The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 241 to 248.
Screening of 'Steal this Film' (TV Cut)
https://cis-india.org/events/screening-of-steal-this-film-tv-cut
<b>A screening of a new edit combining Steal this Film and Steal this Film II, which hasn't been released or screened before. The screening will be followed by a discussion with the director, Jamie King.</b>
The <strong>Centre for Internet and Society</strong> and <strong>Pedestrian Pictures</strong>
<p>cordially invite you to a screening of<br /><strong>Steal this Film (TV Cut)</strong> by <strong>Jamie King</strong></p>
<p><br /><strong>Film</strong>:<br />Steal This
Film (TV Cut) <br />A new edit combining Steal This Film and Steal This Film
II, which hasn't been previously released or screened.</p>
<div>
<br /><strong>Date and Time</strong>:<br />Saturday, November 8, 2007<br />17:30 - 19:00 hrs.<br />
<br /><br /><strong>Venue</strong>:<br />Nani Cinematheque (CFD)<br />5th Floor, Sona Towers<br />71 Millers Road<br />Bangalore<br /><br /><br /><strong>Map</strong>:<br /><a class="external-link" href="http://bit.ly/nani-map">http://bit.ly/nani-map</a></div>
<div>(For directions to the venue call, CIS on +91 80 4092 6283.)<br /><br /><br /><strong>More about the film</strong>:<br />'Steal this Film' is a documentary series (available for free download online) about the culture of piracy and issues<br />
surrounding intellectual property, and the cultural and economic implications of the Internet.<br /><br />It has been selected for screening at Sheffield International Documentary Film Festival, South By Southwest (SXSW) festival in<br />
Austin, Texas, the Singapore International Film Festival, and the International Documentary Film Festival in Amsterdam.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Links</strong>:<br /><a href="http://www.stealthisfilm.com/" target="_blank">http://www.stealthisfilm.com/</a><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_This_Film" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_This_Film</a><br /><a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/29/steal-this-film-part.html" target="_blank">http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/29/steal-this-film-part.html</a><br />
<br /><strong><br />More about the director</strong>:<br />Jamie King is a film maker, writer and activist working enthusiastically in the area of new media, post-IP culture and social<br />organisation.
A former editor of Mute Magazine, lobbyist at the UN, journalist at ITN
News, and consultant for Channel 4 Television, Jamie is now focused on
radical approaches to sharing, exchange and co-operation indicated by
network technologies across a variety of media.<br />
<br />Co-organiser of the 2003 WSIS? We Seize! counter-UN summit,
Jamie continues to be involved in highlighting the importance of
information politics in the social movements. STEAL THIS FILM I and
II, documentaries exploring the uncertain future of intellectual
property, have been downloaded over 4 million times via BitTorrent and
featured at numerous international film festivals.<br /><br />
<strong>Add to Google Calendar</strong>:<br /><a href="http://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=TEMPLATE&tmeid=dnY3Y3Nsdm1yZzdvNG9jcTRsM281dGYwbzAgZzRtaWNsamVsbTFqajNhMDk5NTE0a21hcDRAZw&tmsrc=ZzRtaWNsamVsbTFqajNhMDk5NTE0a21hcDRAZ3JvdXAuY2FsZW5kYXIuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.google.com/calendar/images/ext/gc_button1_en.gif" alt="" /></a></div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/events/screening-of-steal-this-film-tv-cut'>https://cis-india.org/events/screening-of-steal-this-film-tv-cut</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property Rights2011-04-05T04:44:27ZEventThe National Public Meeting on Software Patents
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/the-national-public-meeting-on-software-patents
<b>On Saturday, October 4, 2008, the Centre for Internet and Society, with the support of eighteen other organization, held a meeting on the National Public Meeting on Software Patents in the United Theological College campus. The aim of the event was to explore various issues surrounding software patents, especially from the perspective of the draft Patent Manual.</b>
<p>After introductions by <a href="https://cis-india.org/../../about-us/people/staff/staff#sunil-abraham" class="external-link">Sunil Abraham</a> of CIS, the discussions were kicked off by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.nls.ac.in/faculty_sudhir.html">Sudhir Krishnaswamy</a> (an Assistant Professor at National Law School), who spoke about typology of laws; principle-based arguments for excluding software from patenting; policy-based arguments for the same; and lastly, strategies for combating the patent manual. About the rationale behind excepting software ("computer programmes <em>per se</em>") from patentability, he theorised that given the location of "computer programmes <em>per se</em>" in section 3(k) of the Act, surrounded as it is by "mathematical or business method" and "algorithms", the exception seems to be a principle-based one and not a policy-based one. He also talked about what he saw as the practical realities of the Patent Office, and questioned the role the Draft Manual would actually play in the decisions of Patent Examiners.<br /><br />He listed out economic arguments as:</p>
<ol><li>Inapplicability of the incentive arguments. The software industry does not need patents since copyright covers software, and even if incentives are required, that is incentive enough;</li><li>Return on investment. Short shelf-life, and hence 17-year patent terms are irrelevant when the shelf-life is so small;</li><li>New intermediaries are created, who are neither producers nor consumers of software. These intermediaries who help in price-discovery. They discover value in patents which were previously thought neglected by the process known as patent trolling. </li></ol>
<p><br />Apart from these, he also briefly talked of the legal arguments around software patents, and argued that the question is not only about copyright vs. patent, but also about property vs. contract. He asked questions such as: "What role does copyright play in the software industry, or is contract more important?", and pointed out that while this might have been addressed around a decade ago, those questions need to be revisited given the current scenario. Further, he proposed that the strategies should not revolve solely around the Patent Act and Draft Manual, but around pre- and post-grant oppositions as well.<br /><br /><img class="image-right" src="../NMoSP%20005.jpg/image_mini" alt="Prabir Purkayastha" />Prabir Purkayastha of the Delhi Science Forum and Knowledge Commons spoke next, giving a quick run-through of the history, both legal and philosophical, surrounding software patents in India and in the U.S. and Europe (pointing out that most of the wordings of Draft Manual on this point are borrowed from a similar document in the U.K.). He asked the question of why people are opposing software patents. Is it because it is damaging to 'public interest', because it bad for Indian domestic software industry, or because it is an abstract idea which is sought to be patented in the guise of something else? He concluded that ultimately it is not the manual that groups are opposing, but the notion of software patents themselves. Thus, he focussed on how the phrase <em>"per se</em>" used in the Act ought to be interpreted by the Patent Office so as to give credence to the Indian Parliament's rejection (in 2005) of the 2004 patent ordinance (in which section 3(k) read: "a computer programme <em>per se</em> other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware"). Lastly, he talked about the various strategies to be employed in the fight against software patents, including pre- and post-grant oppositions.<br /><br /><a class="external-link" href="http://www.gnu.org.in/about-fsf-india/whos-who">Dr. Nagarjuna G.</a> of the Free Software Foundation of India focussed on what he termed "the absurdity of software patents". He emphasised how software requires an interpreter or hardware, and hence talk of "software <em>per se</em>" often becomes meaningless. Further, he underlined how embedding software in hardware was not innovation in itself, and stressed ont he changing notions of software and hardware as we evolve technologically. His equation of software with abstract ideas gives us a glimpse into the foundation of his objection to software patents.<br /><br /><img class="image-left" src="../PrashantIyengar.jpg/image_mini" alt="Prashant Iyengar" />First up in the second session (which was more focussed on the manual, and the law in India) was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.altlawforum.org/OUR_TEAM/profile">Prashant Iyengar</a> of the Bangalore-based Alternative Law Forum. He first listed out the different kinds of objections to software patents, including the point that there are only limited ways of thinking about programming, as Donald Knuth's <em><a class="external-link" href="http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/taocp.html">The Art of Computer Programming</a> </em>shows. Then he went on to go through the history of software patents in India, from the first software patent, granted in 1996, through the 2002 Amendment, the 2004 Ordinance, the 2005 Amendment, and the 2005 and 2008 Draft Manuals. He looked at the vocabulary surrounding software patents, including the words "<em>per se</em>" and "as such", and the cases and legislations from which the language used in the Draft Manual might have been borrowed. He also started a fruitful debate on the different ways to attack the implicit inclusion of that which is not "computer programmes <em>per se</em>" within the scope of patentable subject matter.<br /><br />After Prashant was Venkatesh Hariharan of Red Hat. He spoke on the practical benefits and harms of software patents, and spoke at length about the difference between legal protection of software in the form of patents and via copyright. He pointed to data showing that lawyers are the ones who benefit most from software patents, and that software developers were the ones who suffered most. Pointing to such practical issues such as how does one go about coding a simple e-commerce transaction when more than 4000 patents have already been granted in that area, he brought down the level of discussion from abstract notions of laws and legalities to practical experiences of software programmers.<br /><br />Next, Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society made a presentation on a small sample of software patents that have been applied for in India, and pointed out the infirmities in both the patents that have been applied for, as well as the problems in uncovering these patents because of various errors on the Indian Patent Office website. Going through a few of the patent applications, he showed how a great number applications have very badly worded abstracts, filled with weasel words, whose sole purpose is obfuscating the fact that what is being applied for is a software patent. This, he pointed out, made it difficult to both determine the scope of the applications (subject matter) as well as the innovations contained in the invention (novelty and non-obviousness), and thus difficult to examine from the perspective of pre-grant oppositions.<br /><br />After these presentations, the meeting continued with the Open House session which had many people making presentations, including Abhas Abhinav of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.deeproot.co.in/">DeepRoot Linux</a>, Arun M. of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.gnu.org.in">FSF India</a>, and Joseph C. Matthew, who is the IT Adviser to the Chief Minister, Kerala. With the wrapping up of this session, the proceedings for the day came to a close.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Coverage in the press<br /></h3>
<ul><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/world-day-against-software-patents" class="internal-link" title="World Day Against Software Patents">The Hindu (September 25, 2008) - World Day Against Software Patents</a></li><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/time-out-bengaluru-software-patenting" class="internal-link" title="Time Out Bengaluru - Software Patenting">Time Out Bengaluru (October 3, 2008) - Software Patenting</a></li><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/software-patenting-will-harm-industry-consumer" class="internal-link" title="Software patenting will harm industry, consumer">The Hindu (October 5, 2008) - Software patenting will harm industry, consumer</a><br /></li></ul>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div>
<h3>Audio Recordings and Slides<br /></h3>
<div>
<ul>
<li>The Principles of Patent Law and Introduction to Software Patents</li>
<ul><li>Sudhir Krishnaswamy (National Law School) | <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/02.%20Sudhir%20Krishnaswamy.mp3" class="internal-link" title="The Principles of Patent Law and Introduction to Software Patents">mp3</a> | <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/02.%20Sudhir%20Krishnaswamy.ogg" class="internal-link" title="The Principles of Patent Law and Introduction to Software Patents">ogg</a></li><li>Prabir Purkayastha(Delhi Sience Forum) (Knowledge Commons) |<a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/03.%20Prabir%20Purkayastha.mp3" class="internal-link" title="The Principles of Patent Law and Introduction to Software Patents">mp3</a> | <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/03.%20Prabir%20Purkayastha.ogg" class="internal-link" title="The Principles of Patent Law and Introduction to Software Patents">ogg</a></li><li>Nagarjuna G.(Free Software Foundation of India) | <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/04.%20Nagarjuna%20G..mp3" class="internal-link" title="The Principles of Patent Law and Introduction to Software Patents">mp3</a> | <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/04.%20Nagarjuna%20G..ogg" class="internal-link" title="The Principles of Patent Law and Introduction to Software Patents">ogg</a></li></ul>
<li>Software Patents in India: The Indian Patent Act and the Draft Patent Manual</li>
<ul><li>Prashant Iyengar(Alternative Law Forum) | <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/05.%20Prashant%20Iyengar.mp3" class="internal-link" title="Software Patents in India - The Indian Patent Act and the Draft Patent Manual">mp3</a> | <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/05.%20Prashant%20Iyengar.ogg" class="internal-link" title="Software Patents in India - The Indian Patent Act and the Draft Patent Manual">ogg</a></li><li style="text-align: left;">Venkatesh Hariharan(Red Hat) | <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/06.%20Venkatesh%20Hariharan.mp3" class="internal-link" title="Software Patents in India - The Indian Patent Act and the Draft Patent Manual">mp3</a> | <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/06.%20Venkatesh%20Hariharan.ogg" class="internal-link" title="Software Patents in India - The Indian Patent Act and the Draft Patent Manual">ogg</a></li></ul>
<li>Software Patent Applications in India</li>
<ul><li>Pranesh Prakash (Centre for Internet and Society) | <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/07.%20Pranesh%20Prakash.mp3" class="internal-link" title="Presentation on Software Patents Applied for in India">mp3</a> | <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/07.%20Pranesh%20Prakash.ogg" class="internal-link" title="Presentation on Software Patents Applied for in India">ogg</a> | <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/pranesh-software-patents-draft.ppt" class="internal-link" title="software patent draft pranesh">ppt</a><br /></li></ul>
<li>Open House <br /></li>
<ul><li>Abhas Abhinav (DeepRoot Linux) | <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/08.%20Abhas%20Abhinav.mp3" class="internal-link" title="Open House">mp3</a> | <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/09.%20Arun%20M..mp3" class="internal-link" title="Open House">ogg</a></li></ul>
<ul><li>Arun M.(Free Software Foundation of India)| <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/09.%20Arun%20M..mp3" class="internal-link" title="Open House">mp3</a> | <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/09.%20Arun%20M..ogg" class="internal-link" title="Open House">ogg</a></li><li>Joseph Mathew (IT Adviser to the Chief Minister, Kerala)| <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/10.%20Joseph%20Mathew.mp3" class="internal-link" title="Open House">mp3</a> | <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/uploads/10.%20Joseph%20Mathew.ogg" class="internal-link" title="Open House">ogg</a></li></ul>
</ul>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/the-national-public-meeting-on-software-patents'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/the-national-public-meeting-on-software-patents</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshConferenceCampaignSoftware PatentsFLOSSOpennessMeeting2011-08-23T03:02:56ZBlog EntryALF's Note before 2005 Amendment
https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/alfs-note-before-2005-amendment
<b>Briefing note on the impact of software patents on the software industry in India</b>
<h3>Prepared by</h3>
<p>Lawrence Liang</p>
<p>Anuranjan Sethi</p>
<p>Prashant Iyengar</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Background</h2>
<p>While there has been a lot of discussion on the impact that the latest amendment to the Indian Patent Act will have on public health and the pharmaceutical sector in India, there has been a disturbing silence about the impact that the amendment has on the software industry.</p>
<p>After the patents (second amendment) in 2002, the scope of non patentable subject matter in the Act was amended to include the following: “a mathematical method or a business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms”.</p>
<p>The important phrase that was added was ‘per se’, and with the amendment we effectively included Software patents into Indian Law. The latest amendment seeks to expand the scope of software patents, and states “a computer programme per se other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware; a mathematical method or a business method or algorithms”.</p>
<p>This briefing note will not address the technical and legal implication of this amendment but instead pose the larger question of why we should be concerned about software patents, and the impact that it will have on the software industry in India.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>I. Conceptual difference between Copyright and Patent</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>The first thing to note is that software is already protected under Copyright law, so what then is the motivation and the implication of a move from copyright protection to patent protection?</p>
<p>Software has traditionally been protected under copyright law since code fits quite easily into the description of a literary work. Software Patenting has recently emerged (if only in the US, Japan and Europe) as an alternative that software companies are increasingly employing to, in order to protect their products.</p>
<p>The issues involved in conferring patent rights to software are, however, a lot more complex than taking out copyrights on them. Specifically, there are two challenges that one encounters when dealing with software patents. The first is about the instrument of patent itself and whether the manner of protection it confers is suited to the software industry. The second is the nature of software, and whether it should be subject to patenting.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<h3>a) Different Subject Matters</h3>
<p>Copyright protection extends to all original literary works (among them, computer programs), dramatic, musical and artistic works, including films. Under copyright, protection is given only to the particular expression of an idea that was adopted and not the idea itself. (For instance, a program to add numbers written in two different computer languages would count as two different expressions of one idea) Effectively, independent rendering of a copyrighted work by a third party would not infringe the copyright.</p>
<p>Generally patents are conferred on any ‘new’ and ‘useful’ art, process, method or manner of manufacture, machines, appliances or other articles or substances produced by manufacture. Worldwide, the attitude towards patentability of software has been skeptical. The Indian Patent Act, as modified in 2002 had made non-patentable the following:</p>
<p>“…a mathematical method or a business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms”.</p>
<p>However, the recent amendment ordnance states instead:</p>
<p>“…a computer programme per se other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware;</p>
<p>a mathematical method or a business method or algorithms.”</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>b) Who may claim the right to a patent/copyright?</h3>
<p>Generally, the author of a literary, artistic, musical or dramatic work automatically becomes the owner of its copyright.</p>
<p>Software developers are perfectly protected without patents. Everyone who writes a computer program automatically owns the copyright in it. It's copyright law that made Microsoft, Oracle, SAP and the entire software industry so very big. It's the same legal concept that also protects books, music, movies, paintings, even architecture.</p>
<p>Many of the world's richest people owe their wealth to copyright law. Some examples are: Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer (Microsoft); Larry Ellison (Oracle); Hasso Plattner and the other founders of SAP; Paul McCartney (Beatles); JK Rowling (Harry Potter).</p>
<p>The patent, on the other hand is granted to the first to apply for it, regardless of who the first to invent it was. Patents cost a lot of money. They cost even more paying the lawyers to write the application than they cost to actually apply. It takes typically some years for the application to get considered, even though patent offices do an extremely sloppy job of considering.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>c) Rights conferred</h3>
<p>Copyright law gives the owner the exclusive right to reproduce the material, issue copies, perform, adapt and translate the work. However, these rights are tempered by the rights of fair use which are available to the public. Under “fair use”, certain uses of copyright material would not be infringing, such as use for academic purposes, news reporting etc. Further, independent recreation of a copyrighted work would not constitute infringement. Thus if the same piece of code were independently developed by two different companies, neither would have a claim against the other.</p>
<p>A patent confers on the owner an absoulte monopoly which is the the right to prevent others from marking, using, offering for sale without his/her consent. In general, patent protection is a far stronger method of protection than copyright because the protection extends to the level of the idea embodied by a software and injuncts ancillary uses of an invention as well. It would weaken copyright in software that is the base of all European software development, because independent creations protected by copyright would be attackable by patents</p>
<p>Many patent applications cover very small and specific algorithms or techniques that are used in a wide variety of programs. Frequently the "inventions" mentioned in a patent application have been independently formulated and are already in use by other programmers when the application is filed.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>d) Duration of protection</h3>
<p>The TRIPS agreement mandates a period of at least 20 years for a product patent and 15 years in the case of a process patent.</p>
<p>For Copyright, the agreement prescribes a minimum period of the lifetime of the author plus seventy years.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<h2>II. Nature of Software and Indian Software Industry</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>Software is complex: The complexity of computer programs makes it difficult to be understood by any one person. This capacity for complexity allows for the creation of highly sophisticated products but also means that they are dependent on a vast range of technologies.</p>
<p>Software is free from the constraints of the real world that ensure a product does not become too complex. Major software may comprise up to 10 million lines of code - potentially thousands of inventions, any of which might be patented</p>
<p>For example, Apple was sued because its HyperCard program allegedly violates patent number 4,736,308, which covers a specific technique that, in simplified terms, entails scrolling through a database displaying selected parts of each line of text. Separately, the scrolling and display functions are ubiquitous fixtures of computer programming, but combining them without a license from the holder of patent 4,736,308 is now apparently illegal.</p>
<p>In its complexity, software is different from other engineering and mechanical inventions for which patent protection was devised. The latter are often characterized by large "building block" inventions that can revolutionize a given mechanical process. Software, especially a complex program, seldom includes substantial leaps in technology, but rather consists of adept combinations of many ideas. Whether a software program is a good one does not generally depend as much on the newness of a specific technique, but instead depends on the unique combination of known algorithms and methods. Patents should not protect such methods of innovation.</p>
<p>Software Technology evolves rapidly: Software technology is evolving much faster than other industries, even with its own hardware industry. Against this light, a patent that lasts upto 17 years is extremely alarming. Microprocessors double in speed every 2 years.</p>
<p>Research in software is galloping ahead of developments. In most industries, researching new ideas often costs more money than bringing them to the market. The software industry is, on the other hand, loaded with ideas.</p>
<p>The idea behind most software patents can be coded in just 20 lines of code, but any program incorporating that idea - along with many others - will be a thousand times larger. It is the writing of a program that takes all the time, not coming up with ideas.</p>
<p>What this means is that on an average of every two years, a product will have to be replaced in the market. The idea underlying it will remain the same although the particular means and variants of its applications may have changed radically.</p>
<p>Coming out with a full-featured product, every two years is costly especially in relation to the inexpensive idea that backs it. There’s more novelty in the development and application of the same idea to new technology than with coming up with the original raw idea.</p>
<p>The objective of granting patent rights should be to foster the growth and evolution of the industry. Granting a patent at this stage would be akin to unreasonably prolonging the life of a product.</p>
<p>It is generally found that those who are investing time creating and lodging patents are vastly outpacing those who are investing effort bringing such ideas to market. By the time an immature technology develops to the point where it can be incorporated into products, it has a dozen or more patents on it that render it commercially intractable.</p>
<p>Software doesn't wear out: In other industries, research continues up to a point where further research costs too much to be feasible. At this stage, the industry's output merely consists of replacing parts that have worn out.</p>
<p>However, in the software sector, a computer program that is fully debugged will perform its function forever without requiring maintenance or modification. “What this means is that unlike socks that wear out, and breakfast cereal that is eaten, a particular software product can be sold to a particular customer at most once. If it is to be sold to that customer again, it must be enhanced with new features and functionality.” This inevitably means that even if the industry were to approach maturity, any software company that does not produce new and innovative products will simply run out of customers! Thus, the industry will remain innovative whether or not software patents exist.</p>
<p>Software has different economics: Most other major industries have medium to high research and development costs and very high production costs. Most often, the production costs dwarf the other two areas (because of the physicality that they involve) so that these costs can be added on to the cost of the final product without any relatively major difference in the price.</p>
<p>Software is unique in this aspect because</p>
<p>-The research costs very little because “ideas are as abundant as air”</p>
<p>-The development of an idea into a marketable product costs far more than the research.</p>
<p>-The production costs are minimal, often just a little more than the price of the medium, which is typically a floppy or a CDROM.</p>
<p>Patents affect the ‘development’ stage of the process of ‘manufacture’ of software. Thus the threat exists that the price of software could be singularly determined by the number of patented innovations that it incorporates.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>III. Patent and Innovation in Software Industry</h2>
<p>As argued before the process of software development by its very nature is ‘incremental’ i.e. developing of new software majorly consists of building upon existing ideas and rearranging the processes devised by others, and hence has an inbuilt need for using existing algorithms and mathematical formulae. Patent protection over software or over a set of algorithms within patented software would inevitably create a thicket of patents which the subsequent software developer might need to obtain clearance from before he can begin to work on it. The costs involved in obtaining these clearances and those involved in case one finds oneself having infringed a patent are usually very high, as in the case of biomedical patents. This would act as a disincentive for an aspiring software developer and would adversely affect the growth of the Indian software industry. Introduction of two bills- ‘Genomic Research and Diagnostic Accessibility Bill, 2002’ and ‘Genomic Science and Technology Innovation Act of 2002’ though still pending before the US Congress show the real concerns involved for a ‘patent and innovation policy’ within genomics. Similar concerns are exist in the software and innovation policy and need to be addressed adequately by the each national legislature.</p>
<p>Further there are substantial costs involved in verifying which patents one must obtain clearance for as skimming through the huge patent databases has become a very costly exercise. Unfortunately, conducting a patent search is a slow, deliberative process that, when harnessed to software development, could stop innovation in its tracks. And because patent applications are confidential, there is simply no way for computer programmers to ensure that what they write will not violate some patent that is yet to be issued making survival a very important issue for smaller player in the market. </p>
<p>Various large companies in US have obtained exemptions from going through patent searches for standard work due to huge costs. In such a scenario in a small player software industry like India, it would be unwise to allow ‘software patents’ as they may have negative impact upon the innovation within the industry.</p>
<p>By its nature software industry is ‘innovation driven’ i.e. the only way a software company can compete and improve its sales or grip over market is by making better and more useful features available. This innovation which is the driving force behind the Indian software industry is bound to get affected if a patent protection is provided to software patents. If a company can easily sustain itself on its ‘invention’ (by obtaining patents upon its software) and need not remain innovation driven, which would mean that a patent monopoly would inversely impact innovation and competition in software industry. It would further give rise to monopolistic tendencies and a practice of quoting arbitrary price for the grant of ‘voluntary license’. This lesson can be learnt by looking west where the idea of Public Key Encryption was patented in the US. The patent expired in 1997 and until then, it largely blocked the use of Public Key Encryption in the US. Similar instances can be found w.r.t. ‘data compression software’ and ‘single click software’ patented by Amazon.com. A number of programs that people started to develop got crushed. They were never really available because the patent holders threatened them. This led to a lot of unrest in the software community which culminated into the public outrage against software patents. Similar pressures have prevailed in European community where software patents found public opposition too immense to mount for a long time.</p>
<p>A look at India's own development of its software industry would be of immense help as India started its software industry only after IBM was driven out of country. Before that, there was no software industry worth the name, with software and hardware being imported from IBM. Once IBM left, Indian computer companies developed computers using the UNIX operating system, which was in the public domain. This led to the presence of a large number of skilled software professionals with experience of UNIX were also writing high-level applications for making the entire computer system work.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<h2>IV. Political economy of software patents</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>While understanding the issue of software patents, it’s important to look at its political economy and the implications involved for India. If one were to study the trends of software patenting in US and Europe one would witness that the IBM owns a majority of patents along with other giant software companies and has been topping the list of maximum patents granted in US in the private sector. This fact must be seen in the light of the opposition faced from small business organisations, leading scientists and economists in Europe and the unprecedented delay in passing the Software Patent Directive of 2002 by the European parliament. It should be noted that the directive does not aim to make it possible to patent pure computer programs: it would only apply to computer software integrated into an appliance. This makes it much more restrictive than the amended Indian Patent Act, which opens out any technical application of a programme to industry or its realisation in hardware for patenting. Even with this restriction, the critics of the EU directive have pointed out that a patent on software is in effect a patent on an idea, while traditionally patents have been restricted to concrete physical inventions only. By making this amendment, it is possible to implement algorithms in hardware and then claim patent protection for this. Once an idea can be patented if it is burnt in to hardware, the argument for extending it to a software implementation gains ground. In fact, the first breach in the US for making software patentable came through this route. If one were to study the trends in the scope of patentable subject matter granted in software patents by US courts, one would observe that from Diamond v. Diehr onwards court has been granting patents on much more abstract components, which has slowly transformed into patenting the central idea underlying the software. This trend indicates the easy malleability of legal terminology which has brought US courts’ stand on software patents to a full circle from Gottschalk v. Benson where the court found a patent upon software as a patent upon the underlying algorithms which is nothing more than a mathematical formula, unpatentable by its very definition.</p>
<p>The concerns regarding the weaker relative position of these small players is much more relevant in India. Among the primary reasons for large corporations like IBM lobbying for software patents is due to their stronger hold over the software market and ownership of the largest number of patents in this market. Large corporations use their patents, apart from making royalty upon them, to getting access benefit to the patents of other companies. This would close the option of cross-licensing for a majority of Indian companies which have no patents upon software. License though may be obtained are usually available at exorbitantly high prices which would most likely be unaffordable for Indian companies which operate on a small scale and have restricted budget options. The multinational corporations would use software patents as a defensive strategy for preventing smaller Indian companies from gaining any grounds in the market, which would eventually drive them out of business hence destroying the existing Indian software industry.</p>
<p>Software industry has a very characteristic nature which makes it extremely vulnerable to being easily monopolized. Among these characteristics are Network effects (the fact that a program becomes more useful if more people use it), interoperability and compatibility problems, the low cost of massive reproduction of software, the difficulty of inspecting software distributed without the source code, the learning curve and the rapid evolution of the market. Taking the instance of Microsoft Windows (the most popular operating system in use in India today) which enjoys a perpetual monopoly over the operating system market in India, many a larger institutions find Windows extremely costly and desperately needed an alternative to it in order to do business profitably. The recent success of Linux operating systems is demonstrative of this, but this must be understood in the light that India follows a copyright regime for software which allows many of the above mentioned characteristics of compatibility and interoperability to be resolved which would be totally impossible in a software patent regime. This then means that software patents have a potential to hamper the growth of open software movement in India which has begun to play central role in Indian Government’s ‘e-governance’ initiative. Hence it’s extremely urgent to ensure that patents in software do not cause any harm to the fine balance that copyright has achieved.</p>
<p>While understanding a political economy argument of software patents the adverse impact of monopolization upon public interest which has been held to be of utmost importance by the apex court in India, even above one’s legitimate commercial interests.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>V. Procedural Issues</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>There are a certain procedural issues involved which are of determinative nature as to the allowance of a software patent regime in India. India doesn’t have a well laid out or even a well practiced software patent practice to guide Indian patent office. In the absence of any such policy, examining software patent application becomes a very daunting task, coupled with which the complicated and highly technical nature of software, Indian patent office is quite incapable to evaluate complicated and technically trivial claims which software patent often present. Imposing a software patent regime in such a scenario would impact the quality of such patents which might then prove counter-productive in the development of Indian software industry.</p>
<p>To be able to tackle this situation more personnel and experts would have to be employed in the patent office that can then ensure maintenance of a certain quality standards while granting software patents. But this in turn may not produce increased innovation in the software industry for the human capital which would be invested into processing the claims and preventing and tackling with the patent infringements rather than being invested in developing new software and hence benefit the software industry and economy of the country in general.</p>
<p>The difficulty in reaching a policy to grant software patents and the impacts of granting these patents in the absence of policy are indeed far reaching. In the absence of a policy which classifies patents on algorithms, techniques etc. it would take an awfully long time for the patent office to process a claim, searching the ‘prior art’ which makes the system inefficient and unworkable. Long delays in processing patent applications and subsequent challenge procedure often makes filing for a patent an unwise option for small companies and individual software developer, which form the backbone of Indian software industry. For instance, IBM was granted a patent on the same data-compression algorithm that Unisys supposedly owned. Such an error which could prove lethal for a developing company which has planned its budget meticulously and in consequence of this error would be greatly disincentivized to develop new software. The Patent Office was probably not aware of granting two patents for the same algorithm because the descriptions in the patents themselves are quite different even though the formulas are mathematically equivalent. Even when patents are known in advance, software publishers have generally not licensed the algorithms or techniques; instead, they try to rewrite their programs to avoid using the particular procedure that the patent describes. Sometimes this isn't possible, in which case companies have often chosen to avoid implementing new features altogether. It seems clear from the evidence of the last few years that software patents are actually preventing the adoption of new technology, rather than encouraging it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/alfs-note-before-2005-amendment'>https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/alfs-note-before-2005-amendment</a>
</p>
No publisherpranesh2008-09-30T15:19:30ZPageResponse by Knowledge Commons
https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/response-by-knowledge-commons-1
<b>Arguments on why section 4.11 of the Patents Manual needs to be modified.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>1. A patent is a state granted monopoly on an invention. As with any other monopoly, a patent must be treated with great discretion, especially since this particular monopoly is bestowed by the state itself. The original intent of the patent system was to encourage disclosure by the inventor, in exchange for exclusive rights to the invention. This ensured that inventors did not take their inventions to the grave and that society could build on existing knowledge rather than re-invent the wheel. As with any other policy instrument, we need to examine whether patents meet their intended objectives.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2. In this context, the degree of patent protection in India should be seen with the following in mind:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The desirable form of IPR protection is very much a function of development. Currently, the developed economies feel they should protect their IPR and restrict their dissemination. But these same countries have historically had much more lax IPR regimes that have allowed imitation to promote more rapid industrialization. For example, the US actively encouraged copying of European innovation in the 19th century and even “nationalised” wireless patents - claiming national interest. Even late 20th century rapid developers such as Japan and South Korea benefited greatly from relatively lax patent regimes. So there is a strong case for providing less IPR protection in the development phase, especially in those areas where domestic innovation is less advanced.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>There is no clear correlation between high IPR protection and innovation[1], and much historical evidence to the contrary. A significant number of studies have shown that patents are important primarily in chemicals, chemical materials and pharmaceuticals, where patents can protect specific molecules or well defined but small slices of technology. In other areas, patents tend to be relatively less important in promoting innovation.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This means that India should first identify what are its national interests and then calibrate the IPR protection accordingly. For example, in pharmaceuticals, the current national interest lies clearly in restricting patents. This is also why the Indian Parliament has taken advantage of the flexibility of TRIPs to raise the bar of what is patentable. Indeed, other countries including the US are now copying some of these measures.[2]</p>
<p> </p>
<p>An important example is in the area of software where India has a major interest, and where patents are being opposed by all Small and Medium sized companies. In Europe, this opposition led to the proposed directive on software patents to be defeated overwhelmingly in the European Parliament.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>3. There are now attempts being made in India to bring in software patents using either the EPO or the USPTO practice. This attempt is being supported by a small number of large international software companies, who had earlier benefited from software being free from patents and are now trying to obstruct others who are entering the field. It is not in the interest of India's software industry to have restrictive patent regime, particularly as they switch from being service providers to product developers.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>4. The EPO in fact has followed much of the USPTO practice, the only area that it differs with USPTO being in the business method patenting. However, as a number of observers have pointed out, this means drafting a business method patent as a technical application: it is the form of the patent rather than its content that changes with the EPO approach. Therefore, both EPO and USPTO have erred in accepting patents that are either algorithms or methods, dressed up as software patents.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>5. The crisis of the US Patent Office is well known and many critics have pointed out that the US is facing effectively a broken patent system. They have pointed out that granting patents to objects that have existed for years, or patents that are patently ridiculous, does not serve any purpose whatsoever. A case in point is US Patent 20060071122, granted for a ‘full body teleportation system’. The abstract for this reads, ‘A pulsed gravitational wave wormhole generator system that teleports a human being through hyperspace from one location to another.’ Of course, there is no functional version of this. There are innumerable examples of this kind of patent being granted. Another kind of patent that serves no useful purpose is where the patented product or process is something that has been used for years and years, and is known to the whole world, such as the wheel, or swinging on a swing.[3] This undermines the entire basis of the patent system and has the potential to cause havoc. The rapid dilution of the tripartite test of novelty, non-obviousness and utility that led to such patents being granted is finally being halted in the USA, with the US Supreme Court ruling recently that obviousness cannot be constrained by a legal formulation, and the use of common sense is necessary in determining whether a patent be granted or not.[4]</p>
<p> </p>
<p>6. Courts in all parts of the world have held that subject matter which would have the practical effect of pre-empting laws of nature, abstract ideas or mathematical algorithms is ineligible for patent protection. This age-old and time-tested precedent effectively establishes the ineligibility for patent protection to laws of nature, abstract ideas and mathematical algorithms. If these could be patented, then in effect one would be patenting the tools of scientific enquiry itself, something no patent law allows as it would lead to halting scientific progress.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>7. In the past, the courts have also held that regarding patentable subject that the inquiry into whether subject matter is eligible for patenting is one of substance, not form. This requires that the patent office look, not simply at the language of the patent claim to see if it recites a structure of multiple steps or components, but also at the practical effect of the claim to see if it in fact covers -- or otherwise would restrict the public’s access to -- a principle, law of nature, abstract idea, mathematical formula, mental process, algorithm or other abstract intellectual concept. Otherwise, it would make the determination of patentable subject matter depend simply on the draftsman’s art and would ill serve the principles underlying the prohibition against patents for 'ideas' or phenomena of nature. By skilled patent drafting, one should not be able to start patenting essentially abstract ideas, mental processes and newly discovered laws of nature or mathematical algorithms.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>8. However, a number of patent offices, particularly the USPTO and the EPO have been granting patents recently for software also. This is without taking into consideration that all software is ultimately the expression of algorithms or mathematical methods. This has already created a situation which Tim Berners-Lee, one of the founders of the World Wide Web and director of the World Wide Web Consortium that sets global standards for the Internet, calls the biggest threat to software development.</p>
<p>All companies developing emerging technology are threatened by the prospect of patent licensing royalties. You could never find out what patent could possibly apply to what technology. You could never guess what things people might have the gall to say they have patented already. It really is a universal fear.’ (Tim Berners-Lee at Emerging Technologies Conference at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, September 29, 2004.)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>9. In the US, recent studies have shown that the only sector of the economy in which royalties are more than legal costs are pharmaceuticals[5]. In their recently published book, Bessen and Meurer have analysed the numbers in terms of revenues generated from patents as against cost of filing, maintaining and defending patents in courts. In their view, the data shows that except in the case of pharmaceuticals, patents generate far more litigation costs than revenue. The numbers are clear: domestic litigation costs --16 billion dollars in 1999 alone -- was about twice the revenue for patents. Even in this, almost two thirds of the revenue was from pharmaceuticals and chemicals. Worse, the more innovative the company, more was the likelihood of it being sued. The software and business method patents fared the worst, with costs far outstripping the benefits of patenting. The sector with the worst royalty to costs record is software, with most high technology firms being opposed now to software patents.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>10. Apart from the reasons given above, the software patents have the problem of being ill defined and capable of very broad scope. It is difficult to build around as is possible in other areas of technology, precisely because of the vagueness of the claims. Novelty and inventive step is again much more difficult to disprove unlike pharmaceuticals, where it is the molecule with a clearly defined structure which is being patented. No company in the world can conduct patent searches for software, given the number of such patents being filed and the inability to identify the defining characteristic of the product being patented. Therefore, the provision of copyright is more than adequate for protecting IPR in software.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>11. The other problem with software patents is that any large software project uses a large number of software components. Any one of them can be subjected litigation claiming patent violations. This would open the company to costly lawsuits and against the interests of all but the biggest global corporations who have deep pockets.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>12. Today, even companies such as IBM, Sun, Texas Instruments, CISCO have joined the growing Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) community opposing software patents. Most of these companies have publicly stated that they are filing patents only for defensive purposes. Indian law also bars software patents. With regards to proprietary versus FOSS, India needs to analyse and define what should be its trajectory. There is enough grounds to believe that if Indian companies want to move from services model to a product model, software patents and proprietary software will not be the route to take instead, India should promote FOSS, as Brazil and China are doing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>13. Apart from the lack of natural reason for granting software patents, there are potential adverse consequences to the Indian economy in other areas should such patents are granted. The current explosion in bio-pharmaceutical development is increasingly dependent on the ability to perform large-scale data mining from huge amounts of genetic-genomic data. Highly specialised software is developed from pre-existing 'generic' software by bio-informatic technologists for this purpose. Allowing the patenting of the generic basic software will increase the costs of data mining substantially, and will have an extremely adverse impact on the competitive ability of small, knowledge-based entrepreneurial ventures of the kind that India excels in.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>14. In India, it has been considered patents should be granted only when public good demands granting of such state protected monopolies. This was the practice also in the UK and the US. It is still the basis of the practice in most countries. It is only in the last few decades that the US, followed by the UK, Japan and now the European Patent Office has tried to change the interpretation of their Patents Acts to expand the scope of patentability. This attempt to enlarge the scope is from their national interest as they hold the largest number of patents. Therefore, their belief that strengthening the patent regime internationally will help their companies to build worldwide monopolies.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>15. It is not in India’s national interest or in the interests of its people to expand the scope of state protected monopolies through expanding the patent scope. India’s national interest is best served by restricting the scope of such monopolies. Therefore, the patent regime in India should work on the presumption that patents are to be given only when there is a decisive case for patents. This has been the basis of the Indian Patents Act and is in tune with fundamentals of such legislation world over. It is only the deviation in patent interpretation that has produced a scenario where business methods, software and also mathematical methods are also being patented.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>16. The US Supreme Court has now been correcting some of the excesses that has occurred in the US patents interpretation by the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC). We see no reason why India should change it understanding of patentability following in the footsteps of the US and the EPO and subsequently need to correct such excesses.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>17. The US Supreme Court had ruled earlier that Supreme Court has held that patent protection may not be granted for “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981). The case has frequently been misread as a basis for patenting subject matter that is abstract and intangible. In fact, however, Diehr confirms that intangible subject matter may not be patented, whether directly or indirectly through artful claim drafting.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>18. Diehr also re-affirmed its holding in Gottschalk v.Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), that algorithms, or procedures for solving mathematical problems—the building blocks of computer programs—cannot be patented. Likewise, it reaffirmed its holding in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1984), that an algorithm for computing a number that served as an alarm limit was not patentable by adding insignificant post-solution activity added to a unpatentable principle to a patenable process. Diehr reaffirmed that only tangible processes – in this case vulcanizing rubber-- and not abstract ideas are patentable.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>19. In alignment with Benson and Flook, the US Supreme Court in Diehr held that structures or processes must, when considered as a whole, perform functions intended to be covered by patent law in order to be eligible for patent protection. Diehr followed and upheld the core holdings of both Benson and Flook.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>20. The US Supreme Court therefore has not pronounced on software patents after Diehr and therefore Diehr still remains the definitive interpretation of software patents in the US.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>21. The CAFC deviated from the Supreme Court ruling in Diehr in At&T vs Excel Communications and in State Street Bank. There, CAFC held that though abstract ideas were not patentable, they could be patented if they produced “a useful, concrete and tangible result.” This was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings on this matter.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>22. In a number of recent cases, the US Supreme Court has overruled the CAFC. In all these cases, the US Supreme Court has narrowed the definition of what is patentable. We have already quoted the KSR Vs Teleflex case in this context.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>23. It is in this context that the CAFC is revisiting the State Street and AT&T Vs Excel Communications sitting in en banc. Significantly, it has posed the following questions on which it wants to re-examine the two cases. These are:</p>
<p> </p>
<p> (1) Whether claim 1 of the [Bilski] patent application claims patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101?</p>
<p> </p>
<p> (2) What standard should govern in determining whether a process is patent-eligible subject matter under section 101?</p>
<p> </p>
<p> (3) Whether the claimed subject matter is not patent-eligible because it constitutes an abstract idea or mental process; when does a claim that contains both mental and physical steps create patent-eligible subject matter?</p>
<p> </p>
<p> (4) Whether a method or process must result in a physical transformation of an article or be tied to a machine to be patent-eligible subject matter under section 101?</p>
<p> </p>
<p> (5) Whether it is appropriate to reconsider State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999), in this case and, if so, whether those cases should be overruled in any respect?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>24. Obviously, the US Courts are re-thinking software patents in the light of its difficulty in establishing clear boundaries and tying all future innovation in a morass of litigation. With patent trolls entering the picture, it has become clear to the industry as well as the larger public in the US that the patent system is not being well served by software patents. The CAFC en banc review is only one such indication. Patent reforms are also being discussed in US Congress to address such issues.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>25. Therefore, we would urge the patent office to take cognizance off the above and reconsider the paras in the Draft Patent Manual that allows software patents if they are seen to have technical applications.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>26. We believe that the lawmakers have done their job and have defined clearly that software patents per se are not admissible in India. It is now incumbent on the patent office to make this clear and not admit such patents.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>----</p>
<p>US CASES</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Diamond v. Diehr,</p>
<p>450 U.S. 175 (1981)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Gottschalk v. Benson,</p>
<p>409 U.S. 63 (1972)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Parker v. Flook,</p>
<p>437 U.S. 584 (1984)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Alappat,</p>
<p>33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.,</p>
<p>149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), 525 U.S. 1093 (1999)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc.,</p>
<p>172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999),</p>
<p> </p>
<p>KSR International v. Teleflex</p>
<p>127 US 1727 (2007)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>----</p>
<p>[1] Against Intellectual Monopoly, Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>[2] Thus, while the US Trade Representative calls for Indian Patent Law to conform to US practices, patent reform is now being pushed aggressively within the US by the high tech industries that are complaining of grant opposition and post grant opposition (as exist in Indian Law) are being put forward as patent reforms in the US Congress. The US Supreme Court has now made combining two existing innovations into a “new” one invalid for patenting (again already barred under Indian Law). The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has now ruled in what is not patentable virtually in the same language for what is not patentable a broken patent system. Both pre according to the Indian Patent Act (Section 3 d, challenged by Novartis in Chennai High Court).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>[3] US Patent 6368227, “Method for swinging on a swing”, filed by a five year old child; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1418165.stm, How an Australian lawyer patented the wheel. There are many other examples.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>[4] "We build and create by bringing to the tangible and palpable reality around us new works based on instinct, simple logic, ordinary inferences, extraordinary ideas, and sometimes even genius. These advances, once part of our shared knowledge, define a new threshold from which innovation starts once more. And as progress beginning from higher levels of achievement is expected in the normal course, the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws. Were it otherwise patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8. These premises led to the bar on patents claiming obvious subject matter established in Hotchkiss and codified in §103. Application of the bar must not be confined within a test or formulation too constrained to serve its purpose." KSR International v Telefax US Supreme Court</p>
<p> </p>
<p>[5] James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer, Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers</p>
<p>Put Innovators at Risk, Princeton University Press, March 2008.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/response-by-knowledge-commons-1'>https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/response-by-knowledge-commons-1</a>
</p>
No publisherpranesh2008-09-30T15:07:50ZPageRepresentation by Knowledge Commons
https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/representation-by-knowledge-commons
<b>Representation by Knowledge Commons to the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks on the Draft Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure (2008)</b>
<div class="Section1">
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="Textbody"><a name="OLE_LINK2"></a><a name="OLE_LINK1"><strong>Representation on Modifying Section 4.11 of
the Draft Patents Manual</strong></a></p>
<p class="Standard">1.
Scope of 3 k) and the Amendment of 2004<br />
<br />
</p>
<p class="Standard"><em>3 k) </em><em>A
mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or</em></p>
<p class="Standard"><em>algorithms are not patentable</em><em>.</em></p>
<p class="Standard"> </p>
<p class="Standard">The
Amendment that was a part of the Ordinance in December 2004 on 3 k) above was
as follows:</p>
<p class="Standard"> <em>3 (k) a
computer programme </em><em>per se </em><em>other
than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware;</em></p>
<p class="Standard"><em>3 (ka) a mathematical method or a business
method or algorithms;</em></p>
<p class="Standard"> </p>
</div>
<p>Comment:
From the above, it is clear that Parliament did not believe that the exceptions
to computer programme per se as an exception needed to be put in a different
category and qualified as suggested in the Ordinance. Computer programmes per
se, a mathematical or business method or algorithms were all treated as
similar. The similarity here was based on the fact that they are all abstract
ideas and therefore should not be patentable. The
Draft Manual seeks to circumvent Parliament's definition of what is not
patentable in the section on 3 k). We will give a para by para submission on
the Draft Manual section on 3 k), namely, Sections 4.11.1 to 4.11.11.</p>
<div class="Section1">
<p class="Standard"> </p>
<p class="Standard">2.
<em> Clause 4.11.1 A
computer implemented invention mean any invention the performance of which
involves the use of computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus,
or an invention one or more features which are realized wholly or partially by
means of a computer programme/ programmes. </em></p>
<br />
<p class="Standard">Comment: The Clause above introduces a new
category called <em>computer implemented
invention</em>. The Patents Act cannot make an exception for inventions merely
because the performance of this invention requires a computer. There is no provision
in patents law for such exceptions to be created.</p>
<p class="Standard"> </p>
<p class="Standard"><em>3.
</em><em> 4.11.5 Applications related to computer
inventions may broadly fall under the following categories:<br />
<br />
</em></p>
<p class="Standard"><em>(a)
Method/process:</em></p>
<p class="Standard"><em>(b)
Apparatus/system:</em></p>
<p class="Standard"><em>(c)
Computer program product.</em></p>
<p class="Standard"><em>The following aspects should be looked into
while dealing with such applications.</em></p>
<p class="Standard"> </p>
<p class="Standard">Comment: The way this clause is phrased, it
appears to accept that computer program products can have valid claims with
regards to patents. It should have been made clear in this clause that computer
program(me) products are not patentable as they come under computer programme
per se.</p>
<p class="Standard"> </p>
<p class="Standard"><em>4.
</em><em> 4.11.6 The method claim should clearly
define the steps involved in carrying out the invention. It should have a
technical character. In other words, it should solve a technical problem. The
claims should incorporate the details regarding the mode of the implementation
of the invention via. hardware or software, for better clarity. The claim
orienting towards a “process/method” should contain a hardware or machine
limitation. Technical applicability of the software claimed as a process or
method claim, is required to be defined in relation with the particular
hardware components. Thus, the “software per se” is differentiated from the
software having its technical application in the industry. A claim directed to
a technical process which process is carried out under the control of a
programme (whether by means of hardware or software), cannot be regarded as
relating to a computer programme as such.</em></p>
<p class="Standard"><em> </em></p>
<p class="Standard"><em>For
example, “a method for processing seismic data, comprising the steps of
collecting the time varying seismic detector output signals for a plurality of
seismic sensors placed in a cable.” Here the signals are collected from a
definite recited structure and hence allowable.</em></p>
<p class="Standard"><em> </em></p>
<p class="Standard">Comment: Here, the Draft Manual clearly deviates
from the Legislative intent that was expressed in rejecting the Amendment of
the Patents Act as discussed in point 1 above. The Patent Office is now
bringing back the Amendment of 3 k) by an interpretation that was denied by the
Parliament.</p>
<p class="Standard"> </p>
<p class="Standard">There are two major departures that it makes
from 3 k). In one, it expresses “<em>the mode
of the implementation of the invention via. hardware or software, for better
clarity” </em>treating software inventions to be on par with hardware
inventions. This violates 3 k), which explicitly bars software per se. The
argument that any software that solves a technical problem is not software per
se is not sustainable as every problem solved can be claimed to be technical in
nature by virtue of suitable drafting. It then makes software patents a matter
of drafting skills and not a matter of content. The statement “<em>the “software per se” is differentiated from
the software having its technical application in the industry” </em>has the
problem that software can be claimed to solve problems in the data processing
or in the video gaming or in multimedia industry. This definition renders
software per se as devoid of any meaning and therefore is in violation of 3 k).</p>
<p class="Standard"> </p>
<p class="Standard">Software is machine implementation of an
algorithm and by implementing on a computer an algorithm cannot become
patentable. We have given detailed notes on this issue and have also shown that
the US is currently revising some of these notions of software patenting.</p>
<p class="Standard"> </p>
<p class="Standard">The second issue is when software is combined
with hardware. Here, the Draft Manual seems to argue that if the method is
connected to physical signals, this in itself is enough to make the method
allowable for patenting. The key question that the Draft Manual does not
address that if the method has insignificant pre or post processing activity,
in that case the method does not become eligible for patenting merely because
it is connected to some real structures. Otherwise, a software which cannot be
patented under current patent law would become eligible merely by adding some
trivial pre or post processing features. It again becomes a way of “dressing”
up software to escape from the bar of 3 k) and making this a drafting art
rather than real content in terms of invention. A number of applications would
need to be separately shown in the Patent Application to cover all possible
applications of a method or an algorithm to convert a non-patentable idea to a
patentable one.</p>
<p class="Standard"> </p>
<p class="Standard"><em>5.
</em><em> 4.11.10 A mathematical method is one which is
carried out on numbers and provides a result in numerical form (the
mathematical method or algorithm therefore being merely an abstract concept
prescribing how to operate on the numbers) and not patentable. However, its
application may well be patentable, for example, in Vicom/Computer-related
invention [1987] 1 OJEPO 14 (T208/84) the invention concerned a mathematical
method for manipulating data representing an image, leading to an enhanced
digital image. Claims to a method of digitally filtering data performed on a
conventional general-purpose computer were rejected, since those claims were
held to define an abstract concept not distinguished from a mathematical
method. However, claims to a method of image processing which used the
mathematical method to operate on numbers representing an image can be allowed.
The reasoning was that the image processing performed was a technical (i.e.
non- excluded) process which related to technical quality of the image and that
a claim directed to a technical process in which the method used does not seek
protection for the mathematical method as such. Therefore the allowable claims
as such went beyond a mathematical method.</em></p>
<p class="Standard"><em> </em></p>
<p class="Standard">Comment: By virtue of
the above, the Draft Manual is stating that the allowable claim goes beyond a
mathematical method as it specifies a physical entity (signals) and the
technical process (image processing) and therefore can be patented. Simply put,
what the patent office is claiming is that while a mathematical method cannot
be patented, however its application to a specific technical field – image
processing in the Vicom case – is patentable.</p>
<p class="Standard"> </p>
<p class="Standard">The problem with this
approach is that while the patent office may regard image or signal processing
as a technical application, what is being patented is still a mathematical
method. The mere fact that it is a mathematical algorithm applied to a specific
application with specific physical entities does not change the content of what
is being patented, which is still the mathematical algorithm. Only the scope of
the patent is being narrowed by limiting it to image processing.</p>
<p class="Standard"> </p>
<p class="Standard">If the above is
accepted, all that would be required for securing software patents for the
actual mathematical method is to file separate applications for each of the
application of the mathematical method, in this case the digital filtering
algorithm. This is merely changing the form of the patent application and not
its substance. We find such an interpretation completely contrary to the patent
law that has been framed in this country.</p>
<p class="Standard"> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="Textbody">The Image Processing case is particularly important,
because if it is accepted, all compression techniques would also be patentable
on similar grounds. Already, the practices of USPTO and EPO have led to a
situation that a number of standard formats such as MPEG (MPEG4) and GIF have
come under patents. Since any company that uses digital pictures – cameras,
images on the web, etc., can be sued for infringing such patents, the potential
economic consequence of such patents is enormous. This is why software
patents under any garb, are particularly pernicious.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="Textbody">One of the earliest software patents was that of the LMZ
compression, which was used in the GIF format. It is now widely accepted in the
software industry that such patents are in fact patents of mathematical
algorithms. It was because the GIF format came under a patent threat that other
formats became popular. However, similar threats now exist for other formats
for image processing. In most such cases, the software industry has had to file
review applications in USPTO to invalidate such patents. We see no reason why
we should follow this tortuous path, when we have a clear law on this on our
statute books disallowing software patents.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="Textbody">The Indian
Government has taken numerous policy decisions to promote open source software
wherever it is available. One of the major threats to open source software is
patents and the use of these patents in proprietary formats such as the GIF
example noted above. This will effectively mean that Open Source software will
be threatened by such patent claims making interoperability between two formats
difficult to achieve. This will strike a body blow against the policies that
the Government has been promoting on open source software in the country.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="Textbody">Instead,
what needs to be done is to define the software in any invention in the manner
of prior art. If the inventive criteria are satisfied outside of the software
then the invention would be considered patent eligible. In the next para we
have defined what in our view constitutes software per se, which is not patent
eligible and allows for devices to be patented even if they have software as a
component provided certain criteria are satisfied.</p>
<p class="Standard">6.
We give below what we believe is a clear
and an unambiguous definition of software per se, which is therefore not
patentable. This should replace the entire section 4.11.</p>
<p class="Standard"> </p>
<p class="Standard"> Computer programme per se in clause 3 k)
Computer programme per se in the relevant clause means (a) any computer
programme in the abstract, (b) any computer programme expressed in source code
form, including source code recorded on an information storage medium, or
(c) any computer programme that can be executed or executes on a general purpose
computer, including computer programme object code designed for execution on a
general purpose computer that is recorded on an information storage
medium. An information storage medium means any disc, tape, perforated media or
other information storage device, which, if fed into or located in a computer
or computer based equipment is capable of reproducing any information, other
than an information storage medium that itself represents an
inventive contribution to the art. A general-purpose computer here means a
device capable of running multiple unrelated programs, often simultaneously for
different purposes. It will comprise at least of: (1) one or more central
processing units, (2) one or more input devices that are not specific to any
one program, (3) memory, (4) one or more non volatile mass storage devices, and
(5) one or more output devices. However, a general-purpose computer does not
include a device that itself represents an inventive contribution to the
art.</p>
<p class="Textbody"> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="Textbody">Under the foregoing definitions, a claim that merely
recites software elements without any reference to hardware is per se
unpatentable. If a claim recites both software elements and hardware
elements, but the hardware elements amount to nothing more than reference
to the components of a general purpose computer on which the software
is executed, or an information storage medium in which the software is
stored, such that the only possibly inventive aspect of the claim resides in
the software elements, then the claim is not patentable. If the software/general
purpose computer is combined with other hardware, and the inventive
contribution resides primarily in the software or in the software in
combination either with components of the general-purpose computer or in an
information storage medium, then the claim is not patentable. If the claim
recites software elements and hardware elements, and the hardware elements
themselves are an inventive contribution to the art, then the claim may be
patentable, provided that the claim as a whole is such that the pre-requisites
of novelty, non-obviousness and utility are met.</p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/representation-by-knowledge-commons'>https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/representation-by-knowledge-commons</a>
</p>
No publisherpranesh2008-09-30T14:47:25ZPageCo-organisers
https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/co-organisers
<b>These organisations are involved in organizing the event, in funding it, or just as a partner organisation wishing to share the platform. Some of them are tentatively being included in this list as their involvement is hoped for.</b>
<ol><li> Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
</li><li> Free Software Users Group, Bangalore
</li><li> Free Software Foundation of India, Mumbai
</li><li> Society For Promotion of Alternative Computing and Employment, Trivandrum
</li><li> IT for Change, Bangalore
</li><li> Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore
</li><li> Delhi Science Forum, Delhi
</li><li> Movingrepublic, Kerala
</li><li>Sarai/CSDS, Delhi<br /></li><li> OpenSpace, Bangalore
</li><li> Swathanthra Malayalam Computing, Kerala
</li><li> Servelots - Janastu, Bangalore
</li><li> Mahiti, Bangalore
</li><li> DeepRoot Linux, Bangalore
</li><li> Wiki Ocean, Pune [TBC]
</li><li> Turtle Linux Lab, Bangalore
</li><li> Zyxware Technologies, Trivandrum
</li><li> INSAF (Indian Social Action Forum)
</li><li> Aneka, Bangalore
</li></ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/co-organisers'>https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/co-organisers</a>
</p>
No publisherpranesh2008-10-01T13:56:24ZPageResponse of Free Software Foundation of India
https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/response-of-free-software-foundation-of-india
<b>The FSFI's draft response to the Patent Office</b>
<p>This is with reference to the Draft Patents Manual on which your office has invited comments. On behalf of Free Software Foundation of India (http://www.gnu.org.in/) I hereby submit our response and comments pertaining to the relevant sections that refer to computer programs.</p>
<p>Computer programs (software) is not patentable as per the Clause 3(k) of the Indian Patent Act. This point is clearly stated in the manual. However, the section 4 of the Draft Manual makes an attempt to inform the inventors and potential Patent applicants that while software per se is not patentable, software in combination with hardware can be patented. The draft appears to make a room for this possibility. This is important to recollect that an amendment to this effect was suggested in the Presidential Ordinance tabled in the parliament in December 2005, and the house rejected this amendment. Therefore, what the policy of the land rejected cannot be enabled through instructions in a manual, subverting the legal framework already laid. In what follows we demonstrate how the draft manual is enabling this possibility.</p>
<p>4.11.2 does not preclude a computer program embedded in a ROM as what constitutes a computer program. According to 4.11.2 a computer program "may be expressed in various forms e.g., a series of verbal statements, a flowchart, an algorithm, or other coded form and maybe presented in a form suitable for direct entry into a particular computer, or may require transcription into a different format (computer language). It may merely be written on paper or recorded on some machine readable medium such as magnetic tape or disc or optically scanned record, or it maybe permanently recorded in a control store forming part of a computer. " (4.11.2)</p>
<p>It is very important to state that computer program can be encoded in various kinds of digital media including those that are invented as well as those that may in future be invented. E.g. ROM, EPROM or BIOS are also embedded memories where computer programs can be embedded. Mere inclusion of data or computer programs in such chips on the board are also not patentable. Such chips are often present on the board of a digital device should therefore be explicitly mentioned in the manual as one of the forms in which a computer programs can be encoded and hence excluded from patentable invention.</p>
<p>Since such a statement is absent in the draft manual, we suggest, it must be explicitly included in 4.11.2. A sample statement that we propose can be as follows:</p>
<p>A computer program may be encoded or stored in the form of an electronic chip or read only memory (ROM) or in component that can be embedded as a part of an electronic circuit. Since this is a mere extension of a recordable surface of code over which any digitized data can be stored including a computer program, mere inclusion of a software or data in such electronic chip or ROM will not be considered as a hardware innovation, therefore not allowed.</p>
<p>4.11.3 again indicates that "The source/pseudo/object codes may be incorporated in the description optionally." When the law clearly states that source code (a computer program), pseudo code (an algorithm) or not patentable, how can an invention be described in that form. 4.11.3 should be removed completely since hardware or process patents are not covered under 3(k). This point opens up a room for patenting software in combination with hardware or process patents. This should be forbidden, unless the law says that software can be patented in combination with hardware and processes. Since the law does not say so, this makes no sense to tell an inventor to provide code.</p>
<p>4.11.4 is a clarification on what constitutes a prior art, which done elsewhere in the document. Specifically mentioning this under this section gives a clear indication that it is about patenting hardware. But, the objective of the section is not to clarify what is patentable. Hardware inventions are already covered under technical inventions and do not need a separate mention under the chapter whose objective is to tell what is not patentable.</p>
<p>4.11.5 mentions that there can be three kinds of computer inventions. Once computer programs are separated out, what remains in the computer is innovations pertaining to electronics and communication. Therefore, talking about them in this context only opens up a room for people to think that patenting software in combination with hardware is possible. First: method or procedure in the context of a computer is nothing but a program which is not patentable. Second: inventing an apparatus or a system is patentable and therefore should not be included in this section. Including in this section only helps inventors to interpret that apparatus or a system in combination with software is patentable.</p>
<p>The following statement from 4.11.6 clearly brings out what the draft manual is trying to achieve: "Technical applicability of the software claimed as a process or method claim, is required to be defined in relation with the particular hardware components. Thus, the "software per se" is differentiated from the software having its technical application in the industry is about "technical applicability of the software claimed as a method or a process claim."</p>
<p>This is an attempt to explain what can be the meaning of "per se" in the clause 3(k). It relegates software to be a mere expression, for an expression does not have any technical application, except that a human interpreter trained in coding can read and understand. Therefore, what this draft is informing the community is clear. Since, all software can have technical application, so when we file for patents we have spell out the intended application of the software, and there is a novelty in applying the software patents can be granted. So, here the innovation is to think of a novel application even if the software per se is not novel. This is where the absurdity of the elaboration comes from.</p>
<p>The implication is that if a software, let us say an email client, in combination with a special gadget, say some USB pendrive, which in turn can be combined with say a bluetooth communication device, etc., can be claimed for a patent since no such innovation is a prior art. This is absurd, since here each of the three are performing independently of each other and mere combination is not an innovation. This is a mere exploration of making what is possible. One may say that the output of one device becomes an input for the other device. The innovation consists in linking these two devices as one. But this idea of linking input output devices is known art as old as human culture.</p>
<p>This way the domain of patentable art increases by several folds. We understand that the wealth of Patent's office enhances as well as a section of the industry due to this. This should not be the objective of the patent's office. The office should on hte other hand exclude such mere combinations as an art of the possible and clearly state in this section that such a combination art is not patentable. This will encourage more innovators so that very large smaller workshops across the country belonging to small and medium scale industries and young entrepreneurs can perform these combinations and come up with innovations without becoming a victim of the big patent hungry corporations.</p>
<p>The other danger is that big corporations will hire people explore all the logical possibilities of these combinations and claim patents on all of them. This should be prevented, if the patent office is really interested in encouraging a large number of individuals to enjoy the benefits of science and technology. If people at large do not participate in such combination art, science and technology will not percolate to people at large. People should have the right to implement ideas, and should not be living in a world where there will always be threat that some company will kill him for their innovations.</p>
<p>Another major problem of this section consists in relegating software per se has no technical use just because it has not been combined with any device so far.</p>
<p>The terms "software claimed as a process" and "software claimed as a method", (Cf. 4.11.5 and 4.11.6) are not clearly defined in the law. Therefore such terms cannot be brought in the manual. 4.11.9 is a very serious threat to a innovating society. A draft manual has no right to bring in such a blatant back door entry of a rejected statement by the house of the country. This kind of amendment was attempted in 2005 through a presidential ordinance, and Parliament rejected it. The patent's office has no right to bring it back without first making an amendment.</p>
<p>FSF India, as well as the whole world reacted strongly to this amendment. Since the draft manual makes an attempt to reintroduce this possibility by explicitly stating that software in combination with hardware (embedded systems) (Cf.4.11.9) is patentable, it is important to reiterate the arguments, which are as follows:</p>
<p>Any software can be embedded into a hardware by using either flash or ROM or some some rule set embedded in the circuit. E.g., a large number of mathematical, graphic and audio manipulations which were at one time performed by software are all currently available as embedded solutions within the integrated boards. Each such integration should not be considered patentable.</p>
<p>All hardware that does symbolic manipulations can also be simulated in a software. E.g., if a computer does not have a direct 3D rendering as a part of a VGA card, such computer can perform 3D rendering by using a software library.</p>
<p>This clearly indicates that the entire domain of symbolic and datamanipulation must be kept completely out of the domain of patentability. That is clearly the wisdom of 3(k) where all the innovations that happen in the domain of mathematics, algorithms, computer programs are kept out of the domain of patentability. </p>
<p>The most important ontological issue here is that there does not exist any software that can be made to work independently of any hardware. Some active media, either hardware or wetware (a living human or intelligent being), is required for performing the symbolic manipulation (executing instructions). Therefore, all software--since all software works only in combination with some hardware--is patentable.</p>
<p>Allowing software in combination with hardware multiplies the domain of what is patentable by several folds. The demonstration of this very simple. Software A in combination with hardware A, hardware B, hardware C etc. are all independently patentable for each of the combination is an innovation. The popular demand from the big industry players who wanted this kind of amendment all over the world is therefore clear. What they want is to increase somehow the domain of patentable innovations, so that they can continue to twist the arms of small time innovators.</p>
<p>We therefore request that these sections that explicitly encourage innovators to claim "software in combination with hardware" be not only be removed, but explicitly inform the community that they are not patentable. This will encourage innovators to work out the art of the possible and a healthy competitive world will result in this domain since no fear exists among the innovators and even small time innovators could venture. The objective of the patent's office should be not to enhance the domain of patentability, but to limit, since in this case it is very clear that such a provision restricts the participation of community at large to participate in the innovation.</p>
<p>In this section 4.11, which is a guide to 3(k), it should be clearly mentioned that "A mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms are not patentable" because as such such methods are already protected under the copyright act. Therefore the desirable interpretation of 3(k) should be, computer programs per se are not allowed under patents act and are only allowed under copyright since a computer program per se is nothing but an expression, and expressions are protected under copyright and expressions are not innovations and so not patentable.</p>
<p>Combining an expression (mathematical or computer programs or algorithms) with different variety of hardware is an art of the possible and therefore such a combination art is not considered an innovation. All industries small or big should be encouraged to participate in combining them innovately without any fear of stepping on a land mine.</p>
<p>Free(dom) software (popularly known as free and open source software coming out from GNU, Gnome, KDE, Apache, Mozilla, freeBSD, RedHat, Ubuntu, and such projects) is increasingly getting embedded in several embedded (hardware) devices and their usage is increasing by several folds every day. Our community is concerned about the recurring enthusiasm our Patent's office has in finding a way to make software related innovations and bring them to allowable category. On behalf of FSF India, a representative of a global community of free software community, requests the office to redo the elaborations of 3(k). FSF India can enthusiastically help in re-drafting this portion if the office gives us a chance. As an important stakeholder of a very large free software community globally, neglecting our serious objections will not help the industry and community at large to take the full benifit of free software.</p>
<p>Considering that the ICT revolution took place without allowing software patents, there is no need for expanding the domain of patentable innovations.</p>
<p>Even if other countries made such provisions, India as world's largest democracy should not create an atmosphere of anti-innovation. As a country with large human resource, we have a bigger challenge of harnessing more creativity among the country, and that will happen by bringing each and every citizen under creative participation and not by bringing each and every thing under allowable patents category. India should lead the rest of the world by clearly stating in the manual that computer programs are not patentable in India by any other way and are per se protected only under copyright.</p>
<p>The practical advantage of not allowing software patents in India will enable Indians to work with those ideas that are otherwise patented elsewhere.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/response-of-free-software-foundation-of-india'>https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/response-of-free-software-foundation-of-india</a>
</p>
No publisherpranesh2008-09-21T14:40:57ZPageNational Public Meeting on Software Patents
https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/national-public-meeting-on-software-patents
<b>This meeting will feature the following speakers: Nagarjuna G. (Free Software Foundation of India), Prabir Purkayastha (Delhi Science Forum), Prashant Iyengar (Alternative Law Forum), Venkatesh Hariharan (Red Hat) and Sudhir Krishnaswamy (National Law School)</b>
<h3> Agenda</h3>
<p> </p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td rowspan="3">
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;">1000–1100</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="3">
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;">Presentation on the principles of patent law and software patents</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpFirst"><span class="SpellE">Sudhir</span> <span class="SpellE">Krishnaswamy</span></p>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpLast">(National Law School)</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpFirst"><span class="SpellE">Prabir</span> <span class="SpellE">Purkayastha</span></p>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpLast">(Delhi Science Forum)</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpFirst"><span class="SpellE">Nagarjuna</span> G.</p>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpLast">(Free Software Foundation of India)</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="2">
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;">1100–1130</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="2">
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;">Discussion on software patents in the Indian context: Indian Patent Act, and the draft patent manual</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpFirst"><span class="SpellE">Prashant</span> <span class="SpellE">Iyengar</span></p>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpLast">(Alternative Law Forum)</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpFirst"><span class="SpellE">Venkatesh</span> <span class="SpellE">Hariharan</span></p>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpLast">(Red Hat)</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;">1130–1150</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;">Tea break</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="3">
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;">1150–1240</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="3">
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;">Discussion on patents and the development sector (freedom of speech, open standards, healthcare, biotech, agro-sector, etc.)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;">Sunil Abraham</p>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;">(Centre for Internet and Society)</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpFirst"><span class="SpellE">Anivar</span> <span class="SpellE">Aravind</span></p>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpLast">(<span class="SpellE">Movingrepublic</span>)</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraph">Others</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;">1240–1300</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;">Presentation on the software patents that have been granted so far in India</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpFirst">Pranesh Prakash</p>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpLast">(Centre for Internet and Society)</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;">1300–1400</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraph">Lunch break</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="6">
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;">1400–1700</p>
</td>
<td rowspan="6">
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;">Open House</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpFirst">Joseph Mathew</p>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpLast">(IT Adviser to <span class="SpellE">the Chief Minister of Kerala</span>)</p>
<br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpFirst">T. Ramakrishna</p>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpLast">(National Law School)</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpFirst"><span class="SpellE">Abhas</span> <span class="SpellE">Abhinav</span></p>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpLast">(<span class="SpellE">DeepRoot</span> Linux)</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpFirst"><span class="SpellE">Sreekanth</span> S. <span class="SpellE">Rameshaiah</span></p>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpLast">(<span class="SpellE">Mahiti</span> <span class="SpellE">Infotech</span>)</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpFirst"><span class="SpellE">Vinay</span> <span class="SpellE">Sreenivasa</span></p>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraphCxSpLast">(IT for Change)</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="ListParagraph">Any others who wish to speak</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<h3>Documents</h3>
<ol start="1"><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/response-of-free-software-foundation-of-india" class="internal-link" title="Response of Free Software Foundation of India">Representation by Free Software Foundation of India</a><br /></li><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/representation-by-knowledge-commons" class="internal-link" title="Representation by Knowledge Commons">Representation by Knowledge Commons</a></li><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/response-by-knowledge-commons-1" class="internal-link" title="Response by Knowledge Commons">Response by Knowledge Commons</a><br /></li><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/ALF%20Position%20Paper%20Draft%20Patent%20Manual.pdf" class="external-link">Response by Alternative Law Forum</a></li><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/alfs-note-before-2005-amendment" class="internal-link" title="ALF's Note before 2005 Amendment">Backgrounder by Alternative Law Forum</a><br /></li><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/JTDs-position-on-DPM.pdf" class="internal-link" title="J. T. D'souza">Response by JT D'Souza </a></li></ol>
<p> </p>
<h3>Other information <br /></h3>
<ul><li><a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/co-organisers" class="internal-link" title="Co-organisers">List of co-organisers</a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Say_No_To_Software_Patents/National_Public_Meeting">Wiki page for event</a><br /></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/national-public-meeting-on-software-patents'>https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/national-public-meeting-on-software-patents</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIntellectual Property Rights2011-04-05T04:45:10ZEvent