Centre for Internet and Society

Analysing Alice Corporation Pty Ltd v CLS Bank International Et Al

sinha — 2014-08-01T19:09:05Z

The US Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision in Alice Corporation Pty Ltd v CLS Bank International Et Al last month. The decision concerning software related inventions (with respect to carving an exception to “abstract ideas” patent eligibility category) was the most awaited and the final patent ruling of the US’ Supreme Court’s term. This post presents an analysis of the decision and a timeline of landmark US judicial decisions on software patents.

The Court declared Alice Corporation’s patent claims to be invalid by applying the tests and frameworks propounded in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc.(“Mayo”) and Bilski v. Kappos[1] (“Bilski”). You may read CIS’ analysis of the Bilski decision here and its impact here. A timeline of landmark decisions on software patents is inserted at the end of the analysis.

Background

Section 101 of 35 U. S. Code, 1952 (US Patent Act, 1952) provides that: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent thereof, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”

However, there exist certain judicially recognised exceptions to this section, namely, laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas.[2] Any claims wholly falling under any of these exceptions shall be ineligible for patent protection. [3]

Facts of the case

Alice Corporation’s software related inventions concerned a computer system which helped close financial transactions by avoiding a settlement risk. Specifically, the patent claims (granted by US Patents and Trademarks Office (“USPTO”)) involved, inter alia (1) a method for exchanging financial obligations, (2) a computer system as a third-party intermediary, and (3) a computer-readable medium (“CRM”) containing program code for performing the method of exchanging obligations.

CLS Bank filed for a declaratory judgment action seeking non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the patents. The district court granted a summary judgment[4] rendering the impugned patents invalid. Alice appealed in the Federal Circuit which reversed[5] the district court decision and found that the patent claims were not directed to an “abstract idea”, therefore were patent-eligible subject matter. Consequently CLS Bank appealed for an en banc hearing, which led to the Federal Circuit reversing its decision and ruling that the patents were indeed directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.[6] This decision was rather fragmented consisting of seven opinions without any clear majority[7], and did not address any of the unanswered issues pertaining to software patenting in wake of the Mayo and Bilski rulings.

Alice filed a certiorari writ at the Supreme Court which was granted in 2013, and the Court in the instant ruling affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision by invalidating the patents. The opinion was authored by Justice Clarence Thomas. Relying on Bilski, the Court held that the claims were not patent eligible under section 101 since they were drawn to an “abstract idea”. It expressed the importance of pre-empting patenting of concepts fundamental to scientific and technological progress.

Determination of patent-worthiness of the subject matter

To ensure the openness of fundamental scientific concepts the Court highlighted the pressing need to “distinguish between patents that claim the ‘building blocks’ of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more.” The latter would qualify as a patent-eligible invention after the said transformation. However, instead of formulating a test to distinguish between the two kinds of claims, it went ahead and applied the framework devised in Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus. In the instant case, the Court elucidated on section 101, stating that:

“Section 101 framework has two parts: (1) determine if the claim at issue is directed towards an abstract idea; and (2) examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an inventive “concept” sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.”

The Court applied the first part by turning to its recent decision in Bilski v. Kappos and held that the patent claims were indeed directed towards an abstract idea. The Court explained, illustratively, that in Bilski v. Kappos the claim consisted of a method for hedging against financial risk and in the instant case the claim consists of the concept of intermediated settlement. “Like the hedging risk in Bilski, the concept of intermediated settlement is “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” The Court squarely rejected Alice’s argument that an “abstract idea” is merely confined to “pre-existing, fundamental truths which exist in principle apart from any human action.” It refrained from setting any definitive limitations on the “abstract idea” category.

Applying the second part of the framework, the Court concluded that Alice’s claims merely involved implementing a method on a generic computer which was insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The implementation of a method on a generic computer did not qualify as an “additional (inventive) element.” The Court reiterated Bilski v. Kappos at this point, stating (in the instant case) “..none of the hardware recited by the system claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers."

Observations and Implications

1. Reiterated focus on substance of claim - The Court concentrated on substance of the claim and not form thereof. It “warned” against interpretation of section 101 in ways that make patent eligibility depend simply on the draftsman’s art. The Court noted that the CRM and apparatus/system claims were only “transformed method claims”. This highlighted the prevalent style of drafting claim sets (CRM, apparatus/system, method) when the hardware/apparatus used was generic.

2. USPTO soon thereafter issued “Preliminary Examination Instructions [8]” – As per the memorandum, this decision "neither creates a per se excluded category of subject matter, such as software or business methods, nor imposes any special requirements for eligibility of software or business methods." Further, examiners have been instructed to apply the framework set forth in the Mayo case, “to analyze all claims directed to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas for subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”

This instruction has had twofold implications –

The Bilski standard was followed to determine the eligibility of “abstract ideas”[9], and Mayo was applied in the “laws of nature” category[10]. Now Mayo shall be uniformly applicable to both categories, and also all statutory classes of claims, not just method claims.

The memorandum also has illustrated the theoretical exposition of the Court on “abstract ideas” by stating that abstract ideas include:

· Fundamental economic practices;

· Certain methods of organizing human activities;

· An idea of itself; and,

· Mathematical relationships / formulas.

It also exemplifies the limitations which may allow patent eligibility of an “abstract idea”:

· Improvements to another technology or technical fields;

· Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; and

· Meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.

What can you patent after Alice Corporation v CLS Bank?

Evidently, the Court did not seize the opportunity to plug gaps in the framework propounded by it in an earlier decision (Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc.[11]]). It refrained from pronouncing a definitive test (to the extent avoided mentioning software patent in the judgment). Instead it relied on its recent decisions, inter alia, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc.(“Mayo”) and Bilski v. Kappos[12]. In consideration of the illustrative reasoning provided by the Court, and it declining from delving into setting of any parameters to define an “abstract idea” and to not clarify the second prong in the Mayo test; the decision completely deals with the rejection of Alice’s patents. A few aspects have emerged to be applicable precedents-wise. However, the decision is bound to limit poor quality software related inventions, at both appeals and prosecution stage. To conclude, the Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of software related inventions, without addressing pressing issues on the existing framework.

Timeline of US Court decisions on software patents

2014

Alice Corporation v CLS Bank [13]

SCOTUS declared Alice Corporation’s patent claims invalid by applying tests previously held in the cases of Mayo Medical Laboratories v Prometheus Laboratories [14] and Bilski v Kappos [15]. The principle question in the instant case was whether the claims spoke directly to an abstract idea- which would render the claims invalid on the basis of being patent ineligible subject matter.
The Court elucidated on section 101, stating that:

2012

Mayo Medical Laboratories v Prometheus Laboratories [16]

SCOTUS ruled that Prometheus Laboratories’ process patent which provided correlations between blood test results and the patient’s health in determining an appropriate dosage of a specific medication for the patient, was essentially a correlation of that of a law of nature, which was a judicially recognised exception to patentable subject matter.

2010

Bilski v Kappos [17]

SCOTUS upheld the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in In re Bilski. It however, rejected the lower court’s holding that “machine-or-transformation test” was the sole test for patent subject matter eligibility.

2008

In re Bilski [18]

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit narrowed the scope for patenting software and business methods and declared the “machine-or-transformation test” as the sole determinative test to decide the patent eligibility of subject matter. The claim in question consisted of a method for hedging against financial risk.

1998

State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group [19]

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a software patent granted to Signature Financial Group. The case is widely quoted as one of the first judicially recognised software patents- it set the stage for a deluge of software patent grants in the US.[20] The invention in question was a business method.
The Court held that an invention was patentable if it involved some practical application and produced a “useful, concrete and tangible result.”

1995

In Re Beauregard [21]

A claim which includes a manufactured article containing a Computer Readable Medium and instructions anointed as a “Beauregard claim”. Illustratively, floppy disks, CD-ROMS, etc would include a Beauregard claim.

1980s

Diamond v. Diehr [22] (1981)

SCOTUS held that a physical machine or a process making use of a mathematical algorithm which involves “transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing” is patent eligible subject matter even if it includes a software component.

1970s

Parker v. Flook [23] (1978)

The Court held that unless the implementation of an algorithm was novel and non-obvious, the algorithm shall be regarded as prior-art, hence would be patent ineligible subject matter.

Gottschalk v. Benson [24] (1972)

SCOTUS addressed the patentability of software for the first time. The Court rejected a “process” patent for a method to convert binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary numerals on a general purpose digital computer since it was solely directed to an algorithm (patent ineligible subject matter).

[1] 561 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 95 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (2010).

[2] Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 206 USPQ 193 (1980).

[3] ibid.

[4] 768 F.Supp.2d 221, 252 (D.D.C. 2011).

[5] 685 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

[6] 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

[7] ibid.

[8] USPTO, Memo to the Patent Examining Corps, “Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al”, 2014.

[9] USPTO, “Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos”, 2010.

[10] USPTO, Memo to the Patent Examining Corps,“2012 Interim Procedure for Subject Matter Eligibility of Process Claims Involving Laws of Nature”, 2012.

[11] 566 U.S. ___ ,132 S. Ct. 1289, 101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1961 (2012).

[12] 561 U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 95 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (2010).

[13] 573 U.S. __ (2014); 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976, 2014 ILRC 2109 (U.S. 2014) [2014 BL 170103].

[14] 566 U.S. ___ ,132 S. Ct. 1289, 101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1961 (2012)

[15] 561 U. S. 593 (2010)

[16] 566 U.S. ___ ,132 S. Ct. 1289, 101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1961 (2012)

[17] 561 U. S. 593 (2010)

[18] 545 f.3d 943 (2008)

[19] 149 F.3d 1368; 47 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1596

[20] “1998 July The State Street software patents decision” available at <http://www.thomasalspaugh.org/pub/fnd/ipswd-timeline.html#y1998-StateStreet> (last accessed July 29, 2014)

[21] 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995)

[22] 450 U.S. 175 (1981)

[23] 437 U.S. 584 (1978)

[24] 409 U.S. 63 (1972)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/analysing-alice-corporation-pty-ltd-v-cls-bank-international-et-al

The National Public Meeting on Software Patents

pranesh — 2011-08-23T03:02:56Z

On Saturday, October 4, 2008, the Centre for Internet and Society, with the support of eighteen other organization, held a meeting on the National Public Meeting on Software Patents in the United Theological College campus. The aim of the event was to explore various issues surrounding software patents, especially from the perspective of the draft Patent Manual.

After introductions by Sunil Abraham of CIS, the discussions were kicked off by Sudhir Krishnaswamy (an Assistant Professor at National Law School), who spoke about typology of laws; principle-based arguments for excluding software from patenting; policy-based arguments for the same; and lastly, strategies for combating the patent manual. About the rationale behind excepting software ("computer programmes per se") from patentability, he theorised that given the location of "computer programmes per se" in section 3(k) of the Act, surrounded as it is by "mathematical or business method" and "algorithms", the exception seems to be a principle-based one and not a policy-based one. He also talked about what he saw as the practical realities of the Patent Office, and questioned the role the Draft Manual would actually play in the decisions of Patent Examiners.

He listed out economic arguments as:

Inapplicability of the incentive arguments. The software industry does not need patents since copyright covers software, and even if incentives are required, that is incentive enough;
Return on investment. Short shelf-life, and hence 17-year patent terms are irrelevant when the shelf-life is so small;
New intermediaries are created, who are neither producers nor consumers of software. These intermediaries who help in price-discovery. They discover value in patents which were previously thought neglected by the process known as patent trolling.

Apart from these, he also briefly talked of the legal arguments around software patents, and argued that the question is not only about copyright vs. patent, but also about property vs. contract. He asked questions such as: "What role does copyright play in the software industry, or is contract more important?", and pointed out that while this might have been addressed around a decade ago, those questions need to be revisited given the current scenario. Further, he proposed that the strategies should not revolve solely around the Patent Act and Draft Manual, but around pre- and post-grant oppositions as well.

Prabir Purkayastha of the Delhi Science Forum and Knowledge Commons spoke next, giving a quick run-through of the history, both legal and philosophical, surrounding software patents in India and in the U.S. and Europe (pointing out that most of the wordings of Draft Manual on this point are borrowed from a similar document in the U.K.). He asked the question of why people are opposing software patents. Is it because it is damaging to 'public interest', because it bad for Indian domestic software industry, or because it is an abstract idea which is sought to be patented in the guise of something else? He concluded that ultimately it is not the manual that groups are opposing, but the notion of software patents themselves. Thus, he focussed on how the phrase "per se" used in the Act ought to be interpreted by the Patent Office so as to give credence to the Indian Parliament's rejection (in 2005) of the 2004 patent ordinance (in which section 3(k) read: "a computer programme per se other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware"). Lastly, he talked about the various strategies to be employed in the fight against software patents, including pre- and post-grant oppositions.

Dr. Nagarjuna G. of the Free Software Foundation of India focussed on what he termed "the absurdity of software patents". He emphasised how software requires an interpreter or hardware, and hence talk of "software per se" often becomes meaningless. Further, he underlined how embedding software in hardware was not innovation in itself, and stressed ont he changing notions of software and hardware as we evolve technologically. His equation of software with abstract ideas gives us a glimpse into the foundation of his objection to software patents.

First up in the second session (which was more focussed on the manual, and the law in India) was Prashant Iyengar of the Bangalore-based Alternative Law Forum. He first listed out the different kinds of objections to software patents, including the point that there are only limited ways of thinking about programming, as Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming shows. Then he went on to go through the history of software patents in India, from the first software patent, granted in 1996, through the 2002 Amendment, the 2004 Ordinance, the 2005 Amendment, and the 2005 and 2008 Draft Manuals. He looked at the vocabulary surrounding software patents, including the words "per se" and "as such", and the cases and legislations from which the language used in the Draft Manual might have been borrowed. He also started a fruitful debate on the different ways to attack the implicit inclusion of that which is not "computer programmes per se" within the scope of patentable subject matter.

After Prashant was Venkatesh Hariharan of Red Hat. He spoke on the practical benefits and harms of software patents, and spoke at length about the difference between legal protection of software in the form of patents and via copyright. He pointed to data showing that lawyers are the ones who benefit most from software patents, and that software developers were the ones who suffered most. Pointing to such practical issues such as how does one go about coding a simple e-commerce transaction when more than 4000 patents have already been granted in that area, he brought down the level of discussion from abstract notions of laws and legalities to practical experiences of software programmers.

Next, Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society made a presentation on a small sample of software patents that have been applied for in India, and pointed out the infirmities in both the patents that have been applied for, as well as the problems in uncovering these patents because of various errors on the Indian Patent Office website. Going through a few of the patent applications, he showed how a great number applications have very badly worded abstracts, filled with weasel words, whose sole purpose is obfuscating the fact that what is being applied for is a software patent. This, he pointed out, made it difficult to both determine the scope of the applications (subject matter) as well as the innovations contained in the invention (novelty and non-obviousness), and thus difficult to examine from the perspective of pre-grant oppositions.

After these presentations, the meeting continued with the Open House session which had many people making presentations, including Abhas Abhinav of DeepRoot Linux, Arun M. of FSF India, and Joseph C. Matthew, who is the IT Adviser to the Chief Minister, Kerala. With the wrapping up of this session, the proceedings for the day came to a close.

Coverage in the press

Audio Recordings and Slides

The Principles of Patent Law and Introduction to Software Patents

Sudhir Krishnaswamy (National Law School) | mp3 | ogg
Prabir Purkayastha(Delhi Sience Forum) (Knowledge Commons) |mp3 | ogg
Nagarjuna G.(Free Software Foundation of India) | mp3 | ogg

Software Patents in India: The Indian Patent Act and the Draft Patent Manual

Prashant Iyengar(Alternative Law Forum) | mp3 | ogg
Venkatesh Hariharan(Red Hat) | mp3 | ogg

Software Patent Applications in India

Pranesh Prakash (Centre for Internet and Society) | mp3 | ogg | ppt

Open House

Abhas Abhinav (DeepRoot Linux) | mp3 | ogg

Arun M.(Free Software Foundation of India)| mp3 | ogg
Joseph Mathew (IT Adviser to the Chief Minister, Kerala)| mp3 | ogg

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/the-national-public-meeting-on-software-patents

Research Project on Open Video in India

pranesh — 2011-08-23T02:51:36Z

Open Video Alliance and the Centre for Internet and Society are calling for researchers for a project on open video in India, its potentials, limitations, and recommendations on policy interventions.

Project Timeline

From mid-April to mid-July.

Summary of Outputs

A 15-20 page paper surveying the online video environment in India and the opportunities it presents for creative expression, political participation, social justice, and other such concerns. The paper should deal with the structural limitations of the medium (e.g.: limited bandwidth, IP lobbies discourage re-appropriation of cultural materials, online video is inaccessible to the deaf, and so on) and how they can be addressed. Recommendations should be bold but in touch with the real policy and business frameworks of present-day India.
Several 1-2 page briefs on specific policy matters like: where is jurisdiction being exercised? what are the policy inflections? and, what interventions are needed to solve the structural limitations of the medium?

Survey Paper

The survey paper should describe the online video scenario in India, and three or more policy tensions. The paper should focus on areas of intellectual property rights, network issues, standards, device freedom and interoperability, accessibility, etc. The Open Video Alliance website[ova] for a complete list of relevant issues.

Overall, it should paint both a qualitative as well as a quantitative picture of online video in India, and in which structural improvements are needed (if any) to empower individuals.This paper should not be viewed as a recommendation to policymakers but instead as a general interest document which will inform and appeal to many audiences. While we expect the paper to span several distinct issues, there should be a prevailing narrative to weave them together.

Basic Assumptions

We want online video to be a participatory and collaborative social medium powered by open source. We also value the ability of individuals to express themselves using these tools, and the ability of new entrants to challenge incumbents and innovate on top of existing technologies. No time is needed to be spent establishing these values—instead, through this paper we try to identify structural improvements to the online video medium. How do we get from the status quo to the ideal open video environment? What investments must be made? What protections must be put into place for users, producers, etc.? Further, we should be able to make some broad recommendations to governments, foundations, and big institutions.

Because the network and IP enforcement environment in India are still malleable, we want to stress that there are many possible shapes that the online video medium could take. Our goal is to shine some light on how a medium that privileges the values outlined above could take shape.

Suggested Methodology

First, you would need to carry out a basic survey of the literature. Second, you should talk to various organizations using video, discover what they consider the structural limitations of online video, and what might be considered open video practices: some are legal, some are technical. You would use this data to direct original research and weave your findings into an engaging narrative.

Next Steps

You send 2 writing samples, a CV, and letter of recommendation;
We'll discuss the unifying themes and identify a more detailed timeline;
We produce a contract;
We Pick a regular time to meet every other week, to track progress.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/open-video-research

World Day Against Software Patents

pranesh — 2013-01-16T07:15:16Z

A global coalition of more than 80 software companies, associations and developers has declared the 24th of September to be the "World Day Against Software Patents". The Hindu, a national daily dedicated one page of its Bangalore edition to software patents and software freedom. Deepa Kurup contributed written two articles titled "Will patenting take the byte out of IT here?" and "How would it be if you read only one type of book?" which reflects some of the concerns of the Free/Libre/Open Source Software community.

Will patenting take the byte out of IT here? [link]

Deepa Kurup

There has been little debate on patent laws and the software industry. Today is World Day Against Software Patents.

IT software, services and outsourcing industry has been rooting for software patenting
Delhi Patent Office receives around 50 applications for software patents every month

BANGALORE: Picture this. Indian mathematicians came up with the concept of the “zero” — often touted as India’s greatest contribution to civilisation — and got a patent for it. By now they would have raked in inestimable amounts in royalty. Seems preposterous? Members of the Free Software community say that patenting every other algorithm would be somewhat in the same league.

While there has been substantial discussion on how patents will affect the pharmaceutical sector, there has been little debate about its implications on the software industry. To the layman, software patenting sounds like an abstract issue applicable to an even more abstract domain. However, with a growing software industry which is trying to spread its indigenous roots, the issue becomes an important one.

Traditionally, software comes under the Copyright Law (just like any literary work) and anyone who writes a program owns it. After Indian Parliament in 2005 scrapped an ordinance which declared “software in combination with hardware” patentable, the controversial and ambiguous clause — “software per se” — has now resurfaced in a recently formulated Patent Manual.

And how will the common man be affected by this proposed change in the patent manual? For example, when Global Patent Holdings patented usage of images on websites, a bunch of small and big companies had to cough up to $50 million each. And where does this cost reflect? “The consumer will find that products will get a lot more expensive. Take a DVD player which has about 2,000 patents (many of them software-related). Every time a local company makes a DVD player, they have to pay royalties and the costs will naturally be reflected on the sale price,” says Sunil Abraham of Centre for Internet and Society, a research and advocacy organisation.
Backdoor entry

The Free Software community feels that patents will make a backdoor entry, courtesy this manual and that ongoing public consultation (by the Patent Office) does not take their voices into account. Mr. Abraham says: “We feel that the powerful software lobbies around are pushing for this clause. If allowed, it will affect the basis of innovation, and will in turn affect the industry.” While the Bangalore consultation was “postponed indefinitely,” the Patent Office in its Delhi meeting said this issue called for an “exclusive meeting with the software industry.”

The powerful IT software, services and outsourcing industry has been rooting for software patenting. Under the guile of the seemingly innocuous clause in the Indian Patent Bill 2005, software companies and the MNC lobby is trying to carve out a slice for the specific “software embedded with hardware” industry saying that it will increase the value of indigenous home-grown software, pump up software exports and thereby rake in greater revenue.

However, the other side of the story is worth telling. Software, per se, is simply a set of instructions to carry out a certain process. Software experts put forth the argument that big corporations — with money, muscle and hired talent — will seek to impose patents along the software value chain, starting from source code to the recent demand for “embedded software.”

Sources in the Delhi Patent Office say that they receive around 50 applications for software patents every month. In the U.S. 25,000 patents are granted every year. In a software-driven world, blurring the lines between software and software “per se” could be risky. “Patenting is an expensive and tedious process. The challenge for every programmer would be to verify each time, to see if any two lines of his code would infringe upon a patent. In the U.S., a single verification can cost as much as $5,000. The fundamental issue is that if I arrive at anything independently, should I not use it only because someone had got it patented before me?” asks a senior official at Red Hat, an open source service provider.

A paper written by members of the Alternative Law Forum (ALF), the case against software patenting is presented as a very basic one. “Software evolves much faster than other industries, even with its own hardware industry. Microprocessors double in speed every two years. So, a patent that lasts up to 17 years (minimum period -15) is alarming. In this field, the idea underlying may remain the same but a product has to be replaced on an average of every two years,” it states. The paper also points out that in software “research costs are little because ideas are as abundant as air.”

Prashant Iyengar of ALF feels that patent laws will effectively curtail innovation, like it has done in the U.S. “Software, unlike other industries in India, is end-driven but is also on a “body shopping” model. Given that, a strong start-up company will be either be shut down or bought over if patent laws come in,” he explains.

How would it be if you read only one type of book? [link]

Deepa Kurup

Little or no attention is paid to what is being taught in schools and colleges

BANGALORE: A computer literacy programme in a public sector organisation teaches the following modules: MS Office, MS Power Point, MS Excelsheet and Internet Explorer. A glance through the “computer syllabus” in most schools, and the list is similar. All items on this checklist have one thing in common: proprietary software. So, if every computer user is being taught exclusively on proprietary platforms, would they ever be comfortable switching to the easier, cheaper and readily available alternatives?

Advocates of Free Software — software which can be used, studied and distributed without restriction — say that this is a ploy by proprietors to turn learners into potential customers. They allege that educational systems and the State are in cahoots with these large corporations which insist that children and learning adults be taught to only follow their system.

In a recent meeting with a State Government official about the use of Free Software on e-governance platforms, the official complained that none of his officials knew how to use it or repair it if things went wrong.

“This takes you to the root of the problem,” says Sunil Abraham of Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. “Students are taught to use only proprietary software. The Government is subsidising training in proprietary technology and little or no attention is paid to what is being taught in schools and colleges,” he explains.

The “back-office” tag that our IT industry has learnt to live with is also a product of this malaise, experts point out. “When students learn only proprietary software, they will qualify only as computer operators and never learn about using the nuts and bolts of the profession. This is one of the reasons why there are no innovative products that come out of this country,” says Mr. Abraham.
Simple analogy

A simple analogy would be that of a child taking up reading as a habit. If a child reads a lot of books, they say, they learn to write and express better. Academics feel that in the absence of any familiarity with Free Software, where the source is easily available, engineering students and computer graduates never get to read any code and are thus hardly familiar with the languages.

FOSS supporters have written to the Ministry of Human Resource Development and several universities to point this out. Anivar Aravind, a member of Free Software Users Group, says that the progress so far has been staggered. Recently, CDAC and Anna Univeristy (KB Chandrashekar Research Centre) came up with a Free Software syllabus and offers trained to teachers in engineering colleges.
Cost factor

A study by International Open Source Network (an UNDP initiative) study on FOSS and education states that using open source software could reduce the costs involved in ICT education significantly. In a country like ours, this fact that Open Source Software usually involves low or no cost would be perceived as an important step towards reducing the digital divide. With no licensing fee, they can be made available on CD or downloaded.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/world-day-against-software-patents

Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions in abeyance

sinha — 2015-12-23T10:06:53Z

The CRI Guidelines were heavily criticised for their failure to address the ambiguities created by Section 3(k) and for expanding the scope of software patent eligibile subject-matter, inter alia. Following several representations and submissions by interested stakeholders, the Controller General has moved the Guidelines into abeyance, until discussions with stakeholders are complete and contentious issues are resolved, and is a welcome step.

CIS has consistently made submissions to the Indian Patent Office on the issue of software patenting( 2015, 2013, 2010). The latest submission was made in September 2015, in response to the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions, 2015(“CRI Guidelines/ Guidelines”) in which we highlighted several concerns and presented solutions, and also proposed a definition of "computer programme per se".

In view of the representations made to the Patent Office, on 14th December 2015, the Controller General issued an order to keep the Guidelines in abeyance. Till the issues therein are resolved, the existing provisions on S. 3(k) of chapter 08.03.05.10 of the Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure will continue to be applicable.

The primary fault with the Guidelines lay in the fact that, legally, its scope of was in excess of section 3(k) of the Indian Patent's Act, 1970 (parent statute). The Controller General's order acknowledging the representations and submissions made in response to the Guidelines, and consequently keeping the Guidelines in abeyance is a welcome step.

You may access the order here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-in-abeyance

Second Response to Draft National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance

pranesh — 2009-07-07T16:49:37Z

Another draft (labelled "version 2", dated May 26, 2009) of the draft national policy on open standards for e-governance was made available to Fosscomm, while many software companies were speaking out against NASSCOM's position on the policy. CIS drafted a second response addressing both the allegations against NASSCOM as well as the few shortcomings we perceive in the draft policy.

To
Shri Shankar Aggrawal
Joint Secretary (e-Governance)
Department of Information Technology
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Dear Sir,

Sub: Comments on Draft National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance (version 2)

I am writing on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, which is a Bangalore-based civil society organization involved both in research and policy advocacy. Public accountability and digital pluralism are two of our core concerns, and it is for this that we are writing to you today. As a natural corollary of our mission, we aim at representing the concerns of citizens and consumers. You would recall that we had submitted comments to the call for comments you had put out for the draft National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance last year (archived at <http://cis-india.org/advocacy/os/iosp/the-response/>).

We have recently received what appears to be a newer draft (version 2) of the National Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance, dated May 26, 2009. We are yet again very pleased to note the progressive nature of this document and wish to congratulate the government on its decision to promote the interests of the citizens of India over the narrow partisan interests of a few companies which wish to promote proprietary standards.

It has brought to our notice by some in the software industry that the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM) has argued for the dilution of the definition of open standards by including standards licensed under “reasonable and non-discriminatory” terms to be considered “open”, and has also called for multiple standards in the same domain to be considered valid as a rule under the policy. We believe both these demands go against the interest of consumers of standards — which in this case is the Indian government — and are thus against the interest of citizens as well, since the Indian government handles data on behalf of its citizens.

Even “reasonable and non-discriminatory” terms of licensing of standards are in fact discriminatory as they prevent the development of free/libre/open source software based on those standards. And while having multiple implementations of a standard is beneficial as it increases consumer (i.e., governmental) choice, having multiple incompatible standards is detrimental to the government's interest as the policy itself recognizes in paragraph 4.2, and the very purpose (as enumerated in paragraphs 1, 3, and 4) of having standards is defeated. Even if the multiple standards are bi-directionally interoperable, additional costs are incurred in having concurrent multiple standards.

Thus, one hopes that the the threshold of “national interest” mentioned in paragraph 6.4.1 is set to a high level. Lastly, the views put forth by NASSCOM seem not to be truly legitimate as it has been the complaint of some that NASSCOM did not hold an open consultation with its own members before formulating its views. There are software giants, including IBM, Sun, and Red Hat, that have openly criticized the NASSCOMM position on open standards. More importantly, NASSCOM's position does not concur with what we believe is in the best interest of small and medium software enterprises, which constitute the bulk of the Indian software industry. We pray that you shall keep this in mind while considering NASSCOM's views.

We believe that apart from the technical reasons to favour open standards, there are many public interest reasons as well. We believe that the adoption of open standards is a step towards the promotion of equitable access to knowledge to all the people of our country. We further believe that public accountability will be served greatly by adoption of an open standards policy by the Central and State governments. While even developed countries (such as those of the EU) are mandating open standards in all governmental departments, processes, and interactions, it is developing countries that stand to gain most from open standards. Proprietary standards place a larger burden on developing economies than developed as developing economies have a greater need to participate in the global network by using standards, but do have lesser capabilities than developed economies in terms of paying for royalties.

On the document itself, while there are many reasons to hail it, we believe there are still a few shortcomings which we wish to bring to your notice.

Issue 1: Possibility of following letter of policy while violating its spirit

Explanation
Sometimes private companies can interfere with the standardisation process by exerting undue influence on the members of the standard setting body. That such undue influence have been sought to be applied even in India recently shows that this is not mere conjecture or idle speculation. Given this background, the document should note this as a problem and note that remedial measures could be undertaken in the event such undue influence comes to light.

Resolution
Introduce language, such as that used in the EU EIF, stating:
“Practices distorting the definition and evolution of open standards must be addressed immediately to protect the integrity of the standardisation process.”

Issue 2: Patenting and licensing of government-developed standards

Explanation
Paragraph 6.3 of the draft policy allows the government to opt for the development of a new standard by a Government of India-identified agency in case no standard is found to meet the government's functional requirements. However, it is not clear under what terms this standard will be available.

Resolution
Introduce a paragraph 6.3.1 stating:
“Any standard developed by or on behalf of the government shall be patent-free and the specifications of such a standard will be published online and will be available to all for no cost. Along with the standard, the government shall also provide, or shall cause to be provided, a free/libre/open source reference implementation of that standard.”

Issue 3: No framework provided for review or phasing out interim standards

Explanation
Paragraph 6.2 permits the government to adopt a non-open “interim” standard (one which does not fulfil all the mandatory requirements of open standards as laid out in 5.1) if no open standard exists in the specific domain for which the standard is required. This however does not have a clause necessitating the phasing out of such an interim standard.

Resolution
A review mechanism should be provided for periodic evaluation of all standards selected by the government, especially those designated as interim standards. A new paragraph 7.1.1 could be added:
“All standards selected through the processes outlined in this policy shall undergo an annual review by the Apex Body on e-Governance Standards, and all those designated as interim standards shall be reviewed biannually.”

Issue 4: Problematic definition in the glossary

Explanation
In Appendix A, the definition of “patents” (A.12) states: “The additional qualification 'utility patents' is used in countries such as the United States to distinguish them from other types of patents but should not be confused with utility models granted by other countries. Examples of particular species of patents for inventions include biological patents, business method patents, chemical patents and software patents.” Many of these references are U.S.-specific and are not valid forms of patents in India (e.g. biological patents, business method patents, and software patents).

Resolution
Delete the last two sentences in A.12

We once again wish to compliment the government on developing such a strong policy on open standards, and hope that our suggestions are incorporated into the text of the final version. We further hope that the policy will be notified at the earliest, as there has already been considerable opportunity for the public and industry to comment on the draft versions of the policy.

Yours sincerely,

Pranesh Prakash
Programme Manager
Centre for Internet and Society

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/standards/second-response