Centre for Internet and Society

First Asia Pacific Workshop on Empirical Methods in Innovation, Intellectual Property and Competition

praskrishna — 2017-03-14T14:14:12Z

Rohini Lakshané took part in a workshop organized by Centre for Innovation Intellectual Property & Competition in New Delhi from March 9 to 11, 2017.

The workshop was open for legal academicians (who are working in the areas of intellectual property law and/or competition law) and regulators working with intellectual property law and competition law issues in the Asia-Pacific region. Click here for the Agenda. More details on Spicy IP Blog here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/first-asia-pacific-workshop-on-empirical-methods-in-innovation-intellectual-property-and-competition

CUSAT Workshop: "Rethinking IPR: Fourth Annual National Workshop for Law Students"

praskrishna — 2017-03-29T10:59:29Z

The workshop was organized by the Inter University Centre for IPR Studies in association with Cochin University of Science and Technology from February 8 to 10, 2017 in Cochin. Pranesh Prakash was the resource person for a copyright workshop for LL.M. students.

Pranesh led and guided student discussion on:

P2P File Sharing - Based on analysis of the Copyright Act I haven't yet written about.
Technological Protection Measures: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment
Benefits of Piracy: http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/handle/10625/46491
Misrepresentations of copyright industry: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/fallacies-lies-and-video-pirates + http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/calling-out-the-bsa-on-bs + http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301
John Doe orders: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/john-doe-orders-isp-blocking-websites-copyright-1 (3-part series) + http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/delhi-high-court-orders-blocking-of-websites-after-sony-complains-infringement-of-2014-fifa-world-cup-telecast-rights

See the event brochure
See the programme agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/rethinking-ipr-fourth-annual-national-workshop-for-law-students

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

sinha — 2016-03-29T17:06:13Z

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

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

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

Please join us for tea and refreshments at 3.30 pm.

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

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

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

Beyond Property Rights: Thinking About Moral Definitions of Openness

praskrishna — 2013-08-07T09:43:35Z

It is hard for Westerners to realize just how much we take for granted about intellectual property, and in particular, how much the property owner’s perspective--be it a corporation, government or creative artist--is embedded in our view of the world as the natural order of things.

This blog post by David Eaves was published in TECH President on August 6, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

While sharing and copying technologies are disrupting some of the ways we understanding “content,” when you visit a non-Western country like India, the spectrum of choices become broader. There is less timidity wrestling with questions like: should poor farmers pay inflated prices for patented genetically-engineered seeds? How long should patents be given for life-saving medicines that cost more than many make in a year? Should Indian universities spend millions on academic journals and articles? In the United States or other rich countries we may weigh both sides of these questions--the rights of the owner vs. the moral rights of the user--but there’s no question people elsewhere, such as in India, weigh them different given the questions of life and death or of poverty and development.

Consequently, conversations about open knowledge outside the supposedly settled lands of the “rich” often stretch beyond permission-based “fair use” and “creative commons” approaches. There is a desire to explore potential moral rights to use “content” in addition to just property rights that may be granted under statutes.

A couple of months ago I sat down in Bangalore with Sunil Abraham, the founder and executive director of the Center for Internet & Society (CIS) there, to talk about the center, and his views on the role of technology and openness in politics and society. One part of our conversation led to this WeGov column on “I Paid a Bribe” and the challenge of fighting corruption in India using technology. Here I want to reflect further on how Sunil and his counterparts may be radically challenging how we should think about open information more generally.

As we talked, Sunil outlined how people and organizations were using “open” methodologies to advance social movements or create counter power. To explain his view he sketched out the following “map” of IP rights and freedoms to show people use and view the different “permissions” (some legal, some illegal).

As a high-level overview this map offers a general list of the tools at the disposal of citizens interested in playing with intellectual property, particularly as they pursue social justice issues.

At the top of the chart are the various forms of “permissions” that a property owner may (or may not) grant you. Thus at the far left sits the most restrictive IP regime and, as you move right, the user gets more and more freedoms (or, if you take the perspective of property owners, property loses more and more of its formal legal protections and a different notion, of “moral rights,” arises).

The second row divides the permissions and the actors along what Sunil believes is one of the most important permissions - the requirement to attribute (or the freedom not to).

Finally, at the bottom, I’ve placed various actors along the spectrum to both show where they might be positioned in the access debate and/or how they use these tools to advance their aims. Thus someone like Lawrence Lessig, the intellectual father of Creative Commons, might support many uses of information as long as the owner gives permission; whereas groups like the Pirate Party or the Yes Men edge further out into uses that may not appear legitimate to a property owner.

Particularly interesting is Sunil’s decision to include non-legal “permissions” such as ignoring the property holders rights in his spectrum of openness. He sees this as the position of the Pirate Party, which he suggests advocates that people should have the right to do what they want with intellectual property even if they don’t have permission, with the exception, interestingly, of ignoring attribution.

He also includes two even more radical “permissions” – counterfeiting, that is claiming that you created the work – and false attribution – assigning your work to someone else! Sunil sees Anonymous as often using the former and the Yes Men as using the latter. “They (the Yes Men) are playing with the attribution layer,” he says, by conducting actions such as their fake DOW press release about the Bhopal disaster.

Pushing the identity envelope
To Sunil, the big dividing line is less about legal vs. illegal but around this issue of attribution. “This is the most exciting area because this (the non-attribution area) is where you escape surveillance,” he declares.

“All the modern day regulation over IP is trying to pin an individual against their actions and then trying to attach responsibility so as to prosecute them,” Sunil says. “All that is circumvented when you play with the attribution layer.”

This matters a great deal for individuals and organizations trying to create counter power – particularly against the state or large corporate interests. In this regard Sunil is actually linking the tools (or permissions) along the open spectrum to civil disobedience. Of course, such “permissions” are also used by states all the time, such as pretending that a covert action was the responsibility of someone else, or simply denying responsibility for some action.

This, in turn, has some interesting implications.

The first is, that it allows Sunil to weave together a number of groups that might not normally be seen as connected because he can map their strategies or tools against a common axis. Thus Lawrence Lessig, the Yes Man, companies and journalists can all be organized based on what “permissions” they believe are legitimate. For example, journalists and new publishers are often seen as fairly pro-copyright (it protects their work) but they are quite happy to ignore the proprietary rights of a government or corporate document and publish its contents, if they believe that action is in the public interest. Hence their position on the spectrum as “willing to ignore proprietary rights.” (Leave aside government arguments that publishing such documents is “stealing” when, at least in the US, they are technically already not subject to copyright.) However, a credible newspaper or journalist would never knowingly attribute a quote or document to a different person. Attribution remains sacred, even when legal proprietary rights are not.

It also tests the notions of who is actually an IP radical. As Sunil notes: “The more you move to the right the more radical you are. Because everywhere on the left you actually have to educate people about the law, which is currently unfair to the user, before you even introduce them to the alternatives. You aren’t even challenging the injustice in the law! On the right you are operating at a level that is liberated from identity and accountability. You are hacking identity.”

Sunil is thus justifying how the use of “illegal” permissions may actually be a form of civil disobedience that can be recognized as legitimate. This is something journalists confront regularly as well. Many are willing to publish “illegally” obtained leaked documents when they believe that may serve the public good. What is ethical is not always legal and so there position on this chart is more nuanced than one might initially suspect.

This is not to say that Sunil doesn’t believe in the effectiveness of legal approaches. For him this map represents a more complete range of choices an activist can choose from as they try to develop their strategy.

“So what you do, and the specific change you are trying to precipitate, you’ll have to determine what strategy you need. Sometimes working within the left hand group is sufficient. Having a non-derivative, non-commercial license to enable students to access academic works, in India, is good enough… But then, to do what the Yes Men did to DOW Chemicals? You have to be over on the right side.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/tech-president-august-6-2013-david-eaves-beyond-property-rights-thinking-about-moral-definitions-openness

Conference on Standards Settings Organizations (SSO) and FRAND, NLSIU

rohini — 2016-04-02T18:12:41Z

Rohini Lakshané attended the Conference on Standards Settings Organizations (SSO) and FRAND held at NLSIU, Bengaluru on March 21 and 22, 2015. It was organised by the MHRD Chair on Intellectual Property Rights, Centre for Intellectual Property Rights and Advocacy (CIPRA), National Law School of India University, Bengaluru in association with Intel Technology India. This post is a compilation of notes from the conference.

Programme Schedule

Significant Takeaways
It is anti-competitive to seek to exclude competitors from the market by seeking injunctions on the basis of SEPs, if the licensee is willing to take a license on FRAND terms. In these circumstances, the seeking of injunctions can distort licensing negotiations and lead to unfair licensing terms, with a negative impact on consumer choice and prices. -- EU Competition Policy Brief, Issue 8, June 2014. This is a very important issue for India as it thinks about how it can attract foreign investments. India has a unique opportunity to learn from these lessons from around the globe and craft India-specific solutions. India has the intellectual capability and the institutions capable of crafting these solutions, and in doing that we can support Make In India. India needs to be mindful about what is happening in the [South Asian] region. China has moved aggressively to try to curb FRAND abuse. The People's Court in China ruled in Huawei vs. InterDigital that for 2G, 3G, and 4G patents, the license fees of royalties should not exceed 0.019% of the actual sale price. Apple also stated that Ericsson was calculating royalties on the sale price of the iPhone or iPad, whereas the royalty should be calculated on the value of the baseband chip that runs this technology in the mobile device. If such litigation occurs in India, what would be India's position? If a building block contains the technology pertaining to a patent, then royalty should be calculated on the smallest possible patent practising unit and not the entire product. The government of India has adopted a royalty free (RF) approach to licensing open standards. Non-essential claims are excluded from disclosure. Pending patent applications are not. Only 16% patents declared as SEPs are actually SEPs, according to a study. The Delhi High Court has passed interim orders restraining the CCI from deciding these cases. Our appeal to the courts is that these patent infringement lawsuits should not be viewed in isolation. They should not be viewed as merely contractual issues between the licensor and the licensee. They should be seen in the context of their economic effects and their adverse effect on competition. The CCI should be enabled to deal with such cases. Matheson: The phrase "compulsory license" sends a shiver down every corporate's spine every time it is used. International experience is that the judicial system has been the only forum where we have been able to have due process to enable us to construct cases properly in order to explain to the judge or to the jurors how the system works. That has produced very sensible solutions to this problem. Handing it off to the government to institute a compulsory license wouldn't be fair to the SEP holders.

SSOs and FRAND: Licensing issues

John Matheson, Director of Legal Policy (Asia Pacific), Intel

The role of licensing policy

Ensuring market access
Standards often depend on patented technology, which is accessed through the Promise to License on FRAND terms.
It is equally critical to ensure that standards can be implemented without unfair legal games.
It is essential to prevent patent hold-up.
Reasonable compensation

Patent holders remain entitled to fair compensation and benefit from the proliferation of their technologies via standardisation.

Why FRAND?

A FRAND commitment embodies certain fundamental principles that have been recognised widely by the courts and regulators.

The fundamental purpose of a FRAND commitment is widespread adoption of the standard.

Because of the peculiar nature of SEPs, the process is open to abuse.

A FRAND commitment is aimed at preventing patent holders from exploiting a hold-up value and extracting unreasonable royalties and concessions that could otherwise follow from being in a very unique position. Often, the holders of the IP have a single solution to an interoperability or connectivity conundrum that technology is facing.

Why are SEP license negotiations different from Non-SEP ones?

In the context of non-SEPs, one may be negotiating to obtain a license to a patent for a particular feature. If the licensor is being difficult, one can discard the feature to include something else. In a competitive market, this negotiation is focused on the value of the invention to be licensed. Thus one can redesign to avoid a particular claim and, in turn, avoid injunction.

On the other hand, it is necessary to either obtain a license for or infringe an SEP to manufacture the mobile device. There is no workable alternative or workaround to obtaining a license for the desired technology. With the threat of an injunction looming over the negotiations, the prospective licensee is under pressure to obtain a license. So the market negotiations for SEPs and non-SEPs are very different. One-way negotiations raise the possibility of a patent hold-up, and abuse of the standard implementer.

IP policies inevitably involve compromise.

Common areas of misunderstanding include:

Valuations or meaning of "reasonable". Valuations of IP under consideration.
Injunctive relief or exclusion orders
Discrimination or refusal to license
Patent transfer (It requires a continuation of the FRAND commitment, and shouldn't get differential treatment in the IP policy.)

Competition authorities in the US and EU have asked SSOs to reconsider policies to reduce ambiguity in the context of these areas of misunderstanding.

The ex-ante or the incremental value of the SEPs before the standard is set needs to be understood. The SSOs look at several different ways to solve a connectivity problem. The patent owners bring their patents into the standards body and claim that theirs is the best way to solve that problem. The market and consumers want an uncomplicated solution which works and is as cheap as possible. In many cases, there is one single winner, simply because we need one solution. In exchange for being the winner, the FRAND discipline is quid pro quo.

European Commission's response to two different patent lawsuits:

In the Samsung and Motorola cases, the Commission clarifies that in the standardisation context where the SEP holders have committed to:

License their SEPs
Do so on FRAND terms

It is anti-competitive to seek to exclude competitors from the market by seeking injunctions on the basis of SEPs, if the licensee is willing to take a license on FRAND terms.

In other words, if there is a bona fide commitment on the part of the licensee to agree to that test, then it is anti-competitive to seek an injunction.

In these circumstances, the seeking of injunctions can distort licensing negotiations and lead to unfair licensing terms, with a negative impact on consumer choice and prices. -- EU Competition Policy Brief, Issue 8, June 2014.

Anyone who needs access to connectivity or needs interoperability requires to get a SEP license, and if that license is required to be obtained within a time limit, it almost -- by definition -- is not going to work. Patent licenses take years to negotiate, and they're incredibly complex. For example, a patent policy may offer up to 12 months to agree on a license, but that is not the way the market works. So we cannot expect policies that put forth time limits to work in the SEP arena. What we can expect is that the implementers make a bona fide commitment to seek a license.

Motorola vs. Microsoft, Germany:

Motorola sought injunctive relief against Microsoft in Germany. Microsoft moved its distribution centre from Germany to the Netherlands. This resulted in loss of jobs, relocation costs ($11.6 million), and annual increased operating costs of $5 million for Microsoft.

Samsung vs. Apple, Germany

Similarly, on the basis of one patent, a temporary injunction was granted on the sale of the Apple iPad and iPhone. Apple was forced to agree to terms it didn't want to agree to, so that the sale of its products would resume.

This is a very important issue for India as it thinks about how it can attract foreign investments. India has a unique opportunity to learn from these lessons from around the globe and craft India-specific solutions. India has the intellectual capability and the institutions capable of crafting these solutions, and in doing that we can support Make In India.

SEP holders that make FRAND commitments should not be allowed to obtain injunctions against alleged infringers, except in limited circumstances. This formula has been adopted by the IEEE, which has solved this problem. India has the opportunity to leapfrog a lot of patent litigation by adopting the IEEE test.

Learn from what happened with Microsoft in Germany. What kind of message do you want to send to the foreign community about investing in India? Do you want to use the scare tactics of injunctions or do you want to adopt a policy that will avoid litigation?

India needs to be mindful about what is happening in the [South Asian] region. China has moved aggressively to try to curb FRAND abuse. The People's Court in China ruled in Huawei vs. InterDigital that for 2G, 3G, and 4G patents, the license fees of royalties should not exceed 0.019% of the actual sale price.

Reasonable Compensation Considerations

Royalty based on the smallest unit that practices the standard.
Technical value of patented technologies vs. alternatives.
Overall royalty that could reasonably charged for all SEPs.

Non-discrimination

A commitment to license every implementer of the relevant standard.

Transfer

FRAND commitments follow the transfer of a patent to subsequent proprietors.

Dr. Krishna Sirohi, Impact Innovator, GISFI, President, I2TB

As per the Make in India programme, we have to achieve zero imports by 2020. Product development in India by Indian companies will happen with collaborative research and development and IPR sharing through licenses. We are looking at national capacity building through product development and patent uses.

Global Information and Communication Technology Forum for India (GISFI) is a standards setting body involved with standardisation and research. It is a telecommunications standards development body (TSDO) set up with the approval of the DoT. It has peer relationships with ITU, OMA, TTC and a bunch of other SDOs. Internet of Things (IoT), mobility and security are its three major research programmes.

GISFI is working towards defining 5G in India. The 5G standardisation theme in India is called WISDOM (Wireless Innovative System for Dynamic Operating Mega Communications). GISFI is considering the perspective of the Indian user, the network capability, the network architecture, network development and the Indian revenue model, strategic and special purpose networks, inclusive growth, and network security.

However, some India-specific aspects such as illiteracy and lack of basic civic infrastructure need to be considered in the standardisation process.

GISFI plans and stages for 5G definition and adoption

Stage 1 (2014-2018): National agenda for strategic research, innovation and experimentation

Focus on Digital India and Make in India programmes.

Stage 2 (2016-2019): Standardisation

Stage 3 (2017-2021): Product Development

Stage 4 (2019-2023): Early Development

Technical understanding required for IPR issues

Enhancement applicable to general scenarios
- Traffic capacity
- Cell coverage
- Edge cell performance
- Intercell interference
- Network congestion
- Mobility
- Energy consumption
Enhancements targeting new use cases
- machine-type communication
- national security
- public safety services
Carrier aggregation
- Higher throughput owing to intra and inter-band transmission bandwidth of more than 20 MHz.
- Reduced network congestion owing to load-balancing across multiple carriers.
- Improvement in mobility and reduction in inter-cell interference.
Enhanced MIMO
- Improved spatial diversity and multiplexing
- Improved beam-forming
- Multiple access with multi-antenna transmission
Coordinated Multi-Point Operation (CoMP)
- Reduction in intercell interference owing to coordinated scheduling or beamforming (CS/CB)
- Transmission from multiple distribution points (base stations, RRH) in a coordinated way (Dynamic point selection, and Joint transmission)

What do SSOs handle IPR in different parts of the world and what are the issues they face?

GISFI has adopted ITU's IPR policy.

In SSOs, the FRAND principle works well only when participating entities have equal or almost equal IPR clout, and can reciprocate with their own patents every time other entities share their patents. It is difficult to create a balance between entities that only own IPR and those that only consume IPR.

Most of the members of SSOs are IPR owners. The entities that develop [technological] solutions without owning the IPRs are usually not a part of SSOs. However, additional strategies need to be implemented for realising the "Make in India" goal. The goal of zero imports by 2020 can only be achieved if a large number of small companies use these standards to develop products locally. So small manufacturers should be represented even at the highest levels of the standards development body. An IPR policy should be defined/ modified to factor in these needs.

Evaluation of LTE essential patents declared by ETSI

Cyber Creative Institute, June 2013: http://www.cybersoken.com/research/pdf/lte03EN.pdf

A large number of LTE patents are held by a handful of companies. There is no Indian owner of any LTE SEP.

Ericsson sued Apple in the US over infringement of its LTE patents. As of January 2015, Apple countersued Ericsson in a federal court in California and claimed that it did not owe any royalties to the latter.

Apple also stated that Ericsson was calculating royalties on the sale price of the iPhone or iPad, whereas the royalty should be calculated on the value of the baseband chip that runs this technology in the mobile device. If such litigation occurs in India, what would be India's position? If a building block contains the technology pertaining to a patent, then royalty should be calculated on the smallest possible patent practising unit and not the entire product.

Dr. Kumar N. Shivarajan, CTO, Tejas Networks

TSDSI's (Telecommunications Standards Development Society of India) IPR policy states that a member's technology will become a part of a standard as long as the member licenses it on FRAND terms to other members.

By 2017, 70% of the global equipment spend will be on LTE.
TD-LTE subscriber base in India has been projected to reach 67 million by 2017.
Most of the data connections in India are still on 2.5G.
Smartphones have become affordable but 3G continues to languish in India; 4G yet to take off.
The number of 3G connections in India grew from 30 million to 33 million from 2013 to 2014.

Is 5G the answer to India's access problems?

The mobile industry is aiming to go beyond traditional 4G LTE in 2015 and there is increasing focus on adding new bells and whistles to 4G and realise 4G+.

LTE Licensed-assisted access (formerly LTE-Unlicensed)
LTE Direct/ Peer-to-peer
LTE-M for machine to machine communication
CoMP

Countries forming 5G groups to take an early lead:

China: IMT-2020 (5G) Promotion Group
Korea: 5G Forum
EU: 5G Public Private Partnership (5G-PPP)

5G in its current form is souped-up 4G.

Key India-specific requirements for 5G standard development

5G must factor in the Indian requirement for DSL-like connectivity: Always ON, low latency, affordable cost
To minimise costs, 5G must minimise the use of BTS sites and focus on spectral efficiency.
5G should allow virtual network operations enabling multiple operators to use the same physical network infrastructure.
5G must work well in Indian propagation environments: concrete buildings blocking signals, dense barriers.
5G infrastructure should be green as electricity shortfall is a problem. India has 400,000 cell towers. 10% of them are not connected to the electricity grid. More than 70% experience power outages longer than 8 hours per day, and work on diesel-powered generators. As a result, 25% of the operational costs of telcos are their energy bills. India imports 3 billion litres of diesel annually to run these cell sites.

India can try to get a headstart in owning the IPR that would eventually go into the 5G standard.

Prof. Ramakrishna, MHRD Chair, NLSIU, Bengaluru

The attitude of an SSO towards patented technology determines the objective of its IPR policy. For example, an SSO may want to:

Promote widespread implementation of a standard without unnecessary IPR implications.
Ensure transparency and certainty about the declaration of patents and patents' claims as SEPs.
Ensure that every patented technology is available at a reasonable fee, comparable to the value of the technology.

What happens when IP ownership is transferred to another owner? It continues to be a part of the SSO but things get complicated.

New owners, third parties, subsidiaries, and affiliates fall under the purview of the IPR policy, by extension.

IP and Disclosure policies of Indian SDOs

BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) and TEC (Telecommunication Engineering Centre) do not have IP policies of their own. TEC refers to the ISO/IEC IP policies wherever the technology is equivalent or the same.
GISFI disclosure requirement: Each member is required to inform GISFI in a timely manner of essential IPRs. But members are not under any obligation to conduct IP searches. GISFI's IPR policy is based on that of ETSI.
DOSTI (Development Organization of Standards for Telecommunications in India) is not functional.

IPR policy for open standards in e-governance

The government of India has adopted a royalty free (RF) approach to licensing open standards.

Mandatory Characteristics of Open Standards:

The patent claims necessary to implement the standard should be made available royalty free for the lifetime of the standard.
The standard shall be adapted and maintained by a not-for-profit organisation.
The standard shall have a technology-neutral specification.

The RF approach and the maintenance by a non-profit may be a disincentive for IP owners.

IEEE patent policy:

IEEE invites participants to disclose patent claims essential to a standard under development. Upon disclosure, the patent holder needs to submit a letter of assurance that states:

License(s) will be made available without compensation or at a RAND rate.
A commitment to enforce the essential patent claims against any entity complying with the standard.
Or state its unwillingness or inability to license its essential patent claims.

Common patent policy for ITU-T/ ITU-R/ ISO/ IEC

Recommendations/ deliverables are non-binding -- ensure compatibility of technologies and systems on a worldwide basis.

The "code of practice":

It is desirable that the fullest available information should be disclosed although ITU, ISO or IEC are unable to verify the validity of any such information.

Major types of IPR policies:

Participation-based IPR policies

These are common in small, informal bodies such as consortia.
Members are bound by the terms of membership to commit to licensing SEPs on RAND or RF terms.
SEP holders notify the standards body in case RAND or RF licenses are not available after the draft standard has been published.

Commitment-based IPR policies
- These are commonly followed large, standards setting bodies.
- These bodies identify SEPs to a draft standard through disclosure and submission of licensing commitment.
- Parties may seek alternative solutions or work on a withdrawn standard is the the alternative solutions don't work out.

Basic building blocks of commitment-based IPR policies

Disclosure policies:

Disclosure is important for
- sending requests to SEP holders to make licensing commitments
- ensuring that experts' groups make informed decisions on inclusion of patented technologies
- providing information to prospective standards implementers about the SEP owners

Two forms of disclosure:

A call for patents is made at the start of meetings. This is more informational than binding.
Later, the member states its intentions regarding licensing the patent on RAND terms.

How disclosure obligations arise (and commitments are binding):

IEEE has by-laws that are binding on members.
ITU, IEC, and ISO: It is via a resolution or recommendation.

(Indicative list)

General disclosure procedure:

The nature of disclosure rules concerning self-owned patents depends on the status or the role of the entity.

A "submitter" is a participant in the working group making a conscious decision to submit its technology to the SSO for a license or free of royalty.
A participant in a working group may submit its technology to the SSO free of royalty, on RAND terms, on RAND terms with the right to charge a fee, or with a refusal to license it. (A working group participant who discloses technology is usually a technology expert. When someone who does not have adequate knowledge of patents discloses technology, it has complicated implications.)
A non-working group participant (third-party) may also submit its technology.

ANSI has left it to the accredited SSO to decide the terms of disclosure for participants of working groups. It has not laid out a policy in this regard. Other organisations have laid out obligations on the submitter to disclose SEPs.

Nature of disclosure terms for patents owned by third-parties:

ETSI: It is obligatory.

ITU/ ISO: Obligatory only for participants of the working groups.

IEEE: Entirely voluntary

Non-essential claims are excluded from disclosure. Pending patent applications are not.

Working groups prefer early disclosure so that they may adopt or discard the claim as early as possible in the standard setting process.

ITU: Disclosure from the outset

IEEE: During meetings of the working group

ETSI: "Timely manner"

AFSI: At a sufficiently mature level

There is no mandate for updating the disclosure in case a standard evolves.

Most SSOs make disclosed patents public. Failure to disclose patents may result in accusations of abuse of monopoly or anti-trust/ anti-competitive activities.

It is difficult to identify all potentially essential patents due to the complexity of specifications.

Some SSOs don't require IP disclosure at all. The obligations to license on FRAND terms would be sufficient.

Only 16% patents declared as SEPs are actually SEPs, according to a study.

It makes sense for rightsholders to go for blanket disclosures instead of disclosure of specific patents.

Vinod Dhall, ex-chairperson of the Competition Commission of India (CCI):

Our competition law is new, so there aren't any cases pertaining to patent litigation and involving the competition law, which we can treat as precedents. In one of the mobile phone patent litigation cases in India, the implementer has approached the CCI claiming that the licensor has been abusing its dominant position in the market by charging unreasonable royalties.

The Delhi High Court has passed interim orders restraining the CCI from deciding these cases. Our appeal to the courts is that these patent infringement lawsuits should not be viewed in isolation. They should not be viewed as merely contractual issues between the licensor and the licensee. They should be seen in the context of their economic effects and their adverse effect on competition. The CCI should be enabled to deal with such cases.

Questions-answers round:

What are the criteria for declaring a patent an SEP?

T. Ramakrishnan: SSOs have no role in declaring that a patent is an SEP. The SEP holder declares that their patent is essential to a technical standard. Most of the time, the SEP may turn out to be a non-SEP at a later stage. Statistically, 16 out 100 claimed SEPs are actually SEPs. There is no way for SSOs to tell if a patent is an SEP. IP policies of most SSOs state that they don't search [if a patent is an SEP]. The members of SSOs are under no obligation to search.

The commitment to license an SEP on FRAND terms is more important to an SSO [than determining if the patent is indeed an SEP].

Can compulsory licensing be implemented with government intervention in India so that the Central Government can fix a royalty and put an end to patent litigation?

Matheson: The phrase "compulsory license" sends a shiver down every corporate's spine every time it is used. International experience is that the judicial system has been the only forum where we have been able to have due process to enable us to construct cases properly in order to explain to the judge or to the jurors how the system works. That has produced very sensible solutions to this problem. Handing it off to the government to institute a compulsory license wouldn't be fair to the SEP holders.

With respect to the "safe harbour" approach towards SEP-based injunctions, what does the licensee need to do to prove to the courts that it is a willing licensee, in the event that licensing negotiations fail or take a long time?

Matheson: It gets down to the licensee showing its willingness to negotiate. The licensee cannot make a half-hearted attempt and decline to negotiate or decline the licensor's offer and then disappear. They should physically engage in the negotiation. If and when it gets to a judicial environment, the judges know when people are telling stories and when parties are bona fide. They can tell a ruse when they see one, and I think it is one of the things you observe in practice.

Ramakrishnan: The licensee should be able to demonstrate that it is willing to pay the royalty and should deposit an amount towards royalty. One recommendation from AIPP states that instead of using the terms "willing licensee" and "willing licensor", use "good faith response". For "good faith" we have very well established criteria. The entire licensing process should end within 12 months of starting. If the negotiations fail or if the process takes longer, then they should agree upon an arbitrator to fix FRAND terms. These are indicators that demonstrate the licensee being a "willing licensee" or a "good faith" licensee.

Often technology changes before the legal action can be taken or the lawsuit completed, and the patent over which litigation has happened may no longer be relevant to the technology. How do patent holders deal with this situation?

S.K. Murthy, Research Scholar, NLSIU: Even if the technology becomes obsolete, damages can be claimed retrospectively.

Matheson: You have a commitment to a FRAND solution, so that when you enter the protracted negotiation, you know that at the end of it you will get a fair solution. That's not always the case when you are dealing outside the FRAND world. You're dealing with a FRAND incumbent, not with unlicensed patents.

Why is putting a time limit to negotiations not a good idea? Also, IEEE seems to have done well by taking the threat of negotiations out of its way. Is it practical in India, because injunction is still the most potent weapon to protect intellectual property rights in India currently?

Matheson: Licensing is incredibly complex. There can be claims to the validity of the patent, there are claim charts to be drawn, there is expert evidence to be put together. Litigation over patents can take 2 to 3 years. To say that there must be a solution [arrived at] within a smaller framework gives the licensor the opportunity to wait around till the end of that period and assert its patents through an injunction. If you're leaving injunction at the table, you will not have a fair solution. The licensee will always be at a major disadvantage. The IEEE solution is a good one because it has taken the time limit away, but at the same time the policies that would adopt that solution need to include the discipline to ensure that the negotiations are bona fide.

What percentage of the sale price should be provisioned by a product developer for royalties? Can a mechanism be drawn up for this purpose?

Justice Ratnakala: Definitely. Such a mechanism should be drawn up in the near future.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/conference-on-standards-settings-organizations-sso-and-frand-nlsiu

2015 USTR Report: Old Wine in New Bottle

sinha — 2015-06-16T10:24:49Z

Every year, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) undertakes an elaborate exercise to castigate countries' domestic intellectual property (IP) law and policy. The criticisms and recommendations are presented in a document called the Special 301 Report. This year's edition puts India on the Priority Watch List for the twenty-sixth time in a row. Below, I rebut the report's prejudicial claims and demands, and argue that the report puts free speech, innovation and public interest in jeopardy.

Keeping in tradition , the 2015 report yet again exposes US' hypocrisy by faithfully serving Hollywood and Big Pharma. In the past, countries such as Israel and Canada have publicly rejected the USTR's findings and derided the US for unwarranted interference with domestic law and policy. Last year, India too had refused to cooperate with a USTR initiated unilateral investigation (Out of Cycle review) of its IP regime because the investigation violated international law.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has released a hard-hitting response to the report. It draws case studies of countries where overbroad IP law has affected public interest, free speech and innovation. For instance, it mentions how Colombia's 'reformed' copyright law has become a travesty. Colombia introduced extreme enforcement and harsh criminal sanctions for unauthorised sharing of works at the behest of the US. Last year, news surfaced that a Colombian biodiversity researcher faced upto eight years in prison for sharing an academic article on Scribd. Any balanced IP regime (including India) permits such use of copyrighted works under the fair use principle, however, Colombia's narrow fair use provision has led to a situation where citizens now face prison for ordinary use of academic works.

This year the Special 301 Report in its section on India approves the Prime Minister's statements to align IP law with international standards, which is a cause for concern. Firstly, what are these “international standards” that both US and India refer to exactly? The most comprehensive international agreement on IP that binds 160 member nations is the WTO Agreement on Trade related aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS Agreement). Ergo, this agreement would qualify as the most accepted “international standard”, which India already complies with. Secondly, the TRIPS Agreement sets down certain global minimum standards for protecting and enforcing IP, simultaneously providing countries a certain degree of flexibility. However, the US has consistently pushed India to enact tougher provisions known as TRIPS Plus provisions. This is reflected in the report as well. Legally speaking, under international law India is not obligated to accede to such demands, and it should not if it wants a balanced IP regime to protect and serve the interests both of rights holders and its citizens.

The report shamelessly aligns its concerns with the financial interests of foreign rights holders and American companies. It erroneously projects IP as a tool to only maximise revenues, agnostic to public interest. While IP rights are temporary monopolies, they also are a tool to ensure innovation, social, scientific and cultural progress and further access to knowledge. It is well established that flexible IP laws enable access to knowledge and promote innovation. Such a flexible regime is critical to developing countries like India. The USTR conveniently forgets that lax IP law and enforcement for a large part of the 19th century helped the US to accelerate into an economic powerhouse and a front-runner in innovation. It also brazenly threatens to impose unilateral sanctions against a country designated as a Priority Foreign Country on the list. This treatment is usually reserved for the worst offender on the list. Such unilateral threats and sanctions are again a direct violation of international law.

Unsurprisingly, the report is critical of India's under-enforcement of copyright laws and the impact of patent law on pharmaceuticals. It demands a specific legislation to counter camcording and video piracy. The prospective legislation is unnecessary because all movie theatres in India prohibit camcorders and the prevailing Copyright Act, 1957 contains penalties to punish offenders. Instead of creating new offences, we should re-evaluate the need of existing offences. For instance, copyright infringement on non-commercial scales should not be a criminal offence at all . Instead, the law should provide convenient and affordable access to such works to counter petty infringement.

India is home to the world's largest apothecary. The Indian pharmaceutical and medical device industry provides affordable healthcare to the citizens, and also exports drugs to countries in need. In fact, the compulsory licensing mechanism has ensured affordable access to life saving liver and kidney drugs in India. The report comments on the undesirability of section 3(d) and the compulsory licensing mechanism in Indian patent law. With respect to section 3(d), the US wishes India to to change its patent law to enable large pharma companies to patent new forms of known substances that aren't even better. This alarmist outlook smacks of hypocrisy because the US, in fact, has a higher rate of patent invalidation and compulsory license grants! It also demands data exclusivity – which would extend proprietary rights to patentees over government mandated drug data, and would be detrimental to the local pharma industry. Further, the report states that the Indian system is biased against enforcement of foreign patent rights holders - which is mere speculation. There is no evidence to draw such a conclusion. The claims relating to localisation trends in pharma are half- baked and speculative again.

The report observes that at the UNFCCC negotiations, India recognised patents as an obstacle to dissemination of climate change technologies. It wishes India understood the critical role of patent protection and competitiveness to ensure innovation, which is a flawed co-relation. While strong IP rights may protect inventors against infringement and provide return on investment, however, stronger IP rights also raise the cost of innovation by raising the price of technological inputs into innovation and lower the frequency of innovation.

As far as the issue of counterfeit medicines is concerned, a better remedy lies in health safety laws and consumer laws, than the trademark law. The report also approves of state legislatures' version of the Goondas Act. These Acts provide for detainment of criminals and lumpen elements in society, and with recent amendments have expanded to include video pirates and digital offenders. Karnataka's Goonda Act enabling preventive detention violates constitutional rights. While the Sixth Amendment to the United States Bill of rights protects offenders against preventive detention, the US has no qualms about approving such unconstitutional procedures in India.

The arguments above underscore the irrelevance of the report. The Prime Minister may have made appeasing statements to the USA, however, in a welcome development Commerce and Industry Minister Nirmala Sithraman in response to the report stated “India is fully aligned with international intellectual property rights standards and "there is no need for anyone to question us."” Our IP regime with its inherent flexibilities should be preserved and not sacrificed at the altar of US' business interests. Using compulsory licensing across sectors would indeed accelerate technology transfer and diminish initial capex for manufacturers, a move promoted by the National Manufacturing Policy. The ambitious Make in India and Digital India campaigns are set to suffer if India incorporates TRIPS plus standards into its IP regime. The government supports opennes s and has implemented policies mandating use of open standards and open source software as a part of the Digital India campaign. India should not let foreign hands dictate its IPR Policy, and proceed to develop a policy which is informed by broader principles of fairness and equity, balancing intellectual property protections with limitations and exceptions/user rights such as those for research, education and access to medicines.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2015-ustr-report-old-wine-in-new-bottle

Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest

sinha — 2015-06-24T16:11:07Z

We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest (“Global Congress”), being hosted at New Delhi from December 15 to 17, 2015.

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 more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/call-for-participation-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest

National IPR Policy Series : India's National IPR Policy - What Would WIPO Think?

nehaa — 2015-07-02T17:47:58Z

As part of the National IPR Policy Series, CIS is evaluating how India's National IPR Policy framework and process holds up to WIPO's suggestions. In this note, Varun Baliga and Nehaa Chaudhari examine in particular, the functioning of the IPR Think Tank and the first draft of the National Policy in light of the WIPO framework and the principles it encapsulates.

This note is a brief overview of the approach set out by the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") for the development of National IPR Strategies by various countries. This note also compares WIPO's approach to the approach adopted by the IPR Think Tank ("Think Tank") in the formulation of India's National IPR Policy This note is only an academic exercise and is not to be construed as a recommendation of the procedure set out by WIPO for the development of National IPR Policies/Strategies.

An Overview of WIPO's Approach

WIPO's suggested model of a National IPR Policy operates at three levels - The Process, Baseline Questionnaire and Benchmarking Indicators. [1] On process, WIPO suggests an 8-step procedure in developing a National IP Strategy that lays clear emphasis on both continuous consultation and methodological rigour in data collection. The initial 'Assessment Mission' is aimed at preparing the ground for the formulation of the policy, and includes meetings with stakeholders so as to involve interested entities from the very beginning. [2] Given that an IPR policy is necessarily a political exercise, WIPO recommends that the mission be used to secure the political capital and commitment that would be necessary to see the exercise through. Then, a 'project (national) team' is constituted for an IP audit and develop an understanding of the economic, social and political infrastructure as context for the formulation of the policy. It is also stated that, in most instances, the team will include an international consultant. This is further complemented by 'Desk Research' and 'Data Collection' using the 'Baseline Survey Questionnaire', an integrated data collection tool developed by WIPO. The desk research is an assessment of the existing IP policies coupled with the country's broader goals - developmental, economic and social, so as to conceptualize a policy that is in conformity with the goals.

The data collection through the Baseline Survey Questionnaire is meant to complement the IP audit to understand the "weaknesses, strengths and potential" of "the current IP situation in the country". This audit and data collection drive is then buttressed with 'National Consultations' to validate the data and conclusions reached thus far. WIPO is unambiguous that the aim of these consultations is to enable a wide range of parties to exercise meaningful ownership and agency over the process of conceptualizing a national IPR policy. With the inputs received from the process so far, WIPO recommends that the drafting of the strategy commence on the basis of the "suggestions, opinions and recommendations received during the national consultation process". The drafting should operate at the level of each sector and the country as a whole. This is followed by a 'second round of stakeholder consultations'. These serve a dual purpose: to validate the findings of the first draft and to verify whether the first round of inputs are reflected in the draft itself. Finally, an 'implementation framework' including "implementation structures, a resource mobilization strategy, and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms".

Assessing the First Draft of India's National IPR Policy:

Now, we look at the National IPR Policy in India in light of the WIPO framework outlined above. First we look at the Assessment Mission or process followed prior to the announcement of any IPR policy. Then, we look at what assessment was undertaken of the existing IP laws in the country. Finally, the stakeholders meetings conducted so far are analysed in comparison to the purpose of such consultations that WIPO envisages.

Assessment Mission: There are no reports of an initial meeting having been held to explain the scope and methodology of the process. However, the IPR Think Tank invited comments before the release of the draft national policy in order to seek suggestions on the tentative policy. It should be noted that these comments have not been published.
Assessment of existing IP framework: The overview of the existing IP system in the draft policy covers just the various IP legislations and the relevant government departments. It then proceeds to underscore elements in Indian law that enhance and incentivize stricter standards for IP protection. For example, it illustrated the future challenge in copyright law as being enforcement on digital platforms. It identifies a need for concerted action to increase patent filings by Indians as over "75% of patent filings are by foreign entities". Further, even when it mentions India's ratification of the 2013 Marrakesh Treaty ensuring access to copyrighted works for persons with visual impairment, it is in the context of further reinforcement of copyright.Therefore, it is clear that the perspective of the draft policy towards India's existing framework downplays provisions ensuring access and protecting the public interest and focusses on more expansive IP protection, narrower exceptions and an overall priority for IP rights over the public interest in accessing knowledge. The purpose of the IP audit and desk research, "to obtain a clear picture of the current IP situation…, its weaknesses, strengths and potential.", has not been done justice by this audit weighted in favour of rightsholders. Finally, the Baseline Survey Questionnaire -an integrated tool for extensive data collection - has no mention in the draft policy. There is no indication that it has been utilized for the purpose of data collection, if any.
On stakeholder meetings: The Draft National IP Policy was released on 24 December 2014. A DIPP Press Release called for comments and suggestions to the First Draft to be sent in by January 30^th, 2015.[3] The first set of stakeholder meetings were only held on February 5^th and 6^th, 2015.[4] This is at odds with what the WIPO recommends. The very first step in the WIPO framework is the 'Assessment Mission' which involves meetings with stakeholders that explains the scope and methodology of the process, presumably to elicit views. There is no publicly available information that suggests that this has taken place. Second, the national consultation precedes the drafting of the strategy with the explicit goal of validating the IP audit findings and eliciting views on the drafting of the strategy. This is not intended to be a merely formalistic exercise but meaningful involvement of stakeholders in the whole process of conceptualizing a national IPR policy. Now, the DIPP has solicited comments prior to the publication of the first draft. However, mere solicitation of comments without meaningful consultation is a mere shadow of the objective of the WIPO recommendation of national consultations - "..to actively participate in the validation of the IP audit findings and the formulation of the National IP Strategy..to enhance a wide a range of IP stakeholders' ownership of the process of developing and eventually implementing a national IP strategy." Therefore, the principled objective of the consultation process as outlined by WIPO - enabling stakeholders to exercise a sense of agency over the policy document and drafting process - was severely undermined. Furthermore, WIPO suggests that the drafting of the policy should be based on the findings and suggestions submitted by the stakeholders. Given that comments have been solicited before the policy was drafted, it is incumbent upon the Think Tank to make comments submitted public. [5]

The following table summarizes the comparison in the WIPO approach to that of the IPR Think Tank. Apart from the procedure outlined thus far, the table touches upon other points of comparison that are sure to inform the continued functioning of the Think Tank in the road towards a National IPR Policy.

WIPO Suggestion	India's National IP Policy Framework - Comparison
WIPO has also suggested a number of justifications that may be advanced for the development of a national IP strategy. [6] These justifications will help in grounding the policy in a clear, lucid set of objectives. These are: Need to consolidate sectoral policies National long-term development agenda Benchmarking and best practices International trade obligations Strengthening the national IP office	India's Draft National IP Policy provides for the following objectives:[7] Create awareness of the economic, social and cultural benefits of IP (IP Awareness and Promotion) Stimulate the creation and growth of IP (Creation of IP) Strong and effective laws that protect IP rights in a manner consistent with national priorities and intl obligations and that balance the interests of the rights owners and the public (Legal and Legislative Framework) Strengthen IP administration and management of IP rights (IP Administration and Management) Augment Commercialization of IP rights; valuation, licensing and technology transfer (Commercialization of IP) Strengthen enforcement and adjudicatory mechanisms to protect and combat against IP rights violations ( Enforcement and Adjudication) Human Capital Development in IP
The second prong of WIPO's suggestions is devoted entirely to the Baseline Survey Questionnaire. There are seven clusters identified: IP Administration and Management Generation of IP by universities, research organizations, business, industry, SMEs and individuals Commercialization of IP and technology transfer by universities, research organization, business, industry, SMEs and individuals Copyright and copyright industries Plan breeders; rights (plant variety protection) Enforcement of IP rights IP and public policy	While there are elements of these clusters in the draft policy, there is no mention of them in the context of the method of a Baseline Survey Questionnaire. This means that the data collection was not undertaken in compliance with WIPO's recommendations and means that there was either no data collected or the results are undermined.
Finally, the WIPO framework places great emphasis on the implementation of the policy.[8] It has elements of this in all three prongs. It requires the policy to have an effective framework for its implementation that includes resource mobilization and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.[9]	The issue of implementation is covered by the draft policy at two levels: 1. Implementation of IP rights - This includes a) Placing the burden on individuals to protect their IP rights as IP is an "essentially private rights [sic]". [10] The state merely plays the role of the facilitator for protection. b) Enacting rules and setting up institutions. Examples include the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules 2007 framed to implement border control measures as well as the Copyright Enforcement Advisory Council. [11] Further, strengthening enforcement mechanisms includes the establishment of a centralized 'Multi-Agency Task Force' for coordination between the raft of agencies that India has. [12] c) Facilitate IP dispute resolution through the designation of a specialized patent bench in select High Courts. It also calls for the creation of regional benches of the IPAB in all five regions where IPOs are located as well as an increase in the powers of the IPAB. [13] 2. Implementation of the Policy itself -[14] a) It suggests that the integration of the policy with stated government programmes such as 'Make in India' and 'Digital India' would enable its implementation. b) The establishment of IP Promotion and Development Council (IPPDC) which will open IP Promotion and Development Units (IPPDU) for promoting IP awareness, protection and utlilization. c) IP support to MSMEs. d) Technology Acquisition and Development Fund under the Manufacturing Policy for licensing or procuring patented technologies. e) Manufacturing units will be encouraged to set up IP cells in their own units and make IP a part of their corporate strategy. f) Integrate with government initiatives.

Conclusion: Testing Times Ahead

The IPR Think Tank has not been consistent with WIPO's recommendations on drafting a National IPR Policy. In terms of data analysis, the Think Tank has not displayed an iota of the analytical rigour and data collection that WIPO believes is necessary to understand both the state of IP in the country and devise effective means of responding to lacunae. Further, while consultations have been held with civil society, these have been lacking in two respects. They have not followed the timelines prescribed by WIPO insofar as consultations have happened only after the release of the first draft. As a result, the Think Tank has failed in actualizing the raison d'etre behind national consultations - "enhance a wide range of IP stakeholders' ownership of the process of developing and eventually implementing a national IP strategy". Finally, this piece is not an endorsement of WIPO or its recommendations but a mere acknowledgement of the role WIPO has played in this exercise. In the final analysis, India has fallen short of adhering to the principles reflected in the WIPO framework.

[1] http://www.wipo.int/ipstrategies/en/methodology/

[2] The stakeholders that WIPO mentions are "..inter alia, the national IP office(s), relevant government departments, universities and research institutes, SMEs, inventors, creators, legal practitioners, non-governmental organizations (NGOs)".

[3] http://www.dipp.nic.in/English/acts_rules/Press_Release/pressRelease_IPR_Policy_30December2014.pdf

[4] http://spicyip.com/2015/01/examining-the-draft-national-ip-policy-stakeholder-meetings-to-be-held.html

[5] http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-cis-comments-to-the-first-draft-of-the-national-ip-policy

[6] Methodology for the Development of National Intellectual Property Strategies, Tool 1: The Process, p. 11.

[7] National IPR Policy (First Draft), p. 6-23.

[8] Methodology for the Development of National Intellectual Property Strategies, Tool 1: The Process, p. 9.

[9] Ibid .

[10] Ibid , p. 20.

[11] Ibid , p. 20.

[12] Ibid , p. 21.

[13] Ibid , p. 22.

[14] Ibid , p. 25-26.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-indias-national-ipr-policy-what-would-wipo-think

The US 301 Report – A Myopic View of IP Rights

nehaa — 2015-06-24T15:35:29Z

Varun Baliga and Nehaa Chaudhari discuss the 2015 US 301 Report, focussing on its narrow and convenient understanding of IP rights. A farrago of contradictions, it supports a rightsholder-centric view but not when the right, Geographical Indicator, is not to their liking. Similarly, the emphasis on the rights themselves gives short shrift to critical exceptions and limitations that also enhance and incentivize innovation, the ostensible purpose of IP.

The US Trade Representative ["USTR"] is the office in charge of the United States Special 301 Report ["301 Report"] - an annual report on the state of intellectual property rights in countries around the world. The Executive Summary of the 2015 Report states that it is conducted "pursuant to Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. § 2242)". [1] The relevant excerpt of the provision states:

" The Trade Representative shall, by not later than the date by which countries are identified under subsection (a) of this section, transmit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate, a report on actions taken under this section during the 12 months preceding such report, and the reasons for such actions, including a description of progress made in achieving improved intellectual property protection and market access for persons relying on intellectual property rights ."

The 2015 301 Report, much like its predecessors, prioritizes the existence of institutional mechanisms for the protection of intellectual property rights over the purported end goals of those rights, as argued by Shamnad Basheer.[2] The purported link between intellectual property and innovation, a key element of the CIS comment on the National IPR Policy , is not studied by the Report but simply assumed as a truism. In the usual criticism of India's laws, the Report notes that "IPR protection and enforcement challenges continue, and there are serious questions regarding the future of the innovative climate in India", operating on the assumption that IPR is the sole driving force of innovation. Instead, the Report is guided by the 'business climate' in a country as facilitated by its IP laws. To borrow from the EFF's incisive critique of this annual exercise, the 301 Report pressurizes India to criminalize the act of camcording in a cinema hall despite domestic copyright law that prohibits it subject to statutory exceptions.[3] Further, the Report finds India's compliance with the Berne Convention to be insufficient since 'business climate' favours as comprehensive an intellectual property regime as possible directed at the expansion of rights and the narrowing of exceptions critical to education and openness of knowledge.

International law on intellectual property is interpreted instrumentally by the drafters of the report. What this means is that IP is being viewed solely through the prism of national interest. A particularly egregious implication is being witnessed in the shift of preferred fora to discuss IP from bodies like the WIPO to trade-oriented platforms, a theme that is discussed later on in this piece. Further, Italy's notice and takedown regime is praised in the 2015 Report notwithstanding its procedure of obtaining an order of removal not from the courts but the Communications Regulatory Authority, against the Manila Principles of Intermediary Liability, an important albeit non-binding piece of state practice.[4]

Furthermore, the emphasis on the interests of rightsholders themselves coupled with enforcement seldom happens in a comparative context, in the Report. This means that the Report privileges the interests of rightsholders to the exclusion of any interest that the exceptions to copyright, for fair use and education for instance, may hold. The 2015 Report, for instance, notes positive developments in IP law as exclusively including the strengthening of the regulatory framework weighted in favour of rights. It fails to note the ratification of the Accessible Books Consortium or the Report of the UN Special Rapporteur Farida Shaheed on copyright policy,[5] implicitly signalling that the US does not consider these developments favourable. This is problematic at two level.

First, competing interests of free speech, open access to knowledge, education, public health are either downplayed or outright ignored. For example, the Report entirely ignores the work of WIPO on exceptions and limitations, and the Marrakesh Treat among the multilateral and plurilateral initiatives of note. Switzerland, for instance, is censured for the 2010 Swiss Federal Court decision that erred on the side of privacy by prohibiting Logistep from tracking IP addresses of entities accused of file-sharing.[6] Even in the emphasis on rightsholders, the 301 Report reeks of hypocrisy and doublespeak. Gabriel J. Michael notes that the 301 Report criticized the European Union for having too much protection of IP through geographical indicators (GI). So, IP protection appears to be an unreserved good as long as it's the right kind of IP as determined by the United States.

" For example, by any reasonably objective standard, the European Union offers very high levels of IP protection. Yet as recently as 2006, Special 301 listed the European Union on its watch list, citing "concerns" about the EU's geographical indication (GI) regime. Given that GIs are a form of intellectual property, USTR essentially placed the EU on its watch list for offering too much IP-or, if you prefer, the wrong kind of IP. Interestingly, this is a tacit admission by the U.S. that at least some kinds of IP can act as trade barriers ."[7]

Second, the 301 Report operates on the assumption that intellectual property is a right in rem. It does not even attempt to engage with the notion of IP as a public right. This is a direct implication of the methodology of the Report that privileges the simple existence of IP frameworks and enforcement mechanisms over a more substantive examination of the causal nexus between IP and its purported raison d'etre. Therefore, the interpretive approach of the 301 Report towards intellectual property law construes it not as a means to ends but as an end in itself.

What Does This Mean?

Finally, there are two implications of this approach to IP rights. The first is on the Report's words on India this year. Credit is given to India for establishing the High Level Working Group on Intellectual Property ["IPR Working Group"]. The purpose of the Working Group is said to be to "enable India to achieve its important domestic policy goals of increasing investment and stimulating innovation through, not at the expense of, IPR protection and enforcement". The façade of public interest behind which the 301 Report attempted to operate is finally off, one might say. IP exists, it seems, to facilitate not broader goals of public interest but investment and innovation within the myopic interests of 'rightsholders'. Paradoxically, however, the Report does call for more consultation on the First Draft of India's National IPR Policy - a noteworthy development, although inconsistent with the tenor of the rest of the Report. Second, the 301 Report as a reflection of American foreign policy goals is now being understood through the lens of ongoing trade negotiations. This steady shift in the preferable forum for IP negotiations from inclusive and democratic platforms, such as WIPO, towards restrictive and secretive ones, such as the WTO, is driven by regressive notions of IP as reflected in the 301 Report. Signalling a move towards a state-centric approach heralded by the United States, critical non-state actors from civil society find it increasingly difficult to exercise agency in these negotiations. While WIPO provides space for non-state actors such as non-governmental organizations to represent their positions and aid states with research, trade negotiations shunt civil society. The cloak and daggers approach of the United States Government towards the Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty,[8] brought to some light with recent votes in the US Congress, negotiations contrasted with the democratic and open nature of the negotiations surrounding the Marrakech treaty underscores the important difference in approach.[9]

As a result, the civil society finds itself unable to counterbalance the power hierarchies entrenched in international relations as it has done, for example, with the attempted imposition of TRIPS-plus standards through bilateral and multilateral agreements. A state-centric approach makes it easier for larger economies to coerce smaller and dependent countries to draft laws with little regard for limitations and flexibilities that are key for innovation and standard of life in large swathes of Global South - peoples who cannot afford the costs of IP protected-innovation. Further, issues of IP and trade are not pertinent solely to states but are increasingly driven by and relevant to a raft of non-state actors. Any policy that does not actively seek to include these stakeholders in the decision making process is destined to fail. Therefore, on both principled and consequentialist grounds, the Special 301 Report deserves very little attention from the international community.

[1] Full text of the provision available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/2242.

[2] http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/these-rancid-rankings/99/

[3] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/special-301-balance-not-found

[4] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/special-301-balance-not-found ; https://www.manilaprinciples.org/

[5] http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/HRC/28/57 .

[6] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/09/switzerland-gathering-ip-addresses-from-bittorrent-sites-illegal/

[7] https://topromotetheprogress.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/special-301-is-it-effective/ ;

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140612/17435227561/ustrs-special-301-list-naughty-countries-without-strong-enough-patent-copyright-laws-is-complete-joke.shtml

[8] http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/tpp-elizabeth-warren-labor-118068.html#.VWvcMk-qqko ; http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/04/23/divide-and-conquer-the-new-us-strategy-to-disentangle-the-tpp-negotiations/

[9] http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/12/19/wipo-delegates-hear-concerns-of-ngos-on-exceptions-for-libraries/

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/us-301-report-a-myopic-view-of-ip-rights

National IPR Policy Series : Follow-up RTI to DIPP on the IPR Think Tank

nehaa — 2015-06-25T00:43:34Z

This RTI was prepared by Varun Baliga and Nehaa Chaudhari as a follow-up, based on the responses of the DIPP to our earlier RTI requests (available at http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-rti-requests-by-cis-to-dipp-dipp-responses)

To,

Ms. Palka Sahni,

Deputy Secretary,

Central Public Information Officer,

IPR-II, IPR-III, IPR-IV, IPR-VI,

Room No. 254,

Udyog Bhawan, Delhi.

Subject: Request for Information under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding Information on the Procedure to File a Right to Information Application with the IPR Think Tank

Dear Madam,

1. Full Name of the Applicant: Nehaa Chaudhari

2. Address of the Applicant: Centre for Internet and Society, G-15 Top Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110016

Mailing Address : nehaa@cis-india.org

3. Information Required: Context

Please consider this an application for information under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Since the request for this information is inextricable from the context in which it is made, it is previewed with a succinct overview of the facts.

I, as an employee of the Centre for Internet and Society ["CIS"], first filed a Right to Information ["RTI"] application with the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion ["DIPP"] requesting information on the procedure followed in the appointment of the IPR Think Tank ["Think Tank"]. We received a response from the DIPP detailing the procedure followed. Then, we filed a RTI application with the DIPP requesting information on its functioning, particularly procedure followed and comments received prior to and after the release of the first draft of the National IPR Policy ["Policy"]. [1] In your response dated 26^th February 2015, the DIPP stated that the Think Tank functioned "independently without any interference of this Department (DIPP)". Therefore, apart from information that an "interactive meeting with stakeholders" was conducted while drafting the Policy, the DIPP stated it was not in a position to give any further information. Finally, the DIPP in a separate response dated 26^th February 2015, stated that "suggestions and comments on the draft of on [sic] National IPR Policy have been received by the IPR Think Tank directly". CIS followed this up by filing a RTI application with the Think Tank itself but we have not received a response.

4. Information Required: Details

Therefore, I seek information on the following:

a) The Think Tank is a public authority constituted for the purpose of the RTI Act. Who is the Public Information Officer of the Think Tank for the purpose of filing RTI applications? What are the measures taken by the Think Tank to comply with its obligations under the RTI Act?

b) What is the procedure to be followed in filing an RTI Application with the Think Tank?

c) Given that there is no information on the above, would the appropriate authority to request for information on the functioning of the IPR Think Tank be the DIPP?

5. Proof of Payment of Application Fee:

An Indian Postal Order for the amount of Rs. 10 dated ___________ favouring the Public Information Officer, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion is enclosed as proof of payment of application fee.

This is to certify that I, Nehaa Chaudhari, am a citizen of India.

Please provide me this information at the address provided earlier in this letter.

Thank you

Yours sincerely

Nehaa Chaudhari

[1] http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-rti-requests-by-cis-to-dipp-dipp-responses

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-follow-up-rti-to-dipp-on-ipr-think-tank

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

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

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

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

I. Preliminary

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

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

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

II. Overview

Governing Principles

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

Adoption of a Signals-Based Approach

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

III. Detailed Comments

On the 'Introduction'

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

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

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

On 'Broadcasting Organizations and the Rome Convention'

The Legal Framework Applicable to Broadcasting

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

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

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

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

Signal, Content and Program

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

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

On 'Legal Issues to be Considered'

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

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

Broadcasting and Piracy

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

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

Program-Carrying Signals

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

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

The Object of Protection

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

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

The Subject of Protection

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

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

IV. Concluding Observations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. Other Resources

Statements made by CIS to the SCCR on Broadcast Treaty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submissions made by CIS on the Broadcast Treaty

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

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

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

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

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

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

On behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society,

Nehaa Chaudhari Amulya Purushothama

Lawyer/Programme Officer Lawyer/Research Assistant

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

[1] Hereafter "Technical Background Paper"

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

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

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

[5] Id at p.2.

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

[7] Id.

[8] Hereafter, the Rome Convention.

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

[10] See 'Overview' of this submission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[19] See comments under Introduction in this submission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National IPR Policy Series: What Have the Sectoral Innovation Councils Been Doing on IPR

nehaa — 2015-08-13T01:36:35Z

In this post, Nehaa Chaudhari and Varun Baliga delve into the question of what the mandate of the Sectoral Innovation Councils is, what its activities are, and what vision for IPR development in India has it put forth. An RTI Application has been filed by CIS to attain information on these issues.

Thanks to Amulya.P for her support on this.

The National Innovation Council [“NIC”] was constituted by the Prime Minister’s Office “to create a roadmap for innovation for the ‘Decade of Innovation - 2010-2020’ focussing on five key parameters namely Platform, Inclusion, Eco-system, Drivers and Discourse”.[1] Pursuant to the creation of the NIC, Sectoral Innovation Councils [“SIC”][2] were established in order to promote innovation in particular sectors.

The focus of this post is on the SIC established by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion [“DIPP”] – a 12 member body on Intellectual Property Rights [“IPR”]. What is the mandate of this body? What have been its activities over the few years of its existence? What vision does it have of the development of IPR in India over the course of this critical decade?

In 2012, the body drafted a strategy document that did three things: an overview of the contemporary IP system, stakeholders’ involved in the protection and commercialization of IPRs and recommendations for an IPR Strategy.[3] This ambitious document merits significant work in order for actionable recommendations that will form the basis for a coherent IPR Strategy. The body has the burden to show how its work will be consistent with that of the IPR Think Tank and the National IPR Policy. In light of the circulation of the 2012 first draft of the strategy, Ajay Dua, former Secretary of the DIPP commented that the strategy would help in improving trade and capital flows. CIS has noted the increasingly trade-oriented approach to IPR in a previous comment on the US 301 Report.[4] However, the work and action that the SIC has taken does not reflect any of these ambitious documents or statements. In limbo for the past three years, we know very little about its functioning.

First, we know the Terms of Reference of the SIC.[5] The SIC has the mandate to formulate the National IPR Strategy to “address key concerns of sustainable development, inclusive growth and food security”. Further, formulation of medium term policy objectives that would provide the proper context to the strategy itself. Significantly, the SIC is required by the Terms of Reference to submit a roadmap within six months of its establishment.

The IPR Think Tank constituted by the DIPP also has a similar mandate, in so far as the Terms of Reference for the IPR Think Tank includes tasks such as drafting the National IPR Policy, identifying areas in IPRs that require further studying, creating views on the implications of demands by various negotiating partners, keeping the government informed about developments in IPR law, advising the government on best practices to be followed in different government offices that work with IPRs, advising the Ministry on solutions to any anomalies in IPR legislation, examining issues raised by industry associations and those that may have appeared in the media and providing suggestions to the Ministry on the IPR issues of the day.[6]

This raises questions of whether the SIC is required at all and what if any purpose it serves that is not already covered by the National IPR Think Tank.

Second, we know the minutes of the meeting of the SIC on IPRs dated 30 April 2013.[7] No further information of any other meetings, if any, is provided by the DIPP or the NIC. The minutes are an insightful window into the functioning of this body. Of the 12 members of the SIC, only 6 were present at the meeting. Of these 6 individuals, 2 – Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain and Professor Surendra Prasad – were not present in person but sent representatives instead. This was noted in a slightly disapproving tone by the body: “It was agreed that in future since members have been nominated by name, they may not send representatives and may instead provide their valuable views in the meeting”. We do not know whether future meetings, if any, witnessed better attendance.

In conclusion, the dormant nature of the SIC can only be probed further using the tools of the Right to Information Act [“RTI”]. What, however, is the harm of an institution like the SIC that is doing nothing. At a pragmatic level, it is a drain on public resources and time. More egregiously, on a principled level, such bodies serve to only legitimize contemporary trends in IP discourse. We have explored some of these trends in past blog posts.[8] Whether it is its trade-oriented nature or the undue emphasis on rights-holders, bodies like the SIC serve to entrench the alienation of the raison d’etre, the founding principles, of IP – innovation and creativity for all.

Annex I – RTI filed by CIS with the DIPP seeking information on the functioning of the NIC

26 June 2015

To,

Central Public Information Officer,
IPR I, II, III, IV, V and VI Sections,
Room No. 260,
Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi.

Subject: Request for Information under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding Functioning of the Sectoral Innovation Council on Intellectual Property Rights under the National Innovation Council

Dear Sir/Ma’am,

Full Name of the Applicant: Nehaa Chaudhari
Address of the Applicant: Centre for Internet and Society, G-15 Top Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110016. Mailing Address: nehaa@cis-india.org
Information Required: Context

Please consider this an application for information under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Therefore, I seek information on the following:

a) How many meetings has the Sectoral Innovation Council [“SIC”] of the DIPP on Intellectual Property Rights [“IPR”] held since its establishment?

b) Please supply minutes and all related documents of all its meetings?

c) How much are members of the SIC paid? Are members paid on the basis of time or number of meetings held?

d) Has the SIC done any work or produced any outputs other than the 2012 draft of the National IPR Strategy?

This is to certify that I, Nehaa Chaudhari, am a citizen of India.

A fee of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten Only) has been made out in the form of a demand draft drawn in favour of “Public Information Officer, ..................................................”

Please provide me this information in electronic form, via the email address provided above.

[1] http://innovationcouncilarchive.nic.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74&Itemid=47

[2] http://innovationcouncilarchive.nic.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25&Itemid=18

[3] http://dipp.nic.in/english/Discuss_paper/draftNational_IPR_Strategy_26Sep2012.pdf

[4] http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/us-301-report-a-myopic-view-of-ip-rights

[5] http://innovationcouncilarchive.nic.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74&Itemid=47

[6] http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=110790

[7]http://innovationcouncilarchive.nic.in/images/stories/sectoral/minutes/IPRs%20-%20Minutes%20of%20the%20meeting%20-%2020April2013.pdf

[8] http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/us-301-report-a-myopic-view-of-ip-rights

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-what-have-sectoral-innovation-councils-been-doing-on-ipr

29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS Intervention on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations

nehaa — 2014-12-12T11:55:51Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) made its intervention on the proposed treaty in the ongoing WIPO session on December 9, 2014.

Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of CIS made the following statement:

Thank you, Mister Chair.

This intervention will be based on the chart detailing the ‘Concepts’ corresponding to the Definitions. We believe that certain elements of these concepts are inconsistent with a broadcast treaty based on a signals based approach; and over the course of the next few minutes, I will briefly discuss these.

First, Mr. Chair in the first column- on broadcasting or cablecasting organizations (in the traditional sense); where communication of the signal has been listed under scope of responsibility. Mr. Chair, ‘communication’ itself is an element of copyright and is distinct from broadcast rights that are related rights. A signal, Mr. Chair, may be broadcast or transmitted. Accordingly, Mr. Chair under the element of Scope of Responsibility, we are of the opinion that it should read Broadcast or Transmission of the signal and not communication of the signal; and the focus should not be at regulating communication to the public.

Second, Mr. Chair, in the second column- on broadcasting and cablecasting transmission- we have three observations. First- under the means of transmission, we believe that transmission over computer networks encompasses IP based transmissions, and should be excluded, in order for the treaty to remain consistent with a signals based approach. Second- on the reception of the broadcast or cablecast transmission, we believe that it should be qualified using the phrase ‘general public’. We are of the opinion that there is a danger that a limited public (say family members) could possibly be covered by the term “public”, but would be excluded from “general public”; which in any case is the targeted audience of a broadcast. Third, Mr. Chair, on whether the transmission would be encrypted or not- which also flows into the third column on the Signal- and whether it is encrypted or not; which then also relates to whether broadcasting organizations will have the right to prevent unauthorized decryption. Mr. Chair, we don’t think that there should be a separate right to prevent unauthorized decryption. Given that signal theft is already a crime, having a specific right to prevent unauthorized decryption might result in an absurdity, where it could even cover decrypting an unauthorized retransmission without authorization from the retransmitter.

This provision might result in an absurdity, where it would cover decrypting an unauthroised retransmission without authorization from the retransmitter, where the retransmission in the first instance was illegal to begin with.

Finally, Mr. Chair, on the third column and the meaning of signal- we submit that our preferred definition would be where the definition of a signal is confined, and it understood as an electronically generated carrier transmitting a broadcast or cablecast and NOT one which has the capability of such a transmission, as stated in the third column in your Chart on concepts.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-intervention-on-proposed-treaty-for-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations

29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS- 2nd (brief) Intervention on the Broadcast Treaty

nehaa — 2014-12-12T11:56:14Z

On Day 3 (December 10, 2014), the SCCR briefly re-convened at the Plenary. The Chair, Martin Moscoso updated the Committee on the discussions and the developments that had taken place over the course of the past two days in the Informals. The Centre for Internet and Society made a brief pointed intervention on one of the documents being discussed in the Informals.

Note: The documents cannot be made public yet. They were shared with Observers and Member States (even those that did not participate in the Informals) on the condition of maintaining confidentiality.

Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of CIS made the following statement:

Thank you, chair.

First on the making available these documents, we would like to echo what CCIA and KEI said- we would also like to see the informal papers made public, so that we can have a more informed discussion on these issues.

Second, very briefly, on some of the rights to be granted- in one of the Informal Discussion Papers laid out, in -- in the third column, which are essentially fixation and post fixation rights, just very briefly, that whatever is done in any case after the signal is fixed is already covered by copyright law and we find it frightening and we see little sense in providing two sets of incompatible, and overlapping rights- copyright, that is already existing, and a sort of a para-copyright (that this treaty seeks to create) for the same underlying content.

Thank you, Mr. Chair

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-second-brief-intervention-on-broadcast-treaty

29th Session of the WIPO SCCR: CIS Intervention : Questions to Prof. Kenneth Crews on his Updated Study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives

nehaa — 2014-12-14T02:56:46Z

Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) on December 11 during one of the sessions in WIPO asked two questions to Prof. Kenneth Crews.

In 2008, WIPO commissioned a study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives.This was prepared by Prof. Kenneth Crews. On December 10-11, 2014, at SCCR 29, Prof. Crews presented an updated (2014) version of this study and addressed comments and questions from Member States and Observers.

CIS Statement:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Professor Crews for your presentation yesterday, and for this comprehensive study on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives, very timely, and very important to us, from the perspective of access to knowledge and information.

I have two questions:

My first question: Did you find, in your examination, that, in terms of/ or on the question of limitations and exceptions, did you find, that there was an equal or equitable treatment of digital resources in comparison to resources available in more traditional formats? And if not, where do you think that lever of change lies to ensure that fair dealing provisions are extended equitably to the digital environment as well?

My second question, is on the interoperability of Limitations and Exceptions: Given that copyright is a very national thing, and, as your study has also well established, countries have a whole range of very diverse approaches and practices on Limitations and Exceptions; but also given that we live in an increasingly globalized world, we need a system that is interoperable with respect to the trans-boundary movement of works, with as little friction as possible, both- in the physical as well as in the digital environments. So, what did your examination show us of how interoperable- or not- the range of Limitations and Exceptions actually are?

Those are my two questions.

Thank you very much.

Response by Prof. Kenneth Crews:

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

Really good question. And it is one that the statutes have not picked up on.

Thank you very much.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-intervention-questions-to-prof-kenneth-crews-on-limitations-and-exceptions-for-libraries-and-archives