. Foreign Technology Agreements

i) Automatic permission will be given for foreign technology agreements in high priority industries (Annex III)* upto a lumpsum payment of Rs. 1 crore, 5% royalty for domestic sales and 8% for exports, subject to total payments of 8% of sales over a 10 year period from date of agreement or 7 years from commencement of production. The prescribed royalty rates are net of taxes and will be calculated according to standard procedures."

As a consequence, automatic approval could only be granted to high priority industries whose royalty payments fell within the prescribed limits. In every other case, the approval of the Secretariat of Industrial Approvals (SIA), DID and the RBI had to be sought. It must be noted that in theory this regulation did not place an absolute ban on royalty outflows above the 5% and 8% ceilings since the possibility of securing government approval for the same did exist. However, considering that a mere 8062 approvals were granted between 1991 and 2009[1], the ceiling was in effect almost absolute.

It appears that the stance of the government of the time was one of strict regulation. From the perspective of Indian entrepreneurs, shareholders and consumers, this was a good thing. To illustrate, imagine a foreign company which manufactures a networked camera cell phone. The company will be paying royalties for several of its features such as the camera, USB port, operating system, etc. This company then sets up a subsidiary in India to manufacture the same phones. Though the total royalties being paid by the parent company are likely to far exceed five per cent of its sales, it cannot charge the subsidiary royalties above this ceiling. Therefore, the costs for the Indian subsidiary reduce significantly. This reduction will be reflected in an increased dividend for shareholders and a reduced cost for consumers.

While the benefits of this royalty ceiling are manifold, it is evident that foreign rights-holders are adversely affected. Therefore, the Government has, unfortunately, gradually “liberalized” its approach towards royalty payments over the years. First the 7 or 10 year duration restrictions were done away with and next the lump sum ceiling was increased from Rs.1 crore to USD 2 million. Ultimately, the ceiling was removed altogether through the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion’s Press Note No.8 of 2009 in the name of liberalization. The adverse impacts on Indian manufacturers were almost immediate as foreign rights-holders began to revise their license agreements.[2]]

Why was this ceiling introduced in the first place? Some say it was due to the acute balance of payments deficit that existed in the country in 1991[3]; when India found itself overspending on imported oil. This urged the government at the time to ensure that foreign collaboration in the private sector was well regulated. Since then, the balance of payments situation in India has comparatively stabilized (though a deficit still does exist[4]) and so there appears to be no immediate need to continue to regulate foreign technology collaboration. However, one can’t help but remember Mark Getty’s prediction that intellectual property will be the "oil of the twenty-first century".[5]

Notes

[1] F. Bureaus, “Tech Transfer, Royalty Payment Norms Eased”, Financial Express (November 6, 2009) available at <http://www.financialexpress.com/news/tech-transfer-royalty-payment-norms-eased/537816/

[2]http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/cnbctv18comments/india-inc-to-bearbruntroyalty-payment-revision_472540.html">http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/cnbctv18comments/india-inc-to-bearbruntroyalty-payment-revision_472540.html>.

[3]K. Sen, “News on Royalty Payment Brings Cheer in New Year”, Business Standard (January 4, 2010) available at <

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/newsroyalty-payment-brings-cheer-in-new-year/381521/>

[4]http://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/SDDS_ViewDetails.aspx?SDDSID=165">http://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/SDDS_ViewDetails.aspx?SDDSID=165>.

[5]http://www.stealthisfilm.com/Part2/projects.php">http://www.stealthisfilm.com/Part2/projects.php

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/lid-on-royalty-outflows

Procuring books in Indian libraries

praskrishna — 2011-04-01T16:27:28Z

Campaign to legalise parallel imports gathers steam.

In a move to advocate the cause of libraries and book readers throughout India, campaigners are telling Kapil Sibal, the Minister of Human Resources Development (HRD), why it is important to legalise parallel imports in India. This move is supported by the International Federation of Library Associations in developing countries.

Among the proposed amendments to the Copyright Act is a proposal to legalise parallel importation of books into India. This provision is now under threat because a publishers’ association convinced the HRD Minister (who is in charge of copyright law) that no one is calling for parallel importation. If parallel importing is not legalised in developing countries, it becomes impossible for libraries in India to even procure books from Amazon (for instance), especially the ones which have not yet released in India.

Parallel importation allows books that are (legally) bought overseas to be imported into India without asking the copyright owners permission. Without parallel importation being allowed, purchases made by libraries from foreign sellers (for instance on the Internet) are rendered illegal. International organisations like the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA), Electronic Information for Libraries (eIFL), and Consumers International all support parallel importation, especially in developing countries.

For more on the need for parallel importation, see this write up by Pranesh Prakash from the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.

For the campaign letter sent to Kapil Sibal by February 1st 2011, see below:

To
Minister for Human Resource Development
Room No 301
Shastri Bhawan
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road
New Delhi – 110 001

Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Dear Shri Sibal,

Subject: Parallel Importation of Books

We write to you as an organisation interested in the availability of books for libraries. Recently, a publishers’ association has made public statements that there are no groups that are demanding parallel importation, and that they themselves will be harmed by allowing for parallel importation.

We wish to inform you that this is not true. We believe that being able to legally purchase a book outside of India and import in into India is crucial for libraries. Many books that we wish to provide for our users—faculties, students, and others—are not available in India and have to be imported from abroad.

Currently the exception contained in s.51(b) proviso is applicable only to individuals for “private and domestic use” and does not cover libraries. Thus, if parallel importation is prohibited, then we will be unable to buy foreign books directly from foreign sellers. We often have to make purchases on online bookstores such as Amazon and Alibris, and these will be construed to be illegal without parallel importation being legal. We will be left at the mercy of what books are offered by sellers in India, instead of being able to buy what is required by our readers.

Parallel importation is allowed by the TRIPS agreement (Article 6, “Exhaustion”) as well as by the WIPO Copyright treaty (Article 6, “Right of Distribution”). We hope you will keep our concerns in mind.

Yours sincerely,
Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/procuring-books

Problems Remain with Standing Committee's Report on Copyright Amendments

pranesh — 2011-09-06T07:50:12Z

The Rajya Sabha Standing Committee on Human Resource Development (under which ministry copyright falls) recently tabled their report on the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010 before Parliament. There is much to be applauded in the report, including the progressive stand that the Committee has taken on the issue of providing access by persons with disabilities. This post, however, will concern itself with highlighting some of the problems with that report, along with some very important considerations that got missed out of the entire amendment debate.

Fair Dealings and Intermediary Liability

The amendments make a number of changes to s.52(1) of the Act, including to the fair dealing provisions under s.52(1)(a), and introduction of two new sub-sections (s.52(1)(b) and (c)) with s.52(1)(c) introducing a modicum of protection for intermediaries involved in "transient and incidental storage for the purpose of providing electronic links, access or integration" (but only if the copyright holder has not expressed any objections, and if the intermediary believes it to be non-infringing). The provision allows the intermediary to ask the person complaining against it to provide a court order within 14 days, since the intermediary is in no position to determine the judicial question of whether the copyright holder holds copyright and if the third party has violated that copyright. However this provision was opposed tooth and nail by the copyright holders' associations that dominated the representations, while intermediaries and consumers remained woefully under-represented before the Standing Committee.

Predictably, the Standing Committee dealt a blow against intermediaries and consumers by asking the government to review the "viability of the duration of 14 days... by way of balancing the views of the stakeholders as well as the legal requirement in the matter". They recommended a relatively minor change of changing the phrase "transient and incidental" to "transient or incidental". By doing this, they failed to address the concerns raised by Yahoo India, Google India, and also failed to acknowledge the submissions made by 22 civil society organizations (available here: http://cis-india.org/advocacy/ipr/upload/copyright-bill-submission).

Technological Protection Measures and Rights Management Information Provision

The amendments aim to bring about two new criminal provisions, and seek to make circumvention of technological protection measures (digital locks) and alteration of rights management information (which are embedded into digital files and signals) illegal.

The Standing Committee heard a number of organizations on technological protection measures, which we had argued are harmful as they a) cannot distinguish between fair dealing and infringement, and b) are harmful even if a legal right to circumvent for fair dealings is provided because the technological means to circumvent doesn't necessarily exist. (Imagine a law that says that breaking a lock using lock-breaking implements isn't a crime if it is done to enter into your own house. Such a law doesn't help you if you can't get your hands on the lock-breaking implements in the first place.) The Indian Broadcasting Federation, the Business Software Alliance, and the Motion Picture Association (which represents six studios, all American), the Indian Music Industry, and the Indian Performing Right Society Limited all felt that this provision did not go far enough. The Motion Picture Association, for instance, wants not just controls over that which copyright covers

Yahoo India and Google India on the other hand thought that provision went too far. Google made it clear that they thought having criminal repercussions for circumvention was clearly disproportionate. Thus, a clearer split is established between old media companies; the old media companies clutching on to straws that they feel will save them from adapting their business practices to the digital environment, and online companies that understand the digital environment better having a markedly different idea.

Currently section 65B (read with the definition of "Rights Management Information" in section 2(xa)) of the proposed amendments ensures that Rights Management Information cannot be used to spy on users. The Indian Reprographic Rights Organization however believes that this is wrong: it believes that copyright owners should have the ability to track users without their consent. Yahoo India, on the other hand, believes that this is a harmful provision, and state that "the imposition of criminal and monetary liability could adversely affect consumers", and cites the instance of difficulties that would be faced by "entities engaged in creating copies of any copyright material into a format specially designed for persons suffering from disability" because of the language of the provision that requires knowledge instead of intention. The committee responds to this by summing up with a tautology, stating:

The Committee is of the view that the parties responsible for distribution or broadcasting or communication to the public through authorized licence from the author or rights holder and who do not remove any rights management information deliberately for making unauthorized copies need not worry about this provision as long as their act is as per the framework of this provision.

Implications of Standing Committee's Report Unclear

Many of the comments made by the Standing Committee are unclear. On compulsory licensing, the committee states:

The Committee also takes note of the proposed amendments in section 31 A relating to compulsory licence in unpublished Indian works. The provision of compulsory licence for orphaned works available under this section is proposed to be extended to published works as well. Like in the case of section 31, extension of applicability to all foreign works (including film, DVDs, etc.) could be violative of Berne Convention and TRIPS Agreement and seem to fall short of the minimum obligations imposed by such instruments. The Committee is of the view that future implication of proposed amendment in Section 31A vis-à-vis India's commitment to international agreement needs to be free from any ambiguity so as to prevent any negative fallout.

However, the usage of the phrase "could be violative" leaves it unclear whether the Standing Committee believes the proposed amendments to be violative of the TRIPS Agreement or not. All that the Standing Committee says is that the provision needs to be unambiguous, and that TRIPS compliance must be ensured. That word of caution does not directly rebut the government's contention that the proposed amendment is TRIPS-compliant.

Similarly, the Committee's views on increase of copyright term for cinematograph films is unclear. While commenting on the clause that introduces the term increase (as part of the proposal to include the principal director as an author of the film along with the producer), the Committee states:

It, therefore, recommends that the proposal to include principal director as author of the film along with producer may be dropped altogether.

While this presumably means that the proposal to increase term is also being rejected, that is not made clear by the Committee's comments.

Increased Copyright Duration, Expansive Moral Rights and Other Negative Changes

In the submission of CIS and twenty-one other civil society organizations to the Standing Committee, we highlighted all of the below concerns. However, our submission was not tabled before the Standing Committee for reasons unknown to us.

WCT and WPPT compliance: India has not signed either of these two treaties, which impose TRIPS-plus copyright protection, but without any corresponding increase in fair dealing / fair use rights. Given that the Standing Committee has recommended against some aspects of WCT compliance (such as the move to change "hire" to "commercial rental") and that without such changes India cannot be a signatory to the WCT, it is unclear why other forms of WCT compliance (such as TPMs) should be implemented.
Increase in duration of copyright: The duration of copyright of photographs and video recordings is sought to be increased. The term of copyright for photographs is being increased from sixty years from creation to sixty years from death of the photographer. This will significantly reduce the public domain, which India has been arguing for internationally, especially through its push for the Development Agenda at the World Intellectual Property Organization.
Moral rights: Changes have been made to author’s moral rights (and performer’s moral rights have been introduced) but these have been made without requisite safeguards.
Version recordings: The amendments make cover version much more difficult to produce, and while the Standing Committee has addressed the concerns of some in the music industry, it hasn't addressed the concerns of artists and consumers.

Criminal Provisions, Government Works, and Other Missed Opportunities

The following important changes should have been made by the government, but haven't. While on some issues the Standing Committee has gone beyond the proposed amendments, it hasn't touched upon any of the following, which we believe are very important changes that are required to be made.

Criminal provisions: Our law still criminalises individual, non-commercial copyright infringement. This has now been extended to the proposal for circumvention of Technological Protection Measures and removal of Rights Management Information also.
Government works: Taxpayers are still not free to use works that were paid for by them. This goes against the direction that India has elected to march towards with the Right to Information Act. A simple amendment of s.52(1)(q) would suffice. The amended subsection would except "the reproduction, communication to the public, or publication of any government work" as being non-infringing uses.
Copyright terms: The duration of all copyrights are above the minimum required by our international obligations, thus decreasing the public domain which is crucial for all scientific and cultural progress.
Educational exceptions: The exceptions for education still do not fully embrace distance and digital education.
Communication to the public: No clear definition is given of what constitute a ‘public’, and no distinction is drawn between commercial and non-commercial ‘public’ communication.
Internet intermediaries: More protections are required to be granted to Internet intermediaries to ensure that non-market based peer-production projects such as Wikipedia, and other forms of social media and grassroots innovation are not stifled.
Fair dealing and fair use: We would benefit greatly if, apart from the specific exceptions provided for in the Act, more general guidelines were also provided as to what do not constitute infringement. This would not take away from the existing exceptions.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sc-report-on-amendments

praskrishna — 2011-08-23T03:25:02Z

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

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

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

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

Proposed Legislation

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

Recommendation

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

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

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

Current Legislation

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

Proposed

The proposed amendment reads:

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

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

(ii) private use, including research

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

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

Recommendation

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

How does the proposed exception for the disabled undermine privacy?

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

Proposed Legislation

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

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

Recommendation

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

What is On the horizon?

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

Examples of Proposed Legislation: The Anti- Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

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

Recommendation

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

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

Pre-Budget Consultation 2016 - Submission to the IT Group of the Ministry of Finance

sumandro — 2016-01-12T13:34:41Z

The Ministry of Finance has recently held pre-budget consultations with different stakeholder groups in connection with the Union Budget 2016-17. We were invited to take part in the consultation for the IT (hardware and software) group organised on January 07, 2016, and submit a suggestion note. We are sharing the note below. It was prepared and presented by Sumandro Chattapadhyay, with contributions from Rohini Lakshané, Anubha Sinha, and other members of CIS.

It is our distinct honour to be invited to submit this note for consideration by the IT Group of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, as part of the pre-budget consultation for 2016-17.

The Centre for Internet and Society is (CIS) is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. We receive financial support from Kusuma Trust, Wikimedia Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, IDRC, and other donors.

We have divided our suggestions into the different topics that our organisation has been researching in the recent years.

Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) is the Basis for Digital India

We congratulate the policies introduced by the government to promote use of free/libre and open source software and that of open APIs for all e-governance projects and systems. This is not only crucial for the government to avoid vendor lock-in when it comes to critical software systems for governance, but also to ensure that the source code of such systems is available for public scrutiny and do not contain any security flaws.

We request the government to empower the implementation of these policies by making open sharing of source code a necessity for all software vendors hired by government agencies a necessary condition for awarding of tenders. The 2016-17 budget should include special support to make all government agencies aware and capable of implementing these policies, as well as to build and operate agency-level software repositories (with version controlling system) to host the source codes. These repositories may function to manage the development and maintenance of software used in e-governance projects, as well as to seek comments from the public regarding the quality of the software.

Use of FLOSS is not only important from the security or the cost-saving perspectives, it is also crucial to develop a robust industry of software development firms that specialise in FLOSS-based solutions, as opposed to being restricted to doing local implementation of global software vendors. A holistic support for FLOSS, especially with the government functioning as the dominant client, will immensely help creation of domestic jobs in the software industry, as well as encouraging Indian programmers to contribute to development of FLOSS projects.

An effective compliance monitoring and enforcement system needs to be created to ensure that all government agencies are Strong enforcement of the 2011 policy to use open source software in governance, including an enforcement task force that checks whether government departments have complied with this or not.

Open Data is a Key Instrument for Transparent Decision Making

With a wider set of governance activities being carried out using information systems, the government is increasingly acquiring a substantial amount of data about governance processes and status of projects that needs to be effectively fed back into the decision making process for the same projects. Opening up such data not only allows for public transparency, but also for easier sharing of data across government agencies, which reduces process delays and possibilities of duplication of data collection efforts.

We request the 2016-17 budget to foreground the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy and the Open Government Data Platform of India as two key enablers of the Digital India agenda, and accordingly budget for modernisation and reconfiguration of data collection and management processes across government agencies, so that those processes are made automatic and open-by-default. Automatic data management processes minimise the possibility of data loss by directly archiving the collected data, which is increasingly becoming digital in nature. Open-by-default processes of data management means that all data collected by an agency, once pre-recognised as shareable data (that is non-sensitive and anonymised), will be proactively disclosed as a rule.

Implementation of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy has been hindered, so far, by the lack of preparation of a public inventory of data assets, along with the information of their collection cycles, modes of collection and storage, etc., by each union government agency. Specific budgetary allocation to develop these inventories will be crucial not only for the implementation of the Policy, but also for the government to get an extensive sense of data collected and maintained currently by various government agencies. Decisions to proactively publish, or otherwise, such data can then be taken based on established rules.

Availability of such open data, as mentioned above, creates a wider possibility for the public to know, learn, and understand the activities of the government, and is a cornerstone of transparent governance in the digital era. But making this a reality requires a systemic implementation of open government data practices, and various agencies would require targeted budget to undertake the required capacity development and work process re-engineering. Expenditure of such kind should not be seen as producing government data as a product, but as producing data as an infrastructure, which will be of continuous value for the years to come.

As being discussed globally, open government data has the potential to kickstart a vast market of data derivatives, analytics companies, and data-driven innovation. Encouraging civic innovations, empowered by open government data - from climate data to transport data - can also be one of the unique initiatives of budget 2016-17.

For maximising impact of opened up government data, we request the government to publish data that either has a high demand already (such as, geospatial data, and transport data), or is related to high-net-worth activities of the government (such as, data related to monitoring of major programmes, and budget and expenditure data for union and state governments).

Promotion of Start-ups and MSMEs in Electronics and IT Hardware Manufacturing

In line with the Make in India and Digital India initiatives, to enable India to be one of the global hubs of design, manufacturing, and exporting of electronics and IT hardware, we request that the budget 2016-17 focus on increasing flow of fund to start-ups and Medium and Small-Scale Manufacturing Enterprises (MSMEs) in the form of research and development grants (ideally connected to government, especially defense-related, spending on IT hardware innovation), seed capital, and venture capital.

Generation of awareness and industry-specific strategies to develop intellectual property regimes and practices favourable for manufacturers of electronics and IT hardware in India is an absolutely crucial part of promotion of the same, especially in the current global scenario. Start-ups and MSMEs must be made thoroughly aware of intellectual property concerns and possibilities, including limitations and exceptions, flexibilities, and alternative models such as open innovation.

We request the budget 2016-17 to give special emphasis to facilitation of technology licensing and transfer, through voluntary mechanisms as well as government intervention, such as compulsory licensing and government enforced patent pools.

Applied Mathematics Research is Fundamental for Cybersecurity

Recent global reports have revealed that some national governments have been actively involved in sponsoring distortion in applied mathematics research so as to introduce weaknesses in encryption standards used in for online communication. Instead of trying to regulate key-length or mandating pre-registration of devices using encryption, as suggested by the withdrawn National Encryption Policy draft, would not be able to address this core emerging problem of weak cybersecurity standards.

For effective and sustainable cybersecurity strategy, we must develop significant expertise in applied mathematical research, which is the very basis of cybersecurity standards development. We request the budget 2016-17 to give this topic the much-needed focus, especially in the context of the Digital India initiative and the upcoming National Encryption Policy.

Along with developing domestic research capacity, a more immediately important step for the government is to ensure high quality Indian participation in global standard setting organisations, and hence to contribute to global standards making processes. We humbly suggest that categorical support for such participation and contribution is provided through the budget 2016-17, perhaps by partially channeling the revenues obtained from spectrum auctions.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/pre-budget-consultation-2016-submission-to-the-ministry-of-finance

Pranesh Prakash: Influencing India's IP Laws

praskrishna — 2014-02-25T06:20:31Z

Pranesh Prakash believes intellectual property laws need to evolve and change with time.

Samar Srivastava's article was published in Forbes India Magazine on February 15, 2014.

At an age where his contemporaries are still junior litigators and aspiring lawyers, Pranesh Prakash, 28, is already a recognisable name in the filed of legal activism.

In 2013 he worked with the World Intellectual Property Organization to draft a treaty for the blind. It provides for an exception to copyright laws so that books can be converted into accessible formats for the blind and visually impaired, and exchanged across borders.

For Prakash the treaty capped a signal achievement in intellectual property and copyright—an area he has been working in since graduating from the National Law School, Bangalore. In his closing speech at the diplomatic conference at Marrakesh, Morocco, Prakash said: “When copyright doesn’t serve public welfare, states must intervene... 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.”

Prakash’s work on intellectual property has brought him recognition through affiliations: He is an Access to Knowledge Fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School. In 2012, he was selected as an Internet Freedom Fellow by the US State Department.

“I was always interested in doing public interest work,” says Prakash. An internship with activist lawyer Rajeev Dhawan cemented his desire. Prakash is now prominent in a line of thinkers working in the area of freedom of expression, internet governance and intellectual property.

It is clear that existing laws in these areas are inadequate and a new jurisprudential setup needs to evolve. For example, the same standards often apply to print and internet media; they fail to recognise that, say, tweets have a different impact than newspapers headlines.

Prakash’s criticism of governments blocking websites stood out, but his recommendations were not accepted. He proposed that all intermediaries, like the ISP and the domain host, not be bunched, and separate standards be imposed on them, based on their editorial role in content creation.

“What distinguishes his work is the impact it has on the public at large,” says Gautam John, head, Karnataka Learning Partnership at the Akshara Foundation. “His work in the area is cutting edge. There is no one doing that work.”

Then there is his work with Section 66A of the IT Act. Under the section, anyone who sends false, offensive or inappropriate content by a computer or communication device can be punished with three years of imprisonment. This section has been misused by the police. Prakash has long argued that the law must be more specific in what it defines as offensive, and that the government needs to engage more with civil society and industry to end the antagonistic and selective manner in which the law is imposed.

Efforts of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore, where Prakash is policy director, have resulted in rules being amended. Now, only officers of the rank of DCP and above can make an arrest. CIS, set up in 2008, has also made representations on the copyright law to Parliamentary Standing Committees.

Prakash’s activism has had another significant effect on intellectual property in India. By a 2008 Bill, the government had tried to privatise publicly-funded intellectual property. Prakash was part of a sustained campaign against the Bill, and in 2011 it was shelved.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/forbes-india-february-15-2014-samar-srivastava-pranesh-prakash-influencing-indias-ip-laws

Centre for Internet and Society

SCCR 29 Libraries, Archives and Public Interest NGOs in Q&A with Dr. Crews

RTI Responses - MHRD IP Chairs: Details of Funding & Expenditure

RTI request to Indian Patents Office for Form 27 (Statement of Working of patents), March 2016

Text of the application and the IPO’s response

RTI request to Indian Patents Office for Form 27 (Statement of Working of patents), 2015

Text of the application and IPO's response

Response to the Call from Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry for Review of the Copyright Act

Research Project on Open Video in India

Project Timeline

Summary of Outputs

Survey Paper

Basic Assumptions

Suggested Methodology

Next Steps

Report: Global Intellectual Property Convention 2015

Digital piracy in India

Report on the 31st Session of the Standing Committee on Trademarks

Design Law Treaty

Proposals

Report of the 30th Session of the WIPO SCCR by the Centre for Internet & Society

I. Broadcast Treaty Negotiations

Opening Statements from Regional Coordinators

Information Session on Broadcasting

Regional Group Statements on General Principles

National Statements on General Principles

Objectives of Treaty, Scope of Protection and Object of Protections

Chair's Conclusions

II. Report on Negotiations on International Instrument for Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives

Opening Statements by Regional Coordinators

Regional Statements on General Principles

Approach Forward

Non-Governmental Organizations

Member States

Agenda item 8 - Limitations and Exceptions for teaching, research, educational institutions and persons with other disabilities

Chair's Summary

Putting a Lid on Royalty Outflows — How the RBI can Help Reduce India's IP Costs

Notes

Procuring books in Indian libraries

Problems Remain with Standing Committee's Report on Copyright Amendments

Fair Dealings and Intermediary Liability

Technological Protection Measures and Rights Management Information Provision

Implications of Standing Committee's Report Unclear

Increased Copyright Duration, Expansive Moral Rights and Other Negative Changes

Criminal Provisions, Government Works, and Other Missed Opportunities

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

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

Proposed Legislation

Recommendation

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

Current Legislation

Proposed

Recommendation

How does the proposed exception for the disabled undermine privacy?

Proposed Legislation

Recommendation

What is On the horizon?

Examples of Proposed Legislation: The Anti- Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

Recommendation

Pre-Budget Consultation 2016 - Submission to the IT Group of the Ministry of Finance

Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) is the Basis for Digital India

Open Data is a Key Instrument for Transparent Decision Making

Promotion of Start-ups and MSMEs in Electronics and IT Hardware Manufacturing

Applied Mathematics Research is Fundamental for Cybersecurity

Pranesh Prakash: Influencing India's IP Laws