The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 61 to 75.
Consultation on 'National Geospatial Policy' - Notes and Submission
https://cis-india.org/openness/consultation-on-national-geospatial-policy-03022016
<b>The Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, has constituted a National Expert Committee for developing a draft National Geospatial Policy (NGP) to provide appropriate guidelines for collection, analysis, use, and distribution of geospatial information across India, and to assure data availability, accessibility and quality. A pre-drafting consultation meeting for the NGP was organised in Delhi on February 03, 2016. Ms. Anubha Sinha represented CIS at the meeting, and shares her notes.</b>
<p> </p>
<h3>National Geospatial Policy - Pre-Drafting Consultation Meeting</h3>
<p>Keeping in mind the importance of geospatial data in the context of national development, the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, has constituted a National Expert Committee for developing a draft National Geospatial Policy (NGP). The Committee is Chaired by Major General Dr. R Siva Kumar, former Head of Natural Resources Data Management System (NRDMS) and CEO of National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), and Dr. Bhoop Singh, Head of NRDMS and NSDI Division at Department of Science and Technology, as Member Secretary. The Policy aims at providing appropriate guidelines for collection, analysis, use, and distribution of geospatial information across India, and to assure data availability, accessibility and quality.</p>
<p>A pre-drafting consultation meeting for the NGP was organised in Delhi by Dr. Valli Manickam, Professor at the Academic Staff College of India, on February 03, 2016, and CIS was invited to take part in it as the only participant from the civil society. The other participants included representatives from the geospatial industry and industry associations (like FICCI and CII), and Ms. Ranjana Kaul, Partner at Dua Associates. Among the drafting committee members, Major General Dr. R Siva Kumar, Dr. Bhoop Singh, Dr. Sandeep Tripathi (IFS), and Wing Commander Satyam Kushwaha were present.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>National Geospatial Policy - Concept Note</h3>
<p>The purpose of the meeting was to hear the stakeholders' response to a Concept Note on the NGP, circulated prior to the meeting <strong>[1]</strong>. The Note sets out the principles and concerns of the proposed policy, which plans to guarantee geospatial data availability, accessibility, quality and in consonance with the imperatives of national security and intellectual property rights. The applicability of the policy is aimed at:</p>
<blockquote>all geospatial data created, generated and collected using public funds provided by Central and State Governments and International donor organizations, directly or through authorized agencies.</blockquote>
<p>The note suggests establishment of an "empowered body" to ensure proper creation, updates, management, dissemination, and sharing of the data, and management of an online portal for the same. The institutional mechanism to implement the policy will be composed of an Appellate authority / National High Power Implementation Committee, the NGP Implementation Committee, and the NGP Steering Committee.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Notes from the Meeting</h3>
<p>The Welcome Address was delivered by Dr. Bhoop Singh (Head of NRDMS and NSDI Division, DST) who informed the participants that the Expert Committee had already met National Security Council and heard their concerns on the policy. The principles on which the proposed policy is to be based were also shared. The policy resulted from an exercise started two years ago to fix quality and accuracy of geospatial data, which was when it was realised that there were significant gaps that need urgent redressal. It was also identified that in previous initiatives to manage geospatial data at the national level, some data-generating organisations had been left behind. The chief concerns for the Expert Committee are 1) tailoring a policy suited to India's unique security issues, 2) avoiding a blanket open policy that may lead to misuse of low resolution data, 3) heeding restrictions on mapping, considering that 43% of landmass was not represented on maps presently (a probable solution was to do feature based mapping), and 4) clarifying government regulation of drone-based mapping. Security concerns were raised frequently throughout the meeting. The Committee also recognised that for development, data sharing should be made more open. The Committee was keen to have the private industry as a partner in generation of geospatial data.</p>
<p>Private industry representatives agreed with the objectives of the policy and were willing to contribute to geospatial data generation. The Expert Committee mulled over the possibility of creating a Public Private Partnership to cater to data generation. The private industry complained about the lack of efforts in popularising geospatial technologies and making the process of tenders more transparent.</p>
<p>There were suggestions to examine the policies of other jurisdictions facing similar internal security threats as India, and delineating the types of data that could be openly shared (for instance, geospatial data from border regions versus non-border regions). Segregation of restricted and open geospatial data can also be done on the basis of its end-application, such as for military and engineering purposes. Participants also requested the creation of a clear Do's and Don'ts guideline. CIS presented a written submission that raised seven key concerns. These are listed in the section below.</p>
<p>On the question of making an open data policy, it was suggested that the committee needs to decide the fundamental approach of the policy first - whether the policy should be based on prohibition and restriction, or focus on identifying and regulating open and free geospatial. The UN General Assembly document on Principles relating to remote sensing of the Earth from space provides an appropriate international point of reference <strong>[2]</strong>.</p>
<p>After listening to the concerns and comments of the stakeholders, the core committee made the following concluding remarks:</p>
<ul><li>Existing policies of government and defence should be mapped out to avoid conflict or overlap with the proposed NGP policy</li>
<li>The sharing of data vests with government agencies and other organisations recommended by them – there needs to be a transparent mechanism for such recommendation based sharing</li>
<li>Industry should come up with self-regulatory mechanisms, do's and don'ts, and code of conduct</li>
<li>Develop a secure mechanism for providing data on sensitive areas (in terms of national security;</li>
<li>Even the defence agencies sometimes cannot access maps due to policies of the National Remote Sensing Centre and other agencies – such inconsistencies need to be fixed</li></ul>
<p>It was announced that the next consultation will occur in a couple of months, and will be open to the public at large, including representatives of industry, defence, and civil society.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Key Concerns about the NGP Concept Note</h3>
<p><strong>1. Complete lack of availability of open geospatial data from Indian government agencies:</strong> No government agency in India publish open geospatial data. While maps are often sold, both in printed and in digital form, they are not provided in a machine-readable open format and under an open license. The concept note towards NGP has made strong commitments towards changing this situation. There is an immediate need to participate in the NGP drafting process, with coordination among various civil society actors interested in open geospatial data, to ensure that these principles are carried into and operationalised in the actual NGP document.</p>
<p><strong>2. Need for explicit and comprehensive set of criteria to determine if a set of geospatial data is sensitive for national security reasons:</strong> In formal and informal conversations with various agencies collecting and creating geospatial data in India, the role played by security agencies in blocking proactive and reactive public disclosure of geospatial data, and even intra-governmental sharing of such data, has been highlighted. Addressing this issue requires development of an explicit and comprehensive list of criteria that will establish a clear and rule-based system for identifying if a specific geospatial data set is to be categorised as “shareable” or “non-shareable.”</p>
<p><strong>3. No clarity regarding legal status of citizen/crowd-sourced geospatial data, and initiatives to generate them:</strong> Open user-contributed geospatial data, especially through the OpenStreetMap platform, has emerged as a key driver of the global geospatial services industry. There is a legal ambiguity created by the National Mapping Policy regarding generation of such data in India, which came into focus when Survey of India filed a case against Google for organising a Mapathon contest, which invited Indian users to add metadata about physical and built features through Google Maps platform.1 The NGP needs to expressly provide legal sanction (and perhaps framework) for citizen/crowd-sourcing of geospatial data.</p>
<p><strong>4. Fragmented institutional structure for collection, management, and distribution of different kinds of geospatial data:</strong> Survey of India, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, and Indian Space Research Organisation are all key government agencies involved in creating and managing geospatial data. Further, Election Commission of India is involved in preparing geospatial data about electoral units and their boundaries. The National Spatial Data Infrastructure was conceptualised to harmonise and centralise the geospatial data management processes, but is yet to be implemented with the backing of a policy or an Act. The NSDI can be institutionalised via the NGP as the national archive, aggregator, and distributor of open geospatial data, being originally collected and created by a range of government agencies.</p>
<p><strong>5. Integration of National Geospatial Policy with National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP):</strong> The proactive disclosure of “shareable” geospatial data using open geospatial standards and under open licenses must be carried out under the purview of the NDSAP, and through the open government data platform established through NDSAP. The decisions regarding licensing of open government data, as being discussed by the a committee set up under NDSAP, must also be applicable to open geospatial data that will be published following the instructions of the NGP. Further, instead of multiple online sources of open geospatial data collected by various Indian government agencies, must be identified as the primary and necessary source for publication of open geospatial data.</p>
<p><strong>6. Integration of National Geospatial Policy with Right to Information (RTI) Act:</strong> Geospatial data must be treated as a special category of information under the RTI Act, which necessitates that if an Indian citizen requests for geospatial data from a government agency under the purview of RTI Act, the agency must provide the data in a human-readable and machine-readable open geospatial standard, and not only in the printed format, as key qualities of digital geospatial data can be substantially lost when printed in paper.</p>
<p><strong>7. Need for special infrastructure for management and publication of real-time geospatial (big) data, and governance of the same:</strong> With increasing number of government assets being geo-referenced for the purpose of more effective and real-time management, especially in the transportation sector, the corresponding agencies (which are often not mapping agencies) are acquiring a vast amount of high-velocity geospatial data, which needs to be analysed and (sometimes) published in the real-time. The need for special infrastructure for such data, as well as its governance, has not been discussed in the concept note for NGP, which is a major omission.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Endnotes</h3>
<p><strong>[1]</strong> See: <a href="https://github.com/cis-india/website/raw/master/docs/DST_National-Geospatial-Policy_Concept-Note_2016.01.21.pdf">https://github.com/cis-india/website/raw/master/docs/DST_National-Geospatial-Policy_Concept-Note_2016.01.21.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[2]</strong> UNGA 41/65. Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Space: <a href="http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_41_65E.pdf">http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_41_65E.pdf</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/consultation-on-national-geospatial-policy-03022016'>https://cis-india.org/openness/consultation-on-national-geospatial-policy-03022016</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaOpen DataOpen Government DataFeaturedGeospatial DataOpennessDigital India2016-03-29T17:03:31ZBlog EntryIP Meetup #02: Prabir Purkayastha on the CRI Guidelines and software patenting in India
https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/ip-meetup-02-prabir-purkayastha-on-the-cri-guidelines-and-software-patenting-in-india
<b></b>
<h3>Prabir Purkayastha will deliver a short talk on what the Guidelines on Computer Related Inventions mean for software patenting, and the way forward, on Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at the CIS Delhi office, at 4 p.m. <br /></h3>
<div id="parent-fieldname-text-90eeae1895bf44d29641567f7fcf5d44">
<p style="text-align: justify;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">We would like to invite you to the second session of a series of IP focused meetups. The meetups are
aimed at bringing folks together working within or interested in IP law,
to discuss recent developments with reference to access to knowledge,
climate change, health, trade, etc.</p>
<p>The talk will be followed by a round of discussion, after which the
floor will be thrown open for other pressing/relevant IP developments.</p>
<p>Please join us for tea and refreshments at 3.30 pm.</p>
<p>Please RSVP by dropping a line at <a class="mail-link" href="mailto:anubha@cis-india.org">anubha@cis-india.org</a>.</p>
<p><strong>CIS Delhi's location on Google Maps: <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/nPKkoQFhRSt">https://goo.gl/maps/nPKkoQFhRSt</a></strong></p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/ip-meetup-02-prabir-purkayastha-on-the-cri-guidelines-and-software-patenting-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/ip-meetup-02-prabir-purkayastha-on-the-cri-guidelines-and-software-patenting-in-india</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaOpen SourceAccess to KnowledgeSoftware PatentsIntellectual Property RightsFOSS2016-03-29T17:06:13ZEventFueling the Affordable Smartphone Revolution in India
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/digital-asia-hub-the-good-life-in-asias-21-st-century-anubha-sinha-fueling-the-affordable-smartphone-revolution-in-india
<b>Smartphones have emerged as the exemplar of mankind's quest for shrinking technologies. They embody the realization of a simple premise – that computing devices would do more and cost less. This realization has been responsible for modern society's profound transformations in communication, governance, and knowledge distribution.</b>
<p>The essay was published as part of the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.digitalasiahub.org/thegoodlife/">The Good Life in Asia's Digital 21st Century essay collection</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The launch of the iPhone in 2007 is often credited with ushering in an era of smartphones. Ever since, the world's best tech R&D has focused on increasing the capabilities of these devices. And as a result, less than a decade later, we have sub-hundred dollar smartphones. The low-cost smartphone has found an enthusiastic and insatiable market in developing countries, especially Asia. India is no exception to the Asian narrative – Micromax, Spice, and Lava (low cost smartphone manufacturers) are household names in the Indian smartphone market, which accounted for 65% of internet traffic in 2014 (Meeker, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Indian Prime Minister, carrying the twin aspirations of catalyzing the growth of indigenous manufacturing and bridging the digital divide, launched the “Digital India” and “Make in India” campaigns last year. During his US visit, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook extended their support to the campaigns' vision (Guynn, 2011). The campaigns outline the government's elaborate initiatives to, inter alia, bridge the digital divide and build indigenous manufacturing capacity. While all these developments bode well for the indigenous smartphone, there remain some serious concerns affecting the growth of the industry – for instance, patent infringement litigations and the absence of clear legal and regulatory solutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">From the state of the industry and its implications, it can be concluded that: first, growing access to smartphones has been influenced by their phenomenal affordability; second, smartphones are an excellent example of technology for development (UNDP, 2001) and a facilitator of access to knowledge; and third, domestic smartphone production has occurred in an imprecise legal and regulatory environment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This essay attempts to build an appreciation for the role that smartphones are playing in development, specifically, by fostering Access to Knowledge. Conversations around development by public-interest groups and emerging industries often espouse Access to Knowledge to address concerns in international development, communications, technology, education, and intellectual property policy. Whereas the principle can be regarded as in-theworks, two theories inform us about the role of mobile phones in fostering Access to Knowledge. Lea Sheaver's theory classifies mobile as an Access-toKnowledge good. Lea enumerates the five key components of a robust Access to Knowledge framework, viz., education for information literacy, access to the global knowledge commons, access to knowledge goods, an enabling legal framework, and effective innovation systems (Sheaver, 2007). According to her, affordability of the good is the ultimate indicator of its efficacy as an access to knowledge good. Furthermore, inventions in microchip technology, electronics manufacturing, and software need to be supported by enabling legal and policy frameworks coupled with effective innovation systems.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yochai Benkler's framework classifies mobile-devices as both informationembedded goods and information-embedded tools (Benkler, 2006). He says, “Information-embedded goods are those goods which are ‘better, more plentiful or cheaper because of some technological advance embedded in them or associated with their production,’ such as medicines, movies, and improved crop seed. Information-embedded tools, in turn, are those technologies necessary for research, innovation, and communication of knowledge” (Benkler, 2006). A smartphone qualifies as both because it can be used to obtain knowledge, and it depends on discoveries in microchip technology, electronics manufacturing, and software to function.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To date, there has been no formal, theoretical or evidentiary investigation on the emergence of smartphones as an Access-to-Knowledge good. In the following sections, I will attempt to explain the smartphone’s dependence on an enabling legal framework and effective innovation systems (Lea's components). It must be borne in mind that globally, discussions affecting access to knowledge have aimed at creating balanced and inclusive systems related to intellectual property (Kapczynski & Krikorian, 2010). Therefore, the essay will focus on: first, the relationship between constituent mobile technologies and intellectual property as a function of production/deployment of smartphones in India; and second, the relationship between innovation and access.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Creating an Enabling Legal Framework to Foster Access to Knowledge</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The adage “the only lesson you can learn from history is that it repeats itself” is worth bearing in our narrative. The emergence of the smartphones industry in Asia has commonalities with the flourishing Asian piracy trade – which remains an essential access solution for low-income societies constantly barraged by expensive western media goods. The prohibitive cost of acquiring brand-name devices (e.g. Apple, HTC, Samsung, Sony) drove local production to imitate and innovate cheaper substitutes (WIPO, 2010). This occurred within the lenient and flexible intellectual property regimes prevalent in Asian countries, which continue to be constantly criticized for their failure to enact stricter intellectual property law. The hubs of smartphone production – China, Taiwan, and India – have flexible intellectual property protection law and lax enforcement measures (Centre for Internet and Society, 2012).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Concerns of intellectual property center around patent and copyright legislation, which have yet to be fully developed to address intellectual property in high-tech industries (since trademark issues remain unchanged, they will not be discussed in the essay.) As a result, constituent smartphone technologies have been shaped and governed by a blend of formal and informal rules and legal and illegal practices. This is why they are often referred to as “gray market” technologies. A smartphone in terms of constituent intellectual property can be broadly divided into hardware and software technologies. This piece will first deal with hardware, followed by software technologies.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Hardware Technologies and Their Relationship with IP Law</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Presently, most Indian manufacturers import hardware from China and Taiwan, and assemble the phones in India. A few key Indian domestic players are Maxx Mobile, Intex, Spice, and Lava, whose dominance have not gone unnoticed by foreign manufacturers. A couple of these domestic manufacturers are now embroiled in patent litigation threats or infringement suits. And as litigation piles up in Indian courts, the judiciary is slowly waking up to mobile patent litigation, but is yet to rule comprehensively. To make matters worse, the jurisdiction of the Indian antitrust regulator remains unclear, and to a certain extent overlaps with the judiciary, adding to the ambiguity. For instance, when an appellate court ruled in favor of the Swedish tech-giant Ericsson, it ordered Micromax to pay a flat 1.25 – 2% of its devices' selling price to Ericsson (Lakshane, 2015). The ruling was devoid of a more rational and reasoned approach developed by courts of other jurisdictions in similar matters, which prescribed that the infringers pay damages based on the price of the patented components only, and not the retail price of the phones. This decision risks causing a significant increase in the price of phones and potentially threatens local innovation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Indian government's Make in India and Digital India campaigns aim to fulfill the vision of a digitally empowered India, and the 2015 Indian Union budget also targets boosting the electronics manufacturing industry. Despite these broad initiatives, there needs to be a more focused policy in place to ensure domestic companies do not get weighed down by patent related concerns. The root cause of litigation is the vesting of a majority of critical mobile patents (Standard Essential Patents, or SEPs) by a handful tech-giants. For instance, Qualcomm owns 5700 patents around CDMA technology (qualcomm.com). In another instance, the DVD format constitutes 311 SEPs for DVD players and 272 SEPs for DVD recorders (CIS, 2012). Such a dense concentration of patents around SEPs creates a patent thicket and thereby compels Smartphone manufacturers to acquire multiple licenses, and to pay high transaction costs and huge royalties to the owner. To reduce conflict and protect domestic players from being arm-twisted into paying high royalties, the government can potentially identify critical technologies and initiate the formation of a patent pool of such technologies. The concept of a patent pool mandates that the patent holders issue licenses on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis to interested parties. However, a nuanced and cautious approach to setting up such pools is necessary (Shapiro, 2001).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are interesting lessons in China's steps to encourage local innovation of Smartphone hardware as well, specifically in the form of standardized technologies. The Chinese government has actively supported the development of indigenous standards to shield domestic manufacturers from royalty exposure. In fact, the China Blue High-definition Disc (CBHD) standard was built as an alternative to the Blu-ray disc and was duly adopted by the Chinese government, which reportedly caused the royalty rates for the Blu-ray format to dip. Much later, Warner Bros, Paramount, and other motion picture producers adopted the CBHD standard as well for distribution in China.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Software Technologies and Their Relationship with IP Law</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Unlike hardware technology, where India is struggling to build manufacturing capacity, the success of the Indian software industry has already been realized. The software-as-a-service (SaAS) industry is led by Infosys, TCS, and Wipro in software exports. The prevailing trend in the industry since the 1980s was to assign ownership of their products to offshore clients. However, in the past decade, there has been a conscious shift by the Indian software development workforce to build products for Smartphone platforms. This is in response to the shift in local populations to accessing content and services online. Reports indicate that India has the second largest population of mobile applications developers (approx. 3 million) in the world, second only to the US (Livemint, 2015). The Indian government has recognized the potential of mobile application-based ventures and created funds to encourage app development in India (IAMAI, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Intellectual property protection around software is fairly ambiguous. A piece of code is potentially capable of gaining both patent and copyright protection. In the area of mobile application development, preliminary research findings indicate that coding occurs with an agnostic attitude towards intellectual property laws (Cassar, 2014). One of the reasons is ambiguity on a multitude of issues around the protection of software because Indian legislation on patent and copyright is frustratingly insufficient. There is a growing discontentment about long-term patent protection over software code, which could be detrimental to innovation – particularly, to the start-up segment of software industry. In more technologically advanced economies, software patenting has emerged as a scourge – last year, the US Supreme Court in Alice Corporation Pty Ltd v. CLS Bank International Et Al narrowed the eligibility of software inventions to gain patent protection. The activist discourse has shifted in favor of eliminating software patenting because of the incremental and obsolescent nature of a software invention, inter alia (Lapowsky, 2015). However, in a recent disappointing move, the Indian patent office widened the scope of patent-eligible subject matter for software-related inventions – a move that was decried by free software activists and industry alike. This widening of scope can only benefit tech-giants in building bigger patent portfolios, which is unnecessary and unhealthy for innovation by small and mid-tier entities (Sinha, 2015).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Effective Innovation Systems</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Innovation ensures fresh creation of knowledge. A society cannot premise itself on the mere importation of knowledge; it must also strive to use the knowledge to meet its own local needs and environment. Innovation depends on a variety of factors – there is no singular path or factor to build an innovative and enterprising society. The patent system is often incorrectly credited with “promoting” innovation. The discourse around innovation was extremely patent-centric until studies disproved the assumptive correlation between high patenting activity and innovation. Continuing in the same vein, Lea states, “From the A2K perspective, however, relying on patents – which represent the right to exclude others from access to the innovation – is particularly problematic. Patents likely represent the segment of innovation of least value for expanding access to knowledge: improvements in the knowledge stock whose application is limited by exclusive property rights” (Shaver, 2007).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this framework, it is also important to shed light on the growing movement of openness. Openness as a movement has been captured by various fields - Big data, software, education, media, etc. Free and Open Source Software has emerged as a key agent in information technology policy-making in India, with the Indian government adopting an open standards policy and an open software policy for its own purposes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the context of smartphone technologies, preliminary findings also support the shift towards openness (Huang, 2014). Industry participants have observed that openness will lead to greater benefits in private production of hardware technologies. Similarly, mobile applications developers have also voiced support of open source software (Cassar, 2014).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Conclusion</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The discussion above identified a limited set of legal and regulatory concerns affecting the state of production/deployment of smartphones in India. These issues and findings are backed by preliminary research, and purport to sustain the emergence of the smartphone as an enabler of access to knowledge. The proposed solutions direct industry and the government alike to take immediate steps to fix problems impeding pervasive access to this knowledge good.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The experience of the smartphone industry with an imprecise legal and regulatory environment, akin to piracy, has thus far been a success story of affordability, quality substitution, and innovation. However, this narrative is now threatened by messy litigation, jurisdictional uncertainties between the anti-trust regulator and judicial system, SEP licensing issues, rise of software patents, inter alia. Despite these issues, the industry continues to grow. The future of access to knowledge is therefore bright, provided that stakeholders make efforts to meet the needs of this emerging industry and the public, including development and consumer interests.</p>
<hr />
<p><strong> References / Links / Resources</strong></p>
<ol>
<li>Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth Of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets And Freedom. Retrieved from http://www.benkler.org/wealth_of_networks/index.php?title=Chapter_9%2C_section_3.</li>
<li>Cassar, S. (2014). Interviews with App Developers: Open Source, Community, and Contradictions – Part III. Retrieved from: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-open-sourcecommunity-and-contradictions-iii</li>
<li>Cassar, S. (2014) Ambiguity in the App Store: Understanding India’s emerging IT sector in light of IP. Retrieved from http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ambiguity-in-the-app-store</li>
<li>Centre for Internet and Society, Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Marketplace(2012, September). Retrieved from http://cis-india.org/a2k/pervasive-technologies-research-proposal.pdf/view</li>
<li>Guynn, J. (2015, September 28). Facebook, Silicon Valley like Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/09/27/narendra-modi-india-facebook-markzuckerberg-google-sundar-pichai-silicon-valley/72936544/</li>
<li>Huang, M. (2014). [Open] Innovation and Expertise > Patent Protection & Trolls in a Broken Patent Regime (Interviews with Semiconductor Industry - Part 3). Retrieved from: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ interviews-with-semi-conductor-industry-part-3</li>
<li>IAMAI (2015). An inquiry into India's app economy.</li>
<li>Kapczynski, A., Krikorian, G., (2010). Access to Knowledge in the Age of Intellectual Property. Retrieved from: https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/free_download/9781890951962_Access_to_ Knowledge_in_the_Age_of_Intellectual_Property.pdf</li>
<li>Lakshane, R. (2015, September). FAQ: CIS Proposal for Compulsory Licensing of Critical Mobile Technologies. Retrieved from: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/faq-cis-proposal-for-compulsory-licensing-ofcritical-mobile-technologies</li>
<li>Lakshane, R. (2015, February). Open Letter to Prime Minister Modi. Retrieved from: http://cis-india.org/ a2k/blogs/open-letter-to-prime-minister-modi</li>
<li>Lapowsky, I. (2015, February). If You Want to Fix Software Patents, Eliminate Software Patents. Retrieved from https://www.eff.org/mention/follow-wired-twitter-facebook-rss-eff-if-you-want-fix-software-patentseliminate-software</li>
<li>Meeker, M. (2015). 2015 Internet Trends. Retrieved from http://www.kpcb.com/partner/mary-meeker</li>
<li>PTI (2015). Google aims to make India a hub for app development. Livemint. Retrieved from: http:// www.livemint.com/Industry/rwWUfp30YezONe0WnM1TIO/Google-aims-to-make-India-a-hub-for-appdevelopment.html</li>
<li>Qualcomm Enters Into CDMA Modem Card License Agreement with Seiko Instruments Incorporated. (n.d.). Retrieved November 13, 2015, from https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2000/06/20/ qualcomm-enters-cdma-modem-card-license-agreement-seiko-instruments</li>
<li>Shapiro, C. (2001). Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 1, 119-150. Retrieved from: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10778.pdf</li>
<li>Shaver, L. (2007). Defining and Measuring Access to Knowledge: Towards an A2K Index. Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 22. retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/22</li>
<li>Sinha, A. (2015). Comments on the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs). Retrieved from http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-computerrelated-inventions-cris</li>
<li>United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2001: Making New Technologies Work for Human Development (2001). Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2001/en/</li>
<li>World Intellectual Property Organisation. (2010, Dec 1-2). Media Piracy in Emerging Economies: Price, Market Structure and Consumer Behavior. Retrieved from the WIPO website: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/ mdocs/enforcement/en/wipo_ace_6/wipo_ace_6_5.pdf</li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/digital-asia-hub-the-good-life-in-asias-21-st-century-anubha-sinha-fueling-the-affordable-smartphone-revolution-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/digital-asia-hub-the-good-life-in-asias-21-st-century-anubha-sinha-fueling-the-affordable-smartphone-revolution-in-india</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaFeaturedIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2016-03-16T15:23:43ZBlog EntryThe new Guidelines for Computer Related Inventions are a big win for FOSS in India!
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-new-guidelines-for-computer-related-inventions-are-a-big-win-for-foss-in-india
<b>India is one of the few countries which permits patenting of software – a monopolization that has only benefited established corporations and largely throttled innovation in the software industry, worldwide. CIS has consistently advocated against patentablity of software and in a major victory last week, software patenting in India died a little more. This happened via the newly issued Guidelines for the Examination of Computer Related Inventions, which introduces a new test to restrict software patenting – in essence the same legal test that CIS had been proposing since 2010. This post highlights the new test and other noteworthy changes in the Guidelines. </b>
<p> </p>
<p>When
the Guidelines for examination of Computer Related Inventions(“
2015 Guidelines”) were released last year, it became <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Industry/XGBbgNllmvuEUhJWs2cWgK/Revised-guidelines-for-software-patents-put-on-hold.html">obvious
that they would have an adverse impact on innovation in the Indian
software industry</a>. Further, the 2015 Guidelines were legally
defective since they ran counter to the object of Section 3(k) of the
Patents Act, 1970, which is to unconditionally exclude mathematical
and business methods, computer programs per se, and algorithms from
patentable subject matter. To stop and prevent egregious harms, <a href="http://sflc.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Letter_CRIGuidelines2015-Prime-Minister.pdf">civil
society organisations collectively wrote to the Prime Minister's
Office</a> flagging off the defects and requested for a recall of the
Guidelines. In
December 2015, the Indian Patent Office <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-in-abeyance">promptly
recalled the 2015 Guidelines</a> and held a consultation to discuss
the concerns raised in the letter.</p>
<p>Based
on submissions by various stakeholders, the Patent Office released a
<a href="http://ipindia.nic.in/iponew/GuidelinesExamination_CRI_19February2016.pdf">new
set of Guidelines</a>(“Guidelines”), which are not only a
staggering improvisation from all previous versions, but also
introduce a new three step test to determine applicability of section
3(k), an area of Indian patent law that has been notoriously full of
uncertainties:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>5.
Tests/ Indicators to determine Patentability of CRIs (“Computer
Related inventions”):</p>
<p>Examiners
may rely on the following three stage test in examining CRI
applications:</p>
<p>(1)
Properly construe the claim and identify the actual contribution;</p>
<p>(2)
If the contribution lies only in mathematical method, business method
or algorithm, deny the claim;</p>
<p>(3)
If the contribution lies in the field of computer programme, check
whether it is claimed in conjunction with a novel hardware and
proceed to other steps to determine patentability with respect to the
invention. The computer programme in itself is never patentable. If
the contribution lies solely in the computer programme, deny the
claim. If the contribution lies in both the computer programme as
well as hardware, proceed to other steps of patentability.</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>CIS
had proposed the exact same test in its <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-submission-draft-patent-manual-2010">earlier
submissions(2010)</a> to the Patent Office, albeit worded differently. We
submitted:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>"We
propose a new part to the above test to make the clause clearer. The
Manual should specify that “the computer programme portions of any
claimed invention should be treated as if it were covered by prior
art and patentability should thus be determined with respect to the
other features of the invention”. This way, we can ensure that an
invention which merely uses or implements a computer programme is not
granted patent on the basis of the inventiveness of the computer
programme </em>per
se<em>."</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Further,
the Guidelines also recognise that CRIs may fall under sections 3(k), 3(l), 3(m) and 3(n):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>2.2. The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 also introduced explicit exclusions from patentability under section 3 for CRIs as under:</p>
<p>3(k)
a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or
algorithms;</p>
<p>(l)
a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or any other aesthetic
creation whatsoever including cinematographic works and television
productions;</p>
<p>(m)
a mere scheme or rule or method of performing mental act or method of
playing game;</p>
<p>(n)
a presentation of information;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And thus CRIs as such cannot be patentable, if they fall in either of the above
mentioned exclusions. Overall,
the new Guidelines offer more clarity and stick to the Patents Act,
1970's intention of disqualifying patentability of computer
programmes per se. We will soon post a detailed analysis of the Guidelines. In the meantime, you may read CIS' research on the subject in the section below.</p>
<h3><br /></h3>
<h3>CIS' Research and Submissions against Software Patenting<br /></h3>
<p>Over
the past years, CIS has produced research and consistently made
submissions advocating the roll- back of software patenting:</p>
<p><a name="parent-fieldname-title4"></a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/arguments-against-software-patents">Arguments
Against Software Patents in India, 2010</a></p>
<p><a name="parent-fieldname-title"></a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-submission-draft-patent-manual-2010">CIS
Submission on Draft Patent Manual, 2010</a></p>
<p><a name="parent-fieldname-title1"></a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-draft-guidelines-for-computer-related-inventions">Comments
on the Draft Guidelines for Computer Related Inventions, 2013</a></p>
<p><a name="parent-fieldname-title3"></a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions">Guidelines
for Examination of Computer Related Inventions: Mapping the
Stakeholders' Response</a>, 2014</p>
<p><a name="parent-fieldname-title2"></a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-cris">Comments
on the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions
(CRIs), 2015</a></p>
<p><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-submission-to-indian-patent-office-on-examples-of-excluded-patentable-subject-matter-under-section-3-k-for-incorporation-in-the-yet-to-be-released-guidelines-for-computer-related-inventions">CIS'
submission to Indian Patent Office on Examples of Excluded Patentable
subject-matter under Section 3(k) for incorporation in the
yet-to-be-released Guidelines for Computer Related Inventions</a>,
2016</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-new-guidelines-for-computer-related-inventions-are-a-big-win-for-foss-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-new-guidelines-for-computer-related-inventions-are-a-big-win-for-foss-in-india</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaFeaturedPatentsAccess to KnowledgeSoftware Patents2016-02-24T06:30:37ZBlog EntryIP Meetup #01: Prof. Biswajit Dhar on 'Intellectual Property issues: The Way Forward post Nairobi WTO Ministerial'
https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/ip-meetup-01-prof-biswajit-dhar-on-intellectual-property-issues-the-way-forward-post-nairobi-wto-ministerial
<b>Prof. Biswajit Dhar will deliver a short talk on what the WTO Nairobi Ministerial means for intellectual property issues, and the way forward, on Sunday, February 7, 2016 at the Centre for Internet & Society's Delhi office, at 4 p.m. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We would like to invite you to the inaugural session of a series of IP focused meetups. The meetups are aimed at bringing folks together working within or interested in IP law, to discuss recent developments with reference to access to knowledge, climate change, health, trade, etc.</p>
<p>The talk will be followed by a round of discussion, after which the floor will be thrown open for other pressing/relevant IP developments.</p>
<p>Please join us for tea and refreshments at 3.30 pm.</p>
<p>Please RSVP by dropping a line at <a class="mail-link" href="mailto:anubha@cis-india.org">anubha@cis-india.org</a>.</p>
<p><b>CIS Delhi's location on Google Maps: <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/nPKkoQFhRSt">https://goo.gl/maps/nPKkoQFhRSt</a></b></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/ip-meetup-01-prof-biswajit-dhar-on-intellectual-property-issues-the-way-forward-post-nairobi-wto-ministerial'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/ip-meetup-01-prof-biswajit-dhar-on-intellectual-property-issues-the-way-forward-post-nairobi-wto-ministerial</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaIntellectual Property RightsEventAccess to KnowledgeLearning2016-02-04T13:25:34ZEventCIS' submission to Indian Patent Office on Examples of Excluded Patentable subject-matter under Section 3(k) for incorporation in the yet-to-be-released Guidelines for Computer Related Inventions
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-submission-to-indian-patent-office-on-examples-of-excluded-patentable-subject-matter-under-section-3-k-for-incorporation-in-the-yet-to-be-released-guidelines-for-computer-related-inventions
<b>The Patent Office had put the Guidelines on Computer Related Inventions, 2015 in abeyance last month. This step was taken after several stakeholders including CIS made representations to the Office about serious substantive legal issues in the document. In furtherance of the consultative process, a meeting was conducted in Mumbai with various stakeholders, chaired by the Controller General of Patents Design Trademarks (“CGPTDM”). Anubha Sinha participated in the meeting, after which the CGPTDM invited submissions from stakeholders on specific examples on exclusions from patentability under section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, for possible incorporation in the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="Standard"> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="Standard">This post contains CIS' submission on specific examples on exclusions from patentability under section 3(k). <strong>You may view the Guidelines <a href="http://www.ipindia.nic.in/iponew/CRI_Guidelines_21August2015.pdf">here</a>. To read the letter sent to the PMO, click <a href="http://sflc.in/joint-letter-to-the-pmo-expressing-concerns-over-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-cris/">here</a>. To read CIS' analysis of the Guidelines, click <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-cris">here</a>. <br /></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="Standard"><strong><em>It is worth noting that the IPO requested for negative examples of patentability [CRIs that cannot be patented under the Act]. While it is commendable that the IPO sought inputs from stakeholders for negative examples, stakeholders have often requested the IPO to provide positive examples of patentable CRIs. The yet-to-be-released-Guidelines should also mention a sufficient number of positive examples to provide better clarity to stakeholders.</em></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="Standard"><strong><br /></strong></p>
<hr style="text-align: justify;" />
<p style="text-align: center;">ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES ON EXCLUSION FROM PATENTABILITY OF COMPUTER RELATED INVENTIONS<br />to<br />THE HON'BLE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS<br />by<br />THE CENTRE FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY, INDIA</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>I. PRELIMINARY</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This submission presents specific examples on exclusions from patentability, under section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, for possible incorporation in the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">2. This submission is based on the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions released in September 2015("2015 Guidelines/ Guidelines"). The Guidelines are in abeyance, presently.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">3. The Centre for Internet and Society ("CIS") commends the Hon'ble Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks ("CGPTDM"), Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India for its efforts at seeking inputs from various stakeholders. CIS is thankful for the opportunity to have been a part of this discussion since 2008; and to provide this submission in furtherance of of the feedback process continuing from the stakeholders' meeting conducted by the Hon'ble CGPTDM on 19.01.2016.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>II. OVERVIEW</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-governmental organization engaged in research and policy work in the areas of, <em>inter alia</em>, intellectual property rights, access to knowledge and openness.<a name="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> This submission is consistent with CIS' commitment to safeguarding general public interest, and the interests and rights of various stakeholders involved. Accordingly, this submission aims to further these principles.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>III. SUBMISSIONS</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">5. Broadly, we submit that the Guidelines narrowed the legal exclusions on patentable subject matter in section 3(k). Consequently, the Guidelines were arguably in violation of section 3(k).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">6. To supply clarity to the examination procedure, CIS has proposed a definition to "computer programme per se" in its previous submissions to the Indian Patent Office :</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> "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."<a name="_ftnref2" href="#_ftn2"><em><strong>[2]</strong></em></a> </em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> Further, since the inclusion of computer programmes in a broader application should not render the application ineligible subject matter, CIS previously proposed an addition to the test: </em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> "We propose a new part to the subject-matter test to make the clause clearer. The Manual should specify that "the computer programme portions of any claimed invention should be treated as if it were covered by prior art and patentability should thus be determined with respect to the other features of the invention". This way, we can ensure that an invention which merely uses or implements a computer programme is not granted patent on the basis of the inventiveness of the computer programme </em> per se<em>." <a name="_ftnref3" href="#_ftn3"><em><strong>[3]</strong></em></a></em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">7. Accordingly, CIS would like to highlight examples of specific patent applications on exclusions from patentability, under section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, for considering their possible incorporation in the Guidelines. The applications are:</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">7.1 Application No.: 112/CHE/2008</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Title: Bill payment card method and system</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Asst. Controller General correctly examined and rejected the invention on the grounds of it purely relating to a business method and processor configured software. Applicant had contended, <em>inter alia</em>, that the method claimed a series of steps being executed with hardware features , including a communication network, communication link and other hardware peripherals intrinsic to the execution of the claimed method.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Further, in their reply to the objections in the FER, the applicants stated:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> " There is present a database to perform the functions of the card electronically. The processor is configured to receive information, transmit information and/or authorize the card and associated information thereof. The processor may be configured to produce reports, issue reports, confirmation receipt etc. </em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> It also consists of a card which may include electronic and/or magnetic features e.g. a microprocessor, memory and an electronic chip, a magnetic strip, a USB flash drive and a wireless communication device. The card may be configured to communicate with a wired devices, such as by USB, coaxial cable..." </em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> "...The whole process brings out technical effect in a way that this system allows for the payment of bills without the use of a bank account, credit card, or money order. Hence it is a system with technical features producing technical effect. Hence, enhancement of a business or teaching a way in which a business is carried out is essentially not the the prime motive of the instant invention. With its technical character, technical features and enhancement in business comes as by-product of the implementation of the instant invention." </em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The invention was rejected.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">7.2 Application No.: 48/CHE/2005</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Title: Structured approach to software specification</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The applicant asserted in their reply to the FER<a name="_ftnref4" href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> that the claims related to an information managing system including at least on processing unit, a system memory, a system bus, a LAN, a remote computer, a video adapter and monitor and a software architecture performing a particular task or implement particular abstract data types. As a result, they contended that the said invention did not fall under the purview of section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The application was correctly rejected by the Controller in the first instance itself.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">7.3 Application No.: 2019/CHENP/2004</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Title: Apparatus and method of a distributed capital system</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The FER included objections regarding lack of novelty, inventiveness, lack of constructive features, lack of support for the word "means" , objections towards a business method, computer program per- se towards an algorithm (objections incl. 3(k)) per se and also towards claims relating to mere medium etc.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Further, it was stated by the Office that even the amended claims failed to overcome the said objections because, inter alia, " <em> the subject matter of the claims related to a method of carrying out financial transactions with one or more parties in a Distributed capital system implemented by pure software I algorithms per-se. The said method is a mere business method/algorithm which is implemented in a computer network through software modules."<a name="_ftnref5" href="#_ftn5"><strong>[5]</strong></a> </em> <em> </em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> </em> The invention was rejected.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">7.4. Application No.: 4986/DELNP/2006</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Title: A method of tracking a radio frequency signal by means of electronic equipment.</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The objections in the FER were that, the subject matter claimed fell within the scope section 3(k) as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act 2005, for being algorithm based method. Subject matter as described and claimed in computer program product claims as well fell within the scope of section 3(k), for being relating to computer program per se. The examination correctly disregarded the implementation of the invention on electronic equipment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The invention was rejected.</p>
<h3></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">7.5 Application No.: 1405/MUMNP/2008</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Title: Method for determining an output value from a sensor in automation engineering</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Order issued u/s 15 clearly pointed out that the contribution of the applicant was a mathematical method to determine the output variable from the input variable. And since mathematical methods were intellectual in nature, the invention lacked technical advancement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The invention was rejected.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">7.6. Application No.: 914/CHE/2007</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Title: A system, method to generate transliteration and method for generating decision tree to obtain transliteration</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">One of the claims read:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> "A system to generate transliteration of source language script into target language script using decision tree based technique with automated supervised learning, said system comprising of </em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>i. </em> <em>a device having memory;</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>ii. </em> <em>an input device for entering text;</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>iii. </em> <em>transliteration engine to maintain patterns and predetermined rules used in transliteration of source language script into target language script;</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>iv. </em> <em>a display device for displaying entered text and transliterated textl and</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>v. </em> <em>an interface to enable typing in any language and optionally to integrate the transliteration system into existing web-pages."</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The application was correctly rejected by the Examiner for on grounds of falling under section 3(k), <em>inter alia</em>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">8. CIS welcomes the initiative of the Hon'ble CGPTDM to provide said illustrative examples. CIS believes that it is essential that the Guidelines avoid violation of section 3(k), and are formed complying with the Indian Patents Act, 1970 and relevant judicial decisions; and keeping in mind the legislative intent.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">9. CIS would be willing discuss these submissions with the Hon'ble CGPTDM; and supplement them with further submissions if necessary, and offer any other assistance towards the efforts at developing a Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>On behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society</strong><br /><strong>Anubha Sinha<br />Programme Officer</strong></p>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<hr />
<div id="ftn1">
<p><a name="_ftn1" href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> <em> See</em> <a href="http://www.cis-india.org/">www.cis-india.org</a> for details about CIS' work.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<p><a name="_ftn2" href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> Pranesh Prakash, CIS' submission on Draft Patent Manual 2010 , available at < <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-submission-draft-patent-manual-2010"> http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-submission-draft-patent-manual-2010 </a> ></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<p><a name="_ftn3" href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> Ibid.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<p><a name="_ftn4" href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> <em> See</em> First Examination Report, available at <<a>48-CHE-2005 EXAMINATION REPORT REPLY RECEIVED 31-05-2013.pdf</a>></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn5">
<p><a name="_ftn5" href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> <em> See</em> First Examination Report for Application No.: 2019/CHENP/2004</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-submission-to-indian-patent-office-on-examples-of-excluded-patentable-subject-matter-under-section-3-k-for-incorporation-in-the-yet-to-be-released-guidelines-for-computer-related-inventions'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-submission-to-indian-patent-office-on-examples-of-excluded-patentable-subject-matter-under-section-3-k-for-incorporation-in-the-yet-to-be-released-guidelines-for-computer-related-inventions</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaPatentsAccess to Knowledge2016-02-22T09:36:52ZBlog EntryGuidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions in abeyance
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-in-abeyance
<b>The CRI Guidelines were heavily criticised for their failure to address the ambiguities created by Section 3(k) and for expanding the scope of software patent eligibile subject-matter, inter alia.
Following several representations and submissions by interested stakeholders, the Controller General has moved the Guidelines into abeyance, until discussions with stakeholders are complete and contentious issues are resolved, and is a welcome step.
</b>
<p> </p>
<p>CIS has consistently made submissions
to the Indian Patent Office on the issue of software patenting( <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-cris">2015</a>, <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-draft-guidelines-for-computer-related-inventions">2013</a>,
<a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-submission-draft-patent-manual-2010">2010</a>).
The <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-cris">latest
submission </a>was made in September 2015, in response to the
<a href="http://www.ipindia.nic.in/iponew/CRI_Guidelines_21August2015.pdf">Guidelines
for Examination of Computer Related Inventions, 2015</a>(“CRI Guidelines/ Guidelines”)
in which we highlighted several concerns and presented solutions, and
also proposed a definition of "computer programme per se".</p>
<p>In view of the representations made to
the Patent Office, on 14th December 2015, the Controller General
issued an order to keep the Guidelines in abeyance. <strong>Till the
issues therein are resolved, the existing provisions on S. 3(k) of
chapter 08.03.05.10 of the Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure
will continue to be applicable.</strong></p>
<p>The primary fault with the Guidelines
lay in the fact that, legally, its scope of was in excess of section
3(k) of the Indian Patent's Act, 1970 (parent statute). The
Controller General's order acknowledging the representations and
submissions made in response to the Guidelines, and consequently
keeping the Guidelines in abeyance is a welcome step.</p>
<p><strong>You may access the order <a href="http://ipindia.nic.in/officeCircular/officeOrder_14December2015.pdf">here</a>.</strong></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-in-abeyance'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-in-abeyance</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaIntellectual Property RightsFOSSSoftware PatentsAccess to Knowledge2015-12-23T10:06:53ZBlog EntryCIS-India Projects: Overlaps with Digital India
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-india-projects-overlaps-with-digital-india
<b>This post documents the overlap of CIS India's work with the nine pillars of the Digital India campaign. The list reflects work completed/underway as of September 2015.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Broadband Highways</b></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>National Fibre Optics Network: Studying the implementation BBNL and promoting shared backhall infrastructure.</li>
<li>Net Neutrality: Made submissions to the TRAI consultation, DoT Panel and testified before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on IT. </li>
<li>Internet Governance: Engaging with WSIS processes and the ICANN; participating in internet governance consultations. </li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Universal Access to Mobile Connectivity</b></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>CIS advises the deployment of shared spectrum test beds in IIT Hyderabad and IIT Delhi, supported by DEITY (Budget: INR 47.6 lakhs).</li>
<li>Text to Speech engine for 12 Indic languages using FOSS (Budget: INR 1.8 crores).</li>
<li>CIS serves on the High level committee for the National Electronic Accessibility Policy.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Public Internet Access Programme</b></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Advising the Task-force constituted by the Delhi government for the roll out of Delhi Public WiFi.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>e-Governance: Reforming Government through Technology</b></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Policy, technical and mathematical research on UID. </li>
<li>Conducting case studies on public sector Big Data initiatives in India (Budget: 80K USD), and designing a research network for multi-year project on Big data in the global south (estimated total budget: 2M USD). </li>
<li>Privacy textbook featuring 50 court cases and 50 laws/policies, citizen’s draft of the privacy bill; domain specific briefs; multi stakeholder roundtables (Budget: 220K Pounds).</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>e-Kranti Electronic Delivery of Services</b></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Voluntarily advising implementation of the CCTNS project for Karnataka.</li>
<li>Submitted comments on Information Technology (Electronic Service Deliverables) Rules, 2011.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Electronics Manufacturing </b></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Pervasive Technologies Project: This is a 430K CAD research project aimed at increasing indigenous manufacturing of mobile devices in India and China.</li>
<li>National IP Policy and Strategy: CIS has submitted comments to the DIPP on IP reform, in sync with the Make in India campaign.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Information for All</b></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Participation in and research around WIPO negotiations and meetings in support of Indian negotiators aimed at reforming Indian IP. </li>
<li>Submitted comments to the CSIR, DBT-DST and ICAR on development of Open Access policy.</li>
<li>Indic Wikipedia programme: Creating content and engaging with community for six Indic wikipedias (Budget: 200K USD per annum).</li>
<li>Augmenting, supporting, and capacity building for supply and demand of open (government) data in India (Budget: 500K for 2 years).</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>IT for Jobs</b></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>FOSS in curriculum: Encouraged the introduction of FOSS in university curriculum through RTI requests and outreach programmes.</li>
<li>IP reform of product development: Studying the impact of IP on mobile applications development in India.</li>
<li>Undertaking research and analysis of technology incubators in India.</li>
<li>Hosting and facilitating work of several startups, a continuing collaborative process.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Early Harvest Programme</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Completed work on Open Educational Resources (OERs) through Wikipedia programmes, providing functioning of NMEICT and other steps.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-india-projects-overlaps-with-digital-india'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-india-projects-overlaps-with-digital-india</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaAccess to Knowledge2015-10-11T05:19:30ZBlog EntryComments on the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-cris
<b>Recently, the Indian Patents Office released the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (“2015 Guidelines/ Guidelines”) in an attempt to clarify examination of software related patents in India. This post is a pure analysis of the 2015 Guidelines. The new Guidelines, essentially, narrow the exclusions of secttion 3(k), thereby enlarging the scope of software related applications eligible for a patent grant. More alarmingly, there is low emphasis on the application of the subject matter test, increased ambiguity on the nature of subject matter and an exclusionary list of examples appended to the document. In the following post, CIS highlights these concerns and presents solutions, and also proposes a definition of "computer programme per se".
Read on to understand how the new guidelines will potentially lead to an increase in software patenting activity by expanding the scope of patentable subject matter – in negation of the legislative intent of section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">(Prepared with comments from Pranesh Prakash)</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify;">The <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ipindia.nic.in/iponew/CRI_Guidelines_21August2015.pdf">2015 Guidelines</a> were stuck in the pipeline for a long time. The first draft was released in 2013 and a round of public consultation later, it paved the way for the current guidelines. The guidelines exist to supplement the practices and procedures followed by the Patent Office (as prescribed in the Indian 'Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure')<a name="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>, with the specific objective of ensuring consistent and uniform examination of CRI applications.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">To begin with, the Guidelines have been significantly trimmed down from their draft version. CIS had <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-draft-guidelines-for-computer-related-inventions">commented on the Draft Guidelines in 2013</a> and broadly observed/recommended the following:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li>That the explanation to section 3(k) (Para 2.4) include the subject matter test.</li>
<li>That the Guidelines clarify that section 3(k) intending to exclude “<em>computer programs per se</em>” means excluding computer programs <strong>by themselves</strong>.</li>
<li>Supplying clarifications to the meaning of Inventive Step </li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;"> Para 5.3 stated: <em>(ja) "inventive step" means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art;</em></p>
<em> </em>
<p>Ambiguity around the terms “technical advance” and “person skilled in the art” persists.</p>
<p> </p>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li>The Guidelines place CRIs in the same pool as other inventions, to the extent of suggesting that CRIs be evaluated on same standards of novelty, non-obviousness and industrial applicability as other inventions. This is problematic, because CRIs are inventions with features such as obsolence and being largely incremental innovations.</li>
<li>That the guidelines prescribing dictionary meanings for undefined terms (in Indian statutes) – was a dangerous prescription to make because the words “firmware”, “software”, “hardware” and “algorithm” have different meanings in different contexts.</li>
<li>That the guidelines had a misguided sense of ordering the paragraphs. The subject matter test (which should be undertaken first) was mentioned after the narrower test for <em>computer programs per se. </em>To ensure correct examination re CRIs the application of the subject matter test should precede all other patent criterion evaluations.<a name="_ftnref2" href="#_ftn2">[2]</a></li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;">All the above observations/recommendations still hold true – unfortunately, none of them have been incorporated into the 2015 Guidelines. The few <em>unwanted</em> changes that eventually made their way have nullified the progress the 2013 draft made in terms of providing clarity to section 3(k) and narrowing down the scope of software patents. For instance-</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li>Instead of supplying clarity to terms such as “technical effect”, “technical advancement”, the 2015 Guidelines removethe definition of these terms. However, section 6 lists six questions that must be addressed by the examiner to determine the technical advancement of the invention.</li>
<li>Similarly, the explanation to section 3(k) has been deleted in the 2015 text.</li>
<li>The explanation to “inventive step” made reference to the <em>Enercon case</em> (thereby <em>Windsurfing International Inc.</em> and <em>Pozzoli case)</em>, for the determination of inventive step. The explanation has also been discarded in the 2015 Guidelines.</li>
<li>Other changes include providing better definition of Algorithms, making thescope of mathematical model and business method claims under section 3(k) more expansive.</li></ul>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Narrowing down excluded subject matter relating to CRIs</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Under the crucial section “<strong>Determination of excluded subject matter relating to CRIs</strong>” (section 5.4 in the draft Guidelines; section 4.5 in 2015 Guidelines), the 2013 draft deemed inventions consisting of computer programmes combined with general purpose computers as non-patentable. However, a computer programme couple with novel hardware was deemed possibly patentable subject matter. That version stated <em>“5.4.6....In cases where the novelty resides in the device, machine or apparatus and if such devices are claimed in combination with the novel or known computer programmes to make their functionality definitive, the claims to these devices may be considered patentable, if the invention has passed the triple test of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. ” </em>In the 2015 Guidelines, however, section 4.5 does not shed substantive light on the matter of patentability of software combined with novel hardware. Instead a new section titled “Determinants” has been introduced:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><em>5. Determinants</em></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> 5.1 For being considered patentable, the subject matter should involve either</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> - a novel hardware, or</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> -a novel hardware with a novel computer programme, or</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> -a novel computer programme with a known hardware which goes beyond the normal interaction with such hardware and affects a change in the functionality and/or performance of the existing hardware.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> A computer program, when running on or loaded into a computer, going beyond the “normal” physical interactions between the software and the hardware on which it is run, and is capable of bringing further technical effect may not be considered as exclusion under these provisions.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">And,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><em> 6. Indicators to determine technical advancement</em></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>6.1 While examining CRI applications, the examiner shall confirm that the claims have the requisite technical advancement. The following questions should be addressed by the examiner while determining the technical advancement of the inventions concerning CRIs:</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> (i) whether the claimed technical feature has a technical contribution on a process which is carried on outside the computer;</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> (ii) whether the claimed technical feature operates at the level of the architecture of the computer;</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> (iii) whether the technical contribution is by way of change in the hardware or the functionality of hardware.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> (iv) whether the claimed technical contribution results in the computer being</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> made to operate in a new way;</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> (v) in case of a computer programme linked with hardware, whether the programme makes the computer a better computer in the sense of running more efficiently and effectively as a computer;</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> (vi) whether the change in the hardware or the functionality of hardware amounts to technical advancement.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> If answer to ANY of the above questions is in affirmative, the invention may not be considered as exclusion under section 3 (k) of the Patents Act, 1970.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">It is evident from section 5 that the Patent Office intends to expand the scope of patentable subject matter, and narrow down applicability of section 3(k). The clause “<em>a novel computer programme with a known hardware which goes beyond the normal interaction with such hardware and affects a change in the functionality and/or performance of the existing hardware.” </em>contributes to the expansion. There is no definition as to what will constitute<em>“...normal interaction with such hardware...” </em>Neither do the Guidelines set a standard for assessment of “normal interaction.” Should “normal interaction” be determined from the definition/perspective supplied by the vendor, or from the known universe of interactions possible from that device?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Further, as a stakeholder (<a href="http://ipindia.nic.in/iponew/CRI_Comments_Feedbacks/related_doc/Comments%20to%20Guidelines%20for%20Examination%20of%20CRIs%20-%20Anand%20and%20Anand.pdf">Anand and Anand</a>) in their <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions">comments on the 2013 draft</a> pointed out, increasing the threshold to a novel hardware (and not just a general purpose computing machine) would go against the legislative intent as the requirement of a novel hardware was not mentioned anywhere in the Act.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">These gaps may pave the path for a rather broad scope of patentable software inventions.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Secondary application of the subject matter test</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>“...Therefore, if a computer programme is not claimed by “in itself” rather, it has been claimed in such manner so as to establish industrial applicability of the invention and fulfills all other criterion of patentability, the patent should not be denied. In such a scenario, the claims in question shall have to be considered taking in to account whole of the claims. ”</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The way 3(k) functions is that it's a subject matter test for what an invention is (with non-inventions excluded, since an application that has not been found to be in order may not be granted a patent <br /> under s.43, and to be 'in order', the application has to be "for an invention" (s.6, s.10, etc.)). The tests for novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability have to in any case be applied, regardless of the subject matter test. So what the above-quoted sentence does is removes the subject matter test, as it uses "in itself" to mean to the exclusion of patentability tests other than subject matter.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Proposed definition of “computer programme per se”</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Further, CIS suggests a definition to "computer programme per se":</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>"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." </em><br /> <br /> Furthermore, since the inclusion of computer programmes in a broader application should not render the application ineligible subject matter, CIS previously proposed an addition to the test:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>"We propose a new part to the above test to make the clause clearer. The Manual should specify that “the computer programme portions of any claimed invention should be treated as if it were covered by prior art and patentability should thus be determined with respect to the other features of the invention”. This way, we can ensure that an invention which merely uses or implements a computer programme is not granted patent on the basis of the inventiveness of the computer programme </em>per se<em>." </em></p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Issues with illustrative examples</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">CIS observes that most of the examples provided in the document are things that should <strong>*not*</strong> be awarded patents as per section 3(k). <br /> <br /> 8.2 describes a computer programme per se, and awarding a patent to this would (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step) <br /> 8.4 describes a computer programme per se. General Purpose Computer. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step) <br /> 8.5 describes a computer programme per se. The "repeaters", etc., are software. General Purpose Computer. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step) <br /> 8.6 describes a computer programme per se. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step) <br /> 8.8 describes a computer programme per se. It can be implemented on any general purpose computer. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step) <br /> 8.1 is a simple algorithm, and forms the basis of parallel processing in a computer, of which a wireless device is a subset. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step) <br /> 8.1, 8.3, 8.7 have no novelty, no inventive step, despite not being computer programmes per se.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This issue was also raised by stakeholders in their <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions">comments to the IPO on the 2013 draft. </a></p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Conclusion</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The 2015 Guidelines have narrowed the exclusions in section 3(k) – which does not bode well for innovation, especially innovation by startup enterprises. The new guidelines will permit a larger scope of applications to be granted, which will lead to bigger players in the market amassing huger patent portfolios. There is also an urgent need for clarification on “ novel hardware”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">On a broader level, CIS has <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/arguments-against-software-patents">repeatedly argued for discarding patent protection</a> for software inventions, because of the unique nature of such inventions and the repercussions software patenting has on subsequent innovative activity. The 2015 Guidelines disappoint on rolling back and clarifying software patenting in India.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify;" />
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn1" href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a>Chapter 08.03.05.10 of the Manual, containing provisions pertaining to section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 shall stand deleted with coming into force of these Guidelines for examination of CRIs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn2" href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a>The flow chart in the 2013 draft guidelines show a step by step process of examining CRIs. However, the subject matter determination is done towards the end. There is debate on whether there should be a set order for examining patents. However, in the case of CRIs there must be an exception as the statute explicitly prohibits certain types of patents (business method, algorithm etc). As argued earlier, in order to reduce transaction costs, the subject matter test must be made at the very beginning. There should at least be a preliminary determination as to Section 3(k) to reject patent applications for those inventions that can easily be classified under this provision.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-cris'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-cris</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaSoftware PatentsAccess to KnowledgeIntellectual Property RightsIndian Patents Act Section 3(k)Patents2015-10-27T14:46:24ZBlog EntryCivic BRICS Forum 2015
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/civic-brics-forum
<b>I attended the Civil BRICS Forum in Moscow last month. My session fell under the Economics and Trade category; and I spoke on the importance of maintaining a balanced IP regime, strengthening access to knowledge and medicines, and ensuring free speech and innovation. The event was held in Moscow from June 29 to July 1, 2015.</b>
<p>The working group also invited comments to the Zero draft recommendations and I drafted a quick response to the problematic aspects of the draft. See the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.civilbrics.ru/upload/iblock/98f/98ff0311a446ba25e9349b744e017df4.pdf">Civic BRICS Forum Statement</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">BRICS is a unique interactive format of the five largest and most dynamically developing countries - Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. BRICS member states in total occupied about a quarter of the land on the world map. The total population of the BRICS countries is about 40%. The cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) is about 26% of the global one. However, BRICS is not only a club intended to strengthen the economic impact of the rapidly developing countries, but as well a fundamentally new form of international or rather an inter-civilizational dialogue based on the principles of polycentricity, non-hierarchy and networking. Therefore it seems that BRICS is able to propose a new concept of equal interaction over all vectors of interstate cooperation: in the monetary sphere, allocation of resources, trade, political and human relations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Our Internet resource will help not only to get acquainted closer with history and activity of the BRICS club, to trace news and analytical articles on the agenda both the international process of BRICS, and Civil BRICS, but also to participate directly in Civil BRICS activity by means of forums of the Dialogues Internet platform.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">List of Panels<b></b></h3>
<ol>
<li><b>Culture of BRICS countries 2015-2040: challenges for public administration (2 parts, longer session)</b> <br />D K Hari, Bharath Gyan</li>
<li><b>Building racial, ethnic and religious tolerance and nondiscrimination, regulation of migration and integration of migrants (2 parts, longer session) </b><br />Anasua Basu Rau Choudhary, ORF Kolkata</li>
<li><b>System of intellectual property protection and promotion of innovations <br /></b>Anubha Sinha, Programme Officer, Access to Knowledge</li>
<li><b>BRICS and construction of a multipolar world <br /></b>Anchal Vohra, CNN-IBN<b><br /> </b></li>
<li><b>MDGs Implementation, SDGs and role of the BRICS countries </b><br />Gautam Kirtane, ORF Mumbai<b><br /> </b></li>
<li><b>Social role ofintellectual property protection in healthcare </b><br />Nilanjana Bose, GHS </li>
<li><b>Modern global challenges and the role of the BRICS in ensuring peace and security </b><br />Rajeswari Rajagopalan, ORF Delhi</li>
<li><b>Sustainable Energy and Climate Change </b><br />Sonali Mitra, ORF Delhi<b> <br /></b></li>
<li><b>The role of education and science in the development of human capital </b><br />Aparna Sundaresan, ORF Mumbai </li>
<li><b>Public healthcare development and access to medical services as priority of BRICS international development </b><br /> Anjali Nayyar, GHS </li>
<li><b>Socially responsible trade as a tool for further economic development of the BRICS countries<br /> </b>Nilanjan Ghosh, ORF Kolkata </li>
<li><b>Economics in the finite world </b><br />Rajrishi Singhal, Gateway House</li>
<li><b>Non-Western view on the World's future </b><br />Varun Sahni, JNU<b> <br /> </b></li>
<li><b>BRICS and global South societies in addressing growing inequality </b><br />Ashok Malik, ORF Delhi<b> <br /> </b></li>
<li><b>Involvement of civil society in global governance and shaping the world’s future (open discussion) </b><br />TCA Rangachari </li>
<li><b>BRICS New Development Bank: acting for the common good (open discussion) </b><br />Samir Saran, ORF Delhi </li>
<li><b>Food security and civil society </b><br />Rahul Goswami, Centre for Social Markets </li>
<li><b>Challenges and threats of the modern world: "color revolutions" and use of "soft power" </b><br />Mihir Sharma, Business Standard </li>
<li><b>Money as a Weapon (open discussion) </b><br />Pranay Kothasthane, Takshashila Institution </li>
<li><b>Green economy and innovative development (open discussion) </b><br />Kanika Chawla, CEEW </li>
<li><b>Sustainable development of local administration: municipal and private innovative entrepreneurship projects <br /></b>Rumi Aijaz, ORF Delhi </li>
<li><b>BRICS educational space: ways to strengthen scientific and academic ties. Aiming at high quality education (open discussion)<br /> </b>Dhaval Desai, ORF Mumbai</li>
<li><b>Disease prevention and promotion of healthy lifestyles among children and youth from BRICS-countries (open discussion)</b> <br />Sarah Farooqui, Takshashila Institution</li>
</ol>
<hr />
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/civic-brics.pdf" class="external-link"><b>Download the schedule</b></a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/civic-brics-forum'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/civic-brics-forum</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaAccess to Knowledge2015-08-10T14:27:35ZNews ItemFOSS for Public Use: Free and Open Source Software for Digital India
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/foss-for-public-use-free-and-open-source-software-for-digital-india
<b>I attended a round-table meeting on May 29, 2015 at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. The meeting was organized by SFLC in collaboration with the International Centre for Free and Open Source Software, and the Centre for Internet & Society.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The meeting commenced with welcome address by Ms.Mishi Choudhary, Executive Director, SFLC.in. She elaborated on the idea of the round table conference and explained how sharing of knowledge and experience of the stakeholders will help and assist the people responsible for framing this policy. She then introduced the various dignitaries who participated in this endeavour.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The first session was on the topic, The Open Source Policy - Enabling Digital India, with Mishi Chaoudhary being the moderator. She explained about the “Policy on Adoption of Open Source Software for Government of India” that was launched in March 2015 by the Government of India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The second session was opened by Satish Babu, who emphasized on the Policy’s stand that the ecosystem is more important than the code and stated that this ecosystem comprises of several stakeholders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Delegates who spoke at the event included Dr. Nagarjuna G, Cmdr. L. R. Prakash, Dr. Andrew M Lynn, Prof. Arun Mehta, Vikram Vincent, Venkatesh Hariharan,Kishore Bhargava, Prabir Purkayastha, Ashok T. Ukrani, Ganapathy Narayanan, Anivar Aravind, Satish Babu, Srinivasan Ramakrishnan, Rahul De, Mishi Choudhary, and Anubha Sinha.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The meeting of the minutes can be <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/meeting-notes-on-foss-roundtable.pdf" class="external-link">downloaded here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/foss-for-public-use-free-and-open-source-software-for-digital-india'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/foss-for-public-use-free-and-open-source-software-for-digital-india</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaOpennessFOSS2016-06-18T18:20:35ZBlog EntryPervasive Technologies Project Working Document Series: Literature Review on IPR in Mobile app development
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-working-document-series-literature-review-on-ipr-in-mobile-app-development
<b>This post is literature survey of material exploring and analysing the role of Application Platforms in the Mobile Applications Development ecosystem, albeit from an intellectual property perspective. The document is a work in progress. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>1. What are the decisions developers are making within their practice in terms of location of their enterprise and clients, scale of audience, funding, business models and mobile apps marketplace (app stores)? Who is the primary actor in the mobile applications development cycle in India?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong> 1.1. Is the mobile apps marketplace organically developing into a Bazaar model, or a Cathedral model?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong> 1.2. What are the contractual terms between the enterprise and the employee? What is the typical nature of agreements in the mobile apps development industry between enterprise- employee and enterprise- client?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The role of Mobile application developers (“developers”) is critical in the app market, especially when such markets are regarded as the key entry and dissemination point for mobile content. Developers are seen as innovation engines and the fastest route to innovation, so understanding factors that attract and retain third party mobile application developers is of importance to mobile platform providers in order to survive.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong> Who are the primary actors in the mobile applications development cycle in India?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This chapter of the Pervasive Technologies Project (“Project”) aims to study developers who are key contributors to the mobile applications space within India; and the problems, those being faced by them as they attempt to navigate an emerging and ambiguous ecosystem. The results of our qualitative research give us insight into the characteristics of this new tribe. A majority of the developers do not own the products they innovate and instead assign ownership of their IP over to their clients. Innovating for the purpose of creating and retaining ownership is a key motivation and is reflected in the tendency of developers to move away from the services sector to develop their own products.<a name="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">As one developer puts it, “unless you're a 1000 man enterprise, there's no economic benefit in services; as competition has driven pricing so low, everyone's struggling to deliver $12-14 per hour.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Every startup in mobile development, especially, is doing services to stay afloat and would like to move toward a product model.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Further, IAMAI conducted a survey<a name="_ftnref2" href="#_ftn2"><strong>[2]</strong></a> in 2013 and the report presents an analysis in four sections:</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>a) Who? The App Developer in India</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>b) What? The Preference of Users and Developers in India</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>c) Why? The Business of Apps in India</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>d) How? The Future of Apps in India</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>The Report states:</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>“The vast majority of app developers in India are male. In their survey of 454 developers, only 35 respondents were female reflecting the gender bias. On the demand side 80 percent of smartphone users in India are male reinforcing the male dominance. Geographically the respondents were all based in India except one developer of Indian origin residing in Malaysia. The well known and established IT cities in India are attractive for app developers because they provide with easy access to infrastructure, skill and a ready market for products. The survey shows the concentration of app developers in the cities of Bangalore, Mumbai, Delhi NCR, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad. A larger percentage of developers in such IT cities make apps on a full-time basis as compared to developers in other cities. The survey data also shows that Bangalore, Mumbai and NCR have the maximum number of companies (organized business operations) engaged in app development. Cities like Ahmedabad, Hyderabad and Chennai host many small teams of app developersas well as self-employed app professionals. In most of the other cities such as Bhubaneshwar, Cochin, Coimbatore, Gandhinagar and Kota, app development is done primarily on a part-time basis and is not the primary source of income. This could be the result of limited monetization options that make app development an unsustainable livelihood for many.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>The popularity of international apps was evident in the survey data. The average download of ‘Indian’ apps was very low. Only 14 of the 454 developers has crossed the hundred thousand download mark, of which only 5 surpassed the one million milestone. These numbers do not pertain to a single app, but to the cumulative number of downloads across all the apps created by each developer, supporting the thesis of low visibility of apps developed domestically.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>In their sample of 454 developers, entertainment apps including gaming and social networking are the dominant categories reflecting demand side preference. Utilities, health and education are the other important categories. The survey also below provided the number of apps developed under each category. The list does not include lifestyle and enterprise apps which are exceptions. One forceful result of their survey is the focus of app developers on foreign app demand in preference to producing locally-relevant content - as the latter is less profitable. Each respondent in their sample had developed an average of 38 apps. Of these 13 have developed 100 or more apps and these are the larger professional app companies. After excluding extreme values, the average number of apps developed by each respondent fell to 17.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Skewed revenue sharing models biased against content providers was one of the main reasons why Indian app developers focus on international app stores such as Apple App Store or Google PlayStore that offer a flat 70 percent of the total revenue to developers. This adversely affected development of India-specific apps and even popular apps such as Saavn and Zomato have expanded abroad because of this very reason.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Survey results indicated an Android dominated future for the app economy in India for two apparent reasons. One, Android devices are more affordable and two, the Android ecosystem is open allowing OEMs such as Samsung and HTC to manufacture mobile devices that use the Android OS. The drawback turns out to be the resulting fragmentation in screen sizes, resolution limits and hardware traits. Because of this, “developing apps that work across the whole range of Android devices can be extremely challenging and time-consuming.” Moreover, Indian app developers need to recognise the existence of an active market for used phones and thus the appeal of ‘backward compatibility’ i.e. an app that can work across old devices as well as new ones and also function across both old and new versions of operating systems will stand a better chance of success.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>On the whole, app development was not considered to be a remunerative business opportunity. 17 percent of respondents who answered the question on choice of revenue model indicated that they did not have a specific revenue generation plan. While some developers are engaged in contractual development, there are few developers who self finance their project and do not actively market or promote their app. The business of app development in India seems to be at a stage in which it could be characterised as one based on a ‘hit and trial’ philosophy. Self financing is common in the industry. Only 7 and 13 developers approached banks or venture capitalists for financing. Funding an app developer was not an investor’s primary choice. Recognising the market failure and the utility of apps, the Department of Electronics and IT and Department of Telecommunication have both instituted funds to encourage mobile technology ventures</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>and app development in India.<a name="_ftnref3" href="#_ftn3"><strong>[3]</strong></a> One can argue on the efficacy of the use of limited public resources for app development, but not the fact that app development in India needs a boost. The industry is still very young and ‘unorganized’ and is largely dependent on own and informal sources for financing. The study presents presents the source of financing for app developers.”</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Understanding of IP</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">There is a lack of understanding of IP amongst the developers. During the course of interviews, IP was often thought of as mere content or code. There was also confusion between the terms IP and IPR. The few developers who understood the nuances of IP better, voiced a need for the developer community to deepen their understanding of what parts of their work are IP. Samuel Mani, Founding Partner of <a href="http://www.mcmlaw.in/">Mani Chengappa & Mathur, </a>stressed that developers should recognize the value within not just the product or software itself, but the background business processes. According to Mani, the execution of the idea is the true source of innovation; how one accesses the market, and maybe who the market is as well.<a name="_ftnref4" href="#_ftn4">[4]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The IAMAI report<a name="_ftnref5" href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> had some observations on the impact of IP on the apps industry. According to the report, “<em>since the industry thrived on innovation, protection of intellectual property was important to developers. The balance between protection and sharing of innovation was part of a larger and often tendentious debate on open source versus proprietary software development.<a name="_ftnref6" href="#_ftn6"><strong>[6]</strong></a> The survey did not attempt to deconstruct that debate; merely reported that 70 percent of respondents were of the view that intellectual property protection was a concern for app developers. However, not all had taken steps to protect intellectual property. The lack of seriousness could be associated with poor revenue potential from apps. Among those who had, some obtained copyrights/patents, while others worked with individual checks on in-app piracy using code morphing, copy protection, server–based checks, or both etc (The study provides data on different IP protection measures).”</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Nature of their clients</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Out-sourced 'mobile app services' is marginal as a business model here in India.<a name="_ftnref7" href="#_ftn7">[7]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Ownership of their product/service:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Often, the lack in understanding can be traced to the developers working in isolation from the legalities involved in assigning the product to the client. Majority of those interviewed developed mobile app products for clients, and in turn assigned ownership of their products to their clients. As previously mentioned, they commonly shared an interest in leaving the services sector to create products of their own, with some of them already having made the transition within their business model.<a name="_ftnref8" href="#_ftn8">[8]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Contractual clauses most important to mobile app developers: </strong>Delving deeper into the aspect of assigning ownership to clients, the most common practice is for developers to enter into a work-for-hire agreement with the client. Typically, a work-for-hire agreement mandates that if a worker is paid to carry out a particular project, whatever is created within the project belongs to the client.<a name="_ftnref9" href="#_ftn9">[9]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">For startups where team players are small in number, it is likely that all will have access to any contract agreements entered into with clients. For larger corporate software developer firms, there may be a specialized department for legal-related matters. In such cases, the mobile app developers themselves would seldom lay eyes on the legalese of contracts, for the primary reason being that it doesn't concern them. Instead, the terms of agreement more familiar to them would be those that they obliged to upon working for their employer. The interviews revealed that the importance of contract agreements was actually underestimated in the country.<a name="_ftnref10" href="#_ftn10">[10]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Within a work-for-hire agreement, it is commonplace for developers to enter into restrictive agreements that obstruct the freedoms of what they can do with the code created for the client. Problematic areas proved to be those related to the time periods in which the developer was not allowed to take up future work for competing clients (i.e. the non-compete clause), or could not talk about their work for the client at all (the “quiet period”).<a name="_ftnref11" href="#_ftn11">[11]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Developers are unable to license their work to other interested clients when one client retains ownership. “Clients typically do not want a perpetual license, but complete ownership”, says a website developer. He further explains that, “this means they could make a derivative work or use it for another project. Depending on how bad we want the project, we'll work out some middle ground.” But it does not seem to be so easy for he and his SME to do so: “The thing about contracts is it’s all about a sort of differential bargaining power that the two parties have... you’ll have very little control about what happens once you’ve got paid.”<a name="_ftnref12" href="#_ftn12">[12]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">To have any sort of bargaining power within a work-for-hire arrangement requires a lot of time for negotiating, and the space for communication to begin with. In many cases, contracts may not even be introduced into a work agreement, leaving a lot of intricacies to the unknown.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The problems are further compounded by contract illiteracy, more so in second tier cities.<a name="_ftnref13" href="#_ftn13">[13]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>2. What is the nature of innovation emerging from the mobile app industry?</strong> <strong>What is the awareness of the "mobile applications developer and its enterprise on rules concerning code, content and design? How does re-use and sharing of code, content and design occur in the mobile application developer ecosystem ? What is the perceived impact of the Indian IPR regime on the aforementioned aspects? Finally, do the emerging trends in re-use and sharing of code run afoul of Indian IP law?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">There is a marked shift towards using open source software amongst developers. According to a Gartner study, most software makers will have some open source applications or code in their portfolio by 2016. The study also reaches the conclusion that 99% of Forbes’ Global 2000 companies will be using some form of open source software.<a name="_ftnref14" href="#_ftn14">[14]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Awareness</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The interviews revealed different personal understandings of the meaning of IP. The most common responses were the following<a name="_ftnref15" href="#_ftn15">[15]</a>:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>A :</strong> When questioned about IP to developers, they did not know what it meant, because it didn’t have anything to do with what they were doing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>B : </strong>Developers often did not know what part of their app was IP... there is was gap in understanding with respect to IP.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">For the most part, it seems, IP was considered to refer to content or code across interviews, and was even confused at one point with IPR (IP Rights) within a response referring to an SME's trademark and pending application.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">For those who appeared to be better versed in matters related to IP, they emphasised on the need for developers to be better acquainted with what parts of their work are IP. One interviewee stressed on the importance of developers to recognize the value of background business processes, apart from software and the product itself. <a name="_ftnref16" href="#_ftn16">[16]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In certain cases, it took $1 million in sales for a medium-sized software development enterprise to start paying attention to IP. The enterprise tried to obtain patent protection for their application, but the effort turned out to be futile.<a name="_ftnref17" href="#_ftn17">[17]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Protection of work (Speaks to awareness also)</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">When asked, those interviewed responded with a variance in answers. Some simply stated that their work is not protected, while a few mentioned that they acquired trademark or intend to apply for trademark protection. One interviewee had a patent pending in India and the US, as well. In many conversations, developers mentioned that their code for their apps is under open source licenses, and a couple others entailed sharing that the content is under creative commons licenses, “individual licenses,” or joint copyright. Additionally, within one interview, one mentioned the use of encryption tools as a technical means of protection for their work.<a name="_ftnref18" href="#_ftn18">[18]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">“<em>The concept of securing IP is relatively new within the Indian context... it becomes a question of priority between innovation and protection" — Aravind Krishnaswamy, Levitum.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Of the developers interviewed, many exhibited some sort of confusion or misunderstanding related to the protection of their works by means of intellectual property rights (IPR). Those interviewed seemed to either express an interest to acquire IPR in the future for their products in the forms of patent or trademark protection, or expressed their appreciation for openness source licensing—or both! Beneath these immediate responses, however, many repeated patterns, as well as contradictions, are revealed. Conversations that followed within these interviewed entailed the opportunity to hear from personal experiences and opinions on different areas within their practice intersecting IPR.<a name="_ftnref19" href="#_ftn19">[19]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Across interviews conducted, one particular observation entailed the tendency for developers to have worked in the past for corporate employers that have dealt with cases of infringement or have acquired IP protection. Almost half of those interviewed shared the fact that they worked for a corporate employer and became better familiar with different notions of intellectual property through that experience. It may not be too far-fetched to suggest, then, that for the developer the idea of acquiring IPR protection is one that may be reinforced from previous employers or other successful development companies with IPR of their own.<a name="_ftnref20" href="#_ftn20">[20]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Impact of law & reasons for IPR Protection</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">One would assume that if a startup was bootstrapped with minimal cash flow, then it would place a low priority on getting IP protection for its products. Aravind Krishnaswamy of startup, <a href="http://levitum.in/">Levitum</a>, also stated that <em>“the concept of securing IP was relatively new within the Indian context.” <a name="_ftnref21" href="#_ftn21"><strong>[21]</strong></a></em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Yet, many developers who were interviewed did express an interest in IPR. The main concerns developers believed IP protection would address, were proving ownership over their work or preventing problems in the future. One developer's commented on how the mobile app market is a “new and potentially volatile area for software development.” For this reason, it was imperative that he and his team attempted to avoid trouble in the future, and ensure that they going about mobile app development the right and moral way.<a name="_ftnref22" href="#_ftn22">[22]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Within another interview, developer, John Paul of mobile app SME, Plackal, explained his motives for seeking to acquire patent protection, the application for which back then was pending in India and the US: "<strong>For us, applying for a patent is primarily defensive.</strong> And if it does get infringed upon, it would give us a good opportunity to generate revenue from it." For the company's trademark, they sought to be able to enforce their ownership over their product's brand: “As a precautionary, we've trademarked the app so that should there be a situation where the app is pirated, we can claim ownership for that app.”<a name="_ftnref23" href="#_ftn23">[23]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Do the emerging trends run afoul of Indian law?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Yes. This was evident from the legal practices of mobile app developers and the resulting cases of infringement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Some instances of infringement (limited to Mobile app content (i.e. logos, pictures, etc.)) are<a name="_ftnref24" href="#_ftn24"><strong>[24]</strong></a>:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">• Pirated apps in app stores</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">• “Dummy apps” or imitations of another's app</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">• Breaching app stores user agreement</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">• Violation of License agreements of code created by another</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">• Violation of Open source licenses</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">• Breaching of terms of agreement for by commissioning clients</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">• Breaching of terms of agreement for by those hired</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Some of the developers indicated that they weren't a fish big enough to be pursued for infringement. “The big companies do not go after small developers; it depends on how much money they're making.” said a developer. He added,“Patent lawsuits can cost something like millions of dollars, so unless they're going to get more back, they wouldn't go through the trouble of doing so... but that is true even in the US.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Some added that others who may have been apparently copying you, may have been working on the same content independently. Corporate players are in non-compliance knowingly than not, whereas more SMEs infringe upon others without being aware that they are. Just as well, the degree to which infringement takes place may differ between the two types of industry players: “At the corporate level, where they know they are not in compliance, the degree of non-compliance might be very small or specific, but it still exists.” On the other hand, for startup developers, a substantial amount of their code may not comply with the licenses and agreements they are obliged to—something that could pose problems for them later down the road if left unfixed. <a name="_ftnref25" href="#_ftn25">[25]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>3. The apps marketplace is extremely important since they are the gatekeepers enabling access to apps. What is the nature of the apps marketplace? What are the limitations associated with it ? How do the existing regulatory models intersect with this relatively new marketplace? What is the enforcement carried out by these app stores in terms of IP?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">“<strong><em>The app platform is a gatekeeper which provides the consumer and developer a virtual space to buy and sell products (mobile apps). What is the nature of the app platform? What are the limitations associated with it?</em></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><em>An app dealing in pirated content or infringing intellectual property faces the risk of getting barred by the app platform. What is the enforcement carried out by app platforms to protect intellectual property?”</em></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Firstly, what is an app platform?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Iansteti and Levien<a name="_ftnref26" href="#_ftn26"><strong>[26]</strong></a></em> state that at the core of each innovation network is a focal organization known as <strong>platform owner</strong> (or keystone) that provides the platform to facilitate contribution by other members in the network.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Hagiu<a name="_ftnref27" href="#_ftn27">[27]</a> defines a platform as a product, service or technology that provides a foundation for other parties to develop complementary products.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Specifically<em>, I Kouris<a name="_ftnref28" href="#_ftn28"><strong>[28]</strong></a></em> defines an app platform as a special kind of electronic market which enable software developers to distribute their software applications(apps) among users of mobile devices like smartphones or tablets. An app platform owner dictates the entire infrastructure(like user interface, server space, etc.) and determines the rules for the interaction between the developers and users. They usually provide information about apps and developers and serve as a trusted third party by controlling app quality. <em>Fransman M<a name="_ftnref29" href="#_ftn29"><strong>[29]</strong></a></em> characterised the app platform as an 'innovation ecosystem incorporating app developers effectively.'</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Innovation can happen within the enterprise, or can take a more open route and benefit from external innovation. In order to gain the benefit of external innovation, platform owners must open their platforms up beyond their internal base of developers and provide resources to third party developers.<a name="_ftnref30" href="#_ftn30">[30]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>What is the platform concept in software?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Broadly, <em>Noori<a name="_ftnref31" href="#_ftn31"><strong>[31]</strong></a></em>, discusses the issues about the platform concept in software and attempts to address the subject of platform strategy. Tsai, Phal & Robert<a name="_ftnref32" href="#_ftn32">[32]</a> further the discussion by stating principles for an effective platform strategy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In mobile ecosystems <strong>building a developer community</strong> is one of the niches to attract the developers to join the ecosystem. However, health can mean differing things for different ecosystem members. In order to stimulate innovation<a name="_ftnref33" href="#_ftn33">[33]</a> the keystone company is often forced to relinquish much of their control over the platform to the development community. This involves a careful balancing act in relinquishing enough control to create a healthy environment for developers, and not stifling innovation while retaining a necessary and desired degree of control.<a name="_ftnref34" href="#_ftn34">[34]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Baskin<a name="_ftnref35" href="#_ftn35">[35]</a> examines the problems concerning software patent under the mobile applications platform environment. The scope of the analysis is limited to two mobile applications platforms: Apple's iOS and Google's Android. The analysis throws light on the problems of innovation in software systems like iOS and Android. The note also proposes several changes to both antitrust and patent laws that will make it more difficult for established market players to prevent new competitors from entering high tech markets, thereby promoting greater openness and innovation. The part on software patents discusses the effects of enforcement of patent rights on open and closed systems. The note observes that the US Federal Circuit's decisions (Fonar Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., io7 F.3d 1543, 1549 (Fed. Cir. 1997)) have severely curtailed both the enablement and best mode requirements for successful software patents., thereby limiting the disclosure and preventing many of the invention's useful elements from reaching the public domain. Patentability issues have affected open systems such as Android more than Apple, owing to a greater dependency on third parties to run android systems, leading to more patent infringement issues. It recommends, that, intellectual property law should promote open systems above patent protection in high tech fields, allow reverse engineering of software and introduce an 'independent invention' defence in the law for innovators.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">A certain paper addresses rejection of apps in the AppStore on three grounds: rejection on content grounds (including some competition-driven restrictions), rejection on development grounds, and the regulation of transactions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Apple's and Google's foray into building a mobile development platform</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Coming from the music and personal computer industry, Apple disrupted the mobile industry by making its mobile development platform available to third party developers and eliminating the barriers between those developers and customers. The main goal of Apple in the mobile world is to increase the cross-sales of its high-margin products by providing a continuous experience roaming (iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple TV) using complements such as mobile applications, content, services, and accessories.<a name="_ftnref36" href="#_ftn36">[36]</a> Google, on the other hand, is an online advertising company which provides an open source mobile operating system, in the shape of Android, on which mobile handset manufacturers can develop smartphones without paying software licensing fees. By commoditizing mobile device production under its unique governance structure and building a large developer community, Google secured a means of reducing the barriers to new users accessing their advertising through smartphones. Microsoft through its Windows Phone is the most recent addition to the leading mobile platform providers. Its motivations lie in trying to protect its core business of software licensing which has been disrupted by falling PC sales linked to the emergence of mobile technology and free cloud technology services provided by companies such as Google which have impacted respectively on its licensing fees for Windows OS and Microsoft Office<a name="_ftnref37" href="#_ftn37">[37]</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Luis H Hestres<a name="_ftnref38" href="#_ftn38">[38]</a> analyzes Apple’s guidelines and approval process on the App Store, discusses content-based rejections of apps, and outlines the consequences of this process for developers’ and consumers’ freedom of expression. It outlines a set of principles to ensure “app-neutrality” whilie ensuring device quality and safety. The article illustrates challenges faced by app developers working on the iOS platform. Criticisms have come forth about Apple's arbitrary and opaque review process. Apple has a rejection rate of 30% of the 26,000 apps submitted to the app store each week<a name="_ftnref39" href="#_ftn39">[39]</a>. Van Grove<a name="_ftnref40" href="#_ftn40">[40]</a> comments that the ambiguity, opaqueness, and susceptibility to outside pressures that seems to characterize Apple’s approval process do a disservice to a democratic online culture. With more than 400 million iOS devices sold worldwide since 2007<a name="_ftnref41" href="#_ftn41">[41]</a>, Apple’s devices and app store have become important online intermediaries for Internet users. The article proposes a few basic guidelines, anchored on widely accepted international laws and treaties, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Statistics</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">A Report<a name="_ftnref42" href="#_ftn42">[42]</a> presents us with some important insights into the growth of Google Play. Following are the highlights of the report: There are now well over 1 million apps available on Google Play App downloads and revenue from Google Play increased dramatically over the past year; Markets such as Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Turkey and Indonesia are driving growth in app downloads from Google Play; Google Play is experiencing rapid expansion of monetization in established markets such as Japan, the United States and South Korea; Games played a major role in the acceleration of Google Play revenue growth, but almost all app categories experienced expansion and accounted for almost 90% of revenue in Q1 2014; The freemium business model advanced its domination of Google Play app revenue, and represents a growing proportion of downloads; Asian markets lead the way in generating freemium revenue. Another report8 reiterates the explosion of gaming apps.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>4. How does Indian copyright law and patent law apply to the mobile applications development ecosystem, in respect of the various business models operating in the industry?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>4.1. The patent regime is grounded on a laboratory model of innovation. What does the niche mobile applications development industry (working on a micro-creativity model of innovation) require differently from the patent regime to foster growth?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>4.2. Similarly, copyright law has a distinct design for digital objects. Examine the design and its suitability to regulate a mobile application.</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>A.</strong> The interviews reveal a dichotomy existing in the mobile app developer space. While some developers argued for strong IPR protections, several of app developers opposed strict IPR protection (patents, especially) and advocated use of open source software.<a name="_ftnref43" href="#_ftn43">[43]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Open source for future protection (Applicable as literature to Research question 2)</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Sometimes developers license for community values primarily, however, the assumption is that dominant reason is to retain the ability to use their own work across clients. A designer from a services enterprise gave a different reason for doing so: to guarantee their ability to use their work again. “Since we use a bunch of templates and things like that, those we license using a non-exclusive license, because we reuse those elements on different bits of code in different projects,” he explains, “so there are bits of it which is used over multiple projects and there are stuff that is built exclusively for the client.”<a name="_ftnref44" href="#_ftn44">[44]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Here one can gather some insight, that perhaps developers do not necessarily license for community values primarily, but for the ability to use their own work across clients. That being said, we begin to wonder what the possibility that open source code may serve as a loophole for work-for-hire contracts, which require the developer to assign all written intellectual property to whoever is commissioning the project. If the code happened to “already be available by open source,” a developer may still be honouring any restrictive agreements with clients, and ensuring their ability to use their code in this future again.<a name="_ftnref45" href="#_ftn45">[45]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">As a developer suggests, that startups should first and foremost protect themselves by making wiser choices related to code in order to prevent being litigated against by others—such as using an open source equivalent to a piece of code that one does not have the rights to, or instead putting the extra time in to develop it from scratch.<a name="_ftnref46" href="#_ftn46">[46]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Of those who expressed an interest in the open source movement, not all had said that their products were to be open licensed as well. One developer explicitly stated: “I like the idea of open source, and building upon others' work...but our app is not open source, it's proprietary.” It may be a given, then, that all or most developers within our interview sample rely on open source code within their practice, but not all may contribute their resulting product's source code back.<a name="_ftnref47" href="#_ftn47">[47]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Vivek Durai, from Humble Paper said that despite the fact that “open source has really taken route... on the smaller levels, people will come to a point when philosophies begin to change the moment you start seeing commercial.”<a name="_ftnref48" href="#_ftn48">[48]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>B.</strong> A certain paper<a name="_ftnref49" href="#_ftn49">[49]</a> examines from various angles the complex relationship between intellectual-property rights and technological innovation. Following are the conclusions:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">1) Intellectual property rights are most likely to foster innovation when the following conditions converge in a particular industry: (a) high research-and-development costs; (b) a high degree of uncertainty concerning whether specific lines of research will prove fruitful; (c) the content of technological advances can be ascertained easily by competitors through “reverse engineering”; and (d) technological advances can be mimicked by competitors rapidly and inexpensively.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">2) The likelihood that intellectual-property rights will impede more than stimulate innovation increases as more and more of the following factors obtain in a particular field: (a) trade-secret protection or lead-time advantages reduce the ability of competitors to take advantage of technological advances; (b) innovation in the field tends to be highly cumulative; (c) researchers in the field are motivated primarily by non-monetary incentives; (d) the field is characterized by strong network externalities. The last three of these circumstances were all present during the development of the technical infrastructure of the Internet; it is thus not surprising that that development proceeded rapidly and effectively with little reliance upon intellectual-property systems.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">3) The following techniques may be employed to mitigate the economic side-effects of intellectual-property systems: (a) compulsory licenses; (b) facilitation of price discrimination; (c) strict enforcement of the “utility” requirement; (d) encouragement of appropriate cross-licensing agreements (provided that cartel behavior can be simultaneously discouraged); (e) narrow interpretations of “similarity”; (f) strict enforcement of “enablement” and “best-mode” requirements; and (g) the affirmative defenses of patent and copyright misuse.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">4) In contexts in which reliance upon these mitigating devices is not feasible, the following alternative ways of solving the public-goods problem may be superior to intellectual-property rights as ways of stimulating innovation:government research; government funding for private research; or post-hoc government rewards for private technological advances.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>C. </strong>In a paper<a name="_ftnref50" href="#_ftn50">[50]</a>, the authors study the determinants of patent quality and volume of patent applications when inventors care about perceived patent quality. They analyze the effects of various policy reforms, specifically, a proposal to establish a two‐tiered patent system. In the two‐tiered system, applicants can choose between a regular patent and a more costly, possibly more thoroughly examined, ‘gold‐plate’ patent. Introducing a second patent‐tier can reduce patent applications, reduce the incidence of bad patents, and sometimes increase social welfare. The gold‐plate tier attracts inventors with high ex‐ante probability of validity, but not necessarily applicants with innovations of high economic value.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>D. </strong>Copyrights related to apps are still being hashed out in the courts. Oracle, for example, sued Google<a name="_ftnref51" href="#_ftn51">[51]</a> for copyright infringement regarding the structure of Java APIs in its Android operating system<a name="_ftnref52" href="#_ftn52">[52]</a>, and the case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">E. Policy Levers in Patent Law<a name="_ftnref53" href="#_ftn53">[53]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The paper argues that some industries should be the subject of patent tailoring – which can make them illustrative of certain policy levers. Use of obviousness and disclosure doctrines to modulate the scope and frequency of patents, as might be necessary where anti-commons to patent thicket theories are applicable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Nature of software vis-a-vis biological/chemical inventions</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Software inventions tend to have a quick, cheap, and fairly straightforward post- invention development cycle. Most of the work in software development occurs in the initial coding, not in development or production. The lead time to market in the software industry tends to be short. Because innovation is less uncertain in software than in industries like biotechnology, Merges’ economic framework suggests that the non-obviousness bar should be rather high.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Implementing a rational software policy obviously requires some significant changes to existing case law. A number of policy levers might be brought to bear on this problem. First, obviousness doctrine needs to be reformed, preferably by way of a more informed application of the level of skill in the art or alternatively by application of new secondary considerations of non-obviousness.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Poor handling of software patents by the Federal Circuit</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The paper argued that broad software patents were indeed what the existing Federal Circuit jurisprudence will likely produce. By relaxing the enablement requirement and permitting software inventions defined in broad terms, supported by very little in the way of detailed disclosure, the Federal Circuit has encouraged software patents to be drafted broadly and to be applied to allegedly infringing devices that are far removed from the original patented invention.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">By implication, the Federal Circuit’s standard also seems to suggest that many narrower software patents on low- level incremental improvements will be invalid for obviousness in view of earlier, more general disclosures. They may also be invalidated under the on- sale bar, because the Supreme Court’s view that a software invention is “ready for patenting” when it is the subject of a commercial order and when the inventor has described its broad functions, even if it is not clear how the code will be written or that it will work for its intended purpose, means that any patentee who waits until the code is written to file a patent application risks being time-barred for not filing earlier. Unfortunately, the Federal Circuit’s current standard seems to be precisely backwards. Software is an industry characterized by at least to a limited extent by competition theory and to a greater extent by cumulative innovation. Cumulative innovation theory suggests that patent protection for incremental software inventions should be relatively easy to acquire in order to reward incremental improvements, implying a somewhat lower obviousness threshold. It also suggests that the resulting patents should be narrow and, in particular, that they should not generally extend across several product generations for fear of stifling subsequent incremental improvements. This suggests that software patents should be limited in scope.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Second, a higher disclosure requirement and restrictions on the doctrine of equivalents will help reduce patent scope. Additionally, the authors think software patents are the ideal candidate for a new policy lever: reverse engineering. Many commentators have explained the importance of permitting competitors to reverse engineer a product in order to see how it works and to figure out ways to design around it. In the case of copyright, courts have adapted the doctrine of fair use, together sometimes with copyright misuse, to allow competitors to engage in reverse engineering of computer software. Patent law includes no express provision allowing reverse engineering, nor is there any judicially developed exception akin to copyright’s fair use doctrine that might permit it. Indeed, patent law generally lacks provisions akin to fair use or other exceptions that might readily be pressed into the service of reverse engineering, although commentators have suggested that patent law may need such exceptions for precisely this reason.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This does not mean that reverse engineering a patented product is necessarily illegal patent law. Some inventions, such as the paper clip, are readily apparent once embodied in a product. Improvers do not need to reverse engineer the paper clip and figure out how it works in order to improve it; they just need to look at it. Additionally, in many cases, the patentee has done all the work necessary for reverse engineering patented inventions by virtue of disclosing how to make and use the claimed invention in the patent specification. <em>In theory, an express </em> <em>provision authorizing reverse engineering would be superfluous if the enabling disclosures </em> <em>required to secure a patent were sufficiently strong – someone who wanted to learn how a </em> <em>patented device worked would only need to read the patent specification.</em> Patentable inventions in software, however, generally do not have these characteristics. Software devices typically cannot be readily understood by casual inspection, and particularly not without access to human-readable source code or other documentation. Examination of the patent itself is unlikely to yield information equivalent to a reverse engineered inspection because the Federal Circuit does not require would-be patentees of software inventions to disclose the implementing source code or, for that matter, very much at all about their inventions. Accordingly, software patents present unique obstacles to consummation of the patent law’s traditional rights-for-disclosure bargain with the public. The specific reverse engineering techniques commonly used for software, in turn, may raise some infringement problems that are unique to software. The definition of infringement in the patent statute is extremely broad, encompassing anyone who “makes, uses, offers to sell, ... sells..., or imports” a patented product. Reverse engineering a patented computer program by decompiling it likely fits within this broad category of prohibited conduct, at least where the program itself is claimed as an apparatus. Reverse engineering clearly constitutes a “use” of the patented software, though owners of a particular copy of the program surely have the right to use it. More significantly, decompilation may also constitute “making” the patented program by generating a temporary yet functional copy of it in RAM memory and, in certain instances, a longer-term (though still “intermediate”) copy in more permanent memory. Those copies probably constitute patent infringement unless protected by some defense. The result of all of this is that the nominally neutral patent law rule – no defense for reverse engineering – affects software more than other industries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The need for a reverse engineering exception in patent law militates in favor of adapting the existing doctrines of exhaustion or experimental use to that end. Patent misuse might also be adapted, as it has been in the copyright arena, to prevent patent holders from deterring or prohibiting reverse engineering related to their inventions. The exception might even be created out of whole cloth by reinterpreting the infringement provisions of section 271(a). The resulting patent doctrine would constitute a macro policy lever. As Cohen and Lemley observe, in most industries there is either no need to reverse engineer an invention or reverse engineering can be done without infringing the patent.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The paper concludes by stating,<em> “Only in software is there a need for a particular doctrine to protect the right to reverse engineer —and therefore the ability of improvers to innovate. Thus, a judicially created reverse engineering defense would make sense across the board in software cases but not in other patent cases.”</em></p>
<hr style="text-align: justify;" />
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn1" href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a>Samantha Cassar, "<a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/app-developers-series-services-products-dichotomy-ip-2013-part-i">App Developers Series: Products-Services Dichotomy & IP (Part I)</a>”, last accessed July 21, 2015</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn2" href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a>IAMAI, “An inquiry into the impact of India's App economy”, 2015</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn3" href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a>DoT has set up a 1000 crore app development centre called Application Development Infrastructure and 700 crores under the National E-Governance Plan have been allocated for mobile technology ventures</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn4" href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a>Supra note 1</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn5" href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a>Supra note 2</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn6" href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a>Hippel, Eric von, and Georg von Krogh. "Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science." Organization science 14.2 (2003): 209-223.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn7" href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a>Supra note 1</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn8" href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn9" href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> Samantha Cassar, “<a name="parent-fieldname-title"></a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mobile-app-developer-series-terms-of-agreement-iv">Mobile App Developer Series: Terms of Agreement – Part IV</a>”, last accessed July 21</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn10" href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn11" href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn12" href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn13" href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn14" href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a>Gartner Data</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn15" href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a>Supra note 1</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn16" href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn17" href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a>Samantha Cassar, “<a name="parent-fieldname-title1"></a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-dis-regard-towards-ipr-vs-patent-hype-2013-part-ii">Interviews with App Developers: [dis]regard towards IPR vs. Patent Hype – Part II</a>”, last accesed July 21, 2015</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn18" href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn19" href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn20" href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn21" href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn22" href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn23" href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn24" href="#_ftnref24">[24]</a>Samantha Cassar, “<a name="parent-fieldname-title2"></a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-name-of-the-game-part-iv">Interviews with App Developers: Name of the Game (Part IV)</a>”, last accessed July 21, 2015</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn25" href="#_ftnref25">[25]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn26" href="#_ftnref26">[26]</a>"Strategy as Ecology," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82, No. 3, March 2004.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn27" href="#_ftnref27">[27]</a> Evans, D. S., A. Hagiu and R. Schmalensee, 2006, Invisible Engines: How Software Platforms</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Drive Innovation and Transform Industries, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn28" href="#_ftnref28">[28]</a>Kouris, Iana and Kleer, Rob, "BUSINESS MODELS IN TWO-SIDED MARKETS: AN ASSESSMENT OF STRATEGIES FOR APP PLATFORMS" (2012). <em>2012 International Conference on Mobile Business.</em> Paper 22.<br /> http://aisel.aisnet.org/icmb2012/22</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn29" href="#_ftnref29">[29]</a>Fransman, M. (2014) Models of Innovation in Global ICT Firms: The Emerging Global Innovation Ecosystems. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports –EUR 26774 EN. Seville: JRC-IPTS</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn30" href="#_ftnref30">[30]</a> Deniz and Kehoe, Factors that attract and retain third party developers in mobile ecosystems, June 2013</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn31" href="#_ftnref31">[31]</a>Nadea Saad Noori (2009) Managing External Innovation: The case of platform extension, available at <a href="http://www3.carleton.ca/tim/theses/2009/Noori2009.pdf">http://www3.carleton.ca/tim/theses/2009/Noori2009.pdf</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn32" href="#_ftnref32">[32]</a>Tsai, Phal & Robert, Industry Platform Construction and Development in a changing environment: Evidence from the ICT Industry, available at <a href="http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/acc_papers/6s5aqckmne7ggybu0vfxryrynuog.pdf">http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/acc_papers/6s5aqckmne7ggybu0vfxryrynuog.pdf</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn33" href="#_ftnref33">[33]</a> Supra note 9</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn34" href="#_ftnref34">[34]</a> Ibid.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn35" href="#_ftnref35">[35]</a>John Baskin, Competitive Regulation of Mobile Software Systems: Promoting Innovation Through Reform of Antitrust and Patent Laws (2013)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn36" href="#_ftnref36">[36]</a> Constantinou, 2012b</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn37" href="#_ftnref37">[37]</a>Ibid.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn38" href="#_ftnref38">[38]</a>Luis H Hestres (2013) App Neutrality: Apple’s App Store and Freedom of Expression Online , American University , International Journal of Communication 7 (2013), 1265–1280</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn39" href="#_ftnref39">[39]</a>Supra note 9</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn40" href="#_ftnref40">[40]</a>Ibid.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn41" href="#_ftnref41">[41]</a> Supra note 9</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn42" href="#_ftnref42">[42]</a>App Annie Data</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn43" href="#_ftnref43">[43]</a>Supra note 1</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn44" href="#_ftnref44">[44]</a>Samantha Cassar, “<a name="parent-fieldname-title3"></a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-open-source-community-and-contradictions-iii">Interviews with App Developers: Open Source, Community, and Contradictions – Part III”</a>, last accessed July 21</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn45" href="#_ftnref45">[45]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn46" href="#_ftnref46">[46]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn47" href="#_ftnref47">[47]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn48" href="#_ftnref48">[48]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn49" href="#_ftnref49">[49]</a> William Fisher, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INNOVATION: THEORETICAL, EMPIRICAL, AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn50" href="#_ftnref50">[50]</a><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2490195">Patent Quality and a Two‐Tiered Patent System</a> (Vidya Atal and Talia Brar, 2014)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn51" href="#_ftnref51">[51]</a><a href="http://copyrightalliance.org/2014/05/federal_circuit_releases_decision_oracle_v_google">http://copyrightalliance.org/2014/05/federal_circuit_releases_decision_oracle_v_google</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn52" href="#_ftnref52">[52]</a>http://copyrightalliance.org/2014/05/federal_circuit_releases_decision_oracle_v_google#.VYf0i9Z5MxB</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn53" href="#_ftnref53">[53]</a><a href="http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4qr081sg">http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4qr081sg</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-working-document-series-literature-review-on-ipr-in-mobile-app-development'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-working-document-series-literature-review-on-ipr-in-mobile-app-development</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaHomepageAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2015-08-31T13:48:02ZBlog EntryCall for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/call-for-participation-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest
<b>We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest (“Global Congress”), being hosted at New Delhi from December 15 to 17, 2015. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The theme for this year’s Congress will be “<i>Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS</i>.” We are now inviting applications to participate in the Congress, including session participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for panels and workshops.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The application form is available now at [<a href="http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973">http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?</a>] Please note that this form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Deadlines</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>August 1st: </b>Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).</p>
<p><b>November 1st: </b>All applications for session participation and paper submissions will close on November 1st.</p>
<h3>Application Information</h3>
<p><i>For applications to participate/host</i>: Applications to present or host workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in the form.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>For applications to attend sessions:</i> Applications to attend sessions as discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or any other relevant information provided by the applicant.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing countries.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property policy can best serve the public interest.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The fourth edition of the Global Congress brings research, civil society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes. The 4<sup>th</sup> edition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The theme for the 2015 Congress is <i>Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS-</i>coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce three outcomes- <i>first, </i>the mobilization of existing scholarly research directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices; <i>second,</i> the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda; and <i>third</i>, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects of IP policy and practice.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Participation Opportunities</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions, cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development. Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual interest.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the aforementioned sessions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The application form for participation is available now at <a href="http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973">http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?</a>. Please forward this invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or questions, you may contact <a href="mailto:global-congress@cis-india.org">global-congress@cis-india.org</a>.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Organisation</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The 4<sup>th</sup> Global Congress on Intellectual Property and Public Interest, is being organised in cooperation with <a href="http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/">National Law University, Delhi</a>, by the <a href="http://americanassembly.org/">American Assembly</a> at Columbia University, the <a href="http://cis-india.org/">Centre for Internet and Society</a>, <a href="http://www.openair.org.za/">Open A.I.R</a>., and the <a href="http://www.pijip.org/">Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property</a> at American University Washington College of Law.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/call-for-participation-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/call-for-participation-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaIntellectual Property RightsHomepageGlobal CongressAccess to Knowledge2015-06-24T16:11:07ZBlog Entry2015 USTR Report: Old Wine in New Bottle
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2015-ustr-report-old-wine-in-new-bottle
<b>Every year, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) undertakes an elaborate exercise to castigate countries' domestic intellectual property (IP) law and policy. The criticisms and recommendations are presented in a document called the Special 301 Report. This year's edition puts India on the Priority Watch List for the twenty-sixth time in a row. Below, I rebut the report's prejudicial claims and demands, and argue that the report puts free speech, innovation and public interest in jeopardy. </b>
<p> </p>
<a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301">Keeping
in tradition </a>, the
2015 report yet again exposes US' hypocrisy by faithfully serving Hollywood and Big Pharma. In the past, countries
such as Israel and Canada have
publicly rejected the USTR's findings and derided the US for
unwarranted interference with domestic law and policy. Last year,
India too had refused to cooperate with a USTR initiated unilateral
investigation (Out of Cycle review) of its IP regime because the
investigation violated international law.
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The
Electronic Frontier Foundation has released a hard-hitting response
to the report. It draws <a href="https://www.eff.org/special-404">case
studies of countries</a>
where overbroad IP law has affected public interest, free speech and
innovation. For instance, it mentions how Colombia's 'reformed'
copyright law has become a travesty. Colombia introduced extreme
enforcement and harsh criminal sanctions for unauthorised sharing of
works at the behest of the US. Last year, news surfaced that a
Colombian biodiversity researcher faced upto eight years in prison
for sharing an academic article on Scribd. Any balanced IP regime
(including India) permits such use of copyrighted works under the
fair use principle, however, Colombia's narrow fair use provision has
led to a situation where citizens now face prison for ordinary use of
academic works.</p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p>This
year the Special 301 Report in its section on India approves the
Prime Minister's statements to align IP law with international
standards, which is a cause for concern. Firstly, what are these
“international standards” that both US and India refer to
exactly? The most comprehensive international agreement on IP that
binds 160 member nations is the WTO Agreement on Trade related
aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS Agreement). Ergo, this
agreement would qualify as the most accepted “international
standard”, which India already complies with. Secondly, the TRIPS
Agreement sets down certain <em>global</em>
<em>minimum</em>
standards for protecting and enforcing IP, simultaneously providing
countries a certain degree of flexibility. However, the US has
consistently pushed India to enact tougher provisions known as TRIPS
Plus provisions. This is reflected in the report as well. Legally
speaking, under international law India is not obligated to accede to
such demands, and it should not if it wants a balanced IP regime to
protect and serve the interests both of rights holders and its
citizens.</p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The
report shamelessly aligns its concerns with the financial interests
of foreign rights holders and American companies. It erroneously
projects IP as a tool to only maximise revenues, agnostic to public
interest. While
IP rights are temporary monopolies, they also are a tool to ensure
innovation, social, scientific and cultural progress and further
access to knowledge. It
is well established that flexible IP laws <a href="http://www.altlawforum.org/intellectual-property/publications/articles-on-the-social-life-of-media-piracy/reconsidering-the-pirate-nation">enable
access to knowledge and promote innovation</a>.
Such a flexible regime is critical to developing countries like
India. The USTR
conveniently forgets that lax
IP law and enforcement for a large part of the 19th century helped
the US to accelerate into an economic powerhouse and a front-runner
in innovation. It also
brazenly threatens to impose unilateral sanctions against a country
designated as a Priority Foreign Country on the list. This treatment
is usually reserved for the worst offender on the list. Such
unilateral threats and sanctions are again a direct violation of
international law.</p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Unsurprisingly,
the report is critical of India's under-enforcement of copyright laws
and the impact of patent law on pharmaceuticals. It demands a
specific legislation to counter camcording and video piracy. The
prospective legislation is unnecessary because all movie theatres in
India prohibit camcorders and the prevailing Copyright Act, 1957
contains penalties to punish offenders. Instead of creating new
offences, we should re-evaluate the need of existing offences. <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301">For
instance, copyright infringement on non-commercial scales should not
be a criminal offence at all</a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301">.</a>
Instead, the law should provide convenient and affordable access to
such works to counter petty infringement.</p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">India
is home to the world's largest apothecary. The Indian pharmaceutical
and medical device industry provides affordable healthcare to the
citizens, and also exports drugs to countries in need. In fact, the
compulsory licensing mechanism has ensured affordable access to life
saving liver and kidney drugs in India. The report comments on the
undesirability of section 3(d) and the compulsory licensing mechanism
in Indian patent law. With respect to section 3(d), the US wishes
India to to change its patent law to enable large pharma companies to
patent new forms of known substances that aren't even better. This
alarmist outlook smacks of hypocrisy because the US, in fact, has a
higher rate of patent invalidation and compulsory license grants! It
also demands data exclusivity – which would extend proprietary
rights to patentees over government mandated drug data, and would be
detrimental to the local pharma industry. Further, the report states
that the Indian system is biased against enforcement of foreign
patent rights holders - which is mere speculation. T<a href="http://spicyip.com/2015/04/modi-shames-india-calls-patent-laws-under-developed.html">here
is no evidence to draw such a conclusion.</a>
The claims relating to localisation trends in pharma are half- baked
and speculative again.</p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The
report observes that at the UNFCCC negotiations, India recognised
patents as an obstacle to dissemination of climate change
technologies. It wishes India understood the critical role of patent
protection and competitiveness to ensure innovation, which is a
flawed co-relation. While strong IP rights may protect inventors
against infringement and provide return on investment, however,
<a href="https://www.american.edu/cas/faculty/wgpark/upload/Intellectual-Property-Rights.pdf">stronger
IP rights also raise the cost of innovation by raising the price of
technological inputs into innovation and lower the frequency of
innovation.</a></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">As
far as the issue of counterfeit medicines is concerned, a better
remedy lies in health safety laws and consumer laws, than the
trademark law. The report also approves of state legislatures'
version of the Goondas Act. These Acts <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/fallacies-lies-and-video-pirates">provide
for detainment of criminals and lumpen elements in society,</a>
and with recent amendments have expanded to include video pirates and
digital offenders. Karnataka's Goonda Act <a href="http://spicyip.com/2014/08/guest-post-karnatakas-goondas-act-an-examination.html">enabling
preventive detention violates </a><a href="http://spicyip.com/2014/08/guest-post-karnatakas-goondas-act-an-examination.html">constitutional rights</a>.
While the Sixth Amendment to the United States Bill of rights
protects offenders against preventive detention, the US has no qualms
about approving such unconstitutional procedures in India.</p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p><strong>
</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The
arguments above underscore the irrelevance of the report. The Prime
Minister may have made appeasing statements to the USA, however, in a
welcome development Commerce and Industry Minister Nirmala Sithraman
in response to the report stated <em>“I</em><em>ndia
is fully aligned with international intellectual property rights
standards and "there is no need for anyone to question us."”
</em>Our
IP
regime with its inherent flexibilities should be preserved and not
sacrificed at the altar of US' business interests. Using
compulsory licensing across sectors would indeed accelerate
technology transfer and diminish initial capex for manufacturers, a
move promoted by the National Manufacturing Policy. The ambitious
Make in India and Digital India campaigns are set to suffer if India
incorporates TRIPS plus standards into its IP regime. The <a href="https://opensource.com/government/10/11/open-standards-policy-india-long-successful-journey">government
supports opennes</a><a href="https://opensource.com/government/10/11/open-standards-policy-india-long-successful-journey">s</a>
and has implemented policies mandating use of open standards and open
source software as a part of the Digital India campaign. India should
not let foreign hands dictate its IPR Policy, and proceed to develop
a policy
which is informed by broader principles of fairness and equity,
balancing intellectual property protections with limitations and
exceptions/user rights such as those for research, education and
access to medicines.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2015-ustr-report-old-wine-in-new-bottle'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2015-ustr-report-old-wine-in-new-bottle</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaIntellectual Property RightsHomepageLimitations & ExceptionsAccess to Knowledge2015-06-16T10:24:49ZBlog EntryAnnouncing the dates, theme and tentative tracks for the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2015
https://cis-india.org/a2k/announcing-the-dates-theme-and-tentative-tracks-for-the-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest-2015
<b>We are pleased to announce that the Global Congress will be held from 15th-17 December 2015. The theme of the 2015 Global Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS. The four tentative tracks include Openness, User Rights, Access to Medicines, and Intellectual Property and Development.</b>
<h3><br /></h3>
<h3>Save the date: <strong>15th (Tuesday) to 17th (Thursday) December, 2015
(both dates inclusive) [and 18th (Friday) December, 2015]</strong><br /></h3>
<p>This year's Congress will be held over three days, from
the 15th to the 17th of December, 2015 (both dates inclusive).
Additionally, the venue will be reserved for an extra day
(18th Dec, 2015) to accommodate non-scheduled follow up
discussions, spillovers and allow for individually organized
meetings/discussion sessions.</p>
<h3>
<strong>Theme </strong></h3>
<p>The theme for the Global Congress is <strong>Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS</strong>. Discussions in all tracks, as well as cross track conversations will be tailored around this theme. <strong><br /></strong></p>
<h3><strong>
Tentative Agenda</strong></h3>
<p>
Day 1 of the Congress (15th December, 2015) will be open to
all interested participants, including representation from the
government, the judiciary, industry, academia,
research/advocacy/policy organizations and any others.
However, Days 2 and 3 of the Congress (16th and 17th December,
2015, respectively) shall comprise closed-door sessions, open
only to participants registered/invited for the Congress. An
additional day (Day 4 - 18th of December, 2015) has been set
aside for smaller meetings and discussions on existing or
potential collaborations between participants; to continue
conversations begun on Days 1, 2 and 3; or to have
meetings/presentations/discussions which we might not be able
to strictly accommodate within the agenda.</p>
<h3>
<strong>Tracks and the 'Room of Scholars'</strong></h3>
<p><strong>
</strong>Proposed tracks include the following:</p>
<blockquote>1. Openness<br />
2. User Rights<br />
3. Access to Medicines<br />
4. Intellectual Property and Development.<br /></blockquote>
<p> These may be modified based on funding and
logistics. We shall put out more updates on funding,
proposed agenda for each track and track leaders as soon as
possible.</p>
<p>
This year's Congress will also feature an additional 'Room of
Scholars'. As in the past three editions of the Congress,
since discussions in track sessions might be tailored towards
evidence based policy making, a need was felt to create a
space for academic conversation as well. 'The Room of
Scholars' has been conceptualized as that cross-cutting space,
not restricted to a particular track. but as running along
side them. The 'Room of Scholars' will be an opportunity for
the presentation of longer, more detailed academic research
papers.</p>
<h3>
<strong>Venue - </strong><strong>National Law University, Delhi.</strong></h3>
<strong>
</strong>National Law University, Delhi (<a href="http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/" target="_blank">http://www.nludelhi.ac.in/</a>)
shall be the venue for this year's Congress.
Google Map Location - <a href="https://www.google.co.in/maps/place/National+Law+University/@28.599374,77.023701,15z/data=%214m2%213m1%211s0x0:0x14217e8eec6152fa" target="_blank">https://www.google.co.in/maps/place/National+Law+University/@28.599374,77.023701,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x14217e8eec6152fa</a>
<p> </p>
<h3>
<strong>Accommodation</strong></h3>
<strong>
</strong>
<p>We're negotiating discounted rates with various
accommodation options close to the venue. We shall inform you
as and when we have more updates.</p>
<h3>About the Global Congress on Intellectual
Property and the Public Interest</h3>
<p>The Global Congress on Intellectual
Property and the Public Interest was instituted
in 2011 at Washington D.C. Since its inception, three editions of the Global
Congress have engaged national and international governmental entities, the
private sector, civil society, and academia in providing perspectives and
future scenarios for intellectual property, innovation and development.</p>
<h3>You may contact the following CIS members
to send in your queries and suggestions for the event: <br /></h3>
<p>CIS Global Congress Planning Team </p>
<ol><li>Swaraj Paul Barooah- swaraj,barooah@gmail.com <br /></li><li>Nehaa Chaudhari- <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nehaa@cis-india.org">nehaa@cis-india.org</a> </li><li>Anubha Sinha- <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anubha@cis-india.org">anubha@cis-india.org</a></li><li>M.P. Nagaraj- <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nagaraj@cis-india.org">nagaraj@cis-india.org</a></li><li>Maggie Huang- <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:maggie@cis-india.org">maggie@cis-india.org</a></li><li>Pranesh Prakash- <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pranesh@cis-india.org">pranesh@cis-india.org</a></li><li>Rohini Lakshane- <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rohini@cis-india.org">rohini@cis-india.org</a></li><li>Sunil Abraham- <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sunil@cis-india.org">sunil@cis-india.org</a></li></ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/announcing-the-dates-theme-and-tentative-tracks-for-the-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest-2015'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/announcing-the-dates-theme-and-tentative-tracks-for-the-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest-2015</a>
</p>
No publishersinha2015-03-19T06:34:53ZBlog Entry