Centre for Internet and Society

CIS RTI REQUEST TO DIPP - NUMBER 2 - FEBRUARY, 2015

nehaa — 2015-04-14T17:22:37Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-2-february-2015

CIS RTI REQUEST TO DIPP - NUMBER 3 - FEBRUARY, 2015

nehaa — 2015-04-14T17:28:53Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-rti-request-to-dipp-number-3-february-2015

DIPP RESPONSE TO CIS (SECOND) RTI - FEBRUARY, 2015

nehaa — 2015-04-14T18:14:18Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-second-rti-february-2015

National IPR Policy Series: Quick Observations on the Leaked Draft of the National IPR Policy

nehaa — 2015-11-19T05:13:14Z

Earlier this week, the “Don’t Trade Our Lives Away” blog leaked the supposed final draft of India’s National IPR Policy (“leaked draft”). This article presents quick comments on this leaked draft.

The leaked draft (which is not final) is available here. The only official document that the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“DIPP”) has released so far is the First Draft of the National IPR Policy (“First Draft”).

CIS has tracked these developments since the beginning. We have submitted preliminary comments, critical comments to the First Draft, sent multiple requests under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI requests”) to the DIPP and published their responses, discussed the IPR Think Tank as a public authority under the RTI Act, analysed the process compared to recommendations by the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”), compared the First Draft to an earlier National IPR Strategy[N1] , written a letter to the Think Tank and have now begun to track the work being done by the Sectoral Innovation Council on IPR, also established under the DIPP. At the time of writing this post, we have been unable to locate comments to the First Draft made available by the DIPP.

Since the release of the First Draft in December, 2014, this leaked document has been the first look at an updated IPR Policy for India. Not much seems to have changed since December, 2014 and this new leaked draft (which is dated April, 2015), barring the inclusion of some Special Focus Areas.

Perhaps one of the strongest criticisms of the First Draft had been that it supposed a nexus between IP and innovation, and various stakeholders had been quick to point this out as problematic, and fallacious. Unfortunately, since the language of the new draft has barely changed (I have managed to count only two-three additions), this remains the underlying issue in the new draft as well.

What continues to be worrying in both drafts is sweeping references of benefits of IP to India’s socio-economic development. What constitutes this development and how IPR, and specifically the IPR Policy will achieve it is anyone’s guess, given that there are no references to studies undertaken to assess how IPR contributes to socio-economic development, specifically in India.

Here are some other quick comments:

In the first objective on IP Awareness and Promotion, the new draft includes an additional recommended step – that of engaging with the media to ‘sensitize them on IP issues’ (sic.). Given that this is under a broader objective of encouraging IP promotion, I am inclined to believe that this could be interpreted as telling the media to print positive things about intellectual property and refrain from criticizing intellectual property (that seems to be the theme of this entire document!). What does it mean to ‘sensitize’ the media about intellectual property?
In the second objective, on IP creation, the leaked draft contains a recommendation to conduct a study to assess the contribution of various IP based industries to the economy – including employment, exports and technology transfer. No other details have been provided in the draft.
Also in the second objective, the new draft makes a mention of improving the IP output of universities, national laboratories etc. The new draft proposes to encourage and facilitate the acquisition of intellectual property rights by these labs and institutions, whereas the earlier draft recommended the protection of IPRs created by them.
In the covering letter to the leaked draft, Justice Sridevan states that the final draft includes a discussion on key focus areas – creative industries, biotechnology, ICT, energy, agriculture, health, geographical indications (“GIs”) and traditional knowledge (“TK”). These have been discussed at the end of the new draft.
Limitations and exceptions remain confined to an area of future study/research for future policy development. The ‘Creative Industries’ section of the leaked draft makes a mention of the significance of limitations and exceptions to safeguard access to knowledge and information; and the need to balance user rights and property rights. One would have liked to see this discussed more substantively in the policy and not confined only to a paragraph in the section on ‘Creative Industries’.
In a welcome move, the policy draft (new) seeks to promote the adoption of free and open standards and free and open software in the ‘Information and Communication Technology and Electronics’ section.

With the DIPP Secretary’s latest update that the new policy draft will be released in about a month’s time, one will have to wait and see what the final draft looks like.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-quick-observations-on-the-leaked-draft-of-the-national-ipr-policy

CCI allowed to probe Ericsson: FAQs on Ericsson’s disputes with Micromax and Intex

nehaa — 2016-05-01T13:46:52Z

The blog post is an analysis of the recent decision of the Delhi High Court, clarifying that the Competition Commission of India could investigate Ericsson for a violation of competition law. A shorter version of this blog post was published in the Quint on April 30, 2016.

Read the original article published by Quint on April 30 here.

The mobile phone is the sole access point to the internet for about half of India’s population. It has an important role to play in India’s development story, one that is amplified given the central government’s focus on leveraging the internet for better governance. The government has recognized this importance, evidenced through electronics manufacturing incentives and, a stated commitment to ensure ‘universal access to mobile connectivity’. Homegrown brands, including Micromax and Intex, with their affordable, low-cost mobile phones, play an important role in this development story.

In March, 2013, the Swedish multinational, Ericsson, sued Micromax for patent infringement, setting in motion a series of events, with the potential to disturb India’s mobile phone dream. Then, last month, the Delhi High Court (the Court) recognized the authority of the market regulator - the Competition Commission of India (CCI) - to probe Ericsson for its allegedly anticompetitive conduct.

Why did Ericsson sue Micromax?

Ericsson claims that Micromax’s mobile phones infringe its standard essential patents (SEPs) on mobile phone technologies, including 3G and EDGE.

How are some patents identified as SEPs?

International Standard Setting Organizations (SSOs) – such as ETSI or IEEE - recognize international standards. 3G and Wi-Fi are examples of such internationally recognized standards.

According to the SSOs, the determination of standards depends on consensus, driven by their members. After a standard is determined, SEP owners (including Ericsson) voluntarily disclose which of their patents are essential to the determined standard, and, undertake to license these on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, to any willing licensee.

Does this give rise to legal issues?

This process results in a variety of (well-documented) legal questions, many of which have been raised in India’s SEP litigation, and have been alluded to by the Court in the present judgment. The Court has recognized the potential for SEPs to create dominant positions for their owners, noting that “any technology accepted as a standard would have to be mandatorily followed [emphasis, mine] by all enterprises in the particular industry.”

Some other legal issues around SEPs include the enforceability of FRAND commitments; determining what would constitute ‘fair’, ‘reasonable’ and, ‘non-discriminatory’; the possibility of non/incomplete disclosure by patent owners; and, a refusal by licensees to negotiate FRAND terms in good faith. A related issue that has received comparatively less attention is the essentiality of peripheral or, non standard but essential patents, where there is no obligation to license on FRAND terms.

Have there been other SEP infringement suits filed in India?

Yes. Besides Micromax, Ericsson has also sued other low-cost mobile phone sellers/manufacturers, homegrown and otherwise, for patent infringement. These include Intex, Lava, Gionee, Xia and iBall. In addition, Vringo has also sued ZTE and Asus, separately. [In this article, we will limit ourselves to a discussion on Ericsson’s suits against Micromax and Intex.]

What did Micromax and Intex do after being sued by Ericsson?

Ericsson’s suits were followed by deliberations between the parties (Ericsson and Micromax, and, Ericsson and Intex, independently) and some interim orders by the Court. This litigation is ongoing, and final orders are awaited.

Meanwhile, both Micromax and Intex have pursued a series of other remedies. Intex has filed applications for the revocation of Ericsson’s patents. In addition, Micromax and Intex have each filed separate complaints under India’s Competition Act, 2002 before the CCI, alleging that Ericsson had abused its dominant position. This is a punishable offence under Indian competition law.

Micromax and Intex have both claimed that Ericsson’s royalty rates were excessive. In addition, Micromax has objected to Ericsson’s use of the threat of injunctions and custom seizures, and, has also claimed that Ericsson’s conduct results in a denial of market access for Indian handset manufacturers. Intex has alleged, inter alia, that it was forced into signing an onerous non disclosure agreement by Ericsson; and, that it was forced to negotiate licences without a complete disclosure of its patents by Ericsson.

The CCI, finding there to be a prima facie case in each of the above complaints, ordered the Director General to undertake an investigation into the allegations made by both – Micromax and Intex. These orders were challenged by Ericsson in the Court.

On what grounds did Ericsson challenge the CCI’s orders?

Briefly, Ericsson argued-

(a) that the issue was one of patent law, which barred the applicability of competition law;

(b) that it was not an ‘enterprise’ under the Competition Act, 2002, and, that the CCI was empowered to check anticompetitive conduct only of ‘enterprises’;

(d) that since the disputes between the parties were already being heard in other proceedings before the Court, the CCI could not adjudicate them; and,

(e) that Intex and Micromax were barred from making such allegations. Ericsson opined that since they had challenged its ownership of the SEPs, through revocation of petition applications (filed by Intex), and a denial of infringement claims (by Micromax), they could not now present a complaint premised on it being the owner of those same SEPs.

What did the Court hold?

Rejecting Ericsson’s arguments, the Court held that the CCI did [emphasis, mine] have the jurisdiction to examine if Ericsson’s conduct was anticompetitive, finding it to be an ‘enterprise’ under the Competition Act, 2002. However, the Court was clear that the CCI’s actions could be subject to judicial review by the High Court. It also found that the mere applicability of the Patents Act, 1970, did not bar the applicability of competition law, since the legislations covered distinct fields and served different purposes. Further, it opined that Micromax and Intex were free to explore alternative remedies; neither this pursuit, nor, the pendency of disputes on similar issues before the Court, was a bar to the CCI’s jurisdiction.

Interestingly, while not adjudicating the issue of Ericsson’s abuse of dominance in this particular case, Justice Bakhru, citing its conduct as presented by the other parties said that in some cases, “such conduct, if it is found, was directed in pressuring an implementer to accept non-FRAND terms, would amount to an abuse of dominance.”

What does the judgment mean for India’s homegrown brands?

The judgment is a boost for India’s home grown manufacturers in their battle against global patent holders. However, while it certainly validates the role and powers of India’s young market regulator, it will no doubt be appealed. One also expects multiple appeals over the CCI’s findings in the present and, future similar cases.

It is impossible to predict the outcome of legal proceedings in SEP litigation. Accordingly, Micromax, Intex (and others) would do well to augment their own patent portfolios (either by filing their own patents, or, by acquiring those of other companies). This may create a more level playing field, opening up alternate channels of negotiation, including, cross-licensing. They may also seek access to Ericsson’s SEPs under the compulsory licensing mechanism in India’s patent law.

What does the government have to say?

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion has recently released a discussion paper on these issues, inviting comments from stakeholders. It would be unsurprising if the government intends to regulate this space, given the strong implications for not just its flagship Make in India and Digital India programs, but also its foreign policy narrative on protecting IPRs and fostering innovation. Immediate welcome steps from the government would be a final word on the National IPR Policy, and, the adoption of the National Competition Policy, awaited since 2014 and 2011, respectively.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-quint-nehaa-chaudhari-april-30-2016-cci-allowed-to-probe-ericsson

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

nehaa — 2016-05-10T15:23:21Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

MHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from JNU

nehaa — 2016-05-15T03:43:30Z

This post provides a factual description about the operation of Ministry of Human Resource Development IPR Chair’s Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach (IPERPO) scheme in the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi.

To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi on 18/12/2014 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to RTI application was received on 24/02/2015. Subsequently, a second RTI application was filed by the Centre for Internet and Society on 09/02/2015. The University replied to the same on 26/03/2015.

These are the documents received by CIS from JNU:

For the response to the first RTI application click here
For the response to the second RTI application click here
For the report submitted by the University click here

Hereinafter, in order to receive any information about Jawaharlal University’s RTI reply, kindly refer to the above mentioned links. Following are the queries mentioned in the RTI application along with their replies.

Reports on the implementation of the IPERPO scheme of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the implementation of the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the scheme at JNU.
Reply: The University submitted that there has been a release of Rs. 10,00,000 as a sanctioned amount by the MHRD under the IPERPO scheme. However, the same has not been utilized in any manner to further the objectives of the scheme. The reason is that the University believes this amount to be inadequate and has requested additional funds from the MHRD.

Documents on the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO scheme at JNU for the year 2013-14.
Reply: The University clubbed the answer to this with the aforementioned query.
Documents relating to receipts of utilization certificates and audited expenditure 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 at JNU.
Reply: The University has not provided any such documents in relation to the grant received.

Documents regarding all matters related to finance and budget related to the MHRD IPR Chair under the IPERPO scheme 2013-14 established at JNU.
Reply: The University did not submit any documents in this regard and replied that this information may be sought from the concerned Centre/School.

Comparative Analysis between University Response and the guidelines of MHRD Scheme Document
The Scheme Document of MHRD (http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf) is a comprehensive document which consists of guidelines regarding Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach. It talks about a list of objectives, purposes, conditions and eligibility criteria for a University to ensure in order to implement IPERPO in a truest sense. This document provides the procedural as well as qualifying conditions for an Institute to ensure or fulfil before applying for the MHRD grant. Some of these conditions include maintenance of utilization certificates, audit reports, expenditure statements and event information which would be open to access on demand by MDHR or Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

A. Objectives
The University has submitted that there have been no activities undertaken to further the objectives of the IPERPO scheme.

B. Eligibility
Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi is recognized by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, it fulfils the eligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme document.

Financial Analysis
The University has not provided any documents on this subject.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-jnu

MHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from NALSAR

nehaa — 2016-05-15T07:43:20Z

The author has analysed all the data received under various heads such as income, grants from MHRD, planned and non-planned expenditure, nature and frequency of programmesorganised and the allocation of funds for the same. Throughout the course of observation and presentation of the analysed data, the author seeks to trace the presence of unjustified underutilisation of funds by the aforementioned university as provided by the MHRD during the period of 2013-2014.

To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to the NALSAR University of Law on 09/02/2015 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to RTI application was received on 12/03/2015.

These are the documents received by CIS from NALSAR:

For the response to the RTI application click here
For complete supporting documents click here

Hereinafter, in order to receive any information about NALSAR’s RTI reply, kindly refer to the above mentioned links. Following are the queries mentioned in the RTI application along with their replies.

Reports on the implementation of the IPERPO scheme of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the implementation of the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the scheme at NALSAR
Reply: NALSAR has submitted the documents required under this track.
Documents detailing the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO Scheme
Reply: Documents pertaining to the financial year 2013-14 have been submitted by the University.
Documents relating to receipts of utilisation certificates and audited expenditure statements and matters related to all financial sanctions with regard to funds granted to the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO scheme at NALSAR.
Reply: The University has provided utilisation certificatefor the financial year of 2013-14.
Details of the IPR Chair’s salary under the IPERPO Scheme indicating whether this amount is paid over and above the professional’s usual salary
Reply: The University has submitted all the documents pertaining to the aforementioned query.

A. Objectives
In order to fulfil the objectives mentioned in the scheme document, NALSAR undertook following activities:
a. Faculty attendance at WIPO sessions.
b. Publication of IPR Journal
c. Expansion of the IPR section in the loibrary
B. Eligibility
NALSAR is recognized by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, it fulfils the eligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme document.
Financial Analysis
The University has provided the utilization certificates for the financial year of 2013-14.
A. Financial year 2013-14

The University received a grant of Rs. 40,00,000 from the Ministry of Human Resource and Development. Further, the unutilized balance of the financial year 2013-13, Rs. 10,02,540 carried over in addition to an interest of Rs. 91,129. The total funds at the University’s disposal amounted to Rs. 50,93,669. The University incurred an expense of Rs. 37,88,349 leaving Rs. 13,05,320 as unspent balance.

B. Expenditure Analysis

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-nalsar

MHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from Delhi University

nehaa — 2016-05-15T12:18:40Z

The author has analysed all the data received through which, the author seeks to trace the presence of unjustified underutilisation of funds by the aforementioned university as provided by the MHRD during the period of 2013-2014. To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to Delhi University on 09/02/2015 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to RTI application was received on 25/02/2015.

These are the documents received by CIS from Delhi University:

For the response to the RTI application click here

Hereinafter, in order to receive any information about Delhi School of Economics, Delhi University’s RTI reply, kindly refer to the above mentioned links. Following are the queries mentioned in the RTI application along with their replies.

Reports on the implementation of the IPERPO scheme of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the implementation of the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the scheme at the Delhi School of Economics.
Reply: The University submitted that there are no reports on the implementation of the IPERPO scheme or the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the same. Additionally, the implementation of the scheme commended at Delhi University w.e.f 20th Feb., 2014. Dr. Rekha Chaturvedi joined as the IPR Chair (Technical) on the same date.
Documents on the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO scheme at the Delhi University, Delhi School of Economics for the year 2013-14.
Reply: The University submitted that there has been no release of grants by the Human Resource and Development Ministry under the IPERPO Scheme.
Documents relating to receipts of utilization certificates and audited expenditure 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 at the Delhi University, Delhi School of Economics.
Reply: The University replied that as there has been no release of grants under the IPERPO scheme, the question of utilization certificates and audited expenditure or any other matter related to financial sanctions with regard to the funds does not arise.
Documents regarding all matters related to finance and budget related to the MHRD IPR Chair under the IPERPO scheme 2013-14 established at Delhi University, Delhi School of Economics.
Reply: The University did not submit any documents in this regard and asserted that the information sought is not specific.

A. Objectives
The University has not provided any documents detailing any activities undertaken to further the objectives of the IPERPO scheme.

B. Eligibility
Delhi School of Economics, Delhi University is recognized by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, it fulfils the eligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme document.

Financial Analysis

The University has not provided any documents on this subject.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-delhi-university

MHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from IIM, Ahmedabad

nehaa — 2016-05-17T02:31:38Z

To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad on 24/11/2014 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to RTI application was received on 09/12/2014. Following this, a second RTI application was filed by the Centre of Internet and Society on 09/02/21015. The reply to the same was received on 23/02/2015.

These are the documents received by CIS from IIM, Ahmedabad:

For response to first RTI application, click here
For response to second RTI application, click here

Hereinafter, in order to receive any information about IIM Ahmedabad’s RTI reply, kindly refer to the above mentioned links. Following are the queries mentioned in the RTI application along with their replies.

Reports on the implementation of the IPERPO scheme of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the implementation of the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the scheme at IIM Ahmedabad.
Reply: IIM Ahmedabad responded that there has not been any institution of the post of IPR Chair at the University.
Documents detailing the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO Scheme
Reply: The University has provided no documents on the subject.
Documents relating to receipts of utilisation certificates and audited expenditure statements and matters related to all financial sanctions with regard to funds granted to the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO scheme at IIM Ahmedabad.
Reply: The University has provided no documents on the subject.
Details of the IPR Chair’s salary under the IPERPO Scheme indicating whether this amount is paid over and above the professional’s usual salary
Reply: The University has provided no documents on the subject.

A. Objectives

The University has not provided any documents detailing any activities undertaken to further the objectives of the IPERPO scheme.

B. Eligibility

IIM, Ahmedabad is recognized by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, it fulfils the eligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme document.

Financial Analysis

The University has not provided any documents on this subject.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-iim-ahmedabad

MHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from IIT, Madras

nehaa — 2016-05-24T17:12:48Z

Nisha S. Kumar assisted in compilation of the document.

The author has analysed all the data received under various heads such as income, grants from MHRD, planned and non-planned expenditure, nature and frequency of programmes organised and the allocation of funds for the same. Throughout the course of observation and presentation of the analysed data, the author seeks to trace the presence of unjustified underutilization of funds by the aforementioned university as provided by the MHRD during the period of 2006-2014.

To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras on 17/12/2014 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to this RTI application was received on 02/02/2014. Following the inadequacy of the response by the institute, the Centre for Internet and Society filed a second RTI application on 09/02/2015. The reply to this application was received on 12/03/2015. These are the documents received by CIS from IIT Madras:

Click for response to first RTI and supporting documents provided click here
For response to second RTI application click here

Hereinafter, in order to receive any information about IIT Madras’s RTI reply, kindly refer to the above mentioned links. Following are the queries mentioned in the RTI application along with their replies.

Reports on the implementation of the IPERPO scheme of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the implementation of the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the scheme at IIT Madras from 2006-2014
Reply: IIT Madras replied that there is no report with respect to the implementation of the scheme and the IPR chair at IIT Madras.
Documents detailing the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO Scheme
Reply: The University received a grant of Rs. 25,00,000 from the Ministry of Human Resource and Development under the IPERPO scheme. This amount was sanctioned for the purpose of furthering the objectives of the scheme.
Documents relating to receipts of utilisation certificates and audited expenditure statements and matters related to all financial sanctions with regard to funds granted to the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO scheme at IIT Madras.
Reply: The University has submitted utilization certificates from 2006 to 2014.

Comparative Analysis between University Response and the guidelines of MHRD Scheme Document

The Scheme Document of MHRD (http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf) is a comprehensive document which consists of guidelines regarding Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach. It talks about a list of objectives, purposes, conditions and eligibility criteria for a University to ensure in order to implement IPERPO in a truest sense. This document provides the procedural as well as qualifying conditions for an Institute to ensure or fulfil before applying for the MHRD grant. Some of these conditions include maintenance of utilization certificates, audit reports, expenditure statements and event information which would be open to access on demand by MDHR or Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

A. Objectives
The University has not provided any documents detailing any activities undertaken to further th objectives of the IPERPO scheme.

B. Eligibility
IIT Madras is recognized by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, it fulfils the eligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme document.

Financial Analysis
The University has provided the utilization certificates for the period 2006-2014.

A. Financial year 2006-07

A sanctioned amount of Rs. 25,00,000 was received by the University with a carried forward balance of Rs. 1,09,119. There were no expenditures incurred by the University.

B. Financial year 2007-08

The University did not receive any grant from the Ministry of Human Resource and Development. However, last year’s unutilized balance of Rs.26,09,119 carried over with an additional Rs. 2,00,000 received as interest. There were no expenses incurred.

C. Financial year 2008-09

The University did not receive any additional grant from the Ministry, however, last year’s unutilized balance of Rs. 28,09,119 carried over with an additional Rs. 2,00,000 received as interest. There were no expenses incurred.

D. Financial year 2009-10

The University did not receive any grant from the ministry however, the last year’s balance of unutilized balance of Rs. 30,09,119 carried forward entirely with an additional Rs. 1,33,177 received as interest. There were no expenses incurred.

E. Financial year 2010-11

The University did not receive any grant from the ministry however, the last year’s balance of unutilized balance of Rs. 31,42,296 carried forward entirely with an additional Rs. 1,33,176 received as interest. There were no expenses incurred.

F. Financial year 2011-12

The University did not receive any grant from the ministry however, the last year’s balance of unutilized balance of Rs. 32,75,472 carried forward entirely with an additional Rs. 1,33,176 received as interest. There were no expenses incurred.

G. Financial year 2012-13

The University did not receive any grant from the ministry however, the last year’s balance of unutilized balance of Rs. 34,08,648 carried forward entirely with an additional Rs. 1,33,176 received as interest. There were no expenses incurred.

H. Financial year 2013-14

The University did not receive any grant from the ministry however, the last year’s balance of unutilized balance of Rs. 35,41,824 carried forward entirely with an additional Rs. 1,33,176 received as interest amounting to a total of Rs. 36,75,000. Expenses amounting to Rs. 5,25,783 were incurred by the University leading to an unspent balance of Rs. 31,49,217.

An expenditure breakdown has not been provided by the University.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-iit-madras

MHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from NLU, Jodhpur

nehaa — 2016-05-26T02:03:42Z

Nisha S. Kumar assisted in compilation of the document.

To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to NLU, Jodhpur on 09/02/2015 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to RTI application was received on 12/03/2015.

These are the documents received by CIS from NLU, Jodhpur:

For the reply to the RTI application click here
For the proposal to establish the IPR chair at NLU Jodhpur click here

Hereinafter, in order to receive any information about NLU, Jodhpur’s RTI reply, kindly refer to the above mentioned links. Following are the queries mentioned in the RTI application along with their replies.

Reports on the implementation of the IPERPO scheme of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the implementation of the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the scheme at NLU, Jodhpur.

Reply: NLU, Jodhpur has submitted the documents required under this track for the period of 2008-2015. To view the relevant documents, download the file (2008-09 –Part one,Part two and Part three; 2009-10 – Part one, Part two, Part three and Part four; 2010-11 – Complete; 2011-12 – Part one and Part two; 2012-13 – Part one and Part two; 2013-14 - Complete; 2014-15 - Complete).

Documents detailing the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO Scheme
Reply: NLU, Jodhpur has submitted the documents required under this track for the period of 2008-2010 and the financial year of 2013-2014. To view all the documents submitted by the University in reply,click here.(nlu jodhpur F. No. 10.2008-IC’)
Documents relating to receipts of utilisation certificates and audited expenditure statements and matters related to all financial sanctions with regard to funds granted to the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO scheme at NLU, Jodhpur.
Reply: The University has provided utilisation certificatefor the period of 2008-11 and 2013-14. To view the supporting documents, click here. (nlu jodhpur Utilisation Certificate’)

Comparative Analysis between University Response and the guidelines of MHRD Scheme Document

A. Objectives
In order to fulfil the objectives mentioned in the scheme document, NLU Jodhpur undertook following activities:

Introduction of UG and PG level courses on IPR
Conducting lecture series on the subject of IPR.
Conducting multiple workshops over the years to further the training of teachers as well as at a student level
Hosting numerous conclaves on the subject of IPR and their relation to business
Providing short term course on training of teachers in the field of IPR
Held various symposiums, seminars and conferences for the furtherance of IPR
Invited esteemed professors from the field for guest lectures
Established an IPR library in the IPR cell

B. Eligibility
NLU, Jodhpur is recognized by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, it fulfils the eligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme document.

Financial Analysis
A.Financial year 2008-09

The University received a grant of Rs. 14,00,000 out of which it utilized Rs. 11,90,115 for the implementation of the IPERPO scheme leaving an unspent balance of Rs. 2,09,885.

B. Financial year 2010-11

First installment

The University incurred an expenditure of Rs. 11,27,740 against a grant of Rs. 15,00,000 leaving an unutilized balance of Rs. 3,72,260.

Second Instalment

The University incurred an expenditure of Rs. 26,21,369 against a grant of Rs. 40,00,000 leaving an unspent balance of Rs. 13,78,631 as unutilized balance.

C. Financial year 2013-14

The University incurred an expenditure of Rs. 16,86,566 against a grant of Rs. 36,00,000 leaving an unspent balance of Rs. 19,13,434.

Expenditure Analysis

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-nlu-jodhpur

MHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from IIT, Kanpur

nehaa — 2016-06-04T03:35:09Z

Nisha S Kumar assisted in compilation of the document.

The author has analysed all the data received under various heads such as income, grants from MHRD, planned and non-planned expenditure, nature and frequency of programmes organised and the allocation of funds for the same. Throughout the course of observation and presentation of the analysed data, the author seeks to trace the presence of unjustified underutilisation of funds by the aforementioned university as provided by the MHRD during the period of 2013-2014.

To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur on 16/02/2015 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to the same was received on 27/02/2015.

These are the documents received by CIS from IIT, Kanpur:

For the RTI application filed by the CIS click here
For the reply to the RTI application click here

IIT,Kanpur did not entertain the RTI and furnished no documents for perusal.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-iit-kanpur

Comments on the Draft ICAR Open Access Policy

nehaa — 2013-05-28T06:44:45Z

The following comments were submitted to the Indian Council for Agricultural Research on May 23, 2013.

Introduction

The Centre for Internet and Society,[1] is is a not-for-profit research organization. Our substantive areas of work include openness (including openness of government data, open access to scholarly literature, open standards, free and open source software, open educational resources, and open video) access to knowledge and IPR reform, freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, digital humanities and digital natives.[2]It is our belief that openness and collaboration are the agents of innovation and creativity, and the advent of the internet has radically redefined the meaning and practice of openness and collaboration. Pursuant to our vision, we have been actively involved in the area of Openness and the promotion of open access.[3]

Key research and highlights of our work in these areas are as under:

Comments on the Interoperability Framework for e-Governance (Phase 1), submitted to the Department of Information and Technology.[4]
A Status Report on Open Access to Scholarly Literature in India.[5]
A Survey Report on the Online Video Environment in India.[6]
A Report on Open Government Data in India.[7]
An Open Government Data Study.[8]
Publication of multiple blog posts and the conduction of various events including workshops and seminars around Openness and Open Access.[9]

We hope that our commitment to Open Access and Openness, substantiated with our work in these areas leads you to consider our comments to your Draft Open Access Policy favourably.

The Structure of the Report

This report will deal provide feedback on the structure of the policy, various clauses of the policy, what clauses may be omitted (if any) and other clauses that may be included. Additionally, possible challenges that might require to be addressed in the implementation of this policy have also been indicated.

Overview

It is felt that the ICAR Draft Policy on Open Access is fairly comprehensive, covering most areas associated with its implementation, detailed, embodies the principles of openness and open access, and is a step in the right direction towards achieving open access to scientific and scholarly literature, acting as an example for other communities to do the same.[10]

Structural Feedback

It is suggested that the policy be structured along the lines of the UNESCO Library Open Access Policy, with headings including Introduction, the Objectives/Mission Statement of the Policy, Applicability, Repository, Roles and Obligations of various participants, Intellectual Property Law Issues and Implementation.[11]

Feedback on Existing Clauses

The decision of the ICAR to implement an Open Access Policy is commendable, and an encouragement to other institutions to follow suit.

The adoption of OAI-MHP standard will ensure interoperability, given that it is seen as the cornerstone in open access to institutional research output, and failure to utilize this standard would reduce accessibility and therefore the impact of materials, since they are invisible to each other.

The provisions of the content to be made a part of the repository, and the implementation are comprehensive and detailed. Inter alia, measures involving encouragement to publish in journals that allow for open access through archiving, workshops for advocacy and capacity building, adoption of the CC-NC-SA license are appreciated.

Suggested Changes

It is suggested that the Policy include provisions on information to be made available in accessible formats. In pursuance of the same, it is particularly suggested that the ICAR adopt measures to publish literature that is made available through this Open Access mechanism in formats accessible for visually impaired/print disabled persons, to truly realise the underlying aims of Open Access.

It is suggested that in addition to class/lecture notes already included under the content, ‘course content’ developed for any class/seminar/lecture in any university/college/educational institution be made a separate category of material to be included for open access.

It is suggested that the following sentence in the proposed policy be further clarified: “Scientists are advised to mention the ICAR’s Open Access policy while signing the copyright agreements with the publishers”- A clarification is required regarding the application of this sentence and its applicability. Would the policy apply to both those cases where the scientists have copyright over their work, and where the institute has copyright, or to only one of these scenarios?

It is suggested that the ICAR participate in the development and promote the building of cross institutional services (cross repository services) to further the aims of Open Access,[12] and the same be reflected in the forthcoming policy.

It is suggested that the forthcoming policy include an explicit provision on long term digital preservation[13] of the collected information, including possible measures that the ICAR may adopt to this end.

It is suggested that the forthcoming policy include a specific provision that requires contributing scientists/researchers etc. to explicitly declare that they have the copyright for and have obtained the necessary permissions to post and contribute to the Open Access Project.

It is suggested that the ICAR take steps for aiding the development of Open Access Journals. In furtherance of the same, the ICAR could have links of the websites of these Journals on its own repository, such that the link to the articles on the websites of these Journals leads directly to the ICAR Repository. Such a move would incentivise authors to contribute, since their effort would be recognised, and researchers would have a persistent source to cite from an archive. This effort would also be in consonance with the broader aims of Open Access that the ICAR is keen to achieve through its proposed policy.

It is suggested that the policy also include measures to encourage persons not members of the ICAR to contribute to the Repository.

It is suggested that as regards the implementation aspects of the creation of this repository, the ICAR would also have to ensure the creation of digital document identifiers for all content to be contributed to and housed on the repository. Additionally, the policy ought to also lay down standards of training and development of the staff and authors to submit content to the repository, and to be able to efficiently utilize the same. It is also suggested that the policy encompass the development of a framework for feedback for users and feedback from users, where the former would provide current statistics and details about articles and contributions to users, and the latter would be a mechanism for users to comment on their experience in utilising the repository.

Concluding Observations

The Centre for Internet and Society deeply appreciates the effort undertaken by the ICAR to bring about Open Access in its area of work, which is definitely a welcome step in the right direction. CIS hopes that given its commitment to Open Access and strong tradition of work in this area, the ICAR would give due regard to the observations made out in this report.

[1]. Hereafter referred to as CIS.

[2]. See http://cis-india.org/about for more details.

[3]. See http://cis-india.org/openness for our work on Openness.

[4]. Available at http://cis-india.org/openness/blog/comments-ifeg-phase-1

[5]. Available at http://cis-india.org/openness/blog/open-access-to-scholarly-literature

[6]. Available at http://cis-india.org/openness/online-video-environment-in-india

[7]. Available at http://cis-india.org/openness/blog/ogd-draft-v2-call-for-comments

[8]. Available at http://cis-india.org/openness/blog/open-government-data-study

[9]. See http://cis-india.org/@@search?SearchableText=open+access for details of our posts and events on Open Access.

[10]. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Open Access Policy Concerning UNESCO Publications, available at http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ERI/pdf/oa_policy_en_2.pdf (last accessed 22 May, 2013).

[11]. Id.

[12]. Gerard van Westrienen and Clifford A. Lynch, Academic Institutional Repositories: Deployment Status in 13 Nations as of Mid 2005, available at http://dlib.org/dlib/september05/westrienen/09westrienen.html (last accessed 22 May, 2013).

[13]. Leslie Chan, Supporting and Enhancing Scholarship in the Digital Age: The Role of Open Access Institutional Repositories , Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol. 29 (3&4), 277, 282.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/comments-on-draft-icar-open-access-policy

The Indian Council of Agricultural Research Adopts an Open Access Policy

nehaa — 2013-09-30T15:03:04Z

In this blogpost, Nehaa Chaudhari discusses the newly adopted Open Access Policy of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research.

Earlier this month, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) adopted an Open Access Policy. Inter alia, this policy requires each ICAR institute to set up an Open Access Institutional Repository (OAIR), with the ICAR to set up a central harvester to harvest the meta data and full text of all the records from the Open Access (OA) repositories so set up. What is interesting from the IPR perspective is that the meta-data and other information of these repositories is copyrighted with the ICAR and has been licensed for research and academic purposes, for using, re-using and sharing. Commercial and other reuse would require the written permission of the ICAR. In a nod to the increasing importance of social media, ICAR’s Open Access Policy encourages its institutes to share their works on public repositories and social networking sites, besides adopting the mandate to have all publications, including its journals placed under Open Access. What might be harder to realize, however, is the publication of their research by scientists and other researchers across ICAR institutes or elsewhere, with publishers that allow self archiving Open Access Institutional Repositories. The ICAR Open Access Policy is available here.

In May, earlier this year, the ICAR had released a draft version of this policy, inviting comments. CIS’ comments had lauded the Policy as being comprehensive, detailed, and as being a positive step in the right direction, and had suggested some possible changes to the same.

It is observed that the adopted Open Access Policy (OAP) differs from the Draft Policy (DP) in certain respects, some of which are a cause for concern, whereas a few others expand the scope of the OAP. First, while the OAP requires that Institutional Repositories be established; the requirement contained in the DP to use Free and Open Source Software which was OAI-MHP compliant has been removed. Given that this is an endeavour to foster openness, requiring the use of Open Source Software was definitely a welcome step sought to be adopted by the ICAR, and its elimination renders the OAP lacking in the spirit of openness to its greatest realizable extent. Further, compliance with OAI-MHP would have ensured interoperability, as noted by us in our comments to the DP, and a failure to utilize this would reduce the accessibility and impact of archived materials. Second, the OAP requires that authors of scholarly articles deposit both, preprints and post-prints of their papers accepted for publication in the OAIR. This is a departure from the position in the DP, which required only preprints be deposited. Given that there is likely to be a difference in content and form of the article between the preprints and post-prints (which are after peer review), the inclusion of both preprints and post-prints in the OAIR is seen to be a beneficial move. Third, the period of embargo while signing copyright agreements with publishers had been envisaged to be six months in the DP, whereas the OAP extends the same to twelve months. It is felt that scientific writing is likely to be time sensitive, and twelve months might be an inordinate delay for its availability in the public domain, possibly reducing its applicability and relevance. Therefore, it is suggested that the earlier embargo period of six months might be the better alternative between the two. Fourth, the OAP incorporates an End Note, that was absent in the DP, which stipulates the time period of three years for compliance with the Open Access initiative, and recognizes the OAP as the first stage of a larger process. Both, the time period for compliance, and the recognition that the adoption of the OAP is but the first stage, are appreciated.

In sum, the OAP of the ICAR, while addressing some of the issues associated openness does leave room for desirability. Besides the suggestions that we had made earlier, other concerns include those reflected in this blog post, particularly regarding the departure from the DP in certain specific instances. Nonetheless, the adoption of the OAP by the ICAR is a welcome move- one that would hopefully be followed by other Government agencies such as the Department of Atomic Energy, the University Grants Commission, the Department of Biotechnology, etc.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/icar-adopts-open-access-policy