Centre for Internet and Society

ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାର

subha — 2016-01-05T06:30:35Z

Odia newspaper Sambad carried this featured column of mine yesterday in their Sunday supplement "Sambada Rabibara" on December 6, 2015.

It sheds light on how important it is to digitize published work and make them available in open standard. Odia Wikisource, a sister project of Odia Wikipedia and a free and open online library, is growing up with more and more Odia books every day. With a vast majority of the native language speakers seeking knowledge online, useful content like available online is going to pay a very crucial role. Be it popular literature or popular science writings, Odia Wikisource is growing up with books of various genre and helping preserve old published works.

ଭାଷାଟିଏ ବଢ଼ିଲେ ବଢ଼ନ୍ତି ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ । ବଢ଼େ ସେ ଭାଷାର ଅଭିଲେଖ । ଆଉ ଆମ ଭାଷାଟି କେଇ ଶହ-ହଜାର ବର୍ଷ ଭିତରେ ଶାଖା ପ୍ରଶାଖା ମେଲି ଯେ କେଡ଼େ ବିଶାଳ ହୋଇଛି ତାହା ଆମେ ଜାଣୁ । ଭାଷା ନଈଟି ବହୁ ଜାଗା ଦେଇ ବହୁ ବହୁ ଅନେକ ବହି ମଧ୍ୟ ଉତୁରିଉଠିଛି । ସେ ବହିମାନଙ୍କ ଭିତରୁ ଜଣାଶୁଣା ଲେଖକଙ୍କ ବହିଗୁଡ଼ିକ ଭଲ ଭାବେ ସଂରକ୍ଷିତ ହୋଇ ପୁନମୁଦ୍ରଣ ହେବା ସହିତ ପିଢ଼ି ପିଢ଼ି ଧରି ପଢ଼ାହେଉଛି। ହେଲେ ଗୁରୁତ୍ଵପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ତଥ୍ୟ ଥାଇ ମଧ୍ୟ ଅନେକ ବଣମଲ୍ଲୀ ସମ ଉପାଦେୟ ବହି ପ୍ରଚାର ପ୍ରସାର ଅଭାବରୁ ଲୋକଲୋଚନକୁ ଆସିପାରିନାହିଁ। ତା’ଛଡ଼ା ଅନେକ ବହି ପ୍ରକାଶକ ଓ ଲେଖକଙ୍କ ସମ୍ବଳ ଅଭାବ ହେତୁ, ପାଠକଙ୍କ ଅନାଗ୍ରହ ଯୋଗୁ ସାରା ଓଡ଼ିଶା ବା ଓଡ଼ିଶା ବାହାରକୁ ଯାଇପାରନ୍ତି ନାହିଁ । ଏମିତି ଅବସ୍ଥାରେ ଆମ ଭବିଷ୍ୟତ ସବୁଯାକ ବହି ନ ହେଲେ ମଧ୍ୟ କିଛି ପାଇବେ ତ?

ଆଗରୁ ଆମର କୋଠକାଠିଆ ସମାଜ ଥିଲା। ଏକାଠି ବହୁଲୋକ ବସି ଆଳାପ ଆଲୋଚନା କରୁଥିଲେ। ବହି ପଢ଼ାଠୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ନ୍ୟାୟ ବିଚାର ଯାଏ ସବୁ ହେଉଥିଲା ସେଇଠି । ଆମ ବଡ଼ବଡ଼ୁଆମାନେ ସବୁ ଗୁରୁତ୍ଵପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ସିଦ୍ଧାନ୍ତ ସେଇଠି ନେଉଥିଲେ । ଅନେକ ସ୍ଥାନରେ ବୁଦ୍ଧଙ୍କ ଛବି ଖୋଜିଲେ ଏବେ ବି ଗଛ ତଳେ ଚଉକି ଉପରେ ଏକାଠି ହୋଇ ଲୋକେ ବିଚାର କରୁଥିବା ଦେଖିବାକୁ ମିଳେ । ଏକଦା ଭାଗବତ ଟୁଙ୍ଗିରେ ଭାଗବତ ପଢ଼ାହେବା ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇଥିଲା । ସେ ଥିଲା କେଇଘଣ୍ଟା ପାଇଁ ପାଠାଗାର ଆଉ ବେଳ ପାଇଁ ଚଳଣି ଆଉ ନ୍ୟାୟଘରା ପରେ ବହିର ଆଲୋଚନାଠାରୁ ସଂଗ୍ରହ ଓ ସଂରକ୍ଷଣ ଲୋଡ଼ା ପଡ଼ିବାରୁ ପାଠାଗାର ଆରମ୍ଭ ହେଲା । ତେବେ ଧୀରେ ଧୀରେ ଲୋକେ ବହି ପଢ଼ାଠାରୁ ଦୂରେଇ ଯିବାରୁ ପାଠାଗାର ବଣମଲ୍ଲୀ ସମାନ ହୋଇପଡ଼ିଲାଣି । ଆଜିର ପିଢ଼ି ଯେବେ ପୂରାପୂରି ଡିଜିଟାଲ୍ ମୁହାଁ ହୋଇସାରିଲେଣି, ଆମକୁ ବିଚାରିବାକୁ ହେବ ଏ ରାଶି ରାଶି ପୋଥି କାହା ପାଇଁ । ସମାଜଟିଏ ତା’ର ଆଗାମୀ ଭବିଷ୍ୟତର ଆଖିରେ ସପନ ଦେଖେ । ତେଣୁ ବର୍ତ୍ତମାନ ପିଢ଼ିର ଆବଶ୍ୟକତାକୁ ଅଣଦେଖା କରି କେବଳ ବହି ଛାପିଲେ ପାଠାଗାର ଯେ ଅଳିଆଗଦାରେ ପରିଣତ ନ ହେବ କିଏ କହିବ? ଆଗାମା ପିଢ଼ି ପାଇଁ କ’ଣ ଲେଖାହେବ, କ’ଣା ଲେଖା ନ ହେବ ଆଉ କିପରି ଲେଖା ହେବ ତାହା ଏକ ଜଟିଳ ବିଷୟ । ଭାଷା କହିଲେ ଖାଲି ସାହିତ୍ୟକୁ ବୁଝାଏ ନାହିଁ ବରଂ ସାହିତ୍ୟ ଭାଷାର ଏକ ଅଂଶ ବୋଲି ଅନେକଙ୍କୁ ବୁଝିବାକୁ ପଡ଼ିବ । ବିଭିନ୍ନ ଧରଣର ରଚନା ଓ ସେସବୁ ସାଇତା ହେବାର ଆବଶ୍ୟକତା ବହୁ ଭାବେ ରହିଛି । ଆମେ ଆଗକୁ ବଢ଼ିବା ବେଳେ ଆଉ ନୂଆ ଭାବିବା ବେଳେ ଆଗରୁ ଘଟିଥିବ ଘଟଣା ଆମ ପାଦ ତଳର ନିଅଁ ଭଳି କାମ କରେ । ତେଣୁ ନୂଆ ପିଢ଼ି ବହିଠାରୁ ଦୂରେଇ ଯାଉଛନ୍ତି ବୋଲି ଭାବିଲେ ଚୋରକୁ ମାନ ମାରି ଖପରାରେ ଖାଇବା ଭଳି ଦେବାକାମି ହେବା କାଗଜ ଉପରେ ଛପା ବହି ଯେତେ ନିଜର ଲାଗିଲେ ମଧ୍ୟ ଦିନେ ନା ଦିନେ ଚିରିବ କି ଉଇଙ୍କ ଆହାର ହେବା ଆଉ ଆଗତ ଦିନ ପାଇଁ ତାକୁ ସାଇତି ରଖିବାର ସଳଖ ବାଟଟିଏ ହେଲା ତା’ର ଡିଜିଟାଲ୍ କପି ତିଆରିବା । ଇଂରାଜି, ଫ୍ରେଞ୍ଚ, ସ୍ଥାନିସ୍, ଜର୍ମାନ, ଜାପାନୀ ଆଦି ଭାଷାରେ ଲେଖା ପୋଥିପତର ସବୁ ସେଠାର ପାଠକ ଆଜି ବି ଆମ ଭଳି ବହିଧରି ପଢ଼ିବାକୁ ଭଲପାଆନ୍ତି । ଲଣ୍ଡନରେ କିଛି ଦିନର ରହଣି କାଳରେ ଦେଖି ଅଭିଭୂତ ହେଲି ସେଠା ଲୋକଙ୍କ ବହି ପଢ଼ାର ସଉକ । ଟ୍ରେନ୍ ଷ୍ଟେସନ୍ ବାଡ଼ାକୁ ଆଉଜି କିଏ ପଢୁଛି ତ କିଏ ଜନଗହଳି ଥାନରେ କଣଟିଏ ବାଛି ଫରଦ ପରେ ଫରଦ ଲେଉଟଉଛି । କିନ୍ତୁ ସେଠାର ପାଖାପାଖି ସବୁ ନୂଆ ବହି ଉଭୟ ଛପା ଓ ଇ-ବହି ବିକ୍ରି ହେଉଛି। ନୂଆ ଟେକ୍ନୋଲୋଜି ଆସିଗଲା ବୋଲି ପୁରୁଣା, ପୂରା ଫୋପାଡ଼ିଦେବା କେବଳ ମଝିମଝିଆ ସମାଜର ଲକ୍ଷଣ । ହେଲେ ଉଚ୍ଚତର ସମାଜରେ ପୁରୁଣା ଓ ନୂଆର ବିଭା ସବୁଠି ଦେଖିବାକୁ ମିଳେ। ତେଣୁ ଆମ ବହିମାନଙ୍କ ବିକ୍ରି କମିଯିବ ବୋଲି ହାଉଳି ଖାଇ ଆମେ ନୂଆପିଢ଼ିକୁ ଆମ ବହିର ବାସନାପାଣିରୁ ବଞ୍ଚିତ କରୁନୁ ତ ? ଯଦି ସତରେ ଆମ ପର ପିଢ଼ି ଆମ ବହିଯାକ ନ ପଢ଼ନ୍ତି ତା’ହେଲେ ଏ ଜାତିର ଇତିହାସରେ ଆମେ ଲାଙ୍ଗୁଡ଼ଜକା ଆଉ ଚିରକାଳ ଦୋଷୀ ହୋଇ ରହିଯିବୁ ।

ଅବଶ୍ୟ ବହି କିଣି ହାତରେ ଧରି ପଢୁଥିବା ଲୋକଟି କେବେ ହେଁ ମୋବାଇଲ: ଟାବଲେଟ୍-କିଣ୍ଡିଲ୍-କମ୍ପ୍ୟୁଟରରେ ପଢ଼ିବାକୁ ସୁଖ ମଣିବ ନାହିଁ । କିନ୍ତୁ ବିମାନରେ ଯିବା ବେଳେ ଲୋଡ଼ା ପଡ଼ିଲେ ଡିଜିଟାଲ ମାଧମରେ ପଢ଼ିବା ଆଉ ବିଶାଳ ଗ୍ରନ୍ଥର କେଉଁ କୋଣରେ ଲେଖାଟିଏ ଖୋଜିବାକୁ ଚାହିଲେ, ସବୁ ପୃଷ୍ଠା ନ ଖୋଜି ପାଠକଟିଏ ସଳଖେ ସଳଖେ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଖୋଜିପାରିବା ବହିର ଡିଜିଟାଲ ରୂପ ତିଆରିବାରେ ‘ସୃଜନିକା’ ନାମକ ଅନୁଷ୍ଠାନର ଅବଦାନ କାହିଁରେ କେତେ ପାଖାପାଖି ଦେଢ଼ ଲକ୍ଷ ପୃଷ୍ଠା ସ୍କାନ୍ କରି ସେମାନେ ଅନେକ ଇ-ବହି ତିଆରି କରିସାରିଲେଣି। ୧୮୫୦-୧୯୫୦ ଭିତରେ ଛପା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ପତ୍ରପତ୍ରିକାସବୁ ପ୍ରାୟ ଏଥିରେ ସାମିଲ । odia.org ନାମକ ଆଉ ଏକ ୱେବସାଇଟ୍ କିଛି ନିଜ ଉଦ୍ୟମରେ ଆଉ କିଛି ବାକିମାନଙ୍କ ସହଯୋଗରେ କିଛି ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବହି ଇଣ୍ଟର୍ନେଟରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ କରାଇଛନ୍ତି । ଇଣ୍ଟର୍‌ନେଟ୍ ଆର୍‌କାଇଭ୍ (archive.org) ସାଇଟରେ ବହିସବୁ ପିଡିଏଫ୍ ଭାବେ ଅପ୍‌ଲୋଡ କଲେ ତାହା ମୋବାଇଲ୍ ଓ ଅନ୍ୟାନ୍ୟ ଆକାରରେ ଦେଖିବାକୁ ସୁବିଧା । ହେଲେ ଲୋଡ଼ାଥିଲା ଇଣ୍ଟର୍‌ନେଟରେ ପାଠାଗାରଟିଏ । ହେଲେ ଇଣ୍ଟର୍‌ନେଟ୍ ଯେତେବେଳେ ଖାଲି ପାଠକ ରହିଲେ କି ମଉଜ? ଦିଆ-ନିଆ ନ ଥାଇ ସେ କି ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ୍? ପାଠକ ଯଦି କେଉଁଠି ଭୁଲ୍‌ଟିଏ ଦେଖିଲେ ତାକୁ ବଦଳାଇ ପାରୁଥିବେ, ତା’ହେଲେ ସିନା । ଅନେକ ହୁଏତ ଜାଣି ନ ଥିବେ ସମାଧାନର ବାଟଟିଏ ରହିଛି । ଉଇକିପିଡିଆ (Wikipedia)ର ଓଡ଼ିଆ ସଂସ୍କରଣ or.wikipedia.org ୨୦୦୨ରୁ ସକ୍ରିୟ ଆଉ ଏଥିରେ ୧୦,୦୦୦ ପ୍ରସଙ୍ଗ ରହିଛି । ଏହାର ଆଉ ଏକ ସହ-ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ହେଲା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାର । ଇଣ୍ଟର୍‌ନେଟ୍‌ରେ or wikisource. orgରେ ଖୋଲାରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଏହି ଅନ୍‌ଲାଇନ୍ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ପାଠାଗାରଟି କେବଳ ପଠନ ପାଇଁ ନୁହେଁ ବରଂ ସମ୍ପାଦନା ଓ ବହିର ଡିଜିଟାଲ୍ ରୂପ ତିଆରି ପାଇଁ । ପ୍ରତିଟି ପାଠକର ବହି ପାଇଁ ଟିକେ ହେଉ ପଛେ, କିଛି ଅବଦାନ ରହିବା ଉଚିତ । ଆଉ ସେ ଅବଦାନ ଯଦି ପୁରୁଣା ବିରଳ ବହିର ଲେଖାତକ ଆଉଥରେ ଟାଇପ୍ କରିହୁଏ କି ଆଉ କାହା ଦେଇ ଟାଇପ୍ ହୋଇଥିବା ବହିରେ ଭୁଲଭଟକା ସୁଧାରିବା ହୁଏ, ତା’ହେଲେ ପ୍ରତିଟି ପାଠକ ଜଣେ ଜଣେ ସମ୍ପାଦକ ହେବ । ଆଜିଯାଏ ଭାଷା କ୍ଷେତ୍ରରେ ହେଉ କିମ୍ବା ଆଉ କେଉଁ କ୍ଷେତ୍ରରେ ହେଉ ବିଶାଳତମ କୃତିସବୁ କେବେ ଜଣଙ୍କ ଦେଇ ନୁହେଁ ବରଂ ଗଣଙ୍କ ଦେଇ ହୋଇଛି । ଏଇ ଆଗରୁ ଯେଉଁ ଉଇକିପିଡିଆ କଥା କୁହାଗଲା, ସେ ବି ୨୦-୨୫ ପାଖାପାଖି ସକ୍ରିୟ ଉଇକିଆଳିଙ୍କ ଦେଇ ଲିଖିତ ଓ ସମ୍ପାଦିତ । ସେଇଭଳି ଏ ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାର ପାଇଁ ପାଖାପାଖି ୮-୯ ଜଣ ସକ୍ରିୟ ସଭ୍ୟ । ଆଉ ଆନନ୍ଦର କଥା ହେଲା, ଏଥିରେ ନାରୀ-ପୁରୁଷଙ୍କ ଯୋଗଦାନ ପାଖାପାଖି ଏକା । ବହୁଲୋକ ଏକାଠି ମିଳିମିଶି କାମ କଲେ ଆଉ ବିଭିନ୍ନ ବର୍ଗର, ଲିଙ୍ଗର ସମାନତା ରହିଲେ ଯାଇ କାମଟି ଯେ ପରିପୁଷ୍ଟ ହୁଏ । ଏ ବିଚାର ଥାଇ ମଧ୍ୟ ଅନେକ ସ୍ଥାନରେ ପାଳନ ହୋଇପାରେନା । ଉଇକିପାଠାଗାରରେ ଏଯାବତ୍ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଗବତ ଭଳି ବିଶାଳ କୃତିକୁ ଛାଡ଼ି ପୁରାତନ ଓ ଆଧୁନିକ ପଞ୍ଚସଖା, ସାଲବେଗ, ଭୀମଭୋଇ, ଭଞ୍ଜଙ୍କଠାରୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ ଏ ଯୁଗର କେତେକ ଲେଖକଙ୍କ କୃତି ରହିଛି । ୨୦୧୨ରେ ଆରମ୍ଭ ହୋଇ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପଟଫ ଦୁଇବର୍ଷ ଧର ସଜବାଜ ହୋଇ ଶେଷରେ ୨୦୧୪ରେ ଜନ୍ମନେଲା । ଆଉ ଏଇ ମାସ ୨୦ରେ ପଢୁଆଁ ଜନ୍ମତିଥି ପାଳିଥିବା ଏ ପାଠାଗାରରେ ଏବେ ମାତ୍ର ୨୦୬ ଖଣ୍ଡ ବହି । ଆମ ବିଶାଳ ଭାଷାର ବହି-ଦରିଆକୁ ସେ ଶଂଖେ । କପିରାଇଟ୍ ବାହାରେ ଥିବା ଓଡ଼ିଆ ବହିମାନ ଏଥିରେ ଆଣିବା ପାଇଁ ଲୋଡ଼ା ଆହୁରି କେତେ ହାତ । ଏବେ ଗୁଗୁଲ୍ ତିଆରି "ଅପ୍ଟିକାଲ୍ କ୍ୟାରେକ୍ଟର୍ ରେକଗନିସନ୍" ବଳରେ ଅନେକ ବହିର ଛବିରୁ ଲେଖା ବାହାର କରିହେଉଛି । ତାକୁ ସଂଶୋଧନ କରିପାରିଲେ ଅନେକ ବହିକୁ ପୂରା ଟାଇପ୍ କରିବାକୁ ପଡ଼ିବ ନାହିଁ । ଏକଥା ଆମେ ହେଜିଲେ ଆମ ଆଗାମୀ ପିଢ଼ିରେ ଓଡ଼ିଆହୀନତା ପାଇଁ ଆମକୁ ବେଶି ଭାବିବାକୁ ପଡ଼ିବ ନାହିଁ। ପିଲେ ତାଙ୍କ ମୋବାଇଲ୍ ଟାବଲେଟ୍ କିଣ୍ଡିଲ୍ ଖୋଲି ବଳେ ଓଡ଼ିଆ ପଢ଼ିବା ଆରମ୍ଭ କରିବେ।

- ଶୁଭାଶିଷ ପାଣିଗ୍ରାହୀ

ସେଣ୍ଟର୍ ଫର୍ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ୍ ଆଣ୍ଡ ସୋସାଇଟି, ବେଙ୍ଗାଲୁରୁ

A scanned version of the article below:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sambada-rabibara-subhashish-panigrahi-december-6-2015-odia-wikisource

Arguments Against Software Patents in India

pranesh — 2012-03-13T10:43:12Z

CIS believes that software patents are harmful for the software industry and for consumers. In this post, Pranesh Prakash looks at the philosophical, legal and practical reasons for holding such a position in India. This is a slightly modified version of a presentation made by Pranesh Prakash at the iTechLaw conference in Bangalore on February 5, 2010, as part of a panel discussing software patents in India, the United States, and the European Union.

This blog post is based on a presentation made at the iTechLaw conference held on February 5, 2010. The audience consisted of lawyers from various corporations and corporate law firms. As is their wont, most lawyers when dealing with software patents get straight to an analysis of law governing the patenting of computer programmes in India and elsewhere, and seeing whether any loopholes exist and can be exploited to patent software. It was refreshing to see at least some lawyers actually going into questions of the need for patents to cover computer programs. In my presentation, I made a multi-pronged case against software patents: (1) philosophical justification against software patents based on the nature of software; (2) legal case against software patents; (3) practical reasons against software patents.

Preamble

Through these arguments, it is sought to be shown that patentability of software is not some arcane, technical question of law, but is a real issue that affect the continued production of new software and the everyday life of the coder/hacker/software programmer/engineer as well as consumers of software (which is, I may remind you, everywhere from your pacemaker to your phone). A preamble to the arguments would note that the main question to ask is: why should we allow for patenting of software? Answering this question will lead us to ask: who benefits from patenting of software. The conclusion that I come to is that patenting of software helps three categories of people: (1) those large software corporations that already have a large number of software patents; (2) those corporations that do not create software, but only trade in patents / sue on the basis of patents ("patent trolls"); (3) patent lawyers. How they don't help small and medium enterprises nor society at large (since they deter, rather than further invention) will be borne out by the rest of these arguments, especially the section on practical reasons against software patents.

What are Patents?

Patents are a twenty-year monopoly granted by the State on any invention. An invention has to have at least four characteristics: (0) patentable subject matter; (1) novelty (it has to be new); (2) inventive step / non-obviousness (even if new, it should not be obvious); (3) application to industry. A monopoly over that invention, thus means that if person X has invented something, then I may not use the core parts of that invention ("the essential claims") in my own invention. This prohibition applies even if I have come upon my invention without having known about X's invention. (Thus, independent creation is not a defence to patent infringement. This distinguishes it, for instance, from copyright law in which two people who created the same work independently of each other can both assert copyright.) Patents cover non-abstract ideas/functionality while copyright covers specific expressions of ideas. To clarify: imagine I make a drawing of a particular machine and describe the procedure of making it. Under patent law, no one else can make that particular machine, while under copyright law, no one can copy that drawing.

Philosophical Justification Against Software Patents

Even without going into the case against patents per se (lack of independent creation as a defence; lack of 'harm' as a criterion leading to internalization of all positive externalities; lack of effective disclosure and publication; etc.), which has been done much more ably by others like Bessen & Meurer (especially in their book Patent Failure) and Boldrin & Levine (in their book Against Intellectual Monopoly, the full text of which is available online).

But there is one essentially philosophical argument against software as subject matter of a patent. Software/computer programs ("instructions for a computer"), as any software engineer would tell you, are merely algorithms ("an effective method for solving a problem using a finite sequence of instructions") that are meant to be understood by a computer or a human who knows how to read that code.

Algorithms are not patentable subject matter, as they are mere expressions of abstract ideas, and not inventions in themselves. Computer programs, similarly, are abstract ideas. They only stop being abstract ideas when embodied in a machine or a process in which it is the machine/process that is the essential claim and not the software. That machine or process being patented would not grant protection to the software itself, but to the whole machine or process. Thus the abstract part of that machine/process (i.e., the computer program) could be used in any other machine/process, as it it is not the subject matter of the patent. Importantly, just because software is required to operate some machine would then not mean that the machine itself is not patentable, just that the software cannot be patented in guise of patenting a machine.

Legal Case Against Software Patents

In India, section 3(k) of the Patent Act reads:

(3) The following are not inventions within the meaning of this Act: (k) a mathematical or business method or computer programme (sic) per se or algorithms.

As one can see, computer programs are place in the same category as "mathematical methods", "algorithms", and "business methods", hence giving legal validity to the idea propounded in the previous section that computer programs are a kind of algorithms (just as algorithms are a kind of mathematical method).

Be that as it may, the best legal minds in India have had to work hard at understanding what exactly "computer programme per se" means. They have cited U.S. case law, U.K. case law, E.U. precedents, and sought to arrive at an understanding of how per se should be understood. While understanding what per se means might be a difficult job, it is much easier to see what it does not mean. For that, we can look at the 2004 Patent Ordinance that Parliament rejected in 2005. In that ordinance, sections 3(k) and (ka) read as follows:

(3) The following are not inventions within the meaning of this Act: (k) a computer programme per se other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware; (ka) a mathematical method or a business method or algorithms.

Thus, it is clear that the interpretation that "computer programme per se" excludes "a computer programme that has technical application to industry" and "a computer programme in combination with hardware" is wrong. By rejecting the 2004 Ordinance wording, Parliament has clearly shown that "technical application to industry" and "combination with hardware" do not make a computer programme patentable subject matter.

Indeed, what exactly is "technical application to industry"? "Technical" has various definitions, and a perusal through those definitions would show that barely any computer program can be said not to relate to a technique, not involve "specialized knowledge of applied arts and sciences" (it is code, after all; not everyone can write good algorithms), or not relate to "a practical subject that is organized according to scientific principles" or is "technological". Similarly, all software is, by definition, meant to be used in combination with hardware. Thus, it being used in combination with hardware must not, as argued above, give rise to patentability of otherwise unpatentable subject matter category.

In 2008, the Patent Office published a new 'Draft Manual Of Patent Practice And Procedure' in which it sought to allow patenting of certain method claims for software inventions (while earlier the Patent Office objected to method claims, allowing only device claims with hardware components). This Draft Manual was withdrawn from circulation, with Shri N.N. Prasad (then Joint Secretary of DIPP, the department administering the Patent Office) noting that the parts of the Manual on sections 3(d) and 3(k) had generated a lot of controversy, and were ultra vires the scope of the Manual (which could not override the Patent Act). He promised that those parts would be dropped and the Manual would be re-written. A revised draft of the Manual has not yet been released. Thus the interpretation provided in the Draft Manual (which was based heavily on the interpretation of the U.K. courts) cannot not be relied upon as a basis for arguments in favour of the patentability of software in India.

In October 2008, CIS helped organize a National Public Meeting on Software Patents in which Indian academics, industry, scientists, and FOSS enthusiasts all came to the conclusion that software patents are harmful for both the industry as well as consumers.

Practical Reasons Against Software Patents

This is going to be an attempt at distilling and simplifying some of the main practical arguments against patenting of software.

There are traditionally four incentives that the patent system caters to: (1) incentive to invent; (2) incentive to disclose; (3) incentive to commercialize; and (4) incentive to invent substitutes. Apart from the last, patenting of software does not really aid any of them.

Patent Landmines / Submarine Patents / Patent Gridlocks / No Exception for Independent Creation

Given that computer programs are algorithms, having monopolies over such abstract ideas is detrimental to innovation. Just the metaphors say a lot about software patents: landmines (they cannot be seen/predicted); submarines (they surface out of the blue); gridlocks (because there are so many software patents around the same area of computing, they prevent further innovation in that area, since no program can be written without violating one patent or the other).

Imagine the madness that would have ensued had patents been granted when computer programming was in its infancy. Imagine different methods of sorting (quick sort, bubble sort) that are part of Computer Science 101 had been patented. While those particular instances aren't, similar algorithms, such as data compression algorithms (including the infamous LZW compression method), have been granted patents. Most importantly, even if one codes certain functionality into software independently of the patent holder, that is still violative of the patent. Computer programs being granted patents makes it extremely difficult to create other computer programs that are based on the same abstract ideas. Thus incentives # (1) and (3) are not fulfilled, and indeed, they are harmed. There is no incentive to invent, as one would always be violating one patent or the other. Given that, there is no incentive to commercialize what one has invented, because of fear of patent infringement suits.

An apt illustration of this is the current difficulty of choosing a royalty-free video format for HTML 5, as it shows, in practical terms, how difficult it is to create a video format without violating one patent or the other. While the PNG image format was created to side-step the patent over the LZW compression method used in the GIF image format, bringing Ogg Theora or Dirac (both patent-free video format) to surpass the levels of H.264/MPEG-4 AVC or VC-1 will be very difficult without infringing dozens if not hundreds of software patents. Chris DiBona of Google, while talking about improving Ogg Theora as part of its inclusion in HTML 5 specifications said, "Here’s the challenge: Can Theora move forward without infringing on the other video compression patents?" Just the number of companies and organization that hold patents over H.264 is astounding, and includes: Columbia University, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute of Korea (ETRI), France Télécom, Fujitsu, LG Electronics, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, Philips, Robert Bosch GmbH, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Toshiba, and Victor Company of Japan (JVC). As is the amount of royalties to be paid ("[t]he maximum royalty for these rights payable by an Enterprise (company and greater than 50% owned subsidiaries) is $3.5 million per year in 2005-2006, $4.25 million per year in 2007-08 and $5 million per year in 2009-10"; with royalty per unit of a decoder-encoder costing upto USD 0.20.)

Indeed, even the most diligent companies cannot guard themselves against software patents. FFII estimates that a very simple online shopping website would violate twenty different patents at the very least. Microsoft recently lost a case against i4i when i4i surfaced with a patent covering custom XML as implemented in MS Office 2003 and MS Office 2007. As a result Microsoft had to ship patches to its millions of customers, to disable the functionality and bypass that patent. The manufacturers of BlackBerry, the Canadian company Research in Motion, had to shell out USD 617 million as settlement to NTP over wireless push e-mail, as it was otherwise faced with the possibility of the court shutting down the BlackBerry service in the U.S. This happened despite there being a well-known method of doing so pre-dating the NTP patents. NTP has also filed cases against AT&T, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, and Palm Inc. Microsoft was also hit by Visto Corporation over those same NTP patents, which had been licensed to Visto (a startup).
- Don't These Cases Show How Software Patents Help Small Companies?
  
  The astute reader might be tempted to ask: are not all of these examples of small companies getting their dues from larger companies? Doesn't all of this show that software patents actually help small and medium enterprises (SMEs)? The answer to that is: no. To see why, we need to note the common thread binding i4i, NTP, and Visto. None of them were, at the time of their lawsuits, actually creating new software, and NTP was an out-and-out "non-practising entity"/"patent holding company" AKA, patent troll. i4i was in the process of closing shop, and Visto had just started up. None of these were actually practising the patent. None of these were producing any other software. Thus, none of these companies had anything to lose by going after big companies. In other words, the likes of Microsoft, RIM, Verizon, AT&T, etc., could not file counter-suits of patent infringement, which is normally what happens when SMEs try to assert patent rights against larger corporations. For every patent that the large corporation violates of the smaller corporation, the smaler corporation would be violating at least ten of the larger corporation's. Software patents are more helpful for software companies as a tool for cross-licensing rather than as a way of earning royalties. Even this does not work as a strategy against patent trolls.
Thus, the assertion that was made at the beginning is borne out: software patents help only patent trolls, large corporations that already have large software patent portfolios, and the lawyers who draft these patents and later argue them out in court.
Term of Patents

Twenty years of monopoly rights is outright ludicrous in an industry where the rate of turnover of technology is much faster -- anywhere between two years and five months.
Software Industry Progressed Greatly Without Patents

In India, software patents have never been asserted in courts (even though many have been illegally granted), yet the software industry in India is growing in leaps and bounds. Similarly, most of the big (American) giants of the software industry today grew to their stature by using copyright to "protect" their software, and not patents.
Copyright Exists for Software

As noted above, the code/expression of any software is internationally protected by copyright law. There is no reason to protect the ideas/functionality of that software as well.
Insufficient Disclosure

When ordinary computer programmers cannot understand what a particular software patent covers (which is the overwhelming case), then the patent is of no use. One of the main incentives of the patent system is to encourage gifted inventors to share their genius with the world. It is not about gifted inventors paying equally gifted lawyers to obfuscate their inventions into gobbledygook so that other gifted inventors can at best hazard a guess as to precisely what is and is not covered by that patent. Thus, this incentive (#2) is not fulfilled by the current system of patents either -- not unless there is a major overhaul of the system. This ties in with the impossibility of ensuring that one is not violating a software patent. If a reasonably smart software developer (who are often working as individuals, and as part of SMEs) cannot quickly ascertain whether one is violating patents, then there is a huge disincentive against developing software in that area at all.
Software Patents Work Against Free/Libre/Open Source Software

Software patents hinder the development of software and FOSS licences, as the licensee is not allowed to restrict the rights of the sub-licensees over and above the restrictions that the licensee has to observe. Thus, all patent clearances obtained by the licensee must be passed on to the sub-licensees. Thus, patented software, though most countries around the world do not recognize them, are generally not included in the default builds of many FOSS operating systems. This inhabits the general adoption of FOSS, since many of the software patents, even though not enforceable in India, are paid heed to by the software that Indians download, and the MP3 and DivX formats are not enabled by default in standard installations of a Linux OS such as Ubuntu.

Conclusion

Currently, the U.S. patent system is being reviewed at the administrative level, the legislative level, as well as the judicial level. At the judicial level, the question of business method patents (and, by extension, software patents) is before the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the form of Bilski v. Kappos. Judge Mayer of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC, which heard In re Bilksi) noted that "the patent system has run amok". The Free Software Foundation submitted a most extensive amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, filled with brilliant analysis of software patents and arguments against the patentability of software that is well worth a read.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/arguments-against-software-patents

An Interview With Arjen Kamphuis

sachia — 2011-08-18T05:01:53Z

In an email interview with the Centre for Internet and Society, Dutch open source activist Arjen Kamphuis discussed his experience of successfully working with the government for a policy mandating open standards for all government IT in the Netherlands.

In 2002 Arjen Kamphuis co-authored a parliament motion to mandate open standards for all government IT in the Netherlands. The motion was unanimously accepted and, in 2007, became policy. The Netherlands thus became the first western country to make the use of open standards in public sector IT mandatory. Arjen is now working to e xport this set of policies to other European countries with the help of local political parties and business partners.

Arjen discussed his experience of lobbying for this policy change and some other questions related to his work as a consultant on IT strategy and the implications of nanotechnology and biotechnology in an email interview with the Centre for Internet and Society.

The Centre for Internet and Society: What is the Dutch government's policy on FOSS and Open Standards specifically and intellectual property rights in general? Provide some history, name the main lobbying factions in the Netherlands and their policy positions. What was your role in the formulation of these policies?

Arjen Kamphuis: The national action plan 'The Netherlands in Open Connection' is the government's answer to a unanimous vote in parliament in November 2002. The parliament stated that the market for desktop software was not functioning as it should and that significant vendor lock-in effects were harming both individual citizens and society as a whole. It requested maximum efforts from the government to change this situation. The suggested method for changing was mandating open standards in all public sector IT and actively supporting the adoption of open source software wherever functionally and technically feasible.

I was one of the people who got this process started by contacting a member of parliament from the Green Party. This was triggered by my inability to access the website of the national railway on 1 January 2002. The website had been redesigned and only allowed access to visiters with Internet Explorer. As a Linux user, I had previously had comparable problems with local government websites and electronic tax forms (usage of which was mandatory for small businesses like my consulting start-up).

After the unanimous vote in parliament, several people in the Dutch open source community, including me, kept the pressure on the government by monitoring major procurements and writing questions for the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to ask the government. In 2004 this led to a breakthrough when the Justice Ministry ran a project to procure 147 million euros' worth of desktop software without going through a proper multi-vendor selection process. They only talked to one vendor, and that is against European Union regulations. Since some of the civil servants working on this project were gagged, we can conclude that some people were aware they were breaking the law, yet went ahead anyway.

When the news broke we made sure the MEPs were armed with the proper questions the next day, and the contract was dropped. In reply to questions asked to the government by the MEPs, the responsible ministers admitted that the government was very dependent on Microsoft for basic functioning of its office environments; that this was a problem; and that the government would take active steps to remedy this situation by moving forward with the requests made in 2002 by parliament.

Two-and-a-half years and an election later, a new under-Minister for Economic Affairs, Frank Heemskerk, took up the challenge and promised a comprehensive policy. I gave input for this plan in mid-2007 and it was formally published and adopted later that year as a national policy for all government and public-sector (i.e. tax funded) organisations.

The policy has three objectives:

improving interoperability between public sector organisations;
lowering the vendor-dependence of the public sector;
improving the functioning of the software market and supporting the Dutch knowledge economy

Some of the practical measures are the mandating of the use of open standards in all public sector organisations. Whenever software is procured, open source should be considered and preferred whenever functionally adequate. These two very basic rules change the entire market for IT in the Dutch public sector (40% of the entire market) and is having a profound effect on the way software vendors offer their products as well as the negotiating power of the client organisations.

I continue to advise both the decision makers and the civil servants overseeing the implementation of the policy.

CIS: What is the current status on the implementation of these policies?

AK: After a slow start the government organisation that is responsable for overseeing the implementation is now up and running. The basic problem is lack of awareness about both the practical value that open standards and open source software can contribute and the underlying political reasons for making it the preferred option for government information processing.

Thus a lot of the work for the next few years will be communicating these ideas to civil servants (be they IT professionals or managers who have other jobs). The policy helps a lot because it puts some serious weight behind the whole process. The fact that government organisations have to support Open Document Format for instance significantly heightens their interest in the technical subject matter!

So the policy gives the drive needed to get things moving and now it is up to us to communicate the how and the why in a way that is understandable for people who are new to these concepts. I have no doubt it will be a long process, we have over 20 years of proprietary legacy built up in our public institutions. Replacing those systems with open alternatives will take many years. All the greater a reason to proceed with some urgency.

The complete policy document has been translated into English and released under Creative Commons Licence:
http://appz.ez.nl/publicaties/pdfs/07ET15.pdf

In December 2007 I gave a talk in Berlin. Here a summary, slides and video are available:
http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2387.en.html

CIS: What can a country like India learn from the Dutch government's experience in eGovernance and ICT in Education?

AK: I am not familiar with the Indian political process but these are some of my lessons learned:

- The government will not do anything unless constant and significant pressure is applied by citizens. Politicians and civil servants only act if the pain of acting is less than the pain of not acting. Change is achieved by citizens standing up and working on these problems without guarantee of any reward or even achieving any results (it took us five years to get from a unanimous vote in parliament to an actual policy).

- Big IT companies may be your friend or your enemy. But even if they are your friends they generally will not be at the forefront of political action that could be seen as controversial. Once policies are pushed beyond the controversial stage and have been adopted as official policy some of them will support it. Others, with much to lose, will fight you and the policy every step of the way. The more money or loss of market share is involved the more radical the methods that are employed. Massive lobbying, applying political pressure through foreign governments, bribery and all kinds of other activities are well-funded, well organised and very common.

- In moving forward with these policies it's the lack of knowledge and vision with the the management of institutions that is by far the biggest bottleneck. Without a clear policy from the top it is impossible to get things moving in most organisations.

- Another big problem in switching over local governments and other smaller organisations is the fact that many of the advantages of such a switch is national and/or macro-economic in nature while the initial cost and risk is micro-economic in nature. Hence again the need for a national policy.

- The funding required to make significant improvements is often not that large compared to the existing operational budgets. Investing in the smart use of IT in education for instance is something that can pay for itself very quickly. This is generally also true for adoption of open source and open standards in general. By just reducing the yearly spend on software licences by 1% the entire government program can be funded.

- Simply stopping the procurement of new licences (while continuing the use of those already paid for) can often free up enough money to finance a migration process. This has been the case in the city of Amsterdam and the French Gendarmes.

- The actual value of better government services or education is hard to quantify in monetary terms. How do we value improved responsiveness, transparency, national sovereignty in information processing and supporting local service companies instead of foreign software companies?

- IT education should focus on understanding methods and principles, not products. The product life-cycle is 18-36 months, the educational process takes many years and the length of a career is decades. Any education with a focus on products leads to knowledge that is irrelevant by the time the degree is finished. Teach people to drive a car, not just a Volkswagen or Tata.

- The cost of physical books per student per year in the Netherlands is now greater that the cost of a laptop. This is insane since the content of those books is generally written by teachers who get paid very little for it. Using the funds to pay those teachers instad of the publishers and releasing the content under a free licence will free up resources to develop better educational programs and provide all students with computational tools to use them. All without increasing the total cost compared to our current situation. The financial numbers will be different for India but the basic principle is the same and works even better given the larger scale of India. The cost of producing and distributing electronic educational content will drop practically to zero when compared to physical on a per-student basis. Using funds to support teachers in the use of e-learning with open content is the way forward.

CIS: How can a local support environment for open technologies be created? Can local SMEs ever substitute for the transnational proprietary giants?

AK: Whether SMEs can supplant multinationals depends on the product being replaced. CPU manufacturing requires a very high upfront investment in R&D and manufacturing capability. This is usually far beyond any but a handful of companies. With software development and services things are very different. Software development only requires a human with programming skills, a good idea and a computer. The Free Software Movement has shown clearly that distributed methods of software development can lead to high quality products with excellent local support systems. Local organisations (or communities that are not even organisations) can often understand local needs and respond to local changes much better, faster and cheaper than large, lumbering corporations. If local organisations work together globally to share knowledge (and code) for those parts they all need they can beat any centralised system.

What many senior business and government leaders are struggling with is the realisation that many of the 'truths' they have learned while studying economics or business management or some such subject turn out to be empirically incorrect. For example: it has become clear there is no causal relationship between the cost of software and its quality or utility. This must be a fact that is difficult to truly understand and accept if you have been brought up believing the gospel of the Anglo-Saxon economic worldview. The current economic crisis is a great help in questioning some of those beliefs and opens up room for new ideas about economic vs. societal value of technology and its relationship to businesses trying to earn a living.

CIS: Could you tell us about the Dutch government's rollback on electronic voting machines? What is your opinion on the use of electronic voting machines in the upcoming elections in India?

AK: From the mid '80s onward, voting computers were introduced in the Netherlands. By 2006, the vast majority of all elections were being performed by proprietary computer systems. Citizens would press a button and then go home to watch TV. Some software that no-one could control, monitor or properly audit would spit out a result and that would be it -- new government. Only a handful of engineers (all working for the companies that made the voting computers) actually knew what the software did and could make the computer system say anything they wanted.

When the city of Amsterdam (the last holdout using paper ballots) announced in 2006 that it was moving to voting computers, a group of activists organised a campaign to ban voting computers. We felt that the very nature of democracy was under attack by running the election process in a way that makes it impossible for ordinary citizens to check the validity of the election. It also makes fraud a lot harder to detect. Detectability of fraud is the one of the primary properties any election process should have. We all know election fraud is also possible with non-electronic means but keeping it a secret is much harder in such cases (as we saw in the US and Zimbabwean election over the last years). There was a actual case of suspected voter fraud in a Dutch municipal election and the judge concluded that while the fraud seemed likely it could not be proven. Regrettably for the suspected council member the fraud could also not be disproven. This shows very clearly that such a method is wholly unsuitable for application in real democratic processes.

Through lots of media attention, a few spectacular hacks showing the technical insecurity of the systems, and legal pressure, we forced the government in 2007 to reverse the approval of the voting computers and go back to an all-paper balloting system. This reversal is part of a global backlash against electronic voting systems. Comparable changes have been going on in many US states and all over Europe.

I think India should have voting process that can be understood and monitored by its citizens. This understanding and monitoring should be possible without requiring advanced degrees in computer science, software engineering and electronics. The only way to have such a process is when there is a paper ballot involved. Such a ballot could be printed by a computer to increase the ease of use but all-electronic solutions are ruled out by the basic demands of what a democracy is.

India should move to either all paper systems or voting computer backed-up by a voter-verified paper trail.

Are more extensive telling of the tale can be found here: http://wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/English

This is a link to the Berlin CCC conference of Rop Gongrijp's 2007 presentation (with video): http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html

http://www.blackboxvoting.org has a wealth of information on this subject.

CIS: What are the services provided by Gendo? Could you describe some of the projects that you have undertaken?

AK: My company (gendo.nl) also provides consulting services in the area of IT strategy, development of open IT architectures and implementing those in mixed open source/proprietary environments. We are currently advising both national and local government organisations in the implementation of policies and plans to move to open standards and open source software. We are also involved in projects where we do the actual development and implementation of new systems to enable innovation and lessen the dependance of our client on proprietary systems. Currently we are involved with a healthcare organisation where we are assisting in re-architecting their entire IT environment to allow service innovation, lower cost and increase information security.

We have also been involved in information security work and other auditing in the financial services and government sector. Here our activities focus on the grey area between technology and process.

Outside the field of IT we also do other consulting work such as scenario planning and strategic future studies, mostly for large corporate clients. Most of the big Anglo-Dutch multinationals such as Shell or Unilever are on our client list. We also have a large number of clients in the financial services and insurance sector.

For all of these clients we organise presentations and brainstorming sessions, often preceded by research. This helps the leaders in those organisations think about the nature of rapid, technology-driven changes in their markets and the world in general. These insights are then translated into new products, services and ways of delivering them.

Forgive me if this all sounds a bit vague but with many of these clients there is some confidentiality agreement involved.

CIS: Could you tell us more about yourself? Maybe you would like to share some formative experiences.

AK: Writing my first paper on black holes at age 11 showed me that grown-ups usually also don't know what is going on in the universe either. Despite rumours to the contrary parents, teachers, senior managers and politicians are not all-knowing and are stumbling about just like most two-year-olds where complex issues are concerned.

Over the last quarter century I've had this intuition reconfirmed again and again. In a world that is changing faster and faster experience becomes obsolete rather quickly and wisdom is no longer the sole purview of older, more senior, people. We need young smart-asses who have not yet learned what is impossible, so they go out there and do it.

-----

Arjen Kamphuis (born 1972) studied Science & Policy at Utrecht University and worked for IBM as Unix specialist, Tivoli consultant and software instructor. As IT-strategy consultant at Twynstra Gudde he was involved in starting up Kennisnet, the Dutch educational network. Since 2001 he is operating as an independent adviser of companies and governments. He co-authored, in 2002, a motion in parliament that ultimately turned, in 2007, into a full-fledged policy of the Dutch government mandating the use of open source software in all government and public sector IT operations.

Arjen at present divides his attention between IT-policy and the convergence of IT, biotechnology and nanotechnology and its social and economic implications. His customers include: Shell, Unilever, Pfizer, Stork, and various hospitals, governmental institutions and insurance companies. Arjen guest lectures on technology policy at various universities and colleges.

When not consulting Arjen is actively involved in (digital) civil liberties, the open source movement and criticizing the war on terror.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/an-interview-with-arjen-kamphuis

Adoption of Standards in Smart Cities - Way Forward for India

vanya — 2016-04-11T03:04:46Z

With a paradigm shift towards the concept of “Smart Cities’ globally, as well as India, such cities have been defined by several international standardization bodies and countries, however, there is no uniform definition adopted globally. The glue that allows infrastructures to link and operate efficiently is standards as they make technologies interoperable and efficient.

Click here to download the full file

Globally, the pace of urbanization is increasing exponentially. The world’s urban population is projected to rise from 3.6 billion to 6.3 billion between 2011 and 2050. A solution for the same has been development of sustainable cities by improving efficiency and integrating infrastructure and services [1]. It has been estimated that during the next 20 years, 30 Indians will leave rural India for urban areas every minute, necessitating smart and sustainable cities to accommodate them [2]. The Smart Cities Mission of the Ministry of Urban Development was announced in the year 2014, followed by selection of 100 cities in the year 2015 and 20 of them being selected for the first Phase of the project in the year 2016. The Mission [3] lists the “core infrastructural elements” that a smart city would incorporate like adequate water supply, assured electricity, sanitation, efficient public transport, affordable housing (especially for the poor), robust IT connectivity and digitisation, e-governance and citizen participation, sustainable environment, safety and security for citizens, health and education.

With a paradigm shift towards the concept of “Smart Cities’ globally, as well as India, such cities have been defined by several international standardization bodies and countries, however, there is no uniform definition adopted globally. The envisioned modern and smart city promises delivery of high quality services to the citizens and will harness data capture and communication management technologies. The performance of such cities would be monitored on the basis of physical as well as the social structure comprising of smart approaches and solution to utilities and transport.

The glue that allows infrastructures to link and operate efficiently is standards as they make technologies interoperable and efficient. Interoperability is essential and to ensure smart integration of various systems in a smart city, internationally agreed standards that include technical specifications and classifications must be adhered to. Development of international standards ensure seamless interaction between components from different suppliers and technologies [4].

Standardized indicators within standards benefit smart cities in the following ways:

Effective governance and efficient delivery of services.
International and Local targets, benchmarking and planning.
Informed decision making and policy formulation.
Leverage for funding and recognition in international entities.
Transparency and open data for investment attractiveness.
A reliable foundation for use of big data and the information explosion to assist cities in building core knowledge for city decision-making, and enable comparative insight.

The adoption of standards for smart cities has been advocated across the world as they are perceived to be an effective tool to foster development of the cities. The Director of the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Bureau Chaesub Lee is of the view that “Smart cities will employ an abundance of technologies in the family of the Internet of Things (IoT) and standards will assist the harmonized implementation of IoT data and applications , contributing to effective horizontal integration of a city’s subsystems” [5].

Smart Cities standards in India

National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM) partnered with Accenture [6] to prepare a report called ‘Integrated ICT and Geospatial Technologies Framework for 100 Smart Cities Mission’ [7] to explore the role of ICT in developing smart cities [8], after the announcement of the Mission by Indian Government. The report, released in May 2015, lists down 55 global standards, keeping in view several city sub-systems like urban planning, transport, governance, energy, climate and pollution management, etc which could be applicable to the smart cities in India.

Though NASSCOM is working closely with the Ministry of Urban Development to create a sustainable model for smart cities [9], due to lack of regulatory standards for smart cities, the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) in India has undertaken the task to formulate standardised guidelines for central and state authorities in planning, design and construction of smart cities by setting up a technical committee under the Civil engineering department of the Bureau. However, adoption of the standards by implementing agencies would be voluntary and intends to complement internationally available documents in this area [10].

Developing national standards in line with these international standards would enable interoperability (i.e. devices and systems working together) and provide a roadmap to address key issues like data protection, privacy and other inherent risks in the digital delivery and use of public services in the envisioned smart cities, which call for comprehensive data management standards in India to instill public confidence and trust [11].

Key International Smart Cities Standards

Following are the key internationally accepted and recognized Smart Cities standards developed by leading organisations and the national standardization bodies of several countries that India could adopt or develop national standards in line with these.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) - Smart Cities Standards

ISO is an instrumental body advocating and developing for smart cities to safeguard rights of the people against a liveable and sustainable environment. The ISO Smart Cities Strategic Advisory Group uses the following working definition: A ‘Smart City’ is one that dramatically increases the pace at which it improves its social, economic and environmental (sustainability) outcomes, responding to challenges such as climate change, rapid population growth, and political and economic instability by fundamentally improving how it engages society, how it applies collaborative leadership methods, how it works across disciplines and city systems, and how it uses data information and modern technologies in order to transform services and quality of life for those in and involved with the city (residents, businesses, visitors), now and for the foreseeable future, without unfair disadvantage of others or degradation of the natural environment. [For details see ISO/TMB Smart Cities Strategic Advisory Group Final Report, September 2015 ( ISO Definition, June 2015)].

The ISO Technical Committee 268 works on standardization in the field of Sustainable Development in Communities [12] to encourage the development and implementation of holistic, cross-sector and area-based approaches to sustainable development in communities. The Committee comprises of 3 Working Groups [13]:

Working Group 1: System Management ISO 37101- This standard sets requirements, guidance and supporting techniques for sustainable development in communities. It is designed to help all kinds of communities manage their sustainability, smartness and resilience to improve the contribution of communities to sustainable development and assess their performance in this area [14].
Working Group 2 : City Indicators- The key Smart Cities Standards developed by ISO TC 268 WG 2 (City Indicators) are:

ISO 37120 Sustainable Development of Communities — Indicators for City Services and Quality of Life

One of the key standards and an important step in this regard was ISO 37120:2014 under the ISO’s Technical Committee 268 (See Working on Standardization in the field of Sustainable Development in Communities) providing clearly defined city performance indicators (divided into core and supporting indicators) as a benchmark for city services and quality of life, along with a standard approach for measuring each for city leaders and citizens [15]. The standard is global in scope and can help cities prioritize city budgets, improve operational transparency, support open data and applications [16]. It follows the principles [17] set out and can be used in conjunction with ISO 37101.

ISO 37120 was the first ISO Standard on Global City Indicators published in the year 2014, developed on the basis of a set of indicators developed and extensively tested by the Global City Indicators Facility (a project by University of Toronto) and its 250+ member cities globally. GCIF is committed to build standardized city indicators for performance management including a database of comparable statistics that allow cities to track their effectiveness on everything from planning and economic growth to transportation, safety and education [18].

The World Council on City Data (WCCD) [19] - a sister organization of the GCI/GCIF - was established in the year 2014 to operationalize ISO 37120 across cities globally. The standards encompasses 100 indicators developed around 17 themes to support city services and quality of life, and is accessible through the WCCD Open City Data Portal which allows for cutting-edge visualizations and comparisons. Indian cities are not yet listed with WCCD [20].

The indicators are listed under the following heads [21]:

Economy
Education
Environment
Energy
Finance
Fire and Emergency Responses
Governance
Health
Safety
Shelter
Recreation
Solid Waste
Telecommunication and innovation
Transportation
Urban Planning
Waste water
Water and Sanitation

This International Standard is applicable to any city, municipality or local government that undertakes to measure its performance in a comparable and verifiable manner, irrespective of size and location or level of development. City indicators have the potential to be used as critical tools for city managers, politicians, researchers, business leaders, planners, designers and other professionals [22]. The WCCD forum highlights need for cities to have a set of globally standardized indicators to [23]:

Manage and make informed decisions through data analysis
Benchmark and target
Leverage Funding with senior levels of government
Plan and establish new frameworks for sustainable urban development
Evaluate the impact of infrastructure projects on the overall performance of a city.

ISO/DTR 37121- Inventory and Review of Existing Indicators on Sustainable Development and Resilience in Cities

The second standard under ISO TC 268 WG 2 is ISO 37121, which defines additional indicators related to sustainable development and resilience in cities. Some of the indicators include: Smart Cities, Smart Grid, Economic Resilience, Green Buildings, Political Resilience, Protection of biodiversity, etc. The complete list can be viewed on the Resilient Cities website [24].

Working Group 3: Terminology - There are no publicly available documents so far, giving details about the status of the activities of this group. The ISO Technical Committee 268 also includes Sub Committee 1 (Smart Community Infrastructure) [25], comprising of the following Working Groups: 1) WG 1 Infrastructure metrics, and 2) WG 2 Smart Community Infrastructure.

The key Smart Cities Standards developed by ISO under this are:

ISO 37151:2015 Smart community infrastructures — Principles and Requirements for Performance Metrics
In the year 2015, a new ISO technical specification for smart cities- 37151:2015 for Principles and requirements for performance metrics was released. The purpose of standardization in the field of smart community infrastructures such as energy, water, transportation, waste, information and communications technology (ICT), etc. is to promote the international trade of community infrastructure products and services and improve sustainability in communities by establishing harmonized product standards [26]. The metrics in this standard will support city and community managers in planning and measuring performance, and also compare and select procurement proposals for products and services geared at improving community infrastructures [27].
This Technical Specification gives principles and specifies requirements for the definition,identification, optimization, and harmonization of community infrastructure performance metrics, and gives recommendations for analysis, regarding interoperability, safety, security of community infrastructures [28]. This new Technical Specification supports the use of the ISO 37120 [29].
ISO/TR 37150:2014 Smart Community Infrastructures - Review of Existing Activities Relevant to Metrics
This standard addresses community infrastructures such as energy, water, transportation, waste and information and communications technology (ICT). Smart community infrastructures take into consideration environmental impact, economic efficiency and quality of life by using information and communications technology (ICT) and renewable energies to achieve integrated management and optimized control of infrastructures. Integrating smart community infrastructures for a community helps improve the lifestyles of its citizens by, for example: reducing costs, increasing mobility and accessibility, and reducing environmental pollutants.
ISO/TR 37150 reviews relevant metrics for smart community infrastructures and provides stakeholders with a better understanding of the smart community infrastructures available around the world to help promote international trade of community infrastructure products and give information about leading-edge technologies to improve sustainability in communities [30]. This standard, along with the above mentioned standards [31] supports the multi-billion dollar smart cities technology industry.

Several other ISO Working Groups developing standards applicable to smart and sustainable cities have been listed in our website [32].

The International Telecommunications Union (ITU)

The ITU is another global body working on development of standards regarding smart cities.

A study group was formed in the year 2015 to tackle standardization requirements for the Internet of Things, with an initial focus on IoT applications in smart cities to address urban development challenges [33], to enable the coordinated development of IoT technologies, including machine-to-machine communications and ubiquitous sensor networks. The group is titled “ITU-T Study Group 20: IoT and its applications, including smart cities and communities”, established to develop standards that leverage IoT technologies to address urban-development challenges and the mechanisms for the interoperability of IoT applications and datasets employed by various vertically oriented industry sectors [34].

ITU-T also concluded a focused study group looking at smart sustainable cities in May 2015, acting as an open platform for smart city stakeholders to exchange knowledge in the interests of identifying the standardized frameworks needed to support the integration of ICT services in smart cities. Its parent group is ITU-T Study Group 5, which has agreed on the following definition of a Smart Sustainable City:
"A smart sustainable city is an innovative city that uses information and communication technologies (ICTs) and other means to improve quality of life, efficiency of urban operation and services, and competitiveness, while ensuring that it meets the needs of present and future generations with respect to economic, social, environmental as well as cultural aspects".

UK - British Standards Institution

Apart from the global standards setting organisations, many countries have been looking at developing standards to address the growth of smart cities across the globe. In the UK, the British Standards Institution (BSI) has been commissioned by the UK Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) to conceive a Smart Cities Standards Strategy to identify vectors of smart city development where standards are needed. The standards would be developed through a consensus-driven process under the BSI to ensure good practise is shared between all the actors. The BIS launched the City's Standards Institute to bring together cities and key industry leaders and innovators to work together in identifying the challenges facing cities, providing solutions to common problems and defining the future of smart city standards [35].

PAS 181 Smart city framework- Guide to establishing strategies for smart cities and communities establishes a good practice framework for city leaders to develop, agree and deliver smart city strategies that can help transform their city’s ability to meet challenges faced in the future and meet the goals. The smart city framework (SCF) does not intend to describe a one-size-fits-all model for the future of UK cities but focuses on the enabling processes by which the innovative use of technology and data, together with organizational change, can help deliver the diverse visions for future UK cities in more efficient, effective and sustainable ways [36].
PD 8101 Smart cities- Guide to the role of the planning and development process gives guidance regarding planning for new development for smart city plans and provides an overview of the key issues to be considered and prioritized. The document is for use by local authority planning and regeneration officers to identify good practice in a UK context, and what tools they could use to implement this good practice. This aims to enable new developments to be built in a way that will support smart city aspirations at minimal cost [37].
PAS 182 Smart city concept model. Guide to establishing a model for data establishes an interoperability framework and data-sharing between agencies for smart cities for the following purposes:
1. To have a city where information can be shared and understood between organizations and people at each level
2. The derivation of data in each layer can be linked back to data in the previous layer
3. The impact of a decision can be observed back in operational data. The smart city concept model (SCCM) provides a framework that can normalize and classify information from many sources so that data sets can be discovered and combined to gain a better picture of the needs and behaviours of a city’s citizens (residents and businesses) to help identify issues and devise solutions. PAS 182 is aimed at organizations that provide services to communities in cities, and manage the resulting data, as well as decision-makers and policy developers in cities [38].
PAS 180 Smart cities Vocabulary helps build a strong foundation for future standardization and good practices by providing an industry-agreed understanding of smart city terms and definitions to be used in the UK. It provides a working definition of a Smart City- “Smart Cities” is a term denoting the effective integration of physical, digital and human systems in the built environment to deliver a sustainable, prosperous and inclusive future for its citizens [39]. This aims to help improve communication and understanding of smart cities by providing a common language for developers, designers, manufacturers and clients. The standard also defines smart city concepts across different infrastructure and systems’ elements used across all service delivery channels and is intended for city authorities and planners, buyers of smart city services and solutions [40], as well as product and service providers.

Endnotes

[1] See: http://www.iec.ch/whitepaper/pdf/iecWP-smartcities-LR-en.pdf.

[2] See: http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/in/en/sustainable_cities/ideas/.

[3] See: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/smart-cities-mission-welcome-to-tomorrows-world/article8163690.ece.

[4] See: http://www.iec.ch/whitepaper/pdf/iecWP-smartcities-LR-en.pdf.

[5] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/news.htm?refid=Ref2042.

[6] See: http://www.livemint.com/Companies/5Twmf8dUutLsJceegZ7I9K/Nasscom-partners-Accenture-to-form-ICT-framework-for-smart-c.html.

[7] See: http://www.nasscom.in/integrated-ict-and-geospatial-technologies-framework-100-smart-cities-mission.

[8] See: http://www.cxotoday.com/story/nasscom-creates-framework-for-smart-cities-project/.

[9] See: http://www.livemint.com/Companies/5Twmf8dUutLsJceegZ7I9K/Nasscom-partners-Accenture-to-form-ICT-framework-for-smart-c.html.

[10] See: http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/in-a-first-bis-to-come-up-with-standards-for-smart-cities-115060400931_1.html.

[11] See: http://www.longfinance.net/groups7/viewdiscussion/72-financing-financing-tomorrow-s-cities-how-standards-can-support-the-development-of-smart-cities.html?groupid=3.

[12] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_technical_committee?commid=656906.

[13] See: http://cityminded.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Patricia_McCarney_PDF.pdf.

[14] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/news.htm?refid=Ref1877.

[15] See: http://smartcitiescouncil.com/article/new-iso-standard-gives-cities-common-performance-yardstick.

[16] See: http://smartcitiescouncil.com/article/dissecting-iso-37120-why-new-smart-city-standard-good-news-cities.

[17] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=62436.

[18] See: http://www.cityindicators.org/.

[19] See: http://www.dataforcities.org/.

[20] See: http://news.dataforcities.org/2015/12/world-council-on-city-data-and-hatch.html.

[21] See: http://news.dataforcities.org/2015/12/world-council-on-city-data-and-hatch.html.

[22] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/37120_briefing_note.pdf.

[23] See: http://www.dataforcities.org/wccd/.

[24] See: http://resilient-cities.iclei.org/fileadmin/sites/resilient-cities/files/Webinar_Series/HERNANDEZ_-_ICLEI_Resilient_Cities_Webinar__FINAL_.pdf.

[25] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_technical_committee?commid=656967.

[26] See: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:ts:37151:ed-1:v1:en.

[27] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_index/news_archive/news.htm?refid=Ref2001&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ISO+Newsletter+November&utm_content=ISO+Newsletter+November+CID_4182720c31ca2e71fa93d7c1f1e66e2f&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Read%20more.

[28] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/37120_briefing_note.pdf.

[29] See: http://standardsforum.com/isots-37151-smart-cities-metrics/.

[30] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/executive_summary_iso_37150.pdf.

[31] See: http://standardsforum.com/isots-37151-smart-cities-metrics/.

[32] See: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/database-on-big-data-and-smart-cities-international-standards.

[33] See: http://smartcitiescouncil.com/article/itu-takes-internet-things-standards-smart-cities.

[34] See: https://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2015/22.aspx.

[35] See: http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/smart-cities/.

[36] See: http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/smart-cities/Smart-Cities-Standards-and-Publication/PAS-181-smart-cities-framework/.

[37] See: http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/smart-cities/Smart-Cities-Standards-and-Publication/PD-8101-smart-cities-planning-guidelines/.

[38] See: http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/smart-cities/Smart-Cities-Standards-and-Publication/PAS-182-smart-cities-data-concept-model/.

[39] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/smart_cities_report-jtc1.pdf.

[40] See: http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/smart-cities/Smart-Cities-Standards-and-Publication/PAS-180-smart-cities-terminology/.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/adoption-of-standards-in-smart-cities-way-forward-for-india

(Lack of) Representation of Non-Western World in Process of Creation of Web Standards

gupta — 2016-10-20T01:44:41Z

World Wide Consortium (W3C) as a standard setting organization for the World Wide Web plays a very important role in shaping the web. We focus on the ongoing controversy related to Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) and found that there was a serious lack of participation from people from non-western countries. We also found serious lack of gender diversity in the EME debate.

W3C is the organization which sets the standard for HTML 5. Recently it got surrounded by controversy due to the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) draft specification (David Dorwin et al. 2016). EME aims to prevent piracy of digital video by making it hard to download the unencrypted video stream. But it also raises lots of issues regarding implementation in Free and Open Source Software, Interoperability, Privacy, Security, Accessibility and fair use. (Cory Doctorow 2016)

In this study we looked at aspects of the debate which both of the sides ignored, the third world! We found that out of 48 people who participated in the debate around EME on W3C's public-html mailing list, none of them were from the continents of Asia, Africa or South America. These regions make up almost 80 % of the world's population and more than 60 percent of world's internet users (Stats 2016). When a group of people doesn't get represented a in the standard making process it is expected that their concerns don't get represented either. The representation of people is specially important in the EME debate because laws around Digital Rights Management around the world are different. For example Indian laws does not disallow manufacture and distribution of circumvention tools whereas the law in USA does (Prakash 2016b). The cultural norms around the world are quite different and also the conditions under which people use the internet are different. India has the lowest average internet speed across the world (Akamai 2016). A large of fraction of Indian population (37% in 2010) accesses internet through Cyber Cafés (TRAI 2016). These factors makes the ability to download digital content much more important for an Indian internet user than a North American or European internet user.

Methodology

We used BigBang[1] python package to download the achieves of the public-html mailing list at W3C.[2] Our dump contains all the messages between 31st August 2010 to 15th May 2016. Then we filtered out all the emails with EME, encrypted media or DRM in the subject line. There were 472 such emails. We then de-duplicated the list of senders as some senders used multiple emails in the course of discussion. There were 48 unique senders afters de duplication. Then we looked up their social media profiles (LinkedIn, Twitter, Github), personal website or page at employers site to determine the region they belong to and their gender. All the source code used for the analysis is available on our github repository.[3]

Result

Regional Diversity

Region	Participant (%)	Email (%)
Africa	0 (0)	0 (0)
Asia	0 (0)	0 (0)
Australia and New Zealand	5 (10.4)	16 (3.4)
Europe	13 (27.1)	146 (30.9)
North America	30 (62.5)	310 (65.7)
South America	0 (0)	0 (0)
Total	48 (100)	472 (100)

As mentioned in the Introduction above there was absolutely no participation from the whole continents of Africa, Asia, or South America with most of the emails being sent by North Americans.

Gender Diversity

Gender	Participant(%)	Email(%)
Male	47 (97.9)	466 (98.7)
Female	1 (2.1)	6 (1.3)
Total	48 (100)	472 (100)

There was only one women participating in the discussing contributing 1.3 % of the emails sent. The numbers reflects widely discussed lack of gender diversity in Tech and Open communities.

The debate inside W3C around EME also seriously lacked in gender diversity, which is typical of open communities.

Stakeholder Community

Stakeholder Community	Participants per work category	Emails sent per stakeholder category
FOSS browser developer	5	56
Digital Content Provider	9	186
DRM Platform Provider	15	100
Accessibility	4	47
Security Researcher	0	0
Privacy	2	2
Other W3C Employee	3	10
None of the Above	10	71
Total	48	472

We observe that there was no participation from the Security Researcher community and negligible participation from privacy community. Voice of Digital Content Provider was overrepresented with almost 40% of emails sent by them.

Methodological remarks:

Participants are categorized on the basis stakes of their employer and not specifically on the work they do. For example someone who works on privacy in Google will be placed in "DRM platform provider" instead of "Privacy".
W3C and Universities are considered to neutral and their employees are categorized by the work they do.
Google's position is very interesting, it is a DRM provider as a browser manufacturer but also a content provider in Youtube and fair number of Google Employers are against EME due to other concerns. Therefore Christian Kaiser has been paced as Content provider because he works on Youtube, and everyone else has been placed as DRM provider.

Discussion and Future Work

The lack of diversity in W3C is not unique. (Graham, Straumann, and Hogan 2015) showed a significant western bias in Wikipedia, gender bias in Wikipedia has also a well known and is being actively worked upon. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has also been criticized for under representing interests of non North American and West European world (Prakash 2016a).

We hope that W3C and other organizations will increase the diversity in their standard making process so that global voices actually shape the global internet.

Acknowledgement

This work was done during my internship at The Center for Internet & Society, India. I thank Sunil Abraham for useful and timely feedback and Pranesh Prakash, Amber Sinha and Udbhav Tiwari for informed discussions.

References

Akamai. 2016. “Akamai State of the Internet Q1 2016.” Accessed August 20. https://www.akamai.com/uk/en/multimedia/documents/state-of-the-internet/akamai-state-of-the-internet-report-q1-2016.pdf.
Cory Doctorow. 2016. “Interoperability and the W3C: Defending the Future from the Present.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/interoperability-and-w3c-defending-future-present.
David Dorwin, Jerry Smith, Mark Watson, and Adrian Bateman. 2016. “Encrypted Media Extensions, W3C Editor’s Draft.” Accessed May 13. https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/
Feminism, Geek. 2016. “Geek Feminism Wiki FLOSS.” Geek Feminism Wiki. Accessed October 5. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/FLOSS.
Graham, Mark, Ralph K. Straumann, and Bernie Hogan. 2015. “Digital Divisions of Labor and Informational Magnetism: Mapping Participation in Wikipedia.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105 (6): 1158–78. doi:10.1080/00045608.2015.1072791.
Prakash, Pranesh. 2016a. “CIS Statement at ICANN 49’s Public Forum.” The Centre for Internet and Society. Accessed August 20. http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann49-public-forum-statement.
Prakash, Pranesh. 2016b. “Technological Protection Measures in the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010.” The Centre for Internet and Society. Accessed August 20. http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment.
Stats, Internet Live. 2016. “Number of Internet Users (2016) - Internet Live Stats.” Accessed August 20. http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/.
TRAI.. “Recommendations on National Broadband Plan.” Accessed August 20. http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Recommendation/Documents/Rcommendation81210.pdf.

^{^[1]} https://github.com/datactive/bigbang

^{^[2]} https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/

^{^[3]} https://github.com/hargup/eme_diversity_analysis

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/lack-of-representation-of-non-western-world-in-creation-of-web-standards