Centre for Internet and Society

Arguments Against Software Patents in India

pranesh — 2012-03-13T10:43:12Z

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

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

Preamble

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

What are Patents?

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

Philosophical Justification Against Software Patents

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

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

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

Legal Case Against Software Patents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Practical Reasons Against Software Patents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

When Copyright Goes Bad

praskrishna — 2011-08-04T04:37:21Z

A part of the Access to Knowledge Project, this short film by Consumers International is available on DVD and online at A2Knetwork.org/film.

For centuries, copyright law has existed to protect creative production whilst promoting public access. But the digital age is challenging this balance and fundamentally changing how we produce, access and distribute content. Suddenly, copyright rules no longer do what they are supposed to do. They have gone bad.

This is a film about how copyright has become one of the most important consumer issues of the digital age; why corporate lobbying risks criminalising the actions of hundreds of thousands of people; and what the future holds for the fight for fairer copyright laws.

When Copyright Goes Bad is an introduction to the renegotiation of copyright and is for anyone interested in how copyright is affecting consumers. It features some of the key players in the copyright debate, including: Fred Von Lohmann - Electronic Frontier Foundation; Michael Geist - University of Ottawa Law School; Jim Killock - Open Rights Group; and Hank Shocklee - Co-founder of Public Enemy.

Quotes from When Copyright Goes Bad

“People have realised that copyright affects them every day and the direction that we’ve seen over the last few years really troubles them. That’s why so many people are speaking out.” Michael Geist

“In the U.S, over 35,000 Americans were targeted for lawsuits for downloading music. In ten years time, everyone will look back at that as incredibly unjust and ridiculous. No-one thinks that suing music fans one at a time is the business model of the future.” Fred Von Lohmann

“The industry is trying to demonise consumer behaviour. They’re trying to create the idea that it’s a moral debate: is downloading something wrong or right? Is it theft or not? These are the wrong questions and they will only ever produce the wrong answers.” Jim Killock

Making copyright, right

When Copyright Goes Bad is being released under a Creative Commons (CC) licence, which means it’s free to copy and adapt, as long as content is attributed and the same CC licence is used.
We will also be making available extended interviews with all the contributors, as well as with other experts not featured in the film, under the same CC licence at A2Knetwork.org/film. By providing access in this way we are allowing others to go on and create further work around the issue.

View it on youtube

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/when-copyright-goes-bad

Technological Protection Measures in the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010

pranesh — 2012-05-17T16:51:38Z

In this post Pranesh Prakash conducts a legal exegesis of section 65A of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, which deals with the stuff that enables 'Digital Rights/Restrictions Management', i.e., Technological Protection Measures. He notes that while the provision avoids some mistakes of the American law, it still poses grave problems to consumers, and that there are many uncertainties in it still.

Technological Protection Measures are sought to be introduced in India via the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010. This should be quite alarming for consumers for reasons that will be explained in a separate blog post on TPMs that will follow shortly.

In this post, I will restrict myself to a legal exegesis of section 65A of the Bill, which talks of "protection of technological measures". (Section 65B, which talks of Right Management Information will, similarly, be tackled in a later blog post.)

First off, this provision is quite unnecessary. There has been no public demand in India for TPMs to be introduced, and the pressure has come mostly from the United States in the form of the annual "Special 301" report prepared by the United States Trade Representative with input coming (often copied verbatim) from the International Intellectual Property Alliance. India is not a signatory to the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) which requires technological protection measures be safeguarded by law. That provision, interestingly, was pushed for by the United States in 1996 when even it did not give legal sanctity to TPMs via its copyright law (which was amended in 2000 by citing the need to comply with the WCT).

TPMs have been roundly criticised, have been shown to be harmful for consumers, creators, and publishers, and there is also evidence that TPMs do not really decrease copyright infringement (but instead, quite perversely through unintended consequences, end up increasing it). Why then would India wish to introduce it?

Leaving that question aside for now, what does the proposed law itself say?

65A. Protection of Technological Measures

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

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

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

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

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

        (c) conducting any lawful investigation; or

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

        (e) operator; or [sic]

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

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

Implications: The Good Part

This provision clearly takes care of two of the major problems with the way TPMs have been implemented by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the United States:

In s.65A(1) it aligns the protection offered by TPMs to that offered by copyright law itself (since it has to be "applied for the purpose of protecting any of the rights conferred by this Act"). Thus, presumably, TPMs could not be used to restrict access, only to restrict copying, communication to the public, and that gamut of rights.
In s.65A(1) and 65A(2) it aligns the exceptions granted by copyright law with the exceptions to the TPM provision. Section 65A(1) states that the act of circumvention has to be done "with the intention of infringing ... rights", and s.52(1) clearly states that those exceptions cannot be regarded as infringement of copyright. And s.65A(2)(a) states that circumventing for "a purpose not expressly prohibited by this Act" will be allowed.

A third important difference from the DMCA is that

It does not criminalise the manufacture and distribution of circumvention tools (including code, devices, etc.). (More on this below.)

Implications: The Bad Part

This provision, despite the seeming fair-handed manner in which it has been drafted, still fails to maintain the balance that copyright seeks to promote:

TPM-placers (presumably, just copyright holders, because of point 1. above) have been given the ability to restrict the activities of consumers, but they have not been given any corresponding duties. Thus, copyright holders do not have to do anything to ensure that the Film & Telivision Institute of India professor who wishes to use a video clip from a Blu-Ray disc can actually do so. Or that the blind student who wishes to circumvent TPMs because she has no other way of making it work with her screen reader is actually enabled to take advantage of the leeway the law seeks to provide her through s.52(1)(a) (s.52(1)(zb) is another matter!). Thus, while there are many such exceptions that the law allows for, the technological locks themselves prevent the use of those exceptions. Another way of putting that would be to say:
The Bill presumes that every one has access to all circumvention technology. This is simply not true. In fact, Spanish law (in Article 161 of their law) expressly requires that copyright holders facilitate access to works protected by TPM to beneficiaries of limitations of copyright. Thus, copyright holders who employ TPMs should be required to:
- tell their customers how they can be contacted if the customer wishes to circumvent the TPM for a legitimate purpose
- upon being contacted, aid their customer in making use of their rights / the exceptions and limitations in copyright law
How seriously can you take a Bill that has been introduced in Parliament that includes a provision that states: "Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from operator; or" (as s.65A(2)(e), read in its entirety, does)?

Uncertainties

As mentioned above, the provisions are not all that clear regarding manufacture and distribution of circumvention tools. Thus, the proviso to s.65A(2)(a) deserves a closer reading. What is clear is that there are no penalties mentioned for manufacture or dissemination of TPMs, and that only those who circumvent are penalised in 65A(1), and not those who produce the circumvention devices. However:

On "shall maintain" and penalties

In the proviso to s.65B(2)(a), there is an imperative ("shall maintain") requiring "any person facilitating circumvention" to keep records. It is unclear what the implications of not maintaining such records are.

The obvious one is that the exemption contained in s.65(1)(a) will not apply if one were facilitated without the facilitator keeping records. Thus, under this interpretation, there is no independent legal (albeit penalty-less) obligation on facilitators. This interpretation runs into the problem that if this was the intention, then the drafters would have written "Provided that any person facilitating circumvention ... for such a purpose maintain/maintained a complete record ...". Instead, shall maintain is used, and an independent legal obligation seems, thus, to be implied. But can a proviso create an independent legal obligation? And is there any way a penalty could possibly be attached to violation of this proviso despite it not coming within 65A(1)?

On "facilitating" and remoteness

The next question is who all can be said to "facilitate", and how remote can the connection be? Is the coder who broke the circumvention a facilitator? The distributor/trafficker? The website which provided you the software? Or is it (as is more likely) a more direct "the friend who sat at your computer and installed the circumvention software" / "the technician who unlocked your DVD player for you while installing it in your house"?

While such a record-keeping requirement is observable by people those who very directly help you (the last two examples above), it would be more difficult to do so the further up you get on the chain of remoteness. Importantly, such record-keeping is absolutely not possible in decentralized distribution models (such as those employed by most free/open source software), and could seriously harm fair and legitimate circumvention.

More uncertainties

It is slightly unclear which exception the bypassing of Sony's dangerous "Rootkit" copy protection technology would fall under if I wish to get rid of it simply because it makes my computer vulnerable to malicious attacks (and not to exercise one of the exceptions under s.52(1)). Will such circumvention come under s.65A(2)(a)? Because it does not quite fall under any of the others, including s.65(2)(b) or (f).

On "purpose" as a criterion in 65A(2)(a)

A last point, which is somewhat of an aside is that 65A(2)(a) states:

Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from doing anything referred to therein for a purpose not expressly prohibited by this Act.

There's something curious about the wording, since the Copyright Act generally does not prohibit any acts based on purposes (i.e., the prohibitions by ss.14 r/w s.51 are not based on why someone reproduces, etc., but on the act of reproduction). In fact, it allows acts based on purposes (via s.52(1)). The correct way of reading 65A(2)(a) might then be:

Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from doing anything referred to therein for a purpose expressly allowed by this Act.

But that might make it slightly redundant as s.65A(1) covers that by having the requirement of the circumvention being done "with the intention of infringing such right" (since the s.52(1) exceptions are clearly stated as not being infringements of the rights granted under the Act).

Conclusion

It would be interesting to note how leading copyright lawyers understand this provision, and we will be tracking such opinions. But it is clear that TPMs, as a private, non-human enforcement of copyright law, are harmful and that we should not introduce them in India. And we should be especially wary of doing so without introducing additional safeguards, such as duties on copyright holder to aid access to TPM'ed works for legitimate purposes, and remove burdensome record-keeping provisions.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment

Exceptions and Limitations in Indian Copyright Law for Education: An Assessment

lawrence — 2011-10-20T14:08:01Z

This paper examines the nature of exceptions and limitations in copyright law for the purposes of the use of copyrighted materials for education. It looks at the existing national and international regime, and argues for why there is a need for greater exceptions and limitations to address the needs of developing countries. The paper contextualizes the debate by looking at the high costs of learning materials and the impediment caused to e-learning and distance education by strong copyright regimes.

Dowload the pdf

Read the original article in the Law and Development Review

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/exceptions-and-limitations

The 2010 Special 301 Report Is More of the Same, Slightly Less Shrill

pranesh — 2011-10-03T05:37:27Z

Pranesh Prakash examines the numerous flaws in the Special 301 from the Indian perspective, to come to the conclusion that the Indian government should openly refuse to acknowledge such a flawed report. He notes that the Consumers International survey, to which CIS contributed the India report, serves as an effective counter to the Special 301 report.

Special 301 Report: Unbalanced Hypocrisy

The United States Trade Representative has put yet another edition of the Special 301 report which details the copyright law and policy wrongdoings of the US's trading partners. Jeremy Malcolm of Consumers International notes that the report this year claims to be "well-balanced assessment of intellectual property protection and enforcement ... taking into account diverse factors", but:

[I]n fact, the report largely continues to be very one-sided. As in previous editions, it lambasts developing countries for failing to meet unrealistically stringent standards of IP protection that exceed their obligations under international law.

More the report changes, the more it stays the same. Despite having wider consultations than just the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA, consisting of US-based IP-maximalist lobbyists like the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America, National Music Publishers Association, Association of American Publishers, and Business Software Alliance) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA, consisting of US-based pharma multinationals), things haven't really changed much in terms of the shoddiness of the Special 301 report.

India and the 2010 Special 301 Report

The Special 301 report for 2010 contains the following assessment of India:

India will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2010. India continues to make gradual progress on efforts to improve its legislative, administrative, and enforcement infrastructure for IPR. India has made incremental improvements on enforcement, and its IP offices continued to pursue promising modernization efforts. Among other steps, the United States is encouraged by the Indian government’s consideration of possible trademark law amendments that would facilitate India’s accession to the Madrid Protocol. The United States encourages the continuation of efforts to reduce patent application backlogs and streamline patent opposition proceedings. Some industries report improved engagement and commitment from enforcement officials on key enforcement challenges such as optical disc and book piracy. However, concerns remain over India’s inadequate legal framework and ineffective enforcement. Piracy and counterfeiting, including the counterfeiting of medicines, remains widespread and India’s enforcement regime remains ineffective at addressing this problem. Amendments are needed to bring India’s copyright law in line with international standards, including by implementing the provisions of the WIPO Internet Treaties. Additionally, a law designed to address the unauthorized manufacture and distribution of optical discs remains in draft form and should be enacted in the near term. The United States continues to urge India to improve its IPR regime by providing stronger protection for patents. One concern in this regard is a provision in India’s Patent Law that prohibits patents on certain chemical forms absent a showing of increased efficacy. While the full import of this provision remains unclear, it appears to limit the patentability of potentially beneficial innovations, such as temperature-stable forms of a drug or new means of drug delivery. The United States also encourages India to provide protection against unfair commercial use, as well as unauthorized disclosure, of undisclosed test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products. The United States encourages India to improve its criminal enforcement regime by providing for expeditious judicial disposition of IPR infringement cases as well as deterrent sentences, and to change the perception that IPR offenses are low priority crimes. The United States urges India to strengthen its IPR regime and will continue to work with India on these issues in the coming year.

This short dismissal of the Indian IPR regime, and subsequent classification of India as a "Priority Watch List" country reveals the great many problems with the Special 301.

On Copyrights

The report notes that there are "concerns over India's inadequate legal framework and ineffective enforcement". However, nowhere does it bother to point out precisely how India's legal framework is inadequate, and how this is negatively affecting authors and creators, consumers, or even the industry groups (MPAA, RIAA, BSA, etc.) that give input to the USTR via the IPAA. Nor does it acknowledge the well-publicised fact that the statistics put out by these bodies have time and again proven to be wrong:
Apart from this bald allegation which has not backing, there is a bald statement about India needing to bring its copyright law "in line with international standards" including "the WIPO Internet Treaties". The WIPO Internet Treaties given that more than half the countries of the world are not signatories to either of the WIPO Internet Treaties (namely the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty), calling them 'international standards' is suspect. That apart, both those treaties are TRIPS-plus treaties (requiring protections greater than the already-high standards of the TRIPS Agreement). India has not signed either of them. It should not be obligated to do so. Indeed, Ruth Okediji, a noted copyright scholar, states:

Consistent with their predecessors, the WIPO Internet Treaties marginalize collaborative forms of creative engagement with which citizens in the global South have long identified and continue in the tradition of assuming that copyright’s most enduring cannons are culturally neutral. [...] The Treaties do not provide a meaningful basis for a harmonized approach to encourage new creative forms in much the same way the Berne Convention fell short of embracing diversity in patterns and modes of authorial expression.

Some of the of the 'problems' noted in the report are actually seen as being beneficial by many researchers and scholars such as Lawrence Liang, Achal Prabhala, Perihan Abou Zeid and others, who argue that lax enforcement has enabled access to knowledge and promotion of innovation. In a panel on 'Access to Knowledge' at the Internet Governance Forum, Lea Shaver, Jeremy Malcolm and others who have been involved in that Access to Knowledge movement noted that lack of strict enforcement played a positive role in many developing countries. However, they also noted, with a fair bit of trepidation, that this was sought to be changed at the international level through treaties such as the Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty Agreement (ACTA).
The scope of an optical disc law are quite different from copyright law. The report condemns "unauthorized manufacture and distribution of optical discs", however it does not make it clear that what it is talking about is not just unlicensed copying of films (which is already prohibited under the Copyright Act) but the manufacture and distribution of blank CDs and DVDs as well. The need for such a law is assumed, but never demonstrated. It is onerous for CD and DVD manufacturers (such as the Indian company Moserbaer), and is an overbearing means of attacking piracy.
The report calls for "improve[ment] [of India's] criminal enforcement regime" and for "deterrent" sentences and expeditious judicial disposition of IPR infringement cases. While we agree with the last suggestion, the first two are most unacceptable. Increased criminal enforcement of a what is essentially a private monopoly right is undesirable. Copyright infringment on non-commercial scales should not be criminal offences at all. What would deter people from infringing copyright laws are not "deterrent sentences" but more convenient and affordable access to the copyright work being infringed.

On Patents

Thankfully, this year the Special 301 report does not criticise the Indian Patent Act for providing for post-grant opposition to patent filings, as it has in previous years. However, it still criticises section 3(d) of the Patent Act which ensures that 'evergreening' of drug patents is not allowed by requiring for new forms of known substances to be patented only if "the enhancement of the known efficacy of [the known] substance" is shown. Thus, the US wishes India to change its domestic law to enable large pharma companies to patent new forms of known substances that aren't even better ("enhancement of the known efficacy"). For instance, "new means of drug delivery" will not, contrary to the assertions of the Special 301 report and the worries of PhRMA, be deemed unpatentable.

The United States has been going through much turmoil over its patent system. Reform of the patent system is currently underway in the US through administrative means, judicial means, as well as legislative means. One of the main reasons for this crumbling of the patent system has been the low bar for patentability (most notably the 'obviousness' test) in the United States and the subsequent over-patenting. An American judgment even noted that "anything under the sun that is made by man" is patentable subject matter. It is well-nigh impossible to take American concerns regarding our high patent standards seriously, given this context.

Miscellanea

The harms of counterfeit medicine, as we have noted earlier, are separate issues that are best dealt under health safety regulations and consumer laws, rather than trademark law.

Data exclusivity has been noted to be harmful to the progress of generics, and seeks to extend proprietary rights over government-mandated test data. It is [clear from the TRIPS Agreement][de-trips] that data exclusivity is not mandatory. There are clear rationale against it, and the Indian pharmaceutical industry [is dead-set against it][de-india]. Still, the United States Trade Representative persists in acting as a corporate shill, calling on countries such as India to implement such detrimental laws.

Conclusion

Michael Geist, professor at University of Ottowa astutely notes:

Looking beyond just Canada, the list [of countries condemned by the Special 301 report] is so large, that it is rendered meaningless. According to the report, approximately 4.3 billion people live in countries without effective intellectual property protection. Since the report does not include any African countries outside of North Africa, the U.S. is effectively saying that only a small percentage of the world meet its standard for IP protection. Canada is not outlier, it's in good company with the fastest growing economies in the world (the BRIC countries are there) and European countries like Norway, Italy, and Spain. In other words, the embarrassment is not Canadian law. Rather, the embarrassment falls on the U.S. for promoting this bullying exercise and on the Canadian copyright lobby groups who seemingly welcome the chance to criticize their own country.

His comments apply equally well for India as well.

IIPA's Recommendation for the Special 301 Report

Thankfully, this year IIPA's recommendations have not been directly copied into the Special 301 report. (They couldn't be incorporated, as seen below.) For instance, the IIPA report notes:

The industry is also concerned about moves by the government to consider mandating the use of open source software and software of only domestic origin. Though such policies have not yet been implemented, IIPA and BSA urge that this area be carefully monitored.

Breaking that into two bit:

Open Source

Firstly, it is curious to see industry object to legal non-pirated software. Secondly, many of BSA's members (if not most) use open source software, and a great many of them also produce open source software. HP and IBM have been huge supporters of open source software. Even Microsoft has an open source software division. [Intel][intel], SAP, Cisco, Dell, Sybase, Entrust, Intuit, Synopsys, Apple, Borland, Cadence, Autodesk, and Siemens are all members of BSA which support open source software / produce at least some open source software. And all BSA members rely on open source software (as part of their core products, their web-server, their content management system, etc.) to a lesser or greater extent. BSA's left hand doesn't seem to know what its right hand -- its members -- are doing. Indeed, the IIPA does not seem to realise that the United States' government itself uses [open source software], and has been urged to look at FOSS very seriously and is doing so, especially under CIO Vivek Kundra. And that may well be the reason why the USTR could not include this cautionary message in the Special 301 report.

Domestic Software

As this insightful article by Nate Anderson in Ars Technica notes:

Open source is bad enough, but a "buy Indian" law? That would be an outrage and surely something the US government would not itself engage in as recently as last year. Err, right?

Furthermore, the IIPA submission do not provide any reference for their claim that "domestic origin" software is being thought of being made a mandatory requirement in governmental software procurement.

WCT, WPPT, Camcording, and Statutory Damages

The IIPA submission also wish that India would:

Adopt a system of statutory damages in civil cases; allow compensation to be awarded in criminal cases;
Adopt an optical disc law;
Enact Copyright Law amendments consistent with the WCT and WPPT;
Adopt an anti-camcording criminal provision.

Quick counters:

Statutory damages (that is, an amount based on statute rather than actual loss) would result in ridiculousness such as the $1.92 million damages that the jury (based on the statutory damages) slapped on Jammie Thomas. The judge in that case called the damage award "monstrous and shocking" and said that veered into "the realm of gross injustice."
The reasons against an optical disc law are given above. Quick recap: it is a) unnecessary and b) harmful.
India has not signed the WCT and the WPPT. Indian law satisfies all our international obligations. Thus enacting amendments consistent with the WCT and the WPPT is not required.
Camcording of a film is in any case a violation of the Copyright Act, 1957, and one would be hard-pressed to find a single theatre that allows for / does not prohibit camcorders. Given this, the reason for an additional law is, quite frankly, puzzling. At any rate, IIPA in its submission does not go into such nuances.

Further conclusions

Shamnad Basheer, an IP professor at NUJS, offer the following as a response:

"Dear USA,

India encourages you to mind your own business. We respect your sovereignty to frame IP laws according to your national priorities and suggest that you show us the same courtesy. If your grouse is that we haven't complied with TRIPS, please feel free to take us to the WTO dispute panel. Our guess is that panel members familiar with the English language will ultimately inform you that section 3(d) is perfectly compatible with TRIPS. And that Article 39.3 does not mandate pharmaceutical data exclusivity, as you suggest! More importantly, at that point, we might even think of hauling you up before the very same body for rampant violations, including your refusal to grant TRIPS mandated copyright protection to our record companies, despite a WTO ruling (Irish music case) against you.

Yours sincerely,

India."

Basheer's suggestion seems to be in line with that Michael Geist who believes that other countries should join Canada and Israel in openly refusing to acknowledge the validity of the Special 301 Reports because they lack ['reliable and objective analysis'][geist-reliable]. And that thought serves as a good coda.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301

A Guide to Key IPR Provisions of the Proposed India-European Union Free Trade Agreement

glover — 2011-08-30T13:06:03Z

The Centre for Internet and Society presents a guide for policymakers and other stakeholders to the latest draft of the India-European Union Free Trade Agreement, which likely will be concluded by the end of the year and may hold serious ramifications for Indian businesses and consumers.

In its ongoing negotiation for a FTA with the EU, a process that began in 2007 and is expected to end sometime this year, India has won several signicant IP-related concessions. But there remain several IP issues critical to the maintenance of its developing economy, including its robust entrepreneurial environment, that India should contest further before ratifying the treaty. This guide covers the FTA's IP provisions that are within the scope of CIS' policy agenda and on which India has negotiated favorable language, as well as those provisions that it should re-negotiate or oppose.

Download the guide here, and please feel free to comment below.

You may also download a chart comparing the language proposed by India and the EU respectively with that included in the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

Following is a summary of CIS' findings:

India has become a de facto leader of developing countries at the WTO, and an India-EU FTA seems likely to provide a model for FTAs between developed and developing states well into the future.
The EU has proposed articles on reproduction, communication, and broadcasting rights which could seriously undermine India's authority to regulate the use of works under copyright as currently provided for in the Berne Convention, as well as narrowing exceptions and limitations to rights under copyright.
The EU asserts that copyright includes "copyright in computer programs and in databases," without indicating whether such copyright exceeds that provided for in the Berne Convention. Moreover, by asserting that copyright "includes copyright in computer programs and in databases," the EU has left open the door for the extension of copyright to non-original databases.
India should explicitly obligate the EU to promote and encourage technology transfer -- an obligation compatible with and derived from TRIPS -- as well as propose a clear definition of technology transfer.
The EU has demanded India's accession to the WIPO Internet Treaties, the merits of which are currently under debate as India moves towards amending its Copyright Act, as well as several other international treaties that India either does not explicitly enforce or to which it is not a contracting party.
In general, the EU's provisions would extend terms of protection for material under copyright, within certain constraints, further endangering India's consumer-friendly copyright regime.
An agreement to establish arrangements between national organizations charged with collecting and distributing royalty payments may obligate such organizations in India collect royalty payments for EU rights holders on the same basis as they do for Indian rights holders, and vice versa in the EU, but more heavily burden India.
The EU has proposed a series of radical provisions on the enforcement of IPRs that are tailored almost exclusively to serve the interests of rights holders, at the expense of providing safety mechanisms for those accused of infringing or enabling infringers.
The EU has proposed, under cover of protecting intermediate service providers from liability for infringement by their users, to increase and/or place the burden on such providers of policing user activity.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-guide-to-the-proposed-india-european-union-free-trade-agreement

Analysis of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010

pranesh — 2011-09-21T06:01:54Z

CIS analyses the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, from a public interest perspective to sift the good from the bad, and importantly to point out what crucial amendments should be considered but have not been so far.

The full submission that CIS and 21 other civil society organizations made to the Rajya Sabha Standing Committee on HRD (which is studying the Bill) is available here. Given below is the summary of our submissions:

Existing Copyright Act

The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 has been designed from the perspective of a developing country. It has always attempted a balance between various kinds of interests. It has always sought to ensure that rights of authors of creative works is carefully promoted alongside the public interest served by wide availability and usability of that material. For instance, our Copyright Act has provisions for:

compulsory and statutory licensing: recognizing its importance in making works available, especially making them available at an affordable rate.
cover versions: recognizing that more players lead to a more vibrant music industry.
widely-worded right of fair dealing for private use: recognizing that individual use and large-scale commercial misuse are different.

These provisions of our Act have been lauded, and India has been rated as the most balanced copyright system in a global survey conducted of over 34 countries by Consumers International.

The Indian Parliament has always sought to be responsive to changing technologies by paying heed to both the democratisation of access as well as the securing of the interests of copyright holders. This approach needs to be lauded, and importantly, needs to be maintained.

Proposed Amendments

Some positive amendments

Fair Dealings, Parallel Importation, Non-commercial Rental: All works (including sound recordings and cinematograph films) are now covered the fair dealings clause (except computer programmes), and a few other exceptions; parallel importation is now clearly allowed; and non-commercial rental has become a limitation in some cases.
Persons with disabilities: There is finally an attempt at addressing the concerns of persons with disabilities. But the provisions are completely useless the way they are currently worded.
Public Libraries: They can now make electronic copies of works they own, and some other beneficial changes relating to public libraries.
Education: Some exceptions related to education have been broadened (scope of works, & scope of use).
Statutory and compulsory licensing: Some new statutory licensing provisions (including for radio broadcasting) and some streamlining of existing compulsory licensing provisions.
Copyright societies: These are now responsible to authors and not owners of works.
Open licences: Free and Open Source Software and Open Content licensing is now simpler.
Partial exemption of online intermediaries: Transient and incidental storage of copyrighted works has been excepted, mostly for the benefit of online intermediaries.
Performer’s rights: The general, and confusing, exclusive right that performers had to communicate their performance to the public has been removed, and instead only the exclusive right to communicate sound/video recordings remains.
Enforcement: Provisions on border measures have been made better, and less prone to abuse and prevention of legitimate trade.

Some negative amendments

WCT and WPPT compliance: India has not signed either of these two treaties, which impose TRIPS-plus copyright protection, but without any corresponding increase in fair dealing / fair use rights.
Increase in duration of copyright: This will significantly reduce the public domain, which India has been arguing for internationally.
Technological Protection Measures: TPMs, which have been shown to be anti-consumer in all countries in which they have been introduced, are sought to be brought into Indian law.
Version recordings: The amendments make cover version much more difficult to produce.
Moral rights: Changes have been made to author’s moral rights (and performer’s moral rights have been introduced) but these have been made without requisite safeguards.

Missed opportunities

Government-funded works: Taxpayers are still not free to use works that were paid for by them. This goes against the direction that India has elected to march towards with the Right to Information Act.
Copyright terms: The duration of all copyrights are above the minimum required by our international obligations, thus decreasing the public domain which is crucial for all scientific and cultural progress.
Criminal provisions: Our law still criminalises individual, non-commercial copyright infringement.
Libraries and archives: The exceptions for ‘public libraries’ are still too narrow in what they perceive as ‘public libraries’.
Educational exceptions: The exceptions for education still do not fully embrace distance and digital education.
Communication to the public: No clear definition is given of what constitute a ‘public’, and no distinction is drawn between commercial and non-commercial ‘public’ communication.
Internet intermediaries: More protections are required to be granted to Internet intermediaries to ensure that non-market based peer-production projects such as Wikipedia, and other forms of social media and grassroots innovation are not stifled.
Fair dealing and fair use: We would benefit greatly if, apart from the specific exceptions provided for in the Act, more general guidelines were also provided as to what do not constitute infringement. This would not take away from the existing exceptions.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-analysis

Privacy and the Indian Copyright Act, 1857 as Amended in 2010

praskrishna — 2011-08-23T03:25:02Z

In this post the author examines the issue of privacy in light of the Indian Copyright Act, 1857 as amended by the Copyright Amendment Bill in 2010. Four key questions are examined in detail and the author gives suitable recommendations for each of the questions that arise.

India's Copyright Act was established in 1857 and was most recently amended in 2010. Although India at present is not a member of WIPO, the provisions in the proposed Bill will work to make the Act WIPO compliant. When looking at privacy in the context of copyright, four key questions arise:

How do DRM technologies undermine privacy and what safeguards are present in the Indian Law to protect citizens’ right to privacy?

Technologies such as digital rights management technologies were developed to be used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to impose limitations on the usage of digital content and devices. DRM technologies pose as a privacy threat, because in their ability to monitor what is happening to a copyrighted work, they are also able to collect personal information and send it back to a host without knowledge of the user. The host is then able to use that data for marketing or commercial purposes. In the Copyright Act, 1957 there are no current provisions against DRM circumvention. In the proposed Copyright Bill 2010 there are two proposed provisions to prevent anti circumvention of DMR technologies, and one provision that clarifies what is a DMR technology.

Proposed Legislation

Section 2 (xa): Defines Rights Management information.
Section 65A : Protection of Technological Measures - Any person who knowingly makes or has in his possession any plate for the purpose of making infringing copies of any work in which copyright subsists shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years. The section includes that any person facilitating circumvention by another person of a technological measure, shall maintain a complete record of such other persons including his name, address and all relevant particulars necessary to identify him.
Section 65B: Protection of Rights Management Information – Any person who removes or distributes, copies or broadcasts any rights management information without authority shall be by punishable with imprisonment.

Recommendation

We find that in this provision the privacy of an individual is brought into question, because there are no safeguards against the commercialization of information, and no formal process of redress if an individual discovers that his information is being used without his consent/prior knowledge. We would recommend that it be clearly articulated in the provision that the collection and commercialization of information and personal data is prohibited by DRM technologies and host companies, and a method of redress be put in place.

Under the present copyright does a person have the ability to expose privacy infringement?

Because DRM technologies often employ the use of spy-ware, it is important that an individual has the ability to know if spy-ware is being used on their computer systems. Currently reverse engineering is permitted under provision 52 (ac). The amended version of provision 52 is less clear on if reverse engineering would be allowed.

Current Legislation

Provision 52 (ac): Certain acts not to be in infringement of copyright include the observation, study or test of functioning of the computer programs in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any elements of the program while performing such acts necessary for the functions for which the computer program was supplied. The following acts shall not constitute in infringement of copyright, namely:

Proposed

The proposed amendment reads:

52 (1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyrights, namely:

(i) (a) a fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work not being a computer program for the purposes of:

(ii) private use, including research

(iii) Criticism or review, whether of that work or of any other work.

The exclusion of computer program in the proposed bill makes it unclear under what circumstances reverse engineering would be allowed.

Recommendation

We would recommend that for clarity purposes a specific clause be added to the act that details under what circumstances a person is allowed to reverse engineer a product for protection of their own privacy.

How does the proposed exception for the disabled undermine privacy?

In India under the current Copyright Act, 1957 there are no provisions for the benefit of disabled persons, thus currently permission from copyright holders needs to be exclusively sought every time the visually challenged person requires access. Under the Constitution of India and the Berne Convention, India has committed to enshrining the rights of the disabled.

Proposed Legislation

The proposed amendment of the Act will grant compulsory license in respect of publication of any copyrighted works not covered by the exception under section 52 (1) (zb).

The Bill also proposes a board that would establish the credentials of the applicant and satisfy itself that the application has been made in good faith. This compromises the anonymity that most individuals enjoy when a disabled person tries to access a digital library.

Recommendation

We recommend that the proposed Bill limits the authentication process a disabled person must go through when accessing digital libraries, etc, and the extent to which records are to be kept of transaction This will serve to protect the anonymity and privacy of disabled persons.

What is On the horizon?

As copyright and IP is a constantly evolving issue, countries are consistently amending and changing their laws. With the flow of peoples across borders increasing, Indians will be affected by different international policies that could pose to infringe upon their privacy, for example, cross border checks or three strike regimes.

Examples of Proposed Legislation: The Anti- Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

ACTA is a proposed legislation with the objective to combat counterfeiting and piracy. Partners in the negotiations include the United States, Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Switzerland. The treaty will oblige each Contracting Party to adopt, in accordance with its legal system, the measures necessary to ensure the application of the treaty. Though ACTA has not been enacted, many worry that ACTA would facilitate privacy violations by trademark and copyright holders against private citizens suspected of infringement activities without any sort of legal due process. The Act would allow for random searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for illegally downloaded or ripped music and movies.

Recommendation

We find that copyright infringement does not appear to justify a three strike regime or cross border searches. ACTA and other international treaties raise the question that if India became compliant with certain international standards, the standards would be too stringent without safeguards, and pose as a risk to a person’s privacy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-privacy

The Bilski Case - Impact on Software Patents

praskrishna — 2011-08-23T03:24:31Z

The Supreme Court of the United States gave its decision in Bilski v Kappos on 28 June, 2010. In this case the petitioners’ patent application sought protection for a claimed invention that explains how commodities buyers and sellers in the energy market can protect, or hedge, against the risk of price changes. The Court in affirming the rejection by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also held that the machine- or-transformation test is not necessarily the sole test of patentability. The Court’s ruling of abstract ideas as unpatentable and its admission that patents do not necessarily promote innovation and may sometimes limit competition and stifle innovation have provided a ray of hope. In the light of the developments, the Bilski decision as far as patentability of software is concerned may not be totally insignificant, says Krithika Dutta Narayana.

The United States Supreme Court’s much awaited decision of last month in Bilski v. Kappos (2010) (Bilski), a case that was touted as a potential watershed in the debate surrounding patentability of software, was disappointing, even though it was not without any impact. While the Supreme Court affirmed the rejection by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) of a patent claim for a business method, it failed to define with clarity, any test for patentability which might have constituted a precedent for future cases involving patentability of software or business method. At the same time, it held that the “machine- or- transformation” test which was the test followed by the CAFC in rejecting the claim, was not the sole test to determine patentability, thus effectively providing no guideline to determine patentability of software or business methods in future cases.

The Supreme Court in Bilski, affirmed the rejection by the CAFC in In re Bilski (2008) of a patent claim involving a method of providing insurance against fluctuating energy prices due to changes in weather. The applicants, Bernard L. Bilski and Rand Warsaw filed a patent application for such a method of hedging risks – essentially a claim for a business method – under Section 101 of US Patent Act before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The examiner at the USPTO rejected the claim on the ground that the claim was not for patentable subject matter and that “the invention is not implemented on a specific apparatus and merely manipulates (an) abstract idea and solves a purely mathematical problem without any limitation to a practical application, therefore, the invention is not directed to the technological arts”. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) took a re-look at the examiner’s decision and held that the “machine or apparatus” test was in itself insufficient to determine patentability since a claim that included transformation of a physical object from one state to another would also be patent eligible subject matter. The BPAI also struck down the requirement of the invention to be a “technological art”. Thus, it rejected the Bilski claim on the ground that it did not cause transformation of a physical object from one state to another, since transformation of financial liabilities and risks does not constitute transformation of physical matter.

In its decision on October 30, 2008, the CAFC affirmed the ruling of the BPAI and laid down the machine or transformation test for patentability and held that Bilski’s claim was neither tied to any machine or apparatus to derive the result nor did it cause transformation of any physical object from one state to another and is hence, unpatentable subject matter. The Court reasoned that the “machine or transformation” test was crucial for determining patentability as it ensured that the claim based on a fundamental principle did not preempt all other uses of the principle. This test was the first test since the US Supreme Court’s decision in Diamond v. Diehr (1981) – which held that laws of nature, mathematical formulae and algorithms are not patentable – that had a huge potential for laying down definitive rules for patentability including declaring software and business methods to be outside the realm of patentable subject matter. If this test was upheld in the Supreme Court, that would effectively put an end to the rise of software patents since software, in most cases, did not cause transformation of physical object from one state to another. Thus, the decision of the Supreme Court had huge stakes for both sides of the software patent debate.

In light of the same, the Supreme Court’s ruling holding that the machine or transformation test is not the sole test for determining patentability and at the same time, failing to provide any other test on which to determine patentability, was a sore disappointment. Though, it affirmed the rejection of Bilski’s patent claim on the ground that the subject matter claimed was abstract and thus not a patentable “process” under section 101, its core decision was only limited to this particular claim and it did not lay down a concrete and definitive guideline for future claims. However, one must not be too quick to dismiss this decision as either going against the interests of open society and free software or as a completely inconsequential case that simply maintains status quo. There are important takeaways for the patentability of software in the Bilski decision – The Court did not totally reject the machine or transformation test relied on by the CAFC. It only held that the machine or transformation test is not the sole test on basis of which the patentability of a subject matter of a claim can be decided. The Court, in fact, held that the “machine or transformation test” was a “useful and important clue, an investigative tool for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under section 101.” This leaves open the possibility of using the test to determine patentability in future cases and this is good news for opponents of software patents since software (an algorithm designed to be operated upon by a computer) is merely an abstract idea which, in most cases, does not involve transformation of a physical object from one state to another.

Bilski’s claim was essentially interpreted to be a patent for a business method. The Supreme Court was completely silent on the issue of patentability of software in its decision and stuck to only the narrow issue in hand – that of the patentability of a particular business method. This means that the “machine or transformation test”, whose applicability was ruled out in this particular case, may still be applicable for software patents. Nothing in this case precludes an opponent of a software patent from urging the courts to use the “machine or transformation test” to rule on patentability. Thus, the very fact that the Supreme Court only dealt with the narrow issue in hand ensures that the “machine or transformation test” is not altogether dismissed.

The main ground on which Bilski’s claim was rejected was that the patent claim was for an overly abstract idea which was not patent-eligible. The Court held that the basic concept on which the claim was based – the concept of hedging risks against risk is an unpatentable abstract idea. Further, some of the claims are constituted by equations and are purely mathematical in nature and are abstract and thus not patentable. This means that basic concepts and use of mathematical formulae constitute abstract ideas which are unpatentable. This test can strike down many software patents as these are simply algorithms executed by a computer and incorporate very fundamental and basic concepts which are abstract in nature and are thus, not patentable. This test for determining patentability on the basis of the claim being abstract as laid down in Bilski reaffirms the patentability test laid down in Diamond v. Deihr which kept laws of nature, mathematical formulae and algorithms outside the scope of patentable subject matter. This may serve as an important test to determine and especially, limit the patentability of software in coming years.

Notwithstanding the fact that Bilski’s claim has been interpreted to be one of a business method patent, when examined in detail, the claims indicate that the ‘method’ cannot be implemented without a computer. Certain claims for calculating probability (and risk), although mathematical or algorithmic in nature, have too many variables to be executed in any way other than by using a computer.1 Such algorithms which can be executed only by a computer fall under the category of software and the patent is thus, also, a software patent. That being said, the ruling of the Court that the claim is for an overly abstract idea and thus not patentable lends credence and indicates that software patents can be validly claimed to be abstract ideas not falling under the scope of patentable subject matter.

Another important outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling was the invalidation of the 1998 CAFC decision in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group2 which opened the floodgates for software patents by holding that a practical application of an algorithm or formula to produce “useful, concrete and tangible result” was sufficient to constitute patentable subject matter. The State Street test was too broad and afforded an opportunity for many frivolous patent applications to be admitted. In fact, Justice Stevens, in his concurring opinion, has stated that it would be a “grave mistake” to follow the test. By clearly striking down and dismissing such a test to determine patentable subject matter, the Court in Bilski has precluded future software patent claims for taking recourse to this test and has effectively, to an extent, made it that much harder for a software to be granted patent. The test in State Street Bank which opened the floodgates for software patents was definitively dismissed.

The Court in the 1978 case of Parker v. Flook, had rejected patent for a mathematical algorithm on the ground that an algorithm was a law of nature although its use was limited to a specific field in this case (the “field of use” test) and added an insignificant post solution activity (“post solution activity” test). The test laid down in Flook had been subsequently questioned and thus, subtly dismissed by the Court in Diehr in 1991. The Court in Bilski emphasized on the test for patentability laid down in Flook and opined that the two tests may well come in handy in future challenges or oppositions to a patent claim while determining if the claim pertained to an idea that was abstract and hence, not patentable. Thus, this test can be used in future for invalidating software patents which are characterized by broad claims adding insignificant post solution activity.

It is heartening to note that the Court looked at the importance of patent law while recognizing that patents are not always necessary to encourage innovation. It noted that patents could also limit competition and stifle innovation. They can have ill effects such as increasing prices while slowing progress and could actually be deterrent to free flow of information within society. By recognizing and validating this, the ruling not only helped increase awareness about the debate surrounding software patents but also showed that the Courts are open to such an approach to patent law in future. This can only be good news for busting software patents.

For further reading

Claim 4 of Bliski's claims is as follows - “perform a Monte Carlo simulation across all deals at all locations ... over the last 20 years of weather patterns and establish the payoffs from each deal under each historical weather pattern “ Such a simulation would involve multiple parameters such as deals, locations, weather patterns, to establish a payoff.
149 F.3d. 1368.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/bilski-case

First Post-Bilski Decision - Software Patent Rejected

praskrishna — 2011-08-23T03:24:25Z

In the first decision post-Bilski, the Board of Patents Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) rejected a software patent claimed by Hewlett-Packard. The ruling in this case has buttressed the fact that the Bilski decision furthered the cause of narrowing the patentability of software even though the Supreme Court of the United States totally avoided mentioning software patents or the applicability of the machine or transformation test for software patents in its decision.

As eagerly as it was awaited, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos (2010) was a dampener as far as its impact (or the lack of it) on patentability of software was concerned. The Supreme Court totally avoided even mentioning software patents or the applicability of the machine or transformation test for software patents in its decision and while many claimed that it was status quo maintained, a few of us found a silver lining in the Court’s ruling of abstract ideas as unpatentable and its admission of an argument that patents do not necessarily promote innovation and may, sometimes result in limiting competition and stifling innovation. Our hope that the Bilski case furthered the cause of narrowing the patentability of software was not misplaced is evident from the first decision post-Bilski, of the BPAI, which rejected a software patent claimed by Hewlett-Packard. The BPAI, in In Re Proudler, rejected a patent claim for software made by Hewlett Packard on the ground that software, being an abstract idea, is not patentable. The BPAI relied on, among others, the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos in holding that an abstract idea was not patentable.

The case before the BPAI was on appeal from the decision of the patent examiner who refused patent for the claim on the ground that it was obvious (on basis of prior art analysis) and therefore, “barred at the threshold” for patentability under US patent law. The patent was claimed for “a method of controlling the processing of data” comprising “defining security controls for a plurality of data items, and applying individualised security rules to each of the data items based on a measurement of integrity of a computing entity to which the data items are to be made available”. It was essentially a claim for software facilitation data processing and involving security controls for several data items. The BPAI refused patent for the claim but differed from the patent examiner in its reasoning. The BPAI held that all claims related to non-patentable subject matter and hence, could not be granted patent.

In coming to this conclusion, the BPAI relied on previous decisions including In Re Nuijten which held that Section 35 of the US Code of Patents which allows patents for a machine, a manufacture, a process or a composition of matter constitutes “the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter”. In ruling that HP’s claim was not patentable, BPAI also held that software, being an abstract idea, was not patentable. The line of argument relied on by the BPAI was something like this – “[A] machine, a manufacture, a process or a composition of matter” constitutes the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. Thus, laws of nature, abstract ideas, and natural phenomena are excluded from patent protection as held in the well known case of Diamond v. Diehr. The Federal Circuit in its decision in In re Warmerdam has held that an abstraction is not a patentable subject matter. In other words, a claim that recites no more than software, logic or a data structure (that is, an abstraction) does not fall within any statutory category. It has been held in Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp. that an abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment. Finally, and most significantly, the Bilski case has put the nail in the coffin by ruling that abstract ideas are not patentable. Against the background of these precedents, BPAI has confirmed the unpatentability of software on the ground that it is an abstract idea.

It is interesting that the BPAI also mentioned that “no true hardware structure is recited” in the claims to buttress its conclusion that the idea claimed was an abstract one. This means that the BPAI took note of the fact that although a hardware structure may have been essential to implement the abstract idea forming the claim such structure itself was not claimed for patent. The innovation claimed lay in the software alone and not in the hardware and therefore, did not merit patent protection. Thus, a claimed invention which is a combination of hardware (required to implement the software) and software may not be patentable as long as there is no ingenuity in the hardware as software alone, being a mere algorithm and an abstraction, falls outside the scope of patentable subject matter.

The first post-Bilski decision gives us more than one reason to cheer about –

It refused patent for software on the ground that it was an abstract idea and hence, did not fall under patentable subject matter. Acceptance of software as merely an abstract idea is catching up and is thus, good news for those who challenge the patentability of software.
The BPAI, in ruling software as an abstraction and thus, unpatentable relied directly on the Bilski decision and therefore, provided a clear, much-needed guideline for conclusively interpreting the Bilski decision as one restricting the patentability of software.
The decision supported the argument that any combination of hardware and software, to be patentable, must demonstrate ingenuity in the hardware component. As long as there is no claim for hardware, the software itself, being an abstraction, cannot be patented. This brings about greater clarity in the definition of software to be limited to an algorithm (and thus, abstract) and to be looked at in isolation from a hardware component which is solely used to implement the software and no more.

It will be interesting to follow the developments in this case and in other future claims for software which may rely on the Bilski decision. In Re Proudler is certainly encouraging for limiting software patents especially in the aftermath of Bilski. As far as patentability of software is concerned, the Bilski decision may not be that insignificant after all.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/post-bilski

Statement of CIS, India, on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at the 22nd SCCR

praskrishna — 2011-08-04T04:41:12Z

The twenty-second session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights is being held in Geneva from June 15 to June 24, 2011. Nirmita Narasimhan and Pranesh Prakash are attending the conference. CIS delivered its statement, on the Broadcast Treaty, and made it available in print form as well.

The Centre for Internet and Society would like to associate itself with the comprehensive statement made by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). We are one of the signatories of the joint statement, which EFF referred to, of the many civil society non-governmental organizations, cable casters and technology companies opposing an intellectual property rights based Broadcasting Treaty.

We believe that the protection that may be afforded to broadcasters under existing international treaties, including Article 14 of the TRIPS Agreement, are sufficient to safeguard the interests of broadcasters, and that the Broadcast Treaty, which has been under discussion for more than a decade without any progress is, as the WIPO Chair observed in the conclusion to the informal summary prepared after the 16th SCCR (SCCR/17/1/inf), an expenditure of "time, energy and resources to no avail". Without prejudice to that position, we would like to make a few points on the content of the treaty as well.

There has been talk of ensuring a technology-neutral approach. While a technology-neutral approach is useful since technology keeps changing, we believe that that necessarily means the differences between different technologies should be recognized. The capital costs and investments of traditional broadcasters, which are—as has been highlighted in the many statements here today—the basis on which broadcasters' rights are demanded, are not in the least comparable with the capital costs and investments of webcasting.

These differences have not come out adequately in the various regional seminars that WIPO helped organize, since those were mostly with traditional broadcasters and did not cover webcasters.

"Communication to the public", while that is a technologically neutral formulation, is an element of copyright, and is not the same of broadcast rights, which is a related right.

Any departure from a signal-based approach would require the assent of the WIPO General Assembly, which has in 2007 specifically requested for signal-based approach for the treaty.

Specifically, we believe that Paragraph 16 of the WIPO Development Agenda, which relates to preservation of a vibrant public domain, will be endangered by a right being given to webcasters which is separate from the underlying content of the transmission.

In this regard, we strongly support the delegations of South Africa and India, in their strong pronunciation of public interests while looking at such a treaty. We further support the delegation of Canada, for strongly emphasizing the need to allow countries the flexibility to opt-out of the provisions of the treaty for certain forms of broadcasting.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sccr-22-broadcast-cis-statement

Lecture by Eben Moglen and Mishi Choudhary

pranesh — 2011-08-23T02:55:59Z

The Software Freedom Law Center, National Law School, and the Centre for Internet and Society organised a lecture by Mishi Choudhary and Eben Moglen for students of NLS on Saturday, December 13, 2008.

Saturday, December 13, 2008 had Mishi Choudhary and Eben Moglen of the New York-based Software Freedom Law Center speaking to the students of the National Law School of India University in Nagarbhavi, Bangalore, in a talk organized by CIS.

Mishi Choudhary, who will head the Software Freedom Law Center in New Delhi, spoke on "Globalising Public Interest Law: The SFLC Model". She told the students about the importance of non-profit legal work as well as its viability as a career choice. She also laid out the background to the work that SFLC does, and traced a brief history of software patent cases

Eben Moglen chose to speak on "Who Killed Intellectual Property and Why We Did It?". He started off by talking of the interconnections between law and societal change: how law can't keep pace with the changes we see around us, and how law actually sometimes changes in the reverse direction, while trying to maintain the status quo.

This is not a new phenomenon, he noted, and that when law is responsive to anybody, it listens to the 'people of the past' more carefully than the 'people of the future'. This, he says, is compounded by the fact that the primary mode of change in the law is not legislation (since there is nothing legislators hate more than legislating), and that the better lawyers usually represent only those who can afford to pay them, hence resulting in systemic injustice. He emphasised that the clients of the SFLC, on the other hand, are people who create software worth billions of dollars, but who do not own it.

On that point of creation for the purpose of sharing and not owning, a student raised the question of why proprietary rights shouldn't exist in creations of the intellect. In response Mr. Moglen pointed out that while his personal opinions might be different, the Software Freedom Law Center does not seek to bring into dispute the concept of property rights in software, nor the fundamentals of patent law: it is merely concerned with the scope of patent law, and seeks a literal enforcement of patent law as it exists in most jurisdictions.

Another question that cropped up was on the economics of software creation and the anti-competitive nature of free software. To this, Mr. Moglen provided a brief summary of the tragedy of the anticommons by using land to be acquired for public works in the centre of a city as an example. In software, this problem is only exacerbated, he pointed out. Most physical creations over which patents are granted have something like 8 or 10 steps. Software code is different because it contains thousands of instructions. Even big companies face the anticommons problem; but they manage to evade it by cross-licensing agreements which results in efficient transactions for them since it involves no exchange of money whatsoever. Small companies are in a worse situation, since they don't have those kinds of patent portfolios to be able to enter into cross-licensing agreements, no matter how innovative they are. Thus, in effect, the system is rigged against them. This provides a partial answer to the antitrust question, he noted. Competition law is actual in favour of free software. The right to practise a trade or profession, and the right to speech get implicated in any case where a FLOSS-based company is hauled up before a court being accused of conspiring with other to take cost to zero.

Mr. Moglen further explained that when it comes to software, the problem of patenting is very different. A 20-year monopoly is more reasonable from the viewpoint of physical creations. Patent law, however doesn't tailor the rights that are granted by a patent. The problem starts right from the process of granting a patent. The job of a patent office being to apply the tests of non-obviousness, novelty and utility, most patent offices can do a reasonable job in most fields of technological endeavour, since there is a large body of innovation with which the proposed patent can be compared. Software, however, is a recent field with a large number of applications coming in all at once. While the patents that are sought might include claims on ideas and applications that existed in software in 1956, those aren't easy for the patent offices to dig up, since the field of software patents and software itself have not existed for the same length of time.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/lecture-by-eben-moglen-mishi-choudhary

The 'Dark Fibre' Files: Interview with Jamie King and Peter Mann

siddharth — 2011-08-04T04:41:31Z

Film-makers Jamie King (producer/director of the 'Steal This Film' series) and Peter Mann, in conversation with Siddharth Chadha, on 'Dark Fibre', their latest production, being filmed in Bangalore

'Dark Fibre' is a documentary/fiction hybrid by J. J. King, producer/director of the 'Steal This Film' series, which has already reached over six million people online and is working towards achieving international television distribution, and Peter Mann, a British film-maker whose most recent work is titled 'Sargy Mann'.

'Dark Fibre' is set amongst the cablewallahs of Bangalore, and uses the device of cabling to traverse different aspects of informational life in the city. It follows the lives of real cablewallahs and examines the political status of their activities.The fictional elements arrive in the form of a young apprentice cablewallah who attempts to unite the disparate home-brew networks in the city into a grassroots, horizontal 'people's network'. Some support the activity and some vehemently oppose it -- but what no one expects is the emergence of a seditious, unlicensed and anonymous new channel which begins to transform people's imaginations in the city. Our young cable apprentice is tasked with tracking down the channel, as powerful political forces array themselves against it. Not only the 'security' of the city, but his own wellbeing depend on whether he finds it, and whether it proves possible to stop its distribution. Meanwhile, mysterious elements from outside India -- possibly emissaries of a still-greater power -- are appearing on the scene. This quest for the unknown channel is reminiscent of a modern-day 'Moby Dick', with the city of Bangalore as the high seas and our cable apprentice a reluctant Ahab. The action is a combination of verite, improvisation and scripted action.

In conversation with Jamie and Peter in Bangalore

Q: How did you get the idea to make Dark Fibre, a fiction film?

Peter:

We first met through BritDoc--British Documentary--and they run Channel 4 which is a Film Foundation. They have been good to us. They funded both Steal This Film and 'Sargy Mann'--a film on my father who is a blind man. They organised a meeting of all the directors they had funded and we met there. We were both thinking about what to do next and felt frustrated because we were making documentaries but really wanted to make fiction. We both shared the same ideas, with regard to shooting something completely as it is but presenting it in a fictional context.

Jamie:

And furthermore, we agreed that documentaries are not really real life. Because at the end of the day, I will keep only what I like, make you look at the way I want you to, I would cut you out of the picture if I don't agree with you. This happens even with the most worthy of the films. And you can be more truthful in fiction because its always a subjective truth. Fiction allows things to remain more real. I don't need an argument in the film. If I can just say, here is one guy's story and this is his story, then you can see the city with no bullshit. The story would allow you to look at things as they are; it's partly that idea behind Dark Fibre.

Peter:

This is in some way related to the concept of the artistic truth. You use all the tools at your disposal to tell a story, not just literal facts. This is about presenting things within an atmosphere, presenting things in a context. This then adds up to someone understanding something about the world, and I think fiction serves that better than documentary.

Q: What brings you to India to make Dark Fibre?

Jamie:

I think the cablewallah networks are unique. I have never seen anything like this anywhere else myself. India is also in a very, very interesting time and place. The idea of information as a commodity is alive here as it isn't in many other places. The value of information is very high here. There is a western imaginary of Bangalore which is immediately fascinating. It's the place where our information is processed. This is where our credit card and our phone data goes. And it enters a weird black market that we don't understand. This is the cliché. We already have cliché films about Bombay and call centers. We do not want to put a call center into the film because that is already the imagined cliché vision of Bangalore. It is obviously far more sophisticated than that. And in some ways it is far patchier than that. Who are these information workers? What are they doing and at which level are they doing it? Are they the street workers putting cables into walls or is it the guy at Infosys who is hiring people and teaching them to fake English accents? Which is the real information worker? That variegation of information life in Bangalore is interesting, not just to us, but, I think, to everybody. Information dexterity is perceived as the signature of Northern dominance. The ability to manipulate information, to move intellectual property, to transform an idea into a product, to transform someone else's idea into your property. That kind of dexterity is seen as the keynote of western dominance. And watching a developing country transform into an information dextrous economy, seeing information dextrous people is amazing. And then there is the patchiness of it--who gets left behind? Who gets included? Whats missed out and what is added in that vision? How is it manipulated in favor of big businesses? And all of this is fascinating not only from an orientalist's point of view but from a general economic-socio-political point of view.

Q: What is the underlying concept that brought about Dark Fibre?

Jamie:

While making 'Steal This Film' we spent a year on a 36 minute film trying to make an argument that would be staunch, impactful, and radical. What we learned is that it's very difficult to set out to argue your way to the truth. It's relatively easier to let the world itself speak and in the meanwhile observe it in detail. The kind of issues we are engaging with in Dark Fibre are around people's relationships with information and their relationship with freedom. These are very, very hard to nail down and speak about in a radical way. These are things left to the Intellectual Property lawyers, it's already happening, it's already cliché. All the arguments are already written. And even after a year of Steal This Film, it's shown in liberal universities – Wait! Liberal universities? I was supposed to be an anarchist! We want to go further. We want to tell people things through an image.

Peter:

Our idea of relationships is exploring the parallel physical communications networks and the virtual networks. In a city like Bangalore you see it. The traffic here is chaotic but it works. How? There is no answer to that. But it provokes questions. Through Dark Fibre, we are trying to say that there is a potential network in the city (cablewallahs) which is currently being unused and asking what it would take to unlock that potential and where would it take us if that really happens.

Q: Why the cablewallahs? What is so fascinating about them?

Jamie:

Yes, we are interested in the cablewallah network and I think it's quite perverse that it makes people from around here laugh. You see cablewallahs as a fact of life, probably a mundane fact of life. Westerners, Europeans, who are used to orderly deployments of information technology are completely blown away when you tell them that this is how it works in India. Ad hoc, grassroots, messy, out of control.

Peter:

To the West, it is just unthinkable that the government would allow something like these networks, which supply 24 hours television. To not have these under government control is unthinkable.

Jamie:

So, obviously, we are at a point of transition where it's unthinkable to the Global North and it would become unthinkable here too. We are in the middle of that shift and thats one of the things we are trying to document; the network form, which is horizontal, ad hoc and on the street, becomes not only regulated but seditious.

Q: Why would you call it seditious?

Jamie:

Because it begins to be seen as almost dangerous. As the regulators move in, they take Direct to Home control of all the deployments of their intellectual properties. The older networks start to look not only like intellectual property right infringements, but their disorder is also seen to be terrorist.

Q: What is the film trying to propose through linking these cablewallah networks?

Jamie:

Our proposal in this film is - "What if instead of just dying peacefully, someone had the idea of transforming these networks that used to deliver international and local content, by connecting them together, and turning them in to massive local media networks which are used for media sharing, file sharing, your own local channel?" There is a potential because the network is already there.

Peter:

In a way, if you think about the microcosm idea of the Internet as a whole, that essentially is what our plot is. On a certain level you would say that it's just a network but then the internet is the most important driving force of the world today.

Jamie:

The point is that once this idea is out, we can create the infrastructure to connect the entire city, infrastructure we can all use. Everyone starts to have a stake in it, be it the newspapers, TV channels, pirate markets (they will say, "No one is buying our shit anymore because they can share it over the network"), the computer manufacturers, the importer of Chinese routers, a gangster who thinks he can advertise on the network, the intellectual property lawyer... different people start getting the idea that they might have something to do with this network. Basically this is a chaos scenario, from which arises the plot. It is a fictional scenario but is set in the reality of information sharing here today.

Q: What is the technique you use to make the plot hybrid fictional?

Jamie:

The main character is played by an actor and he will be an embedded actor, working with the real cablewallah. Parts of it will be documentary, seeing how the cablewallah works and the viewer, through watching this actor, will understand how the network works. We have already spoken to some cablewallahs. And they have been very happy about all this. We see this as sort of embedded journalism, where the embedded actor takes the place of an interviewer. The film is not going to be historical. The characters will have a background and the film is going to have a background, but what we are trying to do is show the 'now'. We want to make it speak about the past and speak about the future. About our future.

Q: 'Steal This Film' was a critique of the international intellectual property regimes. Would this film also be similarly advocative?

Jamie:

We are going to the next level from 'Steal This Film', and this is more of my argument than Peter's -- that the conversation about Intellectual Propery is over or the film is the last word at all. But I personally need to go somewhere else to say more. I am interested in information in general. And how information affects what we can think, what we can dream, what we can be, how it forms all of us -- that is what we are working on in 'Dark Fibre' and the question of intellectual property is a subset of that question. We spend a lot of time talking about ideas and that's one of the things that connects us. We want to articulate a lot of the philosophical, abstract ideas in this film. And we will see if we can manage to do it in a new context. 'Steal This Film' interested a few people and this will be the next point of departure for discussion.

Q: Peter, do you share Jamie's passion for Intellectual Property?

Peter:

Not in the same way. I am very interested in the subject. Anybody who creates work is interested in it. In my last film, there is a constant commentary of a test match going on and as a result of it, it is almost impossible to sell it to television; people who own the rights to the cricket say that we have to pay them thousands of pounds! I am interested in documenting the world as it is and not what is cleaned up for TV. I am interested in the specifics. If you get on a bus in London, the ringtone everyone has on a mobile phone is not a ringtone but a particular song. But you can't put that on film because Mick Jagger, or whoever the artiste is, will want ten thousand pounds for it. The frustration that I face is that it is impossible to put the world that I see in front of me on film. I used to work with TV commercials and you would never see anything in commercials that is not the product being sold. I was once working on a Coca Cola commercial in New York and there was a person who was appointed by Coca Cola to go around the whole set to ensure that no one is drinking anything that is not made by Coca Cola, whether that is water or juice. Anything. And I think all that is about creating a creased world that we don't live in. I am interested in the world, through documentaries or fiction, that we live in. And it is bits of music, it is referenced films, we reference music, we reference sport. Just because people have rights over these, you never see them on film. That is my main area of interest, more than what is happening on the legal front.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dark-fibre-files

The 'Dark Fibre' Files: The Grey Market Deficit

sachia — 2011-08-04T04:41:47Z

In this, the third entry in his series discussing the making of 'Dark Fibre' by Jamie King and Peter Mann, Siddharth Chadha gives an overview of piracy in the pay TV industry.

Television emerged as one of the biggest gainers in a post-liberalisation India during the '90s. From 41 television sets and one channel in 1962, the country has come a long way, with over 130 million homes with televison. Cable TV has spurred an unprecedented revolution for the entertainment and advertising industry. As a country where more than half the population lives on a daily income of less than USD 1 but swears by its Indian Premier League, India has also emerged as the Asian giant in pay TV piracy. The Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia, in a pan-Asia survey, pegged the net loss of revenue to the television industry due to pay TV piracy at USD 1.1 Billion in 2008. In its annual report published last year, it estimates that over 21.64 million cable TV homes went unreported, either on account of theft or leakage by local cable operators. This is almost one-fouth of the 8.5 million existing cable TV connections across the country. The report also suggests that 65 percent of the total loss of USD 1.76 Billion due to cable TV piracy in Asia comes from India alone, followed by Thailand at USD 180 Million.

According to Shashi Kumar, the General Manager of Hathway Cable TV Private Limited, a Multi Service Operator, 'All cable operators report only 10-15 percent of their total subscriber base. Obviously, the piracy figures in this industry will be very high.' A cable operator in Bangalore, on the condition of being anonymous, discloses, 'We are providing cable TV connections to over 800 homes. But we declare only 250, because that is the minimum number of connections that the MSO wants. There are not enough margins in the business to sustain accurate reporting.' The average cost of setting up a cable operation now runs into crores of rupees and the business is not lucrative if it is entirely clean. The average price for a digital cable connection charged by an MSO to the local cablewallah is between Rs. 180-200, the charge to the end consumer is Rs. 250 per connection per month. This does not seem to spell profit for the cable operators. 'An amplifier alone costs Rs. 3500 per unit and serves about 20 homes. The cost of the RJ6 cable is Rs. 4300 a bundle. How can we be expected to do business on a profit margin of Rs. 50 per month? If the margins were higher, perhaps operators would not leak connections,' adds the cable operator.

While Multi Service Operators seem to be fed up of the situation, there is not much they can do about it. 'There are already 5-6 national level MSOs. And then there are new entrants into the market every month. Despite knowing that the cable operators are under-reporting connections, we continue to work on minimum level subscriptions because the market is extremely competitive. If we take action against a cable operator, we would lose out on whatever business we have to a new player,' adds Shashi, while describing the operations of their company.

The industry is now looking at growth in the number of Direct To Home subscribers as a deterrent to piracy. Estimates suggest that by 2015, over 40 percent of subscribers in the pay TV universe is likely to comprise DTH owners, up from the current five percent. Frightened of repeated instances of signal piracy on their networks, broadcasters are now investing in signal encryption technology, to ward of the pirates. However, till DTH television becomes the norm rather than the exception, one can expect more tussles between the broadcasters, Multi Service Operators, regulators and cablewallahs, in the world of pay TV piracy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-dark-fibre-files-the-grey-market-deficit

The 'Dark Fibre' Files: Cable TV Technology for Dummies

sachia — 2011-08-04T04:41:52Z

In the fourth entry documenting the making of 'Dark Fibre', a film by Jamie King and Peter Mann, Siddharth Chadha simplifies cable TV technology for the uninitiated.

Confused about the difference between an MSO and a COAX? Well, this will simplify cable TV for you.

The system of providing television to consumers using radio frequency signals transmitted to televisions using fixed optical fibers or co-axial cables is called cable television. This is different from the over-the-air method used in traditional television broadcasting (via radio waves) for which a television antenna is required. FM radio programming, high-speed internet, telephony, and similar non-television services may also be provided.

Still confused? It's simple.

Your local cablewallah is a Private Cable Operator, a private small cable company dealing/competing with the Multi System Operators (MSO), who is an operator of multiple cable systems. For example, Hathway, Siti Cable, In TV are MSOs who operate either directly or via small cablewallahs. When cable TV was first introduced in India, small entrepreneurs set up their private cable companies, providing anywhere between seven to twenty channels to their local neighborhoods. They put up their own cable dish to down-link the broadcast signals from the satellite. Up until 1997, this was the only way one could access cable television; but this changed with the entry of the Multi Service Operators, who used better technology to provide clearer pictures, better sound and up to a 100 channels.

The broadcaster up-links the signal to their channel via satellite. The MSO down-links this signal, using a control room or a rear end. Inside the control room would be a set of RF signal modulators. Scientific Atalanta is an industry standard in India that provides control room equipment to various MSOs. The MSOs, which started off with analog technology to transmit their signals, are now moving to digital cable, delivering cable television as digital data instead of an analog frequency.

Because many MSOs continue to use analog transmission for low-numbered channels, and digital transmission for higher channels, a typical digital cable box is also able to convert traditional analog cable signals. Despite the advance of cable-ready television sets, most users need a cable box to receive digital channels. However, customers who do not subscribe to any digital channels can go without; MSOs provide "basic cable" service within the analog range, avoiding the need for distributing a box. However, advanced carrier services such as pay per view and video on demand will require a box.

Digital television allows for a higher quality and quantity of cable TV signals. Digital transmission is compressed and allows a much greater capacity than analog signals it almost completely eliminates interference. Digital converters have the same purpose as analog ones but are able to receive digital cable signals. With more data than analog in the same bandwidth, the system delivers superior picture and sound quality.

The MSO further re-transmits the RF signal from to the cablewallah, via coaxial optical cables or simply known as COAX that in turn boosts this signal using amplifiers and provide it to various homes using a common type of optical cable called RG6. The term RG was initially used by the US Military as an abbreviation for Radio Guide, but the term is now obsolete. RG6, in common practice, refers to coaxial cables with an 18 AWG center conductor and 75 ohm characteristic impedance. It typically has a copper-coated steel center conductor and a combination aluminum foil/aluminum braid shield. They are usually fitted with F connector style, in each end.

Once the signal reaches a cablewallah, the responsibility of the MSO ends, and it is up to the Cable Operator to maintain and distribute cable television from there onwards. Once the signal reaches the consumer's home, it is processed by a television converter box, popularly known as a set top box. A set top box is an electronic tunning device that transposes or converts any of the available channels from a cable television service to an analog RF signal on a single channel. The device enables televisions which are not cable ready to receive cable channels.

Modern set top boxes have a descrambling ability. The past three years have seen the entry of Direct to Home Pay TV operators, such as Tata Sky or Dish TV in the market, taking the technology to a new levels of sophistication, where the customers use a small cable dish to down-link the broadcasters signals which are processed with a set top box. In case of premium television, or paid channels, the broadcaster up-links an encrypted or a scrambled signal. When the signal reaches the home of the end user, it is reprocessed using a set top box, thus descrambling it and making it available for viewing on Television. A descrambler must be used with a cable converter box to be able to unencrypt all the premium and pay-per-view channels of a cable television system.

Now, put on that television, forget the tech and get back to the latest IPL match!

With inputs from MSOs, Local Cable Operators and Wikipedia for definitions of terms.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-dark-fibre-files-cable-tv-technology-for-dummies

Centre for Internet and Society

Arguments Against Software Patents in India

Preamble

What are Patents?

Philosophical Justification Against Software Patents

Legal Case Against Software Patents

Practical Reasons Against Software Patents

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

Don't These Cases Show How Software Patents Help Small Companies?

Term of Patents

Software Industry Progressed Greatly Without Patents

Copyright Exists for Software

Insufficient Disclosure

Software Patents Work Against Free/Libre/Open Source Software

Conclusion

When Copyright Goes Bad

Quotes from When Copyright Goes Bad

Making copyright, right

Technological Protection Measures in the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010

Implications: The Good Part

Implications: The Bad Part

Uncertainties

On "shall maintain" and penalties

On "facilitating" and remoteness

More uncertainties

On "purpose" as a criterion in 65A(2)(a)

Conclusion

Exceptions and Limitations in Indian Copyright Law for Education: An Assessment

The 2010 Special 301 Report Is More of the Same, Slightly Less Shrill

Special 301 Report: Unbalanced Hypocrisy

India and the 2010 Special 301 Report

On Copyrights

On Patents

Miscellanea

Conclusion

IIPA's Recommendation for the Special 301 Report

Open Source

Domestic Software

WCT, WPPT, Camcording, and Statutory Damages

Further conclusions

A Guide to Key IPR Provisions of the Proposed India-European Union Free Trade Agreement

Analysis of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010

Existing Copyright Act

Proposed Amendments

Some positive amendments

Some negative amendments

Missed opportunities

Privacy and the Indian Copyright Act, 1857 as Amended in 2010

How do DRM technologies undermine privacy and what safeguards are present in the Indian Law to protect citizens’ right to privacy?

Proposed Legislation

Recommendation

Under the present copyright does a person have the ability to expose privacy infringement?

Current Legislation

Proposed

Recommendation

How does the proposed exception for the disabled undermine privacy?

Proposed Legislation

Recommendation

What is On the horizon?

Examples of Proposed Legislation: The Anti- Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

Recommendation

The Bilski Case - Impact on Software Patents

First Post-Bilski Decision - Software Patent Rejected

Statement of CIS, India, on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty at the 22nd SCCR

Lecture by Eben Moglen and Mishi Choudhary

The 'Dark Fibre' Files: Interview with Jamie King and Peter Mann

In conversation with Jamie and Peter in Bangalore

The 'Dark Fibre' Files: The Grey Market Deficit

The 'Dark Fibre' Files: Cable TV Technology for Dummies