Centre for Internet and Society

Submitted Comments on the 'Government Open Data Use License - India'

sinha — 2016-07-26T09:23:48Z

The public consultation process of the draft open data license to be used by Government of India has ended yesterday. Here we share the text of the submission by CIS. It was drafted by Anubha Sinha, Pranesh Prakash, and Sumandro Chattapadhyay.

The following comments on the 'Government Open Data Use License - India' was drafted by Anubha Sinha, Pranesh Prakash, and Sumandro Chattapadhyay, and submitted through the MyGov portal on July 25, 2016. The original submission can be found here.

I. Preliminary

This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) [1] on the draft Government Open Data Use License - India (“the draft licence”) [2] by the Department of Legal Affairs.
This submission is based on the draft licence released on the MyGov portal on June 27, 2016 [3].
CIS commends the Department of Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India for its efforts at seeking inputs from various stakeholders prior to finalising its open data licence. CIS is thankful for the opportunity to have been a part of the discussion during the framing of the licence; and to provide this submission, in furtherance of the feedback process continuing from the draft licence.

II. Overview

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-governmental organisation engaged in research and policy work in the areas of, inter alia, access to knowledge and openness. This clause-by-clause submission is consistent with CIS’ commitment to safeguarding general public interest, and the interests and rights of various stakeholders involved. Accordingly, the comments in this submission aim to further these principles and are limited to those clauses that most directly have an impact on them.

III. Comments and Recommendations

Name of the Licence: CIS recommends naming the licence “Open Data Licence - India” to reflect the nomenclature already established for similar licences in other nations like the UK and Canada. More importantly, the inclusion of the word ‘use’ in the original name “Government Open Data Use License” is misleading, since the licence permits use, sharing, modification and redistribution of open data.
Change Language on Permissible Use of Data: The draft licence uses the terms “Access, use, adapt, and redistribute,” which are used in UNESCO’s definition of open educational resources, whereas, under the Indian Copyright Act [4], it should cover “reproduction, issuing of copies,” etc. To resolve this difference, we suggest the following language be used: “Subject to the provisions of section 7, all users are provided a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive licence to all rights covered by copyright and allied rights, for the duration of existence of such copyright and allied rights over the data or information.”
Add Section on the Scope of Applicability of the Licence: It will be useful to inform the user of the licence on its applicability. The section may be drafted as: “This licence is meant for public use, and especially by all Ministries, Departments, Organizations, Agencies, and autonomous bodies of Government of India, when publicly disclosing, either proactively or reactively, data and information created, generated, collected, and managed using public funds provided by Government of India directly or through authorized agencies.”
Add Sub-Clause Specifying that the Licence is Agnostic of Mode of Access: As part of the section 4 of the draft licence, titled ‘Terms and Conditions of Use of Data,’ a sub-clause should be added that specifies that users may enjoy all the freedom granted under this licence irrespective of their preferred mode of access of the data concerned, say manually downloaded from the website, automatically accessed via an API, collected from a third party involved in re-sharing of this data, accessed in physical/printed form, etc.
Add Sub-Clause on Non-Repudiability and Integrity of the Published Data: To complement the sub-clause 6.e. that notes that data published under this licence should be published permanently and with appropriate versioning (in case of the published data being updated and/or modified), another sub-clause should be added that states that non-repudiability and integrity of published data must be ensured through application of real/digital signature, as applicable, and checksum, as applicable. This is to ensure that an user who has obtained the data, either in physical or digital form, can effectively identify and verify the the agency that has published the data, and if any parts of the data have been lost/modified in the process of distribution and/or transmission (through technological corruption of data, or otherwise).
Combine Section 6 on Exemptions and Section 7 on Termination: Given that the licence cannot reasonably proscribe access to data that has already been published online, it is suggested that it would be better to simply terminate the application of the licence to that data or information that ought not to have been published for grounds provided under section 8 of the RTI Act, or have been inadvertently published. It should also be noted that section 8 of the RTI Act cannot be “violated” (as stated in Section 6.g. of the draft licence), since it only provides permission for the public authority to withhold information, and does not impose an obligation on them (or anyone else) to do so. The combined clause can read: “Upon determination by the data provider that specific data or information should not have been publicly disclosed for the grounds provided under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the data provider may terminate the applicability of the licence for that data or information, and this termination will have the effect of revocation of all rights provided under Section 3 of this licence.”
It will be our pleasure to discuss these submissions with the Department of Legal Affairs in greater detail, supplement these with further submissions if necessary, and offer any other assistance towards the efforts at developing a national open data licence.

[1] See: http://cis-india.org/.

[2] See: https://www.mygov.in/sites/default/files/mygov_1466767582190667.pdf.

[3] See: https://www.mygov.in/group-issue/public-consultation-government-open-data-use-license-india/.

[4] See: http://www.copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/submitted-comments-on-the-government-open-data-use-license-india

Letter to MPs on Concerns on Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership

sinha — 2016-07-29T02:39:44Z

The Centre for Internet and Society sent a letter to Members of Parliament on July 27, 2016 to appeal to re-examine the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Minister / Member of Parliament

We are writing to you to draw your attention to the concerns related to India’s engagement in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a mega-regional trade agreement (MRTA), currently under negotiation. We write as part of a forum on free trade agreements (FTAs), which is a network of over 80 civil society organisations and concerned individuals from across India. It came together in 2008 to analyse the impacts of India’s FTAs on people’s lives & livelihoods.

As you may know, RCEP is a FTA consisting of 10 ASEAN Countries plus Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, China and India. It is a comprehensive FTA dealing with not only tariff cuts but also a range of other issues such as investment, intellectual property rights, e-commerce, services, competition, etc. RCEP has far reaching implications on India’s future economic and social development. India is currently facing huge trade deficit with ASEAN, South Korea, Japan and China. RCEP is expected to worsen the huge trade deficit and damage India’s manufacturing sector.

Similarly, concerns are expressed in the field of intellectual property (IP). Many proposals by Japan and South Korea in the area of IP go well beyond our current national IP legislation, especially the Indian Patents Act 1970. Whereas, the Indian act permits only a narrow scope for patenting of software, the RCEP texts reveal disastrous proposals to hugely widen the scope, which, if accepted could compromise access to technologies in many critical areas. Likewise, Japanese & Korean negotiators' proposals run contrary to existing Indian copyright legislation. They mandate that all RCEP member countries to increase the term of copyright protection to 70 years from the year of the death of the author. The leaked chapters also envisage strong technological protection measures, without any limitations or exceptions for fair dealing use; creating new rights for making copies for temporary storage and blanket prohibition on re-transmission over the internet. All these changes would be extremely damaging to increasing access to knowledge in a developing country like India.

Further, the proposals also urge RCEP members to become members of another IP agreement on seeds – the UPOV Convention. Firstly, this would be ‘TRIPS-plus’, taking us beyond what WTO requires us to do in the area of seed. Secondly, it will mean going against the ‘farmer’s rights’ provisions in our national law – Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Act (passed by Parliament in 2001 in compliance with WTO).

The leaked investment chapter shows that the proposals are going against India’s current position on investment treaties. India has developed a model BIPA text. India has also re-negotiating 57 of its 83 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) on the basis of its new model BIPA & to avoid one-sided approach to protecting investor’s interest. But demands being made in RCEP, may push us beyond our position on investments as well, for example, on the investor-state dispute mechanism.

The RCEP talks have picked up pace, hence the appeal to you to get involved.

Since 2013 RCEP negotiations have completed 13 rounds. The 14th round of negotiations is to take place in Vietnam on 15th of August. The Chief negotiators from each of the 16 countries are meeting 18-19th July in Jakarta, Indonesia. The upcoming RCEP Ministerial meeting on 5th August at Laos is expected set the new deadline for the conclusion of the negotiation.

However, there are no studies available in the public domain with regard to the implications of RCEP on India. In reply to an RTI query, Government denied existence of any cost and benefit analyses of RCEP. Similarly, there is no consultation with State governments with regard to RCEP and no texts are available in the public domain. Against this background we request you to take initiative:

to demand socio-economic assessment of RCEP on India’s development, especially on poor and marginalised populations, including implications for women & children

To ask for wider consultations on RCEP including consultations with state governments and ordinary people (such stakeholder consultations have already been held with industry bodies).
To make publicly available all the negotiating texts and institutionalise the process of making them open.
To ensure discussion on the cost and benefits of FTAs in general and RCEP in particular in both houses of the Parliament, including in the relevant Parliamentary Standing Committee.
To demand a while paper on India’s experience - costs and benefits, from FTAs with Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia and ASEAN.

Anticipating your kind attention on this urgent matter.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

Anubha Sinha
Centre for Internet & Society

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/letter-to-mps-on-concerns-on-regional-comprehensive-economic-partnership

USTR elaborates the Two Dozen Digital Rules of Club TPP

sinha — 2016-07-29T08:00:00Z

Members of the recently concluded Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are now scrounging the world to include more countries in its fold. The Digital 2 Dozen(D2D) is a bite-sized document which packs the TPP into 24 key tenets. The D2D, aggressively championed by the US as the path forward for the global digital economy poses some critical questions for India: first, how will India position itself against US pressure in the larger scheme of US-India foreign relations, and how much is it willing to concede its policies in the name of trade; second, how will reduced barriers and establishment of a level field for Indian and foreign IT and internet companies alike, hurt Indian consumers and businesses? This week, the Deputy US Trade Representative Ambassador Robert Holleyman discussed the Digital 2 Dozen document with Ambassador Shyam Saran (Chairman, RIS). The exchange was moderated by Samir Saran (Observer Research Foundation). I attended the discussion and this post is a summary of the key points.

For a background on the data protection and privacy aspects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and Digital 2 Dozen principles, please read CIS' piece here.

Ambassador Robert Holleyman

Ambassador Holleyman opened with stating that trade agreements are created to build a foundation for national policies. He added that the D2D is not merely a tech D2D, rather it is based on the premise that our economies have digitised to a large extent, and hence, the TPP contains provisions on agriculture as well. The TPP tries to combat barriers to the growth of digital economy, and the D2D provides the most modern and the highest standard of such provisions. The D2D tenets can be divided into three categories:

1. Provisions to ensure the internet is open and safe, and an effective channel for trade and services.

2. Provisions to combat protectionist and restrictive provisions of member nations. The D2D talks about eliminating rules that seek to make foreign companies localise their data by building expensive data centers in every market they seek to serve. Further, TPP also seeks to prevent countries from 'forcing' foreign companies from transferring their technologies and production processes as a pre-condition for doing business there.

3. Provisions on IPRs to 'build a level playing field' in order to 'protect' innovators and creators in the digital space.

“ ...The TPP rules on enforcement of IPRs are strong and balanced and embody the TRIPs standards. For instance, countries are required to to impose criminal penalties on trade-secret violations such as cyberhacking.”

He added:

“We believe these rules are the foundation for next 20 years of the digital economy. To make sure that India does not fall behind we want to work with India (for the adoption of these rules). We're encouraged by the new government's programmes and the PM's engagement with US and silicon valley leaders.

We encourage India to level the playing field. To that end the USTR is working with the Indian Ministries of Communications and IT, and Commerce and Industry to exchange practices for building open markets. We want to work together in eliminating localisation policies given that how a lot of IT companies have established investment heavy R&D centers in India, and they rely heavily on the free flow of cross border data. Imposition of localisation of data would be detrimental in this age of cloud-computing. We're aware that the Indian government is reviewing its policies on cloud-computing and encryption, and we encourage the government to consider the implications of the such policies carefully, for India is also a leader in global IT and would be a potential framework setter at that.”

The D2D also endorses elimination of custom duties on ICT products, and the Ambassador added that the US was very pleased to see India deposit their instrument of accession on the Trade Facilitation Agreement with the WTO. The US has been pleased to see India's ratcheting up its norms for IPR protection. He mentioned that the two countries held a successful copyright workshop earlier this year, and later this year they plan to conduct a workshop on trade secret protection. The D2D also says that conformity assessment procedures are excessive and should be eliminated. This emerges from US' IT industries concerns on the compulsory registration of ICT products that required re-testing in Indian labs.

He made a case for opening up Indian markets by quoting a study which revealed that the Indian market for ICT products is worth 65bn dollars, while the global market stands at 2 trillion dollars. So while India could leverage its exports to meet the demand, the question remains if we want to foster a market based on openness. In his opinion, openness has enabled the IT sector in India to access other markets. However, he observed that countries were erecting barriers to this openness by restricting the cross-border free-flow of data, particularly and this is where the TPP assumes importance. The real challenge now is for the US and India to prepare their own version the the D2D.

On the route of D2D, the Ambassador was largely optimistic:

“The TPP has Obama's backing and the US Congress should ratify the deal before the elections. Other TPP members have already initiated steps to ratify the deal in their countries. For phase II, 13 non-member countries have already approached the US to be a part of TPP since the deal was concluded.”

Ambassador Shyam Saran

He began by stating that the India-US engagement on digital economy would become an area of close cooperation for US-India relationship. A few years ago the US pharma was unhappy with Indian generics, and this tussle left a bad taste between the countries, and also spilled over into the political side. Disagreements on several issues such as IPR, WTO subjects, etc still persist, despite some developments reflecting mutual trust and confidence (for instance the counter-terrorism initiative).

He welcomed potential cooperation in the digital field, because that would dispel the negativity and prevailing perception of India and US not being on the same page. The one area that has been a shaky pillar is the trade and economic relationship. In his frank opinion, the Indian establishment perceives USTR's outlook on trade issues as quite adversarial. He was mindful of a developing India's unique needs and priorities:

“In regard to the differences between India and US on trade and economic issues, it is not surprising because we must also be mindful of the reality- we are a developing country, wheras the US is highly developed and technologically advances - thus, we need different lenses for each. This is something we need to address, (remember how we acknowledged and fixed this in our defence relationship re the nuclear deal). The lesson that I draw is that here is an area critical to both countries' growth, and we need to address this differential aspect...”

According to him, right now India has an ambiguous position on the TPP. Holleyman had mentioned that the deal was based on an open platform, and Shyam pointed out that it was in fact conceived through closed door negotiations. It is common knowledge that rules at TPP were arrived at through complex negotiations between 13 countries, which surely was a process of complex give and takes. At this stage, it was not possible for India to look at one chapter and agree to meet the “gold standards” set in it.

According to him, D2D was important to the US solely in terms of trade benefits for its own businesses. He said that to convince the Indian government, the USTR will have to first convince the Indian IT industry the D2D benefits- which he was skeptical of. The reason was that this 'opportunity' comes across as a clear case of double-standards when the US talks about lowering barriers in India, and on the other hand is increasing barriers on its own shores (several pending bills in the US Congress indicate this). Similarly, immigration troubles for the Indian talent pool have only gone up. The other aspect he raised was on localisation and IPRs. He said that while stands on these issues were being formulated, it should also be expected that the government will take into account concerns of privacy and security. In the US itself, the US treasury has said in regard to banking and financial transactions localisation may be necessary.

He closed by offering an alternative route to the US – one of working with India as a partner in the Digital Economy instead of fixating on barriers and/or nitpicking on Indian legislations. This would be a more sustainable way to capitalise on India's growth potential and align with its digital future.

Samir Saran

Samir responded to the discussants by offering his thoughts (and questions) on D2D and the digital economy, broadly:

“...Can the digital space be a new space for a partnership? Three stories are important in the context of a trade document:
First is dominated by access – India is seeing 6 million new internet users every month and most of them are on low-cost mobile devices. Can a trading normative process allow to continue this phenomenon as it is?
Second is opportunity – India is already responding to investment flows. In terms of privacy and security – if India believes that it can become the digital infrastructure hub, it will need to develop world-class encryption tools. Similarly in terms of free-flow of information, when Obama and PM met they endorsed the same. So it is a step back from localisation, anyway. So you see India changing positions to make the atmosphere more business conducive.
Third is security – How can you make free-flow of data uni-directional? Why is it that you want data to flow unfettered when it creates value, but you are creating barriers for giving data for security purposes?...

...Further, in a phase when the mood worldwide is in favour of de-globalisation, will hyperglobalisation through FTAs work?...”

Finally, Holleyman acknowledged that historically India and US have had differences, but with the digital economy perhaps they can forge some approaches. He accepted that some of the points were written squarely for the US tech sector, but he hoped that the other 11 partners of the TPP will come out with what the D2D means to them.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ustr-elaborates-the-two-dozen-digital-rules-of-club-tpp

US Copyright law faces constitutional challenge

sinha — 2016-08-11T13:28:13Z

In a major international development, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has filed a lawsuit to strike down the provisions on Digital Rights Management(DRM) in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In this post, I discuss DRMs, the EFF lawsuit, and then draw upon the differences between the US and Indian copyright regime on DRM protection.

Originally published by Spicy IP on August 5, 2016. You may read EFF’s lawsuit here.

Decoding DRM

If you own a Netflix account and travel a lot, you may have been denied access to some TV shows depending on the country you logged in from. While that restriction can perhaps be gotten around by using VPNs, there exist other technological measures that prevent you from fixing your own automobile to sharing/making copies of an e-book that you supposedly bought. Such technological protection measures are commonly known as Digital Rights Management (DRM). These go back twenty years, and it was in 1996 when the first DRM appeared in the form of geo-access restrictions on DVD play.

Soon thereafter, it became de rigeur for businesses dealing in IP to apply all kinds of DRMs to their products. It was largely an embarrassing and a pointless saga of implementing software embedded restrictions to stem piracy (remember the Sony BMG rootkit fiasco?), given how blatantly they were discovered and circumvented. And now since technology is beginning to dwell even in our shoes, DRMs have been slapped onto these as well. So if you discover a bug causing a miscalculation in your step count, you are not only prohibited under law from probing the code and fixing it yourself, but you also may get jailed for doing so. Imagine such how such prohibition impacts and limits our daily lives and the work of professional researchers.

Clearly, DRM is not just a mere trifle to be brushed aside via smarter code– its ramifications go much farther. DRMs come with the problem of masking vulnerabilities, compromised security of the device and us er-privacy, and trampled consumer rights, fair use and free speech. Further, the poor design of DRMs makes them unable to distinguish between illegal use and fair-use. Progressive cutting down of users’ rights to store, reproduce, distribute media has become especially problematic for developing countries because of our greater dependence on free-er terms for sale, lending and donation. On the other hand, DRMs continue to become more ubiquitous(could be incorporated in the HTML 5 standard soon).

However, in an exciting development, the first major legal battle to kill DRM has begun!

Because finally in an unprecedented move, a constitutional challenge has been lodged in the US against DRM provisions, on the grounds that they restrict free speech and fair-use of copyright materials (the fair-use doctrine allows copyright law to co-exist with the first amendment). The complaint has been filed by EFF on behalf of Matthew Green (a security researcher) and Andrew “bunnie” Huang (a technologist)

The rejection that prompted a legal challenge..

Sections 1201-1205 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) lay down provisions relating to circumvention of DRM. Uniquely, the DMCA vests power in the Librarian of Congress to periodically enact rules granting exemption from the anti-circumvention provisions to legitimate non-infringing use of works (known as DMCA Rulemaking). It was under this particular instance of rulemaking in 2015, wherein the Librarian failed to grant an exemption for “…speech using clips of motion pictures, for the shifting of lawfully-acquired media to different formats and devices, and for certain forms of security research.” The rejection triggered the challenge against ‘Rulemaking’, ‘anti-circumvention’ and ‘anti-trafficking’ provisions of the DMCA, namely sections 1201(a), 1203, and 1204 . (This exemption was applied for by EFF, which has been seeking (and been granted) exemptions since 2003.)

In fact, universally, DRM provisions pose questions of free speech, consumer rights, privacy and copyright law. In the following section I will examine and compare the US and Indian copyright regime on DRM protection.

WCT and DMCA were used to push DRM protection into Indian Copyright Act

The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 provisions on DRM are based in sections 2(xa), 65A and 65B, which were introduced through the Copyright Amendment Act, 2012. The sections define ‘Rights Management Information’, provide for ‘Protection of technological measures’ and ‘Protection of Rights Management Information’, respectively. It must be noted that the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) was the first instrument to conceive rules on DRM protection (Articles 11, 12). US was the first country to import WCT provisions into its copyright law via DMCA, which even went above the WCT standards. Soon, Hollywood-backed USTR wanted India to follow suit, and the provisions were queued up for an amendment to India’s copyright law. Please note that India is NOT a party to the WCT, and was under no obligation to enact laws on DRMs. Nevertheless, the Indian provisions with some changes and added limitations were loosely lifted from the equivalent WCT articles.

It is worth noting that the Indian DRM provisions have better safeguards than the DMCA provisions:

1) The Indian provisions (s. 65A+ 65B) do not make building and distribution of circumvention tools illegal. Only the act of circumvention attracts criminal liability. However, there is a duty on the person facilitating circumvention for another person to maintain a record of the same, including the purpose for which the facilitation occurred. The purpose should not be expressly prohibited under the Copyright Act, 1957.

Regardless, being criminally liable for circumventing DRM is a major threat to small businesses and developers. In one instance, when some Indian developers had built an open source software “PlayFair” to bypass Apple’s FairPlay DRM, they were threatened with legal action under the US’ DMCA. Despite the DMCA having no jurisdiction in India, the developers shut shop.

2) Clauses 65A(1) and 65A(2)(a) confine violation of technological protection measures to rights enumerated in the act, only. This means that the section does not restrict circumventions which attempt to get access to the underlying work.

While India has not seen major challenges to this provision, in 2013 the Delhi High Court injuncted persons from jailbreaking into Sony Playstations. Amlan analysed the order and questioned it in terms of the Court finding the act of ‘modifying the playstation without Sony’s consent’ illegal. Because, if you read section 65A (emphasis supplied is mine):

65A. Protection of Technological Measures

(1) Any person who circumvents an effective technological measure applied for the purpose of protecting any of the rights conferred by this Act, with the intention of infringing such rights, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from:

(a) doing anything referred to therein for a purpose not expressly prohibited by this Act:

Provided that any person facilitating circumvention by another person of a technological measure for such a purpose shall maintain a complete record of such other person including his name, address and all relevant particulars necessary to identify him and the purpose for which he has been facilitated; or

(b) doing anything necessary to conduct encryption research using a lawfully obtained encrypted copy; or

(c) conducting any lawful investigation; or

(d) doing anything necessary for the purpose of testing the security of a computer system or a computer network with the authorisation of its owner; or

(e) operator; or [sic]

(f) doing anything necessary to circumvent technological measures intended for identification or surveillance of a user; or

(g) taking measures necessary in the interest of national security.

Clause (1) clearly states that the law is only applicable to such technological protection measures applied to protect any of the rights conferred by the copyright act. Which raises the questions of which rights are affected when OS of the playstation is modified, and how does the modification amount to copyright infringement? One may perhaps draw that the Court in this order placed the ‘consent’ of Sony above the law.

3) S. 65A(2) safeguards certain acts which also exist as exceptions granted in the Copyright Act. These enumerated acts may be performed without attracting liability: for instance, circumventions for purposes of encryption research, security testing, lawful investigation, evading surveillance by DRM are kosher. Note that s. 65A(2)(g) permits circumvention in the interest of national security.

(For a detailed exegesis of these provisions, please read this piece.)

A look at the draconian DMCA provisions

As I mentioned earlier, the DMCA provisions on DRMs are much stricter compared to the Indian copyright act. Both circumvention(s. 1201(a)(1)), and building and distribution of circumvention tools(s. 1201(a)(2)) are illegal and punishable. The DMCA also meticulously defines circumvention, in terms of “circumventing a technological measure” and “circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure.”

More alarmingly, these provisions envisage access controls as well as use controls. So a person decrypting a DVD to gain access to the work would be held liable for infringement (unlike in India where only the act of copying or modifying the work would trigger infringement). It is also worth noting that there is no clause stating that circumvention (and tools) of only those DRMs is illegal when the DRMs protect rights conferred under the DMCA.

While s. 1201(c) states that the section shall not affect “…rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair-use…” Further, there do exist exemptions to clauses(a)(1) and (2):

Exemption for nonprofit libraries, archives and educational institutions; and
Exemption for the purposes of law enforcement, intelligence and other government activities, reverse engineering (solely for the purposes of achieving interoperability), restricting internet access to minors, protecting personally identifiable information, security testing, encryption research, etc.

While the list seems to permit circumvention for a wide range of purposes and fair-use, the vague and narrow language has failed the implementation of these exemptions. EFF lists a bunch of these instances where the DRM provisions have been not necessarily used against pirates, but also scientists, consumers and legit competitors.

Further, the DMCA left it entirely to the US copyright agencies to carve exemptions for non-infringing uses of works on a triennial basis. This rulemaking procedure has received heavy criticism, and as a result of the 2015 rejection the Library of the Congress finds itself in a legal soup.

Finally, the EFF lawsuit also illustrates the violations of the plaintiffs rights to free speech and fair-use, as a direct result of the provisions and the Rulemaking process. Armed with a strong case, and as Cory Doctorow puts it, we may witness the eradication of DRM in our lifetime. And I will be following the developments closely and keep our readers updated.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/us-copyright-law-faces-constitutional-challenge

Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015

sinha — 2015-06-24T16:45:21Z

We are pleased to announce that the Centre for Internet and Society will be hosting the fourth edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest at New Delhi, India, tentatively in the first two weeks of December, 2015. This post seeks your participation and invites your queries and suggestions for the event.

The theme for this year’s Congress will be “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting applications to participate in the Congress, including session participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for panels and workshops.

The application form is available now at [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.

Deadlines

August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).

November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper submissions will close on November 1st.

Application Information

For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in the form.

For applications to attend sessions: Applications to attend sessions as discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or any other relevant information provided by the applicant.

Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing countries.

Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes

The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property policy can best serve the public interest.

The fourth edition of the Global Congress brings research, civil society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes. The 4^th edition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.

The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices; second, the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda; and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects of IP policy and practice.

Participation Opportunities

Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions, cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.

The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development. Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual interest.

The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress.

Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the aforementioned sessions.

The application form for participation is available now at http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or questions, you may contact global-congress@cis-india.org.

Organisation

The 4^th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and Public Interest, is being organised in cooperation with National Law University, Delhi, by the American Assembly at Columbia University, the Centre for Internet and Society, Open A.I.R., and the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at American University Washington College of Law.

For any clarifications or queries, please contact:

Global Congress organising team: global-congress@cis-india.org

Swaraj Paul Barooah: swaraj.barooah@gmail.com
Shruthi Chandrasekaran: shruthi.chandrasekaran@gmail.com

The planning team also includes:

Anubha Sinha: anubha@cis-india.org
M.P. Nagaraj: nagaraj@cis-india.org
Maggie Huang: maggie@cis-india.org
Pranesh Prakash: pranesh@cis-india.org
Rohini Lakshane: rohini@cis-india.org
Sunil Abraham: sunil@cis-india.org
Nehaa Chaudhari: nehaa@cis-india.org

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/2015-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest

Announcing the Tracks for the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2015

sinha — 2014-08-22T09:47:27Z

CIS recently announced that the Centre for Internet and Society will be hosting the fourth edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest at New Delhi, India, tentatively in the first two weeks of December, 2015. This post declares the track events to be conducted, seeks your participation and invites contributions from potential funders.

The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest ("Global Congress") was instituted in 2011 at Washington D.C. Since its inception, three editions of the Global Congress have engaged national and international governmental entities, the private sector, civil society, and academia in providing perspectives and future scenarios for intellectual property, innovation and development.

The five tracks at the Global Congress 2015 will be:

a) User Rights
b) Patents (including Access to Medicines, but wider in scope)
c) Enforcement
d) Traditional Knowledge
e) Openness

We will soon post updates on the track leaders. We invite interested participants to send proposals for presentations, workshops and other side events for the Global Congress. Please share with us funding proposals for conferences/events and details of potential funders, or help out with funding, if possible.

You may contact the following CIS members to send in your queries and suggestions for the event:

CIS Global Congress Planning Team

Anubha Sinha- anubha@cis-india.org
M.P. Nagaraj- nagaraj@cis-india.org
Maggie Huang- maggie@cis-india.org
Pranesh Prakash- pranesh@cis-india.org
Rohini Lakshane- rohini@cis-india.org
Sunil Abraham- sunil@cis-india.org
Nehaa Chaudhari- nehaa@cis-india.org

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/announcing-the-tracks-for-the-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest-2015

Consultation on 'National Geospatial Policy' - Notes and Submission

sinha — 2016-03-29T17:03:31Z

The Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, has constituted a National Expert Committee for developing a draft National Geospatial Policy (NGP) to provide appropriate guidelines for collection, analysis, use, and distribution of geospatial information across India, and to assure data availability, accessibility and quality. A pre-drafting consultation meeting for the NGP was organised in Delhi on February 03, 2016. Ms. Anubha Sinha represented CIS at the meeting, and shares her notes.

National Geospatial Policy - Pre-Drafting Consultation Meeting

Keeping in mind the importance of geospatial data in the context of national development, the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, has constituted a National Expert Committee for developing a draft National Geospatial Policy (NGP). The Committee is Chaired by Major General Dr. R Siva Kumar, former Head of Natural Resources Data Management System (NRDMS) and CEO of National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), and Dr. Bhoop Singh, Head of NRDMS and NSDI Division at Department of Science and Technology, as Member Secretary. The Policy aims at providing appropriate guidelines for collection, analysis, use, and distribution of geospatial information across India, and to assure data availability, accessibility and quality.

A pre-drafting consultation meeting for the NGP was organised in Delhi by Dr. Valli Manickam, Professor at the Academic Staff College of India, on February 03, 2016, and CIS was invited to take part in it as the only participant from the civil society. The other participants included representatives from the geospatial industry and industry associations (like FICCI and CII), and Ms. Ranjana Kaul, Partner at Dua Associates. Among the drafting committee members, Major General Dr. R Siva Kumar, Dr. Bhoop Singh, Dr. Sandeep Tripathi (IFS), and Wing Commander Satyam Kushwaha were present.

National Geospatial Policy - Concept Note

The purpose of the meeting was to hear the stakeholders' response to a Concept Note on the NGP, circulated prior to the meeting [1]. The Note sets out the principles and concerns of the proposed policy, which plans to guarantee geospatial data availability, accessibility, quality and in consonance with the imperatives of national security and intellectual property rights. The applicability of the policy is aimed at:

all geospatial data created, generated and collected using public funds provided by Central and State Governments and International donor organizations, directly or through authorized agencies.

The note suggests establishment of an "empowered body" to ensure proper creation, updates, management, dissemination, and sharing of the data, and management of an online portal for the same. The institutional mechanism to implement the policy will be composed of an Appellate authority / National High Power Implementation Committee, the NGP Implementation Committee, and the NGP Steering Committee.

Notes from the Meeting

The Welcome Address was delivered by Dr. Bhoop Singh (Head of NRDMS and NSDI Division, DST) who informed the participants that the Expert Committee had already met National Security Council and heard their concerns on the policy. The principles on which the proposed policy is to be based were also shared. The policy resulted from an exercise started two years ago to fix quality and accuracy of geospatial data, which was when it was realised that there were significant gaps that need urgent redressal. It was also identified that in previous initiatives to manage geospatial data at the national level, some data-generating organisations had been left behind. The chief concerns for the Expert Committee are 1) tailoring a policy suited to India's unique security issues, 2) avoiding a blanket open policy that may lead to misuse of low resolution data, 3) heeding restrictions on mapping, considering that 43% of landmass was not represented on maps presently (a probable solution was to do feature based mapping), and 4) clarifying government regulation of drone-based mapping. Security concerns were raised frequently throughout the meeting. The Committee also recognised that for development, data sharing should be made more open. The Committee was keen to have the private industry as a partner in generation of geospatial data.

Private industry representatives agreed with the objectives of the policy and were willing to contribute to geospatial data generation. The Expert Committee mulled over the possibility of creating a Public Private Partnership to cater to data generation. The private industry complained about the lack of efforts in popularising geospatial technologies and making the process of tenders more transparent.

There were suggestions to examine the policies of other jurisdictions facing similar internal security threats as India, and delineating the types of data that could be openly shared (for instance, geospatial data from border regions versus non-border regions). Segregation of restricted and open geospatial data can also be done on the basis of its end-application, such as for military and engineering purposes. Participants also requested the creation of a clear Do's and Don'ts guideline. CIS presented a written submission that raised seven key concerns. These are listed in the section below.

On the question of making an open data policy, it was suggested that the committee needs to decide the fundamental approach of the policy first - whether the policy should be based on prohibition and restriction, or focus on identifying and regulating open and free geospatial. The UN General Assembly document on Principles relating to remote sensing of the Earth from space provides an appropriate international point of reference [2].

After listening to the concerns and comments of the stakeholders, the core committee made the following concluding remarks:

Existing policies of government and defence should be mapped out to avoid conflict or overlap with the proposed NGP policy
The sharing of data vests with government agencies and other organisations recommended by them – there needs to be a transparent mechanism for such recommendation based sharing
Industry should come up with self-regulatory mechanisms, do's and don'ts, and code of conduct
Develop a secure mechanism for providing data on sensitive areas (in terms of national security;
Even the defence agencies sometimes cannot access maps due to policies of the National Remote Sensing Centre and other agencies – such inconsistencies need to be fixed

It was announced that the next consultation will occur in a couple of months, and will be open to the public at large, including representatives of industry, defence, and civil society.

Key Concerns about the NGP Concept Note

1. Complete lack of availability of open geospatial data from Indian government agencies: No government agency in India publish open geospatial data. While maps are often sold, both in printed and in digital form, they are not provided in a machine-readable open format and under an open license. The concept note towards NGP has made strong commitments towards changing this situation. There is an immediate need to participate in the NGP drafting process, with coordination among various civil society actors interested in open geospatial data, to ensure that these principles are carried into and operationalised in the actual NGP document.

2. Need for explicit and comprehensive set of criteria to determine if a set of geospatial data is sensitive for national security reasons: In formal and informal conversations with various agencies collecting and creating geospatial data in India, the role played by security agencies in blocking proactive and reactive public disclosure of geospatial data, and even intra-governmental sharing of such data, has been highlighted. Addressing this issue requires development of an explicit and comprehensive list of criteria that will establish a clear and rule-based system for identifying if a specific geospatial data set is to be categorised as “shareable” or “non-shareable.”

3. No clarity regarding legal status of citizen/crowd-sourced geospatial data, and initiatives to generate them: Open user-contributed geospatial data, especially through the OpenStreetMap platform, has emerged as a key driver of the global geospatial services industry. There is a legal ambiguity created by the National Mapping Policy regarding generation of such data in India, which came into focus when Survey of India filed a case against Google for organising a Mapathon contest, which invited Indian users to add metadata about physical and built features through Google Maps platform.1 The NGP needs to expressly provide legal sanction (and perhaps framework) for citizen/crowd-sourcing of geospatial data.

4. Fragmented institutional structure for collection, management, and distribution of different kinds of geospatial data: Survey of India, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, and Indian Space Research Organisation are all key government agencies involved in creating and managing geospatial data. Further, Election Commission of India is involved in preparing geospatial data about electoral units and their boundaries. The National Spatial Data Infrastructure was conceptualised to harmonise and centralise the geospatial data management processes, but is yet to be implemented with the backing of a policy or an Act. The NSDI can be institutionalised via the NGP as the national archive, aggregator, and distributor of open geospatial data, being originally collected and created by a range of government agencies.

5. Integration of National Geospatial Policy with National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP): The proactive disclosure of “shareable” geospatial data using open geospatial standards and under open licenses must be carried out under the purview of the NDSAP, and through the open government data platform established through NDSAP. The decisions regarding licensing of open government data, as being discussed by the a committee set up under NDSAP, must also be applicable to open geospatial data that will be published following the instructions of the NGP. Further, instead of multiple online sources of open geospatial data collected by various Indian government agencies, must be identified as the primary and necessary source for publication of open geospatial data.

6. Integration of National Geospatial Policy with Right to Information (RTI) Act: Geospatial data must be treated as a special category of information under the RTI Act, which necessitates that if an Indian citizen requests for geospatial data from a government agency under the purview of RTI Act, the agency must provide the data in a human-readable and machine-readable open geospatial standard, and not only in the printed format, as key qualities of digital geospatial data can be substantially lost when printed in paper.

7. Need for special infrastructure for management and publication of real-time geospatial (big) data, and governance of the same: With increasing number of government assets being geo-referenced for the purpose of more effective and real-time management, especially in the transportation sector, the corresponding agencies (which are often not mapping agencies) are acquiring a vast amount of high-velocity geospatial data, which needs to be analysed and (sometimes) published in the real-time. The need for special infrastructure for such data, as well as its governance, has not been discussed in the concept note for NGP, which is a major omission.

Endnotes

[1] See: https://github.com/cis-india/website/raw/master/docs/DST_National-Geospatial-Policy_Concept-Note_2016.01.21.pdf.

[2] UNGA 41/65. Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Space: http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_41_65E.pdf.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/consultation-on-national-geospatial-policy-03022016

Update on Publisher’s Copyright Infringement Suit Against Sci-Hub and LibGen in India

sinha — 2021-04-28T17:28:47Z

Anubha Sinha provides a summary of the progress of the copyright infringement suit against Sci-Hub and LibGen in India. This article was first published in InfoJustice on March 8, 2021.

This blog post is an update on the copyright infringement suit filed against Sci-Hub and LibGen in the Delhi High Court by Elsevier Ltd, Wiley India, and American Chemical Society.

In the first hearing in December, while the court ordered Sci-Hub to stop making new unauthorised uploads of the publishers’ content, it allowed the existing links to stay on, noting it was not urgent to remove content relating to decade-long infringing activity. LibGen did not appear before the court.

Indian science and academia realise that their right to research is at stake. In January, several Indian scientists and advocacy organisations applied to intervene in the case, to persuade the court to not issue an interim or permanent injunction for dynamic blocking of the websites.

One of the written submissions (filed by twenty scientists and a public health advocacy organisation) states that the two websites are the only access to educational and research materials for a big community of Indian researchers, scientists, teachers and students. And these have become indispensable during the pandemic.

This submission also highlights the position of leading science academies in the country – who in 2019 had advocated for making public-funded research openly accessible, as well as recognition of the affordability and availability problem in India’s current draft science, innovation, and technology policy. It shares analyses of the monopolistic barriers in academic publishing and extractive pricing, and their crippling impact in the Indian context.

They further argue that since the use of the websites is for research, which expressly falls within the ambit of statutory fair dealing, the charge of copyright infringement is not sustained. Nor have the publishers shown that Sci-Hub or LibGen users exploit the material for commercial gains. Additional legal support has been drawn from the DU photocopying judgment, Article 8(1) of the TRIPS Agreement, and jurisprudence around website-blocking in India.

In the hearing that followed, the judge noted that the issues in the case were ‘a matter of public importance’; hence, the court would hear all interested parties before issuing any new orders. LibGen still remained unrepresented, with the court noting that it had not been served properly yet.

At the time of writing this, Sci-Hub had filed its written statement (not publicly accessible yet). Alexandra Elbakyan has separately shared some thoughts on the case in an interview here.

Given the gamut of contentions, the case judgment will have implications for Indian copyright aspects such as: meaning of the statutory exemption for research and scope of fair dealing, and bar on circumventing technological protection measures – all while having to toe the WIPO Internet treaties, Berne Convention, and the TRIPS Agreement. Hopefully, these will be grounded in reflections on exploitative state of academic publishing system, duties of academic publishers, and distinction between piracy and sharing online.

The judgment will add to the state of our learning and research needs, and how copyright policy can support that, as this is the first time Sci-Hub and LibGen have been taken to court in a developing country.

Note: For an in-depth analysis of the social dimensions of the matter, please read this document prepared by Like-Minded IP Teachers’ Working Group on Intellectual Property and Public Interest.

Access the article on InfoJustice here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/update-on-publisher2019s-copyright-infringement-suit-against-sci-hub-and-libgen-in-india

Pervasive Technologies Project Working Document Series: Literature Review on IPR in Mobile app development

sinha — 2015-08-31T13:48:02Z

This post is literature survey of material exploring and analysing the role of Application Platforms in the Mobile Applications Development ecosystem, albeit from an intellectual property perspective. The document is a work in progress.

1. What are the decisions developers are making within their practice in terms of location of their enterprise and clients, scale of audience, funding, business models and mobile apps marketplace (app stores)? Who is the primary actor in the mobile applications development cycle in India?

1.1. Is the mobile apps marketplace organically developing into a Bazaar model, or a Cathedral model?

1.2. What are the contractual terms between the enterprise and the employee? What is the typical nature of agreements in the mobile apps development industry between enterprise- employee and enterprise- client?

The role of Mobile application developers (“developers”) is critical in the app market, especially when such markets are regarded as the key entry and dissemination point for mobile content. Developers are seen as innovation engines and the fastest route to innovation, so understanding factors that attract and retain third party mobile application developers is of importance to mobile platform providers in order to survive.

Who are the primary actors in the mobile applications development cycle in India?

This chapter of the Pervasive Technologies Project (“Project”) aims to study developers who are key contributors to the mobile applications space within India; and the problems, those being faced by them as they attempt to navigate an emerging and ambiguous ecosystem. The results of our qualitative research give us insight into the characteristics of this new tribe. A majority of the developers do not own the products they innovate and instead assign ownership of their IP over to their clients. Innovating for the purpose of creating and retaining ownership is a key motivation and is reflected in the tendency of developers to move away from the services sector to develop their own products.[1]

As one developer puts it, “unless you're a 1000 man enterprise, there's no economic benefit in services; as competition has driven pricing so low, everyone's struggling to deliver $12-14 per hour.”

Every startup in mobile development, especially, is doing services to stay afloat and would like to move toward a product model.

Further, IAMAI conducted a survey[2] in 2013 and the report presents an analysis in four sections:

a) Who? The App Developer in India

b) What? The Preference of Users and Developers in India

c) Why? The Business of Apps in India

d) How? The Future of Apps in India

The Report states:

“The vast majority of app developers in India are male. In their survey of 454 developers, only 35 respondents were female reflecting the gender bias. On the demand side 80 percent of smartphone users in India are male reinforcing the male dominance. Geographically the respondents were all based in India except one developer of Indian origin residing in Malaysia. The well known and established IT cities in India are attractive for app developers because they provide with easy access to infrastructure, skill and a ready market for products. The survey shows the concentration of app developers in the cities of Bangalore, Mumbai, Delhi NCR, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad. A larger percentage of developers in such IT cities make apps on a full-time basis as compared to developers in other cities. The survey data also shows that Bangalore, Mumbai and NCR have the maximum number of companies (organized business operations) engaged in app development. Cities like Ahmedabad, Hyderabad and Chennai host many small teams of app developersas well as self-employed app professionals. In most of the other cities such as Bhubaneshwar, Cochin, Coimbatore, Gandhinagar and Kota, app development is done primarily on a part-time basis and is not the primary source of income. This could be the result of limited monetization options that make app development an unsustainable livelihood for many.

The popularity of international apps was evident in the survey data. The average download of ‘Indian’ apps was very low. Only 14 of the 454 developers has crossed the hundred thousand download mark, of which only 5 surpassed the one million milestone. These numbers do not pertain to a single app, but to the cumulative number of downloads across all the apps created by each developer, supporting the thesis of low visibility of apps developed domestically.

In their sample of 454 developers, entertainment apps including gaming and social networking are the dominant categories reflecting demand side preference. Utilities, health and education are the other important categories. The survey also below provided the number of apps developed under each category. The list does not include lifestyle and enterprise apps which are exceptions. One forceful result of their survey is the focus of app developers on foreign app demand in preference to producing locally-relevant content - as the latter is less profitable. Each respondent in their sample had developed an average of 38 apps. Of these 13 have developed 100 or more apps and these are the larger professional app companies. After excluding extreme values, the average number of apps developed by each respondent fell to 17.

Skewed revenue sharing models biased against content providers was one of the main reasons why Indian app developers focus on international app stores such as Apple App Store or Google PlayStore that offer a flat 70 percent of the total revenue to developers. This adversely affected development of India-specific apps and even popular apps such as Saavn and Zomato have expanded abroad because of this very reason.

Survey results indicated an Android dominated future for the app economy in India for two apparent reasons. One, Android devices are more affordable and two, the Android ecosystem is open allowing OEMs such as Samsung and HTC to manufacture mobile devices that use the Android OS. The drawback turns out to be the resulting fragmentation in screen sizes, resolution limits and hardware traits. Because of this, “developing apps that work across the whole range of Android devices can be extremely challenging and time-consuming.” Moreover, Indian app developers need to recognise the existence of an active market for used phones and thus the appeal of ‘backward compatibility’ i.e. an app that can work across old devices as well as new ones and also function across both old and new versions of operating systems will stand a better chance of success.

On the whole, app development was not considered to be a remunerative business opportunity. 17 percent of respondents who answered the question on choice of revenue model indicated that they did not have a specific revenue generation plan. While some developers are engaged in contractual development, there are few developers who self finance their project and do not actively market or promote their app. The business of app development in India seems to be at a stage in which it could be characterised as one based on a ‘hit and trial’ philosophy. Self financing is common in the industry. Only 7 and 13 developers approached banks or venture capitalists for financing. Funding an app developer was not an investor’s primary choice. Recognising the market failure and the utility of apps, the Department of Electronics and IT and Department of Telecommunication have both instituted funds to encourage mobile technology ventures

and app development in India.[3] One can argue on the efficacy of the use of limited public resources for app development, but not the fact that app development in India needs a boost. The industry is still very young and ‘unorganized’ and is largely dependent on own and informal sources for financing. The study presents presents the source of financing for app developers.”

Understanding of IP

There is a lack of understanding of IP amongst the developers. During the course of interviews, IP was often thought of as mere content or code. There was also confusion between the terms IP and IPR. The few developers who understood the nuances of IP better, voiced a need for the developer community to deepen their understanding of what parts of their work are IP. Samuel Mani, Founding Partner of Mani Chengappa & Mathur, stressed that developers should recognize the value within not just the product or software itself, but the background business processes. According to Mani, the execution of the idea is the true source of innovation; how one accesses the market, and maybe who the market is as well.[4]

The IAMAI report[5] had some observations on the impact of IP on the apps industry. According to the report, “since the industry thrived on innovation, protection of intellectual property was important to developers. The balance between protection and sharing of innovation was part of a larger and often tendentious debate on open source versus proprietary software development.[6] The survey did not attempt to deconstruct that debate; merely reported that 70 percent of respondents were of the view that intellectual property protection was a concern for app developers. However, not all had taken steps to protect intellectual property. The lack of seriousness could be associated with poor revenue potential from apps. Among those who had, some obtained copyrights/patents, while others worked with individual checks on in-app piracy using code morphing, copy protection, server–based checks, or both etc (The study provides data on different IP protection measures).”

Nature of their clients

Out-sourced 'mobile app services' is marginal as a business model here in India.[7]

Ownership of their product/service:

Often, the lack in understanding can be traced to the developers working in isolation from the legalities involved in assigning the product to the client. Majority of those interviewed developed mobile app products for clients, and in turn assigned ownership of their products to their clients. As previously mentioned, they commonly shared an interest in leaving the services sector to create products of their own, with some of them already having made the transition within their business model.[8]

Contractual clauses most important to mobile app developers: Delving deeper into the aspect of assigning ownership to clients, the most common practice is for developers to enter into a work-for-hire agreement with the client. Typically, a work-for-hire agreement mandates that if a worker is paid to carry out a particular project, whatever is created within the project belongs to the client.[9]

For startups where team players are small in number, it is likely that all will have access to any contract agreements entered into with clients. For larger corporate software developer firms, there may be a specialized department for legal-related matters. In such cases, the mobile app developers themselves would seldom lay eyes on the legalese of contracts, for the primary reason being that it doesn't concern them. Instead, the terms of agreement more familiar to them would be those that they obliged to upon working for their employer. The interviews revealed that the importance of contract agreements was actually underestimated in the country.[10]

Within a work-for-hire agreement, it is commonplace for developers to enter into restrictive agreements that obstruct the freedoms of what they can do with the code created for the client. Problematic areas proved to be those related to the time periods in which the developer was not allowed to take up future work for competing clients (i.e. the non-compete clause), or could not talk about their work for the client at all (the “quiet period”).[11]

Developers are unable to license their work to other interested clients when one client retains ownership. “Clients typically do not want a perpetual license, but complete ownership”, says a website developer. He further explains that, “this means they could make a derivative work or use it for another project. Depending on how bad we want the project, we'll work out some middle ground.” But it does not seem to be so easy for he and his SME to do so: “The thing about contracts is it’s all about a sort of differential bargaining power that the two parties have... you’ll have very little control about what happens once you’ve got paid.”[12]

To have any sort of bargaining power within a work-for-hire arrangement requires a lot of time for negotiating, and the space for communication to begin with. In many cases, contracts may not even be introduced into a work agreement, leaving a lot of intricacies to the unknown.

The problems are further compounded by contract illiteracy, more so in second tier cities.[13]

2. What is the nature of innovation emerging from the mobile app industry? What is the awareness of the "mobile applications developer and its enterprise on rules concerning code, content and design? How does re-use and sharing of code, content and design occur in the mobile application developer ecosystem ? What is the perceived impact of the Indian IPR regime on the aforementioned aspects? Finally, do the emerging trends in re-use and sharing of code run afoul of Indian IP law?

There is a marked shift towards using open source software amongst developers. According to a Gartner study, most software makers will have some open source applications or code in their portfolio by 2016. The study also reaches the conclusion that 99% of Forbes’ Global 2000 companies will be using some form of open source software.[14]

Awareness

The interviews revealed different personal understandings of the meaning of IP. The most common responses were the following[15]:

A : When questioned about IP to developers, they did not know what it meant, because it didn’t have anything to do with what they were doing.

B : Developers often did not know what part of their app was IP... there is was gap in understanding with respect to IP.

For the most part, it seems, IP was considered to refer to content or code across interviews, and was even confused at one point with IPR (IP Rights) within a response referring to an SME's trademark and pending application.

For those who appeared to be better versed in matters related to IP, they emphasised on the need for developers to be better acquainted with what parts of their work are IP. One interviewee stressed on the importance of developers to recognize the value of background business processes, apart from software and the product itself. [16]

In certain cases, it took $1 million in sales for a medium-sized software development enterprise to start paying attention to IP. The enterprise tried to obtain patent protection for their application, but the effort turned out to be futile.[17]

Protection of work (Speaks to awareness also)

When asked, those interviewed responded with a variance in answers. Some simply stated that their work is not protected, while a few mentioned that they acquired trademark or intend to apply for trademark protection. One interviewee had a patent pending in India and the US, as well. In many conversations, developers mentioned that their code for their apps is under open source licenses, and a couple others entailed sharing that the content is under creative commons licenses, “individual licenses,” or joint copyright. Additionally, within one interview, one mentioned the use of encryption tools as a technical means of protection for their work.[18]

“The concept of securing IP is relatively new within the Indian context... it becomes a question of priority between innovation and protection" — Aravind Krishnaswamy, Levitum.

Of the developers interviewed, many exhibited some sort of confusion or misunderstanding related to the protection of their works by means of intellectual property rights (IPR). Those interviewed seemed to either express an interest to acquire IPR in the future for their products in the forms of patent or trademark protection, or expressed their appreciation for openness source licensing—or both! Beneath these immediate responses, however, many repeated patterns, as well as contradictions, are revealed. Conversations that followed within these interviewed entailed the opportunity to hear from personal experiences and opinions on different areas within their practice intersecting IPR.[19]

Across interviews conducted, one particular observation entailed the tendency for developers to have worked in the past for corporate employers that have dealt with cases of infringement or have acquired IP protection. Almost half of those interviewed shared the fact that they worked for a corporate employer and became better familiar with different notions of intellectual property through that experience. It may not be too far-fetched to suggest, then, that for the developer the idea of acquiring IPR protection is one that may be reinforced from previous employers or other successful development companies with IPR of their own.[20]

Impact of law & reasons for IPR Protection

One would assume that if a startup was bootstrapped with minimal cash flow, then it would place a low priority on getting IP protection for its products. Aravind Krishnaswamy of startup, Levitum, also stated that “the concept of securing IP was relatively new within the Indian context.” [21]

Yet, many developers who were interviewed did express an interest in IPR. The main concerns developers believed IP protection would address, were proving ownership over their work or preventing problems in the future. One developer's commented on how the mobile app market is a “new and potentially volatile area for software development.” For this reason, it was imperative that he and his team attempted to avoid trouble in the future, and ensure that they going about mobile app development the right and moral way.[22]

Within another interview, developer, John Paul of mobile app SME, Plackal, explained his motives for seeking to acquire patent protection, the application for which back then was pending in India and the US: "For us, applying for a patent is primarily defensive. And if it does get infringed upon, it would give us a good opportunity to generate revenue from it." For the company's trademark, they sought to be able to enforce their ownership over their product's brand: “As a precautionary, we've trademarked the app so that should there be a situation where the app is pirated, we can claim ownership for that app.”[23]

Do the emerging trends run afoul of Indian law?

Yes. This was evident from the legal practices of mobile app developers and the resulting cases of infringement.

Some instances of infringement (limited to Mobile app content (i.e. logos, pictures, etc.)) are[24]:

• Pirated apps in app stores

• “Dummy apps” or imitations of another's app

• Breaching app stores user agreement

• Violation of License agreements of code created by another

• Violation of Open source licenses

• Breaching of terms of agreement for by commissioning clients

• Breaching of terms of agreement for by those hired

Some of the developers indicated that they weren't a fish big enough to be pursued for infringement. “The big companies do not go after small developers; it depends on how much money they're making.” said a developer. He added,“Patent lawsuits can cost something like millions of dollars, so unless they're going to get more back, they wouldn't go through the trouble of doing so... but that is true even in the US.”

Some added that others who may have been apparently copying you, may have been working on the same content independently. Corporate players are in non-compliance knowingly than not, whereas more SMEs infringe upon others without being aware that they are. Just as well, the degree to which infringement takes place may differ between the two types of industry players: “At the corporate level, where they know they are not in compliance, the degree of non-compliance might be very small or specific, but it still exists.” On the other hand, for startup developers, a substantial amount of their code may not comply with the licenses and agreements they are obliged to—something that could pose problems for them later down the road if left unfixed. [25]

3. The apps marketplace is extremely important since they are the gatekeepers enabling access to apps. What is the nature of the apps marketplace? What are the limitations associated with it ? How do the existing regulatory models intersect with this relatively new marketplace? What is the enforcement carried out by these app stores in terms of IP?

“The app platform is a gatekeeper which provides the consumer and developer a virtual space to buy and sell products (mobile apps). What is the nature of the app platform? What are the limitations associated with it?

An app dealing in pirated content or infringing intellectual property faces the risk of getting barred by the app platform. What is the enforcement carried out by app platforms to protect intellectual property?”

Firstly, what is an app platform?

Iansteti and Levien[26] state that at the core of each innovation network is a focal organization known as platform owner (or keystone) that provides the platform to facilitate contribution by other members in the network.

Hagiu[27] defines a platform as a product, service or technology that provides a foundation for other parties to develop complementary products.

Specifically, I Kouris[28] defines an app platform as a special kind of electronic market which enable software developers to distribute their software applications(apps) among users of mobile devices like smartphones or tablets. An app platform owner dictates the entire infrastructure(like user interface, server space, etc.) and determines the rules for the interaction between the developers and users. They usually provide information about apps and developers and serve as a trusted third party by controlling app quality. Fransman M[29] characterised the app platform as an 'innovation ecosystem incorporating app developers effectively.'

Innovation can happen within the enterprise, or can take a more open route and benefit from external innovation. In order to gain the benefit of external innovation, platform owners must open their platforms up beyond their internal base of developers and provide resources to third party developers.[30]

What is the platform concept in software?

Broadly, Noori[31], discusses the issues about the platform concept in software and attempts to address the subject of platform strategy. Tsai, Phal & Robert[32] further the discussion by stating principles for an effective platform strategy.

In mobile ecosystems building a developer community is one of the niches to attract the developers to join the ecosystem. However, health can mean differing things for different ecosystem members. In order to stimulate innovation[33] the keystone company is often forced to relinquish much of their control over the platform to the development community. This involves a careful balancing act in relinquishing enough control to create a healthy environment for developers, and not stifling innovation while retaining a necessary and desired degree of control.[34]

Baskin[35] examines the problems concerning software patent under the mobile applications platform environment. The scope of the analysis is limited to two mobile applications platforms: Apple's iOS and Google's Android. The analysis throws light on the problems of innovation in software systems like iOS and Android. The note also proposes several changes to both antitrust and patent laws that will make it more difficult for established market players to prevent new competitors from entering high tech markets, thereby promoting greater openness and innovation. The part on software patents discusses the effects of enforcement of patent rights on open and closed systems. The note observes that the US Federal Circuit's decisions (Fonar Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., io7 F.3d 1543, 1549 (Fed. Cir. 1997)) have severely curtailed both the enablement and best mode requirements for successful software patents., thereby limiting the disclosure and preventing many of the invention's useful elements from reaching the public domain. Patentability issues have affected open systems such as Android more than Apple, owing to a greater dependency on third parties to run android systems, leading to more patent infringement issues. It recommends, that, intellectual property law should promote open systems above patent protection in high tech fields, allow reverse engineering of software and introduce an 'independent invention' defence in the law for innovators.

A certain paper addresses rejection of apps in the AppStore on three grounds: rejection on content grounds (including some competition-driven restrictions), rejection on development grounds, and the regulation of transactions.

Apple's and Google's foray into building a mobile development platform

Coming from the music and personal computer industry, Apple disrupted the mobile industry by making its mobile development platform available to third party developers and eliminating the barriers between those developers and customers. The main goal of Apple in the mobile world is to increase the cross-sales of its high-margin products by providing a continuous experience roaming (iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple TV) using complements such as mobile applications, content, services, and accessories.[36] Google, on the other hand, is an online advertising company which provides an open source mobile operating system, in the shape of Android, on which mobile handset manufacturers can develop smartphones without paying software licensing fees. By commoditizing mobile device production under its unique governance structure and building a large developer community, Google secured a means of reducing the barriers to new users accessing their advertising through smartphones. Microsoft through its Windows Phone is the most recent addition to the leading mobile platform providers. Its motivations lie in trying to protect its core business of software licensing which has been disrupted by falling PC sales linked to the emergence of mobile technology and free cloud technology services provided by companies such as Google which have impacted respectively on its licensing fees for Windows OS and Microsoft Office[37].

Luis H Hestres[38] analyzes Apple’s guidelines and approval process on the App Store, discusses content-based rejections of apps, and outlines the consequences of this process for developers’ and consumers’ freedom of expression. It outlines a set of principles to ensure “app-neutrality” whilie ensuring device quality and safety. The article illustrates challenges faced by app developers working on the iOS platform. Criticisms have come forth about Apple's arbitrary and opaque review process. Apple has a rejection rate of 30% of the 26,000 apps submitted to the app store each week[39]. Van Grove[40] comments that the ambiguity, opaqueness, and susceptibility to outside pressures that seems to characterize Apple’s approval process do a disservice to a democratic online culture. With more than 400 million iOS devices sold worldwide since 2007[41], Apple’s devices and app store have become important online intermediaries for Internet users. The article proposes a few basic guidelines, anchored on widely accepted international laws and treaties, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Statistics

A Report[42] presents us with some important insights into the growth of Google Play. Following are the highlights of the report: There are now well over 1 million apps available on Google Play App downloads and revenue from Google Play increased dramatically over the past year; Markets such as Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Turkey and Indonesia are driving growth in app downloads from Google Play; Google Play is experiencing rapid expansion of monetization in established markets such as Japan, the United States and South Korea; Games played a major role in the acceleration of Google Play revenue growth, but almost all app categories experienced expansion and accounted for almost 90% of revenue in Q1 2014; The freemium business model advanced its domination of Google Play app revenue, and represents a growing proportion of downloads; Asian markets lead the way in generating freemium revenue. Another report8 reiterates the explosion of gaming apps.

4. How does Indian copyright law and patent law apply to the mobile applications development ecosystem, in respect of the various business models operating in the industry?

4.1. The patent regime is grounded on a laboratory model of innovation. What does the niche mobile applications development industry (working on a micro-creativity model of innovation) require differently from the patent regime to foster growth?

4.2. Similarly, copyright law has a distinct design for digital objects. Examine the design and its suitability to regulate a mobile application.

A. The interviews reveal a dichotomy existing in the mobile app developer space. While some developers argued for strong IPR protections, several of app developers opposed strict IPR protection (patents, especially) and advocated use of open source software.[43]

Open source for future protection (Applicable as literature to Research question 2)

Sometimes developers license for community values primarily, however, the assumption is that dominant reason is to retain the ability to use their own work across clients. A designer from a services enterprise gave a different reason for doing so: to guarantee their ability to use their work again. “Since we use a bunch of templates and things like that, those we license using a non-exclusive license, because we reuse those elements on different bits of code in different projects,” he explains, “so there are bits of it which is used over multiple projects and there are stuff that is built exclusively for the client.”[44]

Here one can gather some insight, that perhaps developers do not necessarily license for community values primarily, but for the ability to use their own work across clients. That being said, we begin to wonder what the possibility that open source code may serve as a loophole for work-for-hire contracts, which require the developer to assign all written intellectual property to whoever is commissioning the project. If the code happened to “already be available by open source,” a developer may still be honouring any restrictive agreements with clients, and ensuring their ability to use their code in this future again.[45]

As a developer suggests, that startups should first and foremost protect themselves by making wiser choices related to code in order to prevent being litigated against by others—such as using an open source equivalent to a piece of code that one does not have the rights to, or instead putting the extra time in to develop it from scratch.[46]

Of those who expressed an interest in the open source movement, not all had said that their products were to be open licensed as well. One developer explicitly stated: “I like the idea of open source, and building upon others' work...but our app is not open source, it's proprietary.” It may be a given, then, that all or most developers within our interview sample rely on open source code within their practice, but not all may contribute their resulting product's source code back.[47]

Vivek Durai, from Humble Paper said that despite the fact that “open source has really taken route... on the smaller levels, people will come to a point when philosophies begin to change the moment you start seeing commercial.”[48]

B. A certain paper[49] examines from various angles the complex relationship between intellectual-property rights and technological innovation. Following are the conclusions:

1) Intellectual property rights are most likely to foster innovation when the following conditions converge in a particular industry: (a) high research-and-development costs; (b) a high degree of uncertainty concerning whether specific lines of research will prove fruitful; (c) the content of technological advances can be ascertained easily by competitors through “reverse engineering”; and (d) technological advances can be mimicked by competitors rapidly and inexpensively.

2) The likelihood that intellectual-property rights will impede more than stimulate innovation increases as more and more of the following factors obtain in a particular field: (a) trade-secret protection or lead-time advantages reduce the ability of competitors to take advantage of technological advances; (b) innovation in the field tends to be highly cumulative; (c) researchers in the field are motivated primarily by non-monetary incentives; (d) the field is characterized by strong network externalities. The last three of these circumstances were all present during the development of the technical infrastructure of the Internet; it is thus not surprising that that development proceeded rapidly and effectively with little reliance upon intellectual-property systems.

3) The following techniques may be employed to mitigate the economic side-effects of intellectual-property systems: (a) compulsory licenses; (b) facilitation of price discrimination; (c) strict enforcement of the “utility” requirement; (d) encouragement of appropriate cross-licensing agreements (provided that cartel behavior can be simultaneously discouraged); (e) narrow interpretations of “similarity”; (f) strict enforcement of “enablement” and “best-mode” requirements; and (g) the affirmative defenses of patent and copyright misuse.

4) In contexts in which reliance upon these mitigating devices is not feasible, the following alternative ways of solving the public-goods problem may be superior to intellectual-property rights as ways of stimulating innovation:government research; government funding for private research; or post-hoc government rewards for private technological advances.

C. In a paper[50], the authors study the determinants of patent quality and volume of patent applications when inventors care about perceived patent quality. They analyze the effects of various policy reforms, specifically, a proposal to establish a two‐tiered patent system. In the two‐tiered system, applicants can choose between a regular patent and a more costly, possibly more thoroughly examined, ‘gold‐plate’ patent. Introducing a second patent‐tier can reduce patent applications, reduce the incidence of bad patents, and sometimes increase social welfare. The gold‐plate tier attracts inventors with high ex‐ante probability of validity, but not necessarily applicants with innovations of high economic value.

D. Copyrights related to apps are still being hashed out in the courts. Oracle, for example, sued Google[51] for copyright infringement regarding the structure of Java APIs in its Android operating system[52], and the case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

E. Policy Levers in Patent Law[53]

The paper argues that some industries should be the subject of patent tailoring – which can make them illustrative of certain policy levers. Use of obviousness and disclosure doctrines to modulate the scope and frequency of patents, as might be necessary where anti-commons to patent thicket theories are applicable.

Nature of software vis-a-vis biological/chemical inventions

Software inventions tend to have a quick, cheap, and fairly straightforward post- invention development cycle. Most of the work in software development occurs in the initial coding, not in development or production. The lead time to market in the software industry tends to be short. Because innovation is less uncertain in software than in industries like biotechnology, Merges’ economic framework suggests that the non-obviousness bar should be rather high.

Implementing a rational software policy obviously requires some significant changes to existing case law. A number of policy levers might be brought to bear on this problem. First, obviousness doctrine needs to be reformed, preferably by way of a more informed application of the level of skill in the art or alternatively by application of new secondary considerations of non-obviousness.

Poor handling of software patents by the Federal Circuit

The paper argued that broad software patents were indeed what the existing Federal Circuit jurisprudence will likely produce. By relaxing the enablement requirement and permitting software inventions defined in broad terms, supported by very little in the way of detailed disclosure, the Federal Circuit has encouraged software patents to be drafted broadly and to be applied to allegedly infringing devices that are far removed from the original patented invention.

By implication, the Federal Circuit’s standard also seems to suggest that many narrower software patents on low- level incremental improvements will be invalid for obviousness in view of earlier, more general disclosures. They may also be invalidated under the on- sale bar, because the Supreme Court’s view that a software invention is “ready for patenting” when it is the subject of a commercial order and when the inventor has described its broad functions, even if it is not clear how the code will be written or that it will work for its intended purpose, means that any patentee who waits until the code is written to file a patent application risks being time-barred for not filing earlier. Unfortunately, the Federal Circuit’s current standard seems to be precisely backwards. Software is an industry characterized by at least to a limited extent by competition theory and to a greater extent by cumulative innovation. Cumulative innovation theory suggests that patent protection for incremental software inventions should be relatively easy to acquire in order to reward incremental improvements, implying a somewhat lower obviousness threshold. It also suggests that the resulting patents should be narrow and, in particular, that they should not generally extend across several product generations for fear of stifling subsequent incremental improvements. This suggests that software patents should be limited in scope.

Second, a higher disclosure requirement and restrictions on the doctrine of equivalents will help reduce patent scope. Additionally, the authors think software patents are the ideal candidate for a new policy lever: reverse engineering. Many commentators have explained the importance of permitting competitors to reverse engineer a product in order to see how it works and to figure out ways to design around it. In the case of copyright, courts have adapted the doctrine of fair use, together sometimes with copyright misuse, to allow competitors to engage in reverse engineering of computer software. Patent law includes no express provision allowing reverse engineering, nor is there any judicially developed exception akin to copyright’s fair use doctrine that might permit it. Indeed, patent law generally lacks provisions akin to fair use or other exceptions that might readily be pressed into the service of reverse engineering, although commentators have suggested that patent law may need such exceptions for precisely this reason.

This does not mean that reverse engineering a patented product is necessarily illegal patent law. Some inventions, such as the paper clip, are readily apparent once embodied in a product. Improvers do not need to reverse engineer the paper clip and figure out how it works in order to improve it; they just need to look at it. Additionally, in many cases, the patentee has done all the work necessary for reverse engineering patented inventions by virtue of disclosing how to make and use the claimed invention in the patent specification. In theory, an express provision authorizing reverse engineering would be superfluous if the enabling disclosures required to secure a patent were sufficiently strong – someone who wanted to learn how a patented device worked would only need to read the patent specification. Patentable inventions in software, however, generally do not have these characteristics. Software devices typically cannot be readily understood by casual inspection, and particularly not without access to human-readable source code or other documentation. Examination of the patent itself is unlikely to yield information equivalent to a reverse engineered inspection because the Federal Circuit does not require would-be patentees of software inventions to disclose the implementing source code or, for that matter, very much at all about their inventions. Accordingly, software patents present unique obstacles to consummation of the patent law’s traditional rights-for-disclosure bargain with the public. The specific reverse engineering techniques commonly used for software, in turn, may raise some infringement problems that are unique to software. The definition of infringement in the patent statute is extremely broad, encompassing anyone who “makes, uses, offers to sell, ... sells..., or imports” a patented product. Reverse engineering a patented computer program by decompiling it likely fits within this broad category of prohibited conduct, at least where the program itself is claimed as an apparatus. Reverse engineering clearly constitutes a “use” of the patented software, though owners of a particular copy of the program surely have the right to use it. More significantly, decompilation may also constitute “making” the patented program by generating a temporary yet functional copy of it in RAM memory and, in certain instances, a longer-term (though still “intermediate”) copy in more permanent memory. Those copies probably constitute patent infringement unless protected by some defense. The result of all of this is that the nominally neutral patent law rule – no defense for reverse engineering – affects software more than other industries.

The need for a reverse engineering exception in patent law militates in favor of adapting the existing doctrines of exhaustion or experimental use to that end. Patent misuse might also be adapted, as it has been in the copyright arena, to prevent patent holders from deterring or prohibiting reverse engineering related to their inventions. The exception might even be created out of whole cloth by reinterpreting the infringement provisions of section 271(a). The resulting patent doctrine would constitute a macro policy lever. As Cohen and Lemley observe, in most industries there is either no need to reverse engineer an invention or reverse engineering can be done without infringing the patent.

The paper concludes by stating, “Only in software is there a need for a particular doctrine to protect the right to reverse engineer —and therefore the ability of improvers to innovate. Thus, a judicially created reverse engineering defense would make sense across the board in software cases but not in other patent cases.”

[1]Samantha Cassar, "App Developers Series: Products-Services Dichotomy & IP (Part I)”, last accessed July 21, 2015

[2]IAMAI, “An inquiry into the impact of India's App economy”, 2015

[3]DoT has set up a 1000 crore app development centre called Application Development Infrastructure and 700 crores under the National E-Governance Plan have been allocated for mobile technology ventures

[4]Supra note 1

[5]Supra note 2

[6]Hippel, Eric von, and Georg von Krogh. "Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science." Organization science 14.2 (2003): 209-223.

[7]Supra note 1

[8]Ibid

[9] Samantha Cassar, “Mobile App Developer Series: Terms of Agreement – Part IV”, last accessed July 21

[10]Ibid

[11]Ibid

[12]Ibid

[13]Ibid

[14]Gartner Data

[15]Supra note 1

[16]Ibid

[17]Samantha Cassar, “Interviews with App Developers: [dis]regard towards IPR vs. Patent Hype – Part II”, last accesed July 21, 2015

[18]Ibid

[19]Ibid

[20]Ibid

[21]Ibid

[22]Ibid

[23]Ibid

[24]Samantha Cassar, “Interviews with App Developers: Name of the Game (Part IV)”, last accessed July 21, 2015

[25]Ibid

[26]"Strategy as Ecology," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82, No. 3, March 2004.

[27] Evans, D. S., A. Hagiu and R. Schmalensee, 2006, Invisible Engines: How Software Platforms

Drive Innovation and Transform Industries, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

[28]Kouris, Iana and Kleer, Rob, "BUSINESS MODELS IN TWO-SIDED MARKETS: AN ASSESSMENT OF STRATEGIES FOR APP PLATFORMS" (2012). 2012 International Conference on Mobile Business. Paper 22.
http://aisel.aisnet.org/icmb2012/22

[29]Fransman, M. (2014) Models of Innovation in Global ICT Firms: The Emerging Global Innovation Ecosystems. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports –EUR 26774 EN. Seville: JRC-IPTS

[30] Deniz and Kehoe, Factors that attract and retain third party developers in mobile ecosystems, June 2013

[31]Nadea Saad Noori (2009) Managing External Innovation: The case of platform extension, available at http://www3.carleton.ca/tim/theses/2009/Noori2009.pdf

[32]Tsai, Phal & Robert, Industry Platform Construction and Development in a changing environment: Evidence from the ICT Industry, available at http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/acc_papers/6s5aqckmne7ggybu0vfxryrynuog.pdf

[33] Supra note 9

[34] Ibid.

[35]John Baskin, Competitive Regulation of Mobile Software Systems: Promoting Innovation Through Reform of Antitrust and Patent Laws (2013)

[36] Constantinou, 2012b

[37]Ibid.

[38]Luis H Hestres (2013) App Neutrality: Apple’s App Store and Freedom of Expression Online , American University , International Journal of Communication 7 (2013), 1265–1280

[39]Supra note 9

[40]Ibid.

[41] Supra note 9

[42]App Annie Data

[43]Supra note 1

[44]Samantha Cassar, “Interviews with App Developers: Open Source, Community, and Contradictions – Part III”, last accessed July 21

[45]Ibid

[46]Ibid

[47]Ibid

[48]Ibid

[49] William Fisher, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INNOVATION: THEORETICAL, EMPIRICAL, AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

[50]Patent Quality and a Two‐Tiered Patent System (Vidya Atal and Talia Brar, 2014)

[51]http://copyrightalliance.org/2014/05/federal_circuit_releases_decision_oracle_v_google

[52]http://copyrightalliance.org/2014/05/federal_circuit_releases_decision_oracle_v_google#.VYf0i9Z5MxB

[53]http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4qr081sg

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-working-document-series-literature-review-on-ipr-in-mobile-app-development

37th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations

sinha — 2018-11-29T10:08:46Z

Anubha Sinha, attending the 37th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from November 26, 2018 to November 30, 2018, made this statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations on behalf of CIS on Day 1, November 26.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There still remain concerns about the weak language on limitations and exceptions in the proposed treaty.

The proposed treaty is bound to have adverse effects on legally accepted existing practices of sharing and using online works. Libraries, archives, museums, educational and research institutions, public interest organisations such as Creative Commons, organisations and efforts directed at making orphan works available online - all perform critical roles to advance the progress of society. There is a looming threat on the continuation of their ability to access and to provide the public subsequent access to their collections. Thus, there is a dire need to incorporate robust solutions into the treaty text to not have unintended consequences on the society.

We must also make note of developments such as Facebook acquiring rights to stream La Liga matches in the Indian subcontinent and acquisition of Pandora by a broadcaster (Sirius XM). In such an environment, it is becoming impossible to technically eliminate the role of computer networks insofar as creating the signal and transmitting it is concerned. The treaty still envisages to not benefit those transmissions that occur exclusively on computer networks. In light of new business and technological realities, the deficiencies in the Committee's discussions are already apparent. We urge the committee to work to ensure that the resultant treaty is balanced in letter and spirit, both.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/37th-sccr-cis-statement-on-cis-statement-on-the-proposed-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations

37th SCCR: CIS Statement on the Agenda on Limitations and Exceptions

sinha — 2018-11-29T10:20:13Z

Anubha Sinha, attending the 37th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from November 26, 2018 to November 30, 2018, made this statement on the agenda on limitations and exceptions on behalf of CIS on Day 3, November 28.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Centre for Internet and Society is a civil society organisation based in India working on issues of openness and access to knowledge, amongst others.

India is a diverse country with thriving communities working on and promoting access to research, data, archival material, educational material, and developing material to benefit persons with other disabilities. As such, the regional seminars will be an excellent opportunity for such communities to interact with various stakeholders and government delegates; and help formulate concrete principles that should inform the international legal instrument that we hope is developed and discussed soon.

To enable comprehensive and substantive participation and discussions, I urge member states and WIPO to undertake steps to make the regional seminars as inclusive as possible. I request the secretariat and member states to actively work with civil society to identify and invite such community leaders.

Thank you very much.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/37th-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-agenda-on-limitations-and-exceptions

Views on on the proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations at side-event organised by Knowledge Ecology International

sinha — 2018-11-29T10:48:40Z

On November 27, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) organised a side event during deliberations of the 37th Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), Electronic Information for Libraries (eiFL.net), Corporacion Innovarte, Creative Commons, and Knowledge Ecology International appraised the current text for the proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Revised Consolidated Text on Definitions, Object of Protection, Rights to be Granted and Other Issues, SCCR/36/6). Speakers provided an overview of the treaty, explained the potential risks and problems caused, and proposed solutions to narrow the Treaty’s scope and limit the damage. Below is a transcript of the remarks made by Anubha Sinha who represented CIS at this event.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My presentation will be in reference to the revised consolidated text SCCR 36/6 and the US proposal SCCR 37/7.

In essence, this treaty is trying to create a new set of rights for broadcasters operating in both mediums (first, traditional – satellite, airwaves, cables, and second, the internet), ostensibly to counter signal piracy. We are looking at updating a neighbouring rights or related rights regime to protect signals across both mediums.

The intent of treaty is to exclude entities exclusively delivering their programmes over the internet. I fear that the results would create an unequal playing field between broadcasters and internet streaming entities. This would be the first, immediate impact. To then catch up, perhaps, internet streaming services would look to satisfy the treaty requirements to avail protection. This would involve satisfying the definition of a broadcasting organisation (as in SCCR 36/6), and for their country to have ratified the treaty. The characteristics of a broadcasting organisation can be satisfied by acquiring any traditional broadcasting service, for such an entity, as per the current text of the treaty. This would require serious capital, and most start up innovations in the area would not be in a position to undertake such a step. And then there is the question of asserting the rights and enforcing them in other countries – this will be an extremely expensive affair. The point I’m trying to make is that this treaty seems to be set to protect a narrow slice of broadcasters, with significant market power in their home markets.

My co-panelists will discuss specific harms that this will have on the building of commons, and other damaging effects on global efforts to build an affordable and accessible knowledge system. This is unfortunate, and hence we urgently need text that provides for a mandatory list of limitations and exceptions, and not work with the soft language that is present right now. We have to accept that multilateral norm-setting at the international level sets the tone for countries to enact their own national legislations – indeed, before the Marakkesh treaty there were hardly any developing countries which had an expansive beneficial copyright exception for the visually impaired (except India - that I'm aware of), and look who the first few countries to ratify the treaty were – India, Argentina, El Salvador, Paraguay, Uruguay, etc – all developing countries leading to adopt this international standard.

The US delegation’s proposal, introduced yesterday, pushes the idea of limiting exclusive rights granted under this treaty to broadcasting organisations, so long as the countries provide adequate protection against piracy in other bodies of law. This seems like a promising idea – one that does not upend the legal theories of neighbouring rights and also shrinks the proposed model in the treaty that seeks to grant monopolistic property rights for a long and unclear period of time to powerful organisations – organisations that by their very nature and functions are chroniclers of our times and keepers of valuable cultural heritage.

At a seminar on this very treaty organised last month by KEI, Proffessor Bernt Hugenholtz flagged off the problematic justifications provided for increasing the strength of this neighbouring right. He said that the justifications should indicate a corresponding increase in cost of disseminating content. Should new exclusive rights be created for gradation-like increase in investment? He was not convinced that the costs had gone up significantly, and he also pointed out that this cost should not account for money spent on acquiring the rights to broadcast the content. Further, going back to the US proposal, the proposal recognises the persistent conceptual difficulties of distinguishing between signal protection and content protection. This very difficulty has been raised by many civil society organisations in the past, and more recently it cropped up at a discussion on the treaty in New Delhi, where both civil society organisations and representatives of broadcasters were present. Another practical challenge (that remains) will be to separate the computer network based operations from the non-computer network based operation; however, in this age, is it technically possible to do that?

To conclude, I think that fundamental concepts and terms need to be properly clarified to arrive at an understanding that is shared across all stakeholders; and a corresponding strengthening of limitations and exceptions is urgently needed.

Thank you.

For a complete list of speakers at the event, please click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-views-on-on-the-proposed-wipo-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations-at-side-event-organised-by-knowledge-ecology-international

Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions in abeyance

sinha — 2015-12-23T10:06:53Z

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

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

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

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

You may access the order here.

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

WIPO SCCR 42: Statement by CIS on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations Agenda Item

sinha — 2022-05-10T14:38:48Z

Anubha Sinha delivered a statement on behalf of CIS, on day 2 of the 42nd WIPO SCCR session on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations Agenda Item.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, India.

Mr. Chair we would like to congratulate you and the vice-chair on your election.

The current draft text of the WIPO Broadcasting Organisations treaty carries a rather weak framework of limitations and exceptions, when we consider the long duration of protection of twenty years that has been proposed.

The limitations and exceptions are not aligned to the ongoing discussions on the L&E agenda, where there is an agreement evolving amongst many member states to revisit and revise limitations and exceptions for purposes of preservation, online and cross-border uses, and research for benefit of education, research, libraries, archives and museums.

The framework does not rise to these standards, and also makes enacting of limitations and exceptions in national law optional.

Seen from this perspective, the draft text of the WIPO Broadcasting Organisations treaty is neither a balanced treaty nor a modern one.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-42-statement-by-cis-on-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organisations-agenda-item

WIPO SCCR 42: Statement by CIS on the Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item

sinha — 2022-05-12T08:41:01Z

Anubha Sinha delivered a statement on behalf of CIS, on day 3 of the 42nd WIPO SCCR session on the Limitations and Exceptions Agenda Item.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, India.

The Proposal by the African Group for a Draft work program on Exceptions and Limitations has the potential to address issues faced in the domains of access to information, culture and education, keeping in mind that there have been systemic shifts in the knowledge ecosystem since pandemic, which will endure in the long term as well.

In India, researchers at public and private institutions in both in science and social science disciplines over the period of 2020-2021, submitted to a court of law that they faced serious challenges in remotely accessing research, especially journal articles during the pandemic.In the same vein, a study by the Confederation of Open Access Repositories found that copyright and licensing were an impediment to discovery of, and access to, COVID-19 research outputs, inhibiting research collaborations.

At WIPO, in the past few years, numerous exercises such as action plans and regional seminars implemented by this committee recognised limitations and exceptions for education and research as a priority. Digital Preservation emerged as a consensual solution that could be acted on - as identified in the regional seminar report as well.

We believe that the Proposal by the African Group for a Draft work program on Exceptions and Limitations effectively prioritises these actionable aspects without prejudging the outcome of the negotiations on the limitations and exceptions agenda. Hence, we look forward to member states making progress by constructively considering and acting on the way forward laid in the Proposal.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-42-statement-by-cis-on-the-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda-item