Centre for Internet and Society

MHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from NALSAR

nehaa — 2016-05-15T07:43:20Z

This post provides a factual description about the operation of Ministry of Human Resource Development IPR Chair’s Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach (IPERPO) scheme in NALSAR.

The author has analysed all the data received under various heads such as income, grants from MHRD, planned and non-planned expenditure, nature and frequency of programmesorganised and the allocation of funds for the same. Throughout the course of observation and presentation of the analysed data, the author seeks to trace the presence of unjustified underutilisation of funds by the aforementioned university as provided by the MHRD during the period of 2013-2014.

To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to the NALSAR University of Law on 09/02/2015 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to RTI application was received on 12/03/2015.

These are the documents received by CIS from NALSAR:

For the response to the RTI application click here
For complete supporting documents click here

Hereinafter, in order to receive any information about NALSAR’s RTI reply, kindly refer to the above mentioned links. Following are the queries mentioned in the RTI application along with their replies.

Reports on the implementation of the IPERPO scheme of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the implementation of the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the scheme at NALSAR
Reply: NALSAR has submitted the documents required under this track.
Documents detailing the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO Scheme
Reply: Documents pertaining to the financial year 2013-14 have been submitted by the University.
Documents relating to receipts of utilisation certificates and audited expenditure statements and matters related to all financial sanctions with regard to funds granted to the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO scheme at NALSAR.
Reply: The University has provided utilisation certificatefor the financial year of 2013-14.
Details of the IPR Chair’s salary under the IPERPO Scheme indicating whether this amount is paid over and above the professional’s usual salary
Reply: The University has submitted all the documents pertaining to the aforementioned query.

Comparative Analysis between University Response and the guidelines of MHRD Scheme Document
The Scheme Document of MHRD (http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf) is a comprehensive document which consists of guidelines regarding Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach. It talks about a list of objectives, purposes, conditions and eligibility criteria for a University to ensure in order to implement IPERPO in a truest sense. This document provides the procedural as well as qualifying conditions for an Institute to ensure or fulfil before applying for the MHRD grant. Some of these conditions include maintenance of utilization certificates, audit reports, expenditure statements and event information which would be open to access on demand by MDHR or Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

A. Objectives
In order to fulfil the objectives mentioned in the scheme document, NALSAR undertook following activities:
a. Faculty attendance at WIPO sessions.
b. Publication of IPR Journal
c. Expansion of the IPR section in the loibrary
B. Eligibility
NALSAR is recognized by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, it fulfils the eligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme document.
Financial Analysis
The University has provided the utilization certificates for the financial year of 2013-14.
A. Financial year 2013-14

The University received a grant of Rs. 40,00,000 from the Ministry of Human Resource and Development. Further, the unutilized balance of the financial year 2013-13, Rs. 10,02,540 carried over in addition to an interest of Rs. 91,129. The total funds at the University’s disposal amounted to Rs. 50,93,669. The University incurred an expense of Rs. 37,88,349 leaving Rs. 13,05,320 as unspent balance.

B. Expenditure Analysis

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-nalsar

MHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from IIM, Ahmedabad

nehaa — 2016-05-17T02:31:38Z

The author has analysed all the data received through which, the author seeks to trace the presence of unjustified underutilisation of funds by the aforementioned university as provided by the MHRD during the period of 2003-2014.

To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad on 24/11/2014 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to RTI application was received on 09/12/2014. Following this, a second RTI application was filed by the Centre of Internet and Society on 09/02/21015. The reply to the same was received on 23/02/2015.

These are the documents received by CIS from IIM, Ahmedabad:

For response to first RTI application, click here
For response to second RTI application, click here

Hereinafter, in order to receive any information about IIM Ahmedabad’s RTI reply, kindly refer to the above mentioned links. Following are the queries mentioned in the RTI application along with their replies.

Reports on the implementation of the IPERPO scheme of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the implementation of the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the scheme at IIM Ahmedabad.
Reply: IIM Ahmedabad responded that there has not been any institution of the post of IPR Chair at the University.
Documents detailing the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO Scheme
Reply: The University has provided no documents on the subject.
Documents relating to receipts of utilisation certificates and audited expenditure statements and matters related to all financial sanctions with regard to funds granted to the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO scheme at IIM Ahmedabad.
Reply: The University has provided no documents on the subject.
Details of the IPR Chair’s salary under the IPERPO Scheme indicating whether this amount is paid over and above the professional’s usual salary
Reply: The University has provided no documents on the subject.

A. Objectives

The University has not provided any documents detailing any activities undertaken to further the objectives of the IPERPO scheme.

B. Eligibility

IIM, Ahmedabad is recognized by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, it fulfils the eligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme document.

Financial Analysis

The University has not provided any documents on this subject.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-iim-ahmedabad

Sectoral Innovation Councils on Intellectual Property Rights – RTI Requests + DIPP Responses

Nehaa Chaudhari and Saahil Dama — 2016-05-21T04:34:04Z

CIS filed an RTI application on August 11, 2015, seeking information regarding the functioning of the Sectoral Innovation Council (SInC) on Intellectual Property Rights. This post documents the responses received.

Nisha Kumar assisted in the compilation of this document.

The RTI application can be accessed here.

The following details were received from the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP):

Creation of SInCs

A meeting, under the chairmanship of Sam Pitroda, was held on January 15, 2011, to discuss the setting of SInCs for various ministries. The SInCs would be autonomous and decentralised bodies focused on preparing a Roadmap for a Decade of Innovations in their respective sectors.

SInCs on IPR

The SInC on IPR had 12 members from various stakeholder groups including academicians, research organizations, industries and the government. There were no members on behalf of civil society organizations of non-governmental organizations. The manner and the basis on which these members were selected has not been disclosed.

SInC Meeting 1: September 7, 2011

The list of attendees is available in the file ‘Office Memorandum and list of Members of SInC on IPR’

Attendance
A meeting for the SInC on IPR was held on September 7, 2011 under the chairmanship of the DIPP. This meeting was attended by only 9 members out of 12. Amongst those absent were Dr. Ranbir Singh (National Law University, Delhi), Prof. Govardhan Mehta (IISc, Bangalore) and Mr. Soshil Kumar Jain (Panacea Biotec). Additionally, organizations such as IIT, Delhi and BHEL and Tata Motors were represented by members different from the ones on the original list of members.

Agenda
The agenda and minutes of the meeting are available here

The meeting had three items on the agenda – developing a framework for the National IPR policy, discussion on utility models and co-opting knowledge partners or research institutions for preparation of draft report.

i. Developing a framework for the National IPR strategy

Members were called to give their views and suggestions on the National IPR strategy. Firstly, it was unanimously submitted that measures to increase innovation in the Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) sector had to be adopted. Different means for the same were suggested, such as improving access to databases on patents and non-patents literature, development of product catalogues by SME clusters and making low-cost technology available to SMEs through government acquisition.

Secondly, development of expertise to file pre-grant opposition for preventing grant of frivolous patents was emphasized upon. The members also agreed on identifying ‘white spaces’ that were lacking in innovation.

Finally, the members stressed on introducing a course on IPR in the curriculum of technical and post graduate/research programmes in science. Action point – all members were required to prepare a position paper on the framework of the national IPR strategy within 1 month of the issue of the minutes by the DIPP. It was suggested that the framework should include the philosophy for a National IPR strategy, objectives to encourage IP, measures for modernizing IP offices and interventions for promoting commercialization of IP. The draft framework can be accessed here

ii. Discussion on utility models

The utility model framework can be accessed here

It was agreed that the utility models should be protected through a separate legal framework. The maximum period of protection would be 8 years and the number of claims would be limited to 5. However, members agreed that this should not lead to evergreening of patents. Utility models will be covered in detail in a subsequent post.

iii. Co-opting knowledge partner/research institutions for preparation of draft report

Preparation of a National IPR strategy would require a detailed study of the present IPR scenario and its different aspects.

Action point – National Law School, Bangalore, was co-opted as the knowledge partner for preparing the draft report.

SInC Meeting 2: February 10, 2012

The agenda, office memorandum, list of participants and minutes of the meeting are available here.

Two different lists of attendees submitted in response to the RTI application (found here and here). As per both the lists, all the members were not present at the meeting and several organizations were represented by members different from the ones on the original Council.

The items on the agenda were –

Action taken after meeting 1;
Inputs for draft National IPR strategy; and,
Discussion paper on Utility Models

i. Action taken after meeting 1
The DIPP decided to take care of the administrative infrastructure of the IPR management in the country. The members were asked to give suggestions on the aspects of acquisition, protection and commercialization of IPRs.

It had been decided at the previous meeting that the position papers on the National IPR strategy were to be submitted within 1 month of the release of the minutes. However, only 4 members had given inputs. The remaining members were requested to expedite the same.

Also, National Law School, Bangalore, was unable to contribute to the preparation of the draft National IPR strategy. Hence IIT Delhi was co-opted as the alternate knowledge partner for the same.

ii. Inputs for the draft National IPR strategy

Several submissions were made by the members. Briefly, some of these were –

Diagnosis of reasons for not opting of registration of IPRs by SMEs;
Policy guidelines for the MOUs to be signed between the government and research institutions in case of government funding;
Need for DIPP to come up with policy on IPR ownership and management in case of government funding.

The members also supported the inclusion of a policy in the National IPR strategy to promote commercialization of innovations by individuals, SMEs and public sector units (PSUs).

iii. Discussion paper on Utility Models

Members were of the opinion that a utility model framework should be introduced to encourage individuals and SMEs to innovate. They were requested to expedite their inputs on the draft legal framework for utility models that had been circulated to them (available here)

The date of the next meeting was decided as March 22, 2012.

SInC Meeting 3: August 21, 2012

The office memorandum, list of participants and minutes of the meeting can be accessed here. Instead of the date decided at the previous meeting, the next meeting was held on August 21, 2012, 5 months after the scheduled date. Mr. N. K. Sabharwal was added to the list of members of the SInC on IPR. The grounds and procedure of the addition have not been made available. The new list of members is available here. The list of attendees for meeting 3 was not provided.

The agenda of the meeting was to discuss the draft National IPR strategy prepared by the DIPP on the basis of the comments received from the members of the Council. It is unclear if the remaining members also submitted their comments, as was requested in the previous meeting.

Some of the issues discussed were –
i. Adapting the draft National IPR strategy prepared by DIPP to the local conditions and developmental needs of the country – suggestions such as instituting an IP depository for technologies used in development of products and maintaining a dossier of judicial decisions on IPRs were made.

ii. Reviewing provisions for transfer of IPRs, including a restriction on transfer from an individual to a company.

iii. Making traditional knowledge (TK) of the country accessibly to universities and research institutions – it was suggested that a register should be maintained products developed on the basis of TK. Also, patents granted by the Indian Patent Office should be informed to universities and institutions for capacity building.

iv. Creating a fast tracking system for registration of green technology patents – the suggestion for a fast tracking system for green technology was supported and a similar system was prescribed for food technology.

v. Establishing an incubation fund to assist in research and development and acquisition of IPRs – SMEs would be given access to a patent pool and would be reimbursed up to Rs. 20 lakh for costs incurred in technology acquisition.

It was noted that the suggestions all pertained to the execution of the strategy. Members were requested to furnish suggestions regarding the strategy to the government. The draft strategy would be modified on the basis of the comments received from the members of the Council. It was also decided that the draft paper would be hosted on the website of the DIPP by the third week of September, 2012, for seeking inputs from stakeholders.

The Secretary (IPP) also suggested that the SInC on IPRs be reconstituted to include representatives from the industry and academia. The need for this is unclear since the industry (BHEL, Panacea, Bilcare) and academia (IIT Delhi and IIT Bombay, IISc Bangalore, NLU Delhi) were already represented in the Council.

SInC Meeting 4: April 30, 2013

The list of attendees and the minutes of the meeting can be found here. The Council had not been reconstituted despite the recommendation of the Secretary in the previous meeting.

Merely 6 members out of the total 12 were present for the meeting. Of these, certain organizations, such as BHEL, were also represented by people who had been not been present at any of the past meetings. It was agreed that members would not send representatives for future meetings since they had been nominated by their names. This had been a recurring problem in all the meetings so far. The agenda of the meeting was to discuss the draft IPR strategy and steps that needed to be taken further.

The draft had been prepared on the basis of the comments received from the members and the specific inputs of Mr. Sabharwal. Whether comments had been received from all the members, as had been decided in meeting 1, is unclear. Furthermore, there was no mention of the comments received from stakeholders after the draft paper had been published online in September 2012.

The following decisions were reached by the SInC –
i. The strategy document needed to be improved and made comprehensive to include IP issues relating to information technology, copyright, TK, plant variety protection, etc.
ii. The members were required to suggest 10 monetary and non-monetary incentives for harnessing creativity. The figure seems arbitrarily decided and there is no explanation for how this would affect the draft strategy itself.
iii. BHEL was to prepare a paper on schemes being implemented in the country for promoting innovation.
iv. The draft paper would be circulated after finalization. Thereafter, a two-year plan would be formulated to operationalize the IPR strategy.

Government Meeting 1: June 18, 2013

An office memorandum was sent stating that a meeting to discuss the improvement required in the draft National IPR strategy was scheduled to be held on June 18, 2013. Since no details about the meeting were sent, whether the meeting actually took place and what was discussed in unknown. The office memorandum is available here. The entire National IPR strategy can be read here.

Government Meeting 2: July 29, 2013

List of attendees and minutes of meeting here.

The meeting was held to make the National IPR strategy more comprehensive so that it could have a larger coverage. The meeting was attended by representatives of various government departments and ministries, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and the SInC on IPR, which was represented by N. K. Sabharwal. A plethora of disconnected issues were flagged out. It was mentioned that concerns related to TK such as transboundary issues, sui-generis system for protection of TK and biopiracy should be incorporated into the strategy. It was also proposed that an Act for public funding of R&D should be introduced to foster innovation. Inclusion of a brief module on IPR in high school curriculums was recommended. The participants were requested to furnish comments in a written form to DIPP within a week of the meeting.

SInC Meeting 5: October 9, 2013

Agenda and minutes are available here. Though originally scheduled for August 27, 2013, the meeting was shifted to October 9 due to administrative reasons. The office memorandum for the same is available here. Despite agreeing in meeting 4 that the future meetings would be attended by the members personally, only 6 members were present. Organizations such as National Innovation Council, IIT Delhi and BHEL were represented by people other than the members of the SInC.

There were four items on the agenda –
i. Finalization of the draft National IPR strategy – paragraphs pertaining to setting up a National IP Enforcement Task Force and creating a formal legal regime for protection of trade secrets were removed. The statement mandating organizations to align their innovation strategies to national requirements was also removed.
ii. Work-plan for 2013-15 under the IPR strategy – no discussion on this in the minutes.
iii. Suggestions on monetary and non-monetary incentives for innovation – paper on incentive mechanisms to be prepared by BHEL is available here.
iv. Issues of time period for renewal of strategy and establishing a committee to review the implementation of the strategy – no discussion on this in the minutes.

Additionally, the members were asked to provide textual contributions to the document within 10 days of the meeting to enable its finalization.

Response to Queries Raised in the RTI Application (available here)

Q1. How many meetings has the SInC held since establishment?
DIPP: 5

Q2. Please supply minutes and all related documents of all its meetings.
Provided by the DIPP and have been attached through the post above.

Q3. How much are the members of the SInC paid? Are members paid on the basis of time or number of meetings held?
DIPP: One member, Dr. Karuna Jain, was reimbursed R. 18,374/- for attending the SInC meeting on August 21, 2012. The response, quite clearly, does not answer the question asked.

Q4. Has the SInC done any work or produced any outputs other than the 2012 draft of the National IPR strategy?
DIPP: Yes.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sectoral-innovation-councils-intellectual-property-rights-2013-rti-requests-dipp-responses

MHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from NLU, Jodhpur

nehaa — 2016-05-26T02:03:42Z

Nisha S. Kumar assisted in compilation of the document.

To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to NLU, Jodhpur on 09/02/2015 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to RTI application was received on 12/03/2015.

These are the documents received by CIS from NLU, Jodhpur:

For the reply to the RTI application click here
For the proposal to establish the IPR chair at NLU Jodhpur click here

Hereinafter, in order to receive any information about NLU, Jodhpur’s RTI reply, kindly refer to the above mentioned links. Following are the queries mentioned in the RTI application along with their replies.

Reports on the implementation of the IPERPO scheme of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the implementation of the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the scheme at NLU, Jodhpur.

Reply: NLU, Jodhpur has submitted the documents required under this track for the period of 2008-2015. To view the relevant documents, download the file (2008-09 –Part one,Part two and Part three; 2009-10 – Part one, Part two, Part three and Part four; 2010-11 – Complete; 2011-12 – Part one and Part two; 2012-13 – Part one and Part two; 2013-14 - Complete; 2014-15 - Complete).

Documents detailing the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO Scheme
Reply: NLU, Jodhpur has submitted the documents required under this track for the period of 2008-2010 and the financial year of 2013-2014. To view all the documents submitted by the University in reply,click here.(nlu jodhpur F. No. 10.2008-IC’)
Documents relating to receipts of utilisation certificates and audited expenditure statements and matters related to all financial sanctions with regard to funds granted to the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO scheme at NLU, Jodhpur.
Reply: The University has provided utilisation certificatefor the period of 2008-11 and 2013-14. To view the supporting documents, click here. (nlu jodhpur Utilisation Certificate’)

Comparative Analysis between University Response and the guidelines of MHRD Scheme Document

The Scheme Document of MHRD (http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf) is a comprehensive document which consists of guidelines regarding Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach. It talks about a list of objectives, purposes, conditions and eligibility criteria for a University to ensure in order to implement IPERPO in a truest sense. This document provides the procedural as well as qualifying conditions for an Institute to ensure or fulfil before applying for the MHRD grant. Some of these conditions include maintenance of utilization certificates, audit reports, expenditure statements and event information which would be open to access on demand by MDHR or Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

A. Objectives
In order to fulfil the objectives mentioned in the scheme document, NLU Jodhpur undertook following activities:

Introduction of UG and PG level courses on IPR
Conducting lecture series on the subject of IPR.
Conducting multiple workshops over the years to further the training of teachers as well as at a student level
Hosting numerous conclaves on the subject of IPR and their relation to business
Providing short term course on training of teachers in the field of IPR
Held various symposiums, seminars and conferences for the furtherance of IPR
Invited esteemed professors from the field for guest lectures
Established an IPR library in the IPR cell

B. Eligibility
NLU, Jodhpur is recognized by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, it fulfils the eligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme document.

Financial Analysis
A.Financial year 2008-09

The University received a grant of Rs. 14,00,000 out of which it utilized Rs. 11,90,115 for the implementation of the IPERPO scheme leaving an unspent balance of Rs. 2,09,885.

B. Financial year 2010-11

First installment

The University incurred an expenditure of Rs. 11,27,740 against a grant of Rs. 15,00,000 leaving an unutilized balance of Rs. 3,72,260.

Second Instalment

The University incurred an expenditure of Rs. 26,21,369 against a grant of Rs. 40,00,000 leaving an unspent balance of Rs. 13,78,631 as unutilized balance.

C. Financial year 2013-14

The University incurred an expenditure of Rs. 16,86,566 against a grant of Rs. 36,00,000 leaving an unspent balance of Rs. 19,13,434.

Expenditure Analysis

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-nlu-jodhpur

Modi’s New Intellectual Property Rights Policy Will Only Benefit Players with Deep Pockets

sinha — 2016-05-28T16:02:54Z

The new policy fails to enact a balanced regime and instead is tilted in favour of rights-holders.

The article was published in Wire on May 21, 2016

In November 2014, five national governments wrote to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) to inform the policy-making process of India’s first national intellectual property rights policy (IPR policy). The DIPP received 300 submissions from various other stakeholders, including NGOs and civil society, multinational companies, businesses and trade associations, cutting across various sectors. The policy-making process itself was marred by bizarre, unfair and unexplained steps such as the sudden disbanding of the first think tank put in charge for producing a draft policy, an opaque and long-drawn process of releasing a first draft, the leak of a near-complete final draft and no publication of responses (yet) of the 300 odd submissions that were made by stakeholders. Finally, the DIPP released the policy last week.

Despite the long and extensive drafting process, the policy is tilted in favour of right-holders, and places undue reliance on IPRs to stimulate innovation and growth. It obviously claims otherwise, but there are some fundamental flaws in the policy’s premise which render the DIPP’s claims meaningless. Delving briefly into the subject of IPRs, it is a matter of principle that a balanced intellectual property (IP) regime, i.e. a model that balances rights with adequate limitations/exceptions, contributes optimally to the holistic development and growth of the nation. Limitations or exceptions are flexibilities in the law, which cut down absolute monopoly conferred by IPRs, and ensure that use and sharing of knowledge for purposes such as research, education and access to medicines are not overridden by IP rightholders’ claims. The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement (TRIPS), which is the largest international agreement governing countries’ IPR regimes also promotes the use of these flexibilities to build balanced regimes. The policy does occasionally state its commitment to the TRIPS agreement and the Doha Declaration, but does not commit or spell out any new concrete steps. Thus, it fails to show any seriousness about upholding and promoting a ‘balanced’ regime – in stark comparison to the detailed and surgical manner in which it aims to raise awareness about IPRs and commercialise them.

Unfortunately for the policy, a myopic rationale captures the ambition of the document. The policy document states that, “The rationale… lies in the need to create awareness about the importance of IPRs as a marketable financial asset and economic tool.” As such, the policy fails to recognise the philosophy of welfare and balance embedded in IPRs: to ensure innovation, social, scientific and cultural progress and furtherance of access to knowledge. In all fairness, while the document pays a salutary tribute to objectives such as “achieve economic growth and socio-cultural development, while protecting public interest; also of advancing science and technology, arts and culture, traditional knowledge and biodiversity, transforming knowledge-owned into knowledge shared,” it never rises above its treatment of IPR as a tool to solely serve the interests of rights-holders.

The policy’s attempts to ‘create awareness’ about IPRs through massive outreach and promotion would perhaps be justified, if the singular aim was not the glorification of IPRs. This section implements several steps to induce positivity around IPRs in society to the extent of teaching young students about the benefits of IPRs, which is excessive. While I am of the opinion that awareness building may be important at research centres and industries, a lopsided rights-centric positive view of IPRs should not pass off for ‘awareness’. This is a dangerous view, and will only create a mad race to generate IP and acquire rights.

Chinese copycat?

Unfortunately, it appears that the government is indeed on board with this. I say this because the lopsided view was endorsed by senior Indian Patent Office and DIPP officials at a recent national conference. It is likely that the idea to use the IPR policy as a tool for ‘IPR indoctrination’ to result in staggering IPR generation came to the Indian government from their Chinese counterparts. In 1995, China started conducting elaborate training of its officers, researchers and students to popularise a generation of IPRs and last year the country received 10 lakh patent filings – an international record. At the conference, the officials were in awe of the Chinese statistics, and they were confident of catching up in the next few years. This despite the fact that in China, the race to patent innovations has only led to a proliferation of low value innovations in high numbers. Less than 1% of China’s patents are of intermediate or high value. Thus, China despite its high patent filings shows only a weak innovative performance. Globally, there is enough evidence to show that there is no positive correlation between patent filings and cumulative innovative performance of a country.

Further, the policy in its bid to maximise IPR generation goes to the extent of encumbering public-funded research by IPRs. It suggests that R&D institutions and academia reward researchers based on the degree of IPR creation, which would obviously lead to IPR-driven research. Such an approach would mean that research on less profiteering sectors in terms of IPR revenues would be neglected. Is this how we want our fledgling research and development sector to shape up?

It is disappointing to see how the DIPP has used the policy to strengthen administrative, enforcement and adjudicatory mechanisms for only trade protectionist purposes. The policy is also in contrast with steps taken by other government departments to foster access to knowledge and openness in domains traditionally encumbered by various barriers, including IPRs. For instance, the Department of Biotechnology, Department of Science and Technology has adopted an open access policy applicable to all researchers – this policy ensures that all publications resulting from publicly funded research will be made freely accessible. The Ministry of Law and Justice is in the process of finalising a suitable licence to enable the distribution and sharing of government data. This policy seems at odds, therefore, with other commons-oriented approaches adopted within the government itself.

Next up, pharma

India’s generic drug industry has been a saviour for providing affordable drugs worldwide. The most critical provision to ensure a check on ‘evergreening’ of patents is section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. This provision along with compulsory licensing mechanism has been regularly attacked by big pharma. However, the policy does not mention or affirm its commitment to using such tools effectively. Moreover, the policy also misses an opportunity to stress on enforcement of form 27 filings by patent-holders. Form 27 filings demonstrate if a patent is being ‘worked’ in a territory or not, and if it is not worked adequately, a third party can apply for a compulsory licence. Both the Indian Patent Office and patent holders have largely neglected providing form 27 in a timely manner. The policy also over-reaches in certain areas. It mandates the creation of a separate offence for illegal duplication of films – which is completely unwarranted and redundant. The creation of a new criminal penalty for what essentially is infringement and already punishable (under Indian Copyright Act, 1957) comes directly from lobbying by movie studios.

Finally, while it is laudable that the policy aims to step up the efficiency of all concerned IPR offices, there is little to suggest that the policy is capable of nurturing and protecting a balanced IP regime. The flawed assumption of a linkage between IPR generation and cumulative innovation underpins the document, which should have no place in any national IPR policy. It is common knowledge that India had been under pressure from western governments and industry lobbies to ‘strengthen’ its IPR regime to the likes of matured economies and societies. India, a fast developing country, could have secured its unique developmental needs through a more balanced and nuanced IPR policy. But the changes that have taken place will largely benefit a small fraction of the ecosystem, one with deep pockets and great power.

Anubha Sinha is a programme officer at CIS. She works primarily on the Pervasive Technologies Project, and on other issues involving intellectual property law and openness.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/modi2019s-new-intellectual-property-rights-policy-will-only-benefit-players-with-deep-pockets

RTI request to Indian Patents Office for Form 27 (Statement of Working of patents), 2015

rohini — 2017-10-13T04:37:13Z

The Centre for Internet and Society filed this request under the Right to Information Act in 2015 as part of research for the paper: Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products: An Empirical Assessment of India's Form 27 Practice and Compliance (July 2017). We sought Form 27 (also known as Statements of Working) pertaining to randomly selected patents found in our patent landscaping study. These forms were not available on the online public databases, InPASS and IPAIRS, at the time of the filing the RTI request. Research assistance was provided by intern Nayana Dasgupta.

Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products: An Empirical Assessment of India's Form 27 Practice and Compliance (July 2017)

Patent landscaping study -- Patents and Mobile Devices in India: An Empirical Survey (April 2016)

This was our first RTI request filed with the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks for the research on practices and compliance of patent holders to the Form 27 requirement. The response contained generic instructions about how to download Form 27 from the publicly-accessible online databases. The IPO also stated that, “The desired information relates to about 1700 patents for all the years, to supply and trace out the information physical form requires huge humane resource and need to divert the office staff for some days which would hampers the day-todays- official work therefore, the information is proactively disclosed in the office website for the public”.

We subsequently filed another RTI request with the Indian Patents Office while limiting the number of patents to 61. (View the application and response here).

Text of the application and IPO's response

(View a scanned copy of the application here and the response here)

10 June 2015

To
Central Public Information Officer
Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks
Boudhik Sampada Bhawan
Near Antop Hill Post Office, S.M. Road,
Antop Hill, Mumbai - 400037

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Subject: Request for information under section 6 of the Right To Information Act, 2005; regarding Form 27 submissions for patents

Full name of the applicant: Ajoy Kumar
Address of the applicant: 194, 2^nd C Cross, Domlur 2^nd stage, Bangalore 560071
Details of the information required: Please consider this an application under Section 6 of the Right To Information Act, 2005. This is an application for three pieces of information.

Firstly, you are requested to provide us with the Form 27 submissions for all the following patents for all the years for which they are available.

Secondly, we also request a record of all the years for which such Form 27 submissions have not been made for each of the patents listed here.

Thirdly, we request a record of all the patents among those listed here which do not have a single Form 27 submission from the year of application/ grant.

In the event that you do not possess these documents, please transfer this application to the concerned authority within five days of its receipt and inform us of the same; as mandated under Section 6(3) of the Act.

[List of patent numbers]

*************************************************************

Response from the IPO (reproduced verbatim)

Government of India

Patent Office, Boudhik Sampada Bhavan

S.M. Road, Near Post Office,

Antop Hill, Mumbai 400037, India

Email: mumbai-patent@nic.in

Website: www.ipindia.nic.in

No. RTI/Mum/38

Date: 17/06/2015

To,

Shri Ajoy Kumar,

194, 2^nd C Cross,

Domlur 2^nd Stage

Bangalore - 56007

Sub: Supply of information sought under RTI Act - reg.

Sir,

With reference to your application under RTI, dated 15.06.2015, wherein the information sought for form 27 details (commercial working of patent) for all the years for about 1700 patents application.

Reply:

a) The requested information can be had from the office website for the filing of form 27 www.ipindia.nic.in,, go to http;//ipindiaservices.in/workingofpatents/

b) Pelase see the print screen from where one can access the desired information

[Screenshot from ipindiaservices.gov.in/workingofpatents]

c) Or the desired information also can be obtained under section 153, Rule.27 of the patents Act and Rules, as the information can be inspected the physical records under the Act.

d) The desired information relates to about 1700 patents for all the years, to supply and trace out the information physical form requires huge humane resource and need to divert the office staff for some days which would hampers the day-todays- official work therefore, the information is proactively disclosed in the office website for the public.

[Screenshots from ipindiaservices.gov.in/workingofpatents]

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully

(N. Ramchander)

Astt. Controller of Patents & Designs

& CPIO, Patent Office, Mumbai

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-request-to-indian-patents-office-for-form-27-statement-of-working-of-patents-2015

RTI request to Indian Patents Office for Form 27 (Statement of Working of patents), March 2016

rohini — 2017-10-13T04:35:46Z

The Centre for Internet and Society filed this request under the Right to Information Act in March 2016 as part of research for the paper: Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products: An Empirical Assessment of India's Form 27 Practice and Compliance (July 2017). We sought forms pertaining to 61 of the patents found in our patent landscaping study. These forms were not available on the online public databases, InPASS and IPAIRS, at the time of the filing the RTI request. Research assistance was provided by intern Shreshth Wadhwa.

Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products: An Empirical Assessment of India's Form 27 Practice and Compliance (July 2017)

Patent landscaping study -- Patents and Mobile Devices in India: An Empirical Survey (April 2016)

We filed our first application under the RTI Act with the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks in Mumbai in June 2015 for procuring Form 27 not available through their online databases, but received a generic response about how to download Form 27 from the online databases. The IPO also stated, “The desired information relates to about 1700 patents for all the years, to supply and trace out the information physical form requires huge humane resource and need to divert the office staff for some days which would hampers the day-todays- official work therefore, the information is proactively disclosed in the office website for the public”. (View the application and response here)

In view of this response, we filed another RTI application with the same office in March 2016, and restricted the number of patents to 61. The patents represent a cross-section of owners in our landscaping study. (View methodology). We also stated in the RTI request that we had already searched the online databases for the forms and did not find any. The IPO replied in April 2016 that it could provide CIS with forms for eleven of the requested patents. As for the rest of the forms, the IPO stated, “As thousand of Form-27 are filed in this office, it is very difficult to segregate Form-27 for the patent numbers enlisted in your RTI application as it needs diversion of huge official/ staff manpower and it will affect day to day work of this office.”

A few days after CIS received the reply from the IPO, Form 27 pertaining to patents in the landscape happened to start appearing on InPASS and IPAIRS E-register portal.

Text of the application and the IPO’s response

(View a scanned copy of the application here and of the response here)

11 March 2016

Central Public Information Officer

Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks

Boudhik Sampada Bhawan

Near Antop Hill Post Office, S.M. Road,

Antop Hill, Mumbai - 400037

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Subject: Request for information under section 6 of the Right To Information Act, 2005; regarding Form 27 submissions for patents

Full name of the applicant: Ajoy Kumar
Address of the applicant: 194, 2^nd C Cross, Domlur 2^nd stage, Bangalore 560071
Details of the information required: Please consider this an application under Section 6 of the Right To Information Act, 2005. This is an application for three pieces of information.

Firstly, you are requested to provide us with the Form 27 submissions for all the following patents for all the years for which they are available.

Secondly, we also request a record of all the years for which such Form 27 submissions have not been made for each of the patents listed here.

Patent Numbers:

264868
264414
218424
236178
250862
264266
263473
264878
264343
257411
263618
258568
264451
222947
263817
258983
196731
256864
262863
264764
259008
196474
264532
265027
258788
248749
259831
265788
214641
252360
250406
209397
226831
235014
229789
265069
220354
254083
264352
231642
258698
261503
241959
214988
237117
264824
263358
235688
251240
236556
203034
203036
234157
203686
213723
229632
240471
241747
223183
243980
200572

I submit that I have searched for copies of Form 27 filings of the above patents on the online portals of the Indian Patent Office, including the IPAIRS search engine and INPASS. As the search results did not yield the Form 27 documents, I am making this request under the Right To Information Act. Screenshots of three instances in which Form 27 was not found are attached in Annexure I. The respective patent numbers are mentioned along with the screenshots.

[Annexure I]

****************************************************************************************

Response from the IPO (reproduced verbatim)

Government of India

Patent Office, Boudhik Sampada Bhavan

S.M. Road, Near Post Office,

Antop Hill, Mumbai 400037, India

Email: mumbai-patent@nic.in

Website: www.ipindia.nic.in

Letter No: RTI/ 03

06/04/2016

To,

Shri Ajoy Kumar,

194, 2^nd C Cross,

Domlur 2^nd Stage

Bangalore - 560071

Sub: Supply of information sought under RTI Act, 2005 - reg.

Sir,

With reference to your application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 16/03/2016 in this regard the detailed parawise information as follows.

As thousand of Form-27 are filed in this office, it is very difficult to segregate Form-27 for the patent numbers enlisted in your RTI application as it needs diversion of huge official/ staff manpower and it will affect day to day work of this office.
It is difficult to create such a record for the Patent numbers; you have listed for the same reason given above.

However, copies of Form 27 for Patent nos. 222947, 259008, 258788, 250406, 235014, 203034, 203036, 234157, 203686, 213723, 240471 could be made available to you on paying prescribed copying charges of Rs. 480/- (120 x 4 = 480/-)

Yours faithfully,

Dr. Ujjwala Haldankar

Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Central Public Information Officer

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-request-to-indian-patents-office-for-form-27-statement-of-working-of-patents-march-2016

Workshop on Competition Law and Policy

praskrishna — 2016-10-23T01:51:25Z

National School of Law India University and the Delegation of European Union to India jointly organized a workshop at Competition Commission of India in New Delhi from October 19 - 21, 2016. Anubha Sinha and Rohini Lakshané participated and made presentations.

The workshop was organized under the broader EU-India project titled "Capacity Building Initiative in Competition Area under Trade Development Programme" sponsored jointly by European Union Delegation and National Law School of India University, Bengaluru.

Download

Workshop brochure
Anubha Sinha's presentation on "Investigation into the sub $100 Mobile Device Industry from IPR + Competition law lens"
Rohini Lakshané's presentation on CCI Workshop on Competition Law and Policy Competition Policy and Internet

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/workshop-on-competition-law-and-policy

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

National IPR Policy: Mapping the Stakeholders’ Response

Akshath Mithal — 2015-11-24T15:02:17Z

The first draft of the National IPR Policy was released last December. Following that, a plethora of comments and suggestions was submitted to the DIPP on the same. In this post, I will focus on the comments that were available online and analyse the trends that I was able to find in the same and also highlight the many suggestions put forth by the stakeholders.

Nehaa Chaudhari provided inputs and feedback and also edited this post.

I. Introduction

On 24^th December 2014, the IPR Think Tank constituted by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) officially released the first draft of the National IPR Policy. Following this, in a press release dated 30^th December, 2014, the DIPP called for comments and suggestions on the draft from all stakeholders. CIS, through an RTI, asked the DIPP to disclose all the comments received by it. However, the DIPP’s reply, rather vague, stated that it is not in the position to provide the same. (Further details here).

II. Research Methodology

In this post, I have compiled and compared the various submissions that I was able to find online in a SpicyIP post and will provide an analysis of the same.

The spreadsheet that I have created contains a compilation of the many issues that were raised by 15 stakeholders of various affiliations (organisations/scholars/unions). This spreadsheet was put together after reading each submission carefully, and summarizing the same. After dividing the contents of the submissions into the various issues, they were put under certain heads in this sheet. Though there were a few ideas covered by certain submissions that have not been tabulated, all the major and important ones have been covered, in my opinion.

On the basis of this spreadsheet, the following observations have been made on the feedback of the many stakeholders on the various aspects of the draft.

III. Stakeholders - A Statistical Analyis

A total of 15 submissions were taken into consideration for the purpose of this post, and all of them applauded the government for recognizing of the need for a comprehensive policy on IP and the DIPP’s efforts to give the public a chance to play a role in the process of formation of a policy that would affect the country and its economy significantly. However, each submission had its own set of criticisms and suggestions to the various aspects dealt with by the policy. In my analysis there are three broad categories that the stakeholders can be divided into:

Research organisations/NGOs.
Industrial representative bodies/Political organisations.
Scholars/Academia.

A representation of the stakeholders and the categories that they belong to has been produced below.

Categories	Stakeholders
Research organisations/NGOs	Centre for Internet and Society (CIS); Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS); Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC); Centre for Law & Policy Research (CLPR).
Industrial representative bodies/Political organisations	Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO); National Association of Manufacturers (NAM); International Trademark Association (INTA); IP Federation – UK; ICC’s Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP); Swadeshi Jagaran Manch (SJM); American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham – India).
Scholars/Academia	Centre for Intellectual Property and Technology Law – O.P. Jindal Global University (CIPTEL); S. Ragavan, B. Baker, S. Flynn; Adv. Ravindra Chingale – NLU Delhi; Prof. N.S. Gopalakrishnan & Dr T.G. Agitha – CUSAT.

Out of the comments studied, the largest chunk of stakeholders (46.67%) belonged to the industrial/manufacturing sector, with the other two categories comprising only 26.67% each. This could be attributed to the fact that a country’s IPR policy has a very vital role to play in influencing an industrial firm’s strategy and an unsatisfactory policy could have a serious and adverse effect on the profit-making abilities of an industry.

IV. IP - Innovation / Growth Nexus

There are a total of 13 themes that have been identified in the spreadsheet, and out of these 13, the one that the largest number of stakeholders has commented on is the question of there being nexus between intellectual property, innovation and growth. Eleven out of the fifteen stakeholders have given their opinion on this issue.

The opinion on this theme is not very uniform. Some organisations are of the opinion that there is a strong correlation between robust IPR protection mechanisms and innovation in a country, and thus there is a resultant benefit to the economy of the country. For example, the IP Federation of UK claimed that with a strong IPR regime, there is a greater inflow of FDI and R&D expenditure in countries, thus benefitting the country’s economy. On the other hand, there are some stakeholders who believe that there is no nexus and that the underlying assumption made by the draft policy is not backed by any research or evidence. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), for example, even cites evidence in its submission to oppose this assumption. The smallest chunk of stakeholders suggests to the Think Tank that in the current draft, there is not enough authority cited by them, and thus, there should be some research that must be done in order to give this assumption some backing. CIPTEL, a research centre based in OP Jindal Global University, stated that there should be a transparent survey conducted on this issue by a neutral agency.

The figure below would give the reader a comparative analysis of the responses from the stakeholders on this particular theme.

All the research organisations/NGOs that presented their views on this assumption are in opposition to the same and have proposed to the Think Tank that it should amend the contents of the policy after taking this incorrectly-made assumption out of the mix.

A majority of the industrial bodies have supported the existence of a nexus and have stated that by enforcing stronger IPR protection laws, the innovative/inventive environment of a country develops and this in turn encourages investors, which culminates into a rise in the growth of the economy.

Scholars and academia have a difference of opinion amongst themselves and there is no uniform pattern that can be seen in their responses to this issue.

The only political organisation in this analysis, the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch opposes the assumption and states that the policy has turned a blind eye to the development of the country and that there is no analysis on whether there is any effect of the proposed strengthening of IP protection on the various sectors of the economy.

V. International Treaties

The policy, in its introduction states the following stance on negotiation of international treaties and agreements – “In future negotiations in international forums and with other countries, India shall continue to give precedence to its national development priorities whilst adhering to its international commitments and avoiding TRIPS plus provisions.”

On this general theme, 9 out of 15 stakeholders have submitted their comments to the Think Tank. Out of these 9, the category-wise division of the stakeholders is represented by the diagram below.

The opinion of the stakeholders on this issue varied and there were broadly 3 kinds of responses that were found in the analysis. More than half of these responses (56%) suggested that all negotiations of treaties must be done transparently, with proper consultation of all stakeholders. CUTS, for example, recommended that to increase the confidence of the people in the country’s IP regime, the negotiations must be done with the opinion of all stakeholders being taken into consideration. They also cautioned the government to make sure that any future agreements do not contain any TRIPS-plus provisions. The second category applauded the policy’s pro-global stance towards IPR developments, and has recommended certain treaties that India must sign in order to strengthen its regime (details in spreadsheet). Only one stakeholder, the National Association of Manufacturers of the USA suggested that India’s stance of avoiding TRIPS-plus agreements is in contravention to its objective of keeping up with global IP developments. This point of view is clearly in favour of the USA as TRIPS-plus provisions have always been more beneficial to developed countries than developing countries like India.

Thus, it can be said that almost 90% of stakeholders, from across categories, are satisfied with India’s pro-international stance, and only want the government to be cautious and consult the public before signing treaties on IPR.

VI. Utility Models

A provision to legalise utility model protection was also a part of the draft policy. Utility models or petty patents are suggested by the policy in order to protect parties like MSMEs and their many innovations which may not satisfy the requirements of regular patent protection and thus losing out from IPR protection, leading to benefits not being reaped properly from these inventions.

This provision was commented on by eight of the 15 stakeholders, making it a little above half of the total. A category-wise division can be found below.

The opinion on utility models was majorly negative across categories, with 75% of the stakeholders believing that utility model protection must be given a second thought and many drawbacks were pointed out such as frivolous litigation, uncertainty in the market, and a drop in the quality of innovation registered in the country. A review of how effective utility model laws are in other countries was suggested before making any final decision. Only 2 out of the 8 stakeholders supported the provision for petty patents and stated that this would give a good means of protection to ‘jugaad’ innovations that are very popular in India and thus believed that such laws would help increase the innovation levels in the country.

VII. Public Funded Research Labs and Universities

Only four stakeholders had a say on the issue of grants to Government labs and universities, these organisations being Indian research organisations and academia. The opinion varied from party to party and the Centre for Internet and Society argued that if there was a rise in IP protection for government funded research, it would be against the vision of free and open access to research funded by taxpayers’ money.

The other three stakeholders, namely CIPTEL, CUTS and Adv. Ravindra Chingale emphasised on the importance of merit-based funding instead of funding on the basis of whether an organisation is Government-owned or not. Two of these also suggested that there must be a system of contact between industry and academia to incentivise and utilize innovation properly.

VIII. Limitations and Flexibilities

A very important aspect of any IPR regime is the presence of limitations, exceptions and flexibilities on the rights protected by IP laws, as it allows for the appropriate amount of information being shared for free or at reasonable costs, for furtherance of public interest.

On this vital issue, most stakeholders had a say and the trends of the feedback on the limitations and flexibilities on IP protection were as expected. There were two broad sets of opinions that could be gathered from the analysis, and while there was a majority (62.5%) of organisations and people who believed that the government must keep up its efforts of providing a good framework for exceptions to IPR protection with measures like compulsory licensing being put in place in order to protect broader interests of the country such as access to reasonably priced medicines and other necessities. The only recommendation that they had was that these measures should be decided after a careful analysis of what the economy really needed in order to develop further.

The opposition, quite understandably came from international industrial bodies representing manufacturers and intellectual property owners who argued that the policy of limitations to IPR protection is discouraging those who want to invest in the country and that it hurts the business of foreign-based companies that operate in India or want to do so in the near future as their intellectual property may not be protected adequately with such a policy in place.

The figure above clearly points out that none of those against limitations being placed on IP protection had an Indian background and all those in favour of the same were primarily Indian-based organisations and academics, with the exception of the American scholars – S. Ragavan, B. Baker, and S. Flynn.

IX. Trademarks

Only a single stakeholder, the International Trademark Association, was interested in the issue of trademarks. This can be attributed to the fact that this is the only association out of all the stakeholders having a direct interest in trademark law and policy. The organisation suggested that there should be a greater amount of clarity in the trademark examination process and also suggested that there should be an increase in the number of examiners to make the process of trademark registration quicker.

X. Trade Secrets

In objective 3 of the draft policy, the Think Tank suggests that to strengthen the IP framework of the country, trade secret protection must be introduced as a formal law. India, today, does not have a law to protect sensitive trading information and there needs to be a formalised contract for there to be any relief for leaking of such information.

The stakeholders supporting the enactment of trade secret legislation were interestingly all industrial bodies representing international companies and firms. Only 2 parties expressed their worries about such a law, and argued that there must be more backing to make this recommendation more convincing. A graphical representation of the stakeholders is given below to provide a clearer picture of the responses.

This chart portrays clearly that international bodies are insistent on the enactment of a trade secret law as this would help incentivise knowledge sharing in the country. In many countries, trade secret protection is formalised legally and these stakeholders argue that for foreign multinationals to feel confident while sharing sensitive information with others in India, the government must follow in the footsteps of such countries and legislate on this matter soon.

XI. On Specialised Courts

A common suggestion found across 5 of the 15 stakeholder responses was for the creation of a specialised IP judiciary that would be formed by widening the patent bench that was proposed in the draft policy. Such a court would deal only with issues of intellectual property and would consist of judges having special knowledge in the various branches of IP law.

XII. Conclusion

The draft policy was released almost a year ago, and since then, much discussion has taken place on the same, with many contradictory opinions and suggestions on the various aspects of the policy. It can be observed from this compilation that industrial bodies have been insistent on stronger IP protection and more incentives to multinationals to invest in India in the form of trade secret legislations, keeping limitations such as compulsory licensing to a minimum, et al.

On the other hand, a trend could be seen of research organisations and academia having a view that was more in the interest of the public and with the Indian scenario taken into consideration, with the criticism of utility models, TRIPS-plus agreements, and by raising the question of whether the assumption underlying the draft of there being a link between IP protection and a rise in innovation had any basis whatsoever. This post, however, is only a glimpse of the stakeholders’ responses owing to the fact that the DIPP has not officially released the submissions made to it and only the ones that were available online have been taken into consideration.

It is only a matter of time that the Think Tank releases the final policy and one shall hope that this tedious process of seeking comments and suggestions will bear any fruit with the policy being a balanced one and being aimed ultimately towards the benefit of the country as a whole.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-mapping-the-stakeholders2019-response

India - Europe Conference on Building a Sustainable IPR - ICT Ecosystem for Promoting Innovation

praskrishna — 2015-12-22T02:48:04Z

Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), Pune organized a one-day conference in Bangalore on November 20, 2015. Rohini Lakshané attended this event.

Intellectual property is at the core of business ventures and critical to successfully compete internationally. However, skills to commercialize technological innovations remain a crucial impediment to innovative entrepreneurs and innovators aspiring to become world leaders in global ICTE markets. A robust IPR-ICT ecosystem can help capitalize on the growth-enhancing effects of innovation vis-à-vis ICTE. In order to fulfill the aspiration of its stakeholders, the IPR-ICT ecosystem has to be global in geographic scope, spearhead shaping appropriate framework conditions for innovation and assist in charting out policy roadmaps for sustainable and inclusive growth.

With this in mind Deity and EPO is working together in developing a close cooperation to promote IPR in ICTE domain, especially with respect to sharing of best practices and procedures for filing and processing ICTE patents in India and Europe by Indian and European firms.

The one day conference on “India-Europe Conference on Building a Sustainable IPR-ICT Ecosystem for Promoting Innovation” organised by Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), a premier R&D organisation, aims to address the challenges in building a sustainable global IPR-ICT ecosystem, discuss IP policy issues relevant to Indian and European ICTE industries and concord on various nuances of patenting technology and activities with an ICTE perspective.

Sessions

Parallel 1

11.00 - 13.00: Challenges and Opportunities in Building a Sustainable Global IPR Ecosystem for Promotion of Innovation in ICTE Sector
14.00 - 15.30: IPR Policy Perspective for Promoting Innovation -India and Europe

Parallel 2

14.00 - 15.30: Standard Essential Patent Issues and Perspective with regard to ICTE
15.45 - 17.15: Patent Information and Analysis: A Tool for Building Business Strategies

For more information and brochure of the event, visit this website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/india-europe-conference-on-building-a-sustainable-ipr-ict-ecosystem-for-promoting-innovation

An Interview With Arjen Kamphuis

sachia — 2011-08-18T05:01:53Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The policy has three objectives:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

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

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

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

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

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

Land and Social Justice - An introduction to Georgism

praskrishna — 2013-04-28T07:06:03Z

Cherry G Mathew will be giving a public talk on Georgism at the office of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore on April 12, 2013, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Abstract

In his popular book of the 1870s "Progress and Poverty", Henry George examined the causes of Poverty in contemporary America, and proposed very specific solutions for economic justice. "His genius has been glowingly acknowledged by such renowned figures as philosophers John Dewey and Mortimer J. Adler, presidents Woodrow Wilson and Dwight D. Eisenhower, scientists Alfred Russel Wallace and Albert Einstein, essayists John Ruskin and Albert Jay Nock, jurists Louis D. Brandeis and Samuel Seabury, columnists William F. Buckley and Michael Kinsley, and statesmen Winston Churchill and Sun Yat-sen.", while being heavily criticised by Karl Marx (who referred to George's teaching as "Capitalism's last ditch."[*]

This talk will make a brief introduction to George's Ideas, and then will attempt to draw discussion on their relevence to information and current copyright and intellectual property landscapes.

Cherry G. Mathew

Cherry G. Mathew is a British Chevening Scholar and an Open Source Kernel Hacker. He has worked on the Linux kernel in the past, and is an active FreeBSD and NetBSD developer/committer. He is an Electronics Engineer by basic training, with a Masters in Evolutionary and Adaptive Systems. He has worn various hats professionally, from Technical Developer, Roboticist, Free Software campaigner, CEO, volunteer teacher and currently software consultant. His current area of professional work is the Xen hypervisor and BSD kernels. His non-technology hobbies include outdoor pursuits and swing dancing.

Click to see the presentation

[*]. http://bit.ly/13HZg7m (Retrieved on March 29, 2013).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/land-and-social-justice-an-introduction-to-georgism

5th Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest

Admin — 2018-10-02T03:01:50Z

Sunil Abraham, Anubha Sinha and Swaraj Paul Barooah attended the Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, in Washington DC, from September 24 - 29, 2018. The event was co-organized by PublicCitizen, Washington College of Law, American University, O'Neill Institute and the American Assembly, Columbia University.

CIS participated in several of the sessions spread over the 5 days:

Anubha Sinha attended the pre-Congress trainings on Users' Rights, and Internet and Trade on September 24 and 25, 2018.
Sunil Abraham and Anubha Sinha attended a WIPO SCCR Strategy meeting organised by Knowledge Ecology International, DC.
Swaraj Paul Barooah made a presentation at the Microsoft Panel Event titled "Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence" held at the Microsoft Innovation and Policy Centre. His co-panelists were Pam Samuelson (Berkeley Law), Niva Elkin-Koren (Uni of Haifa) and Pedro Mizukami (Founder of Centro, Brazil). The session was moderated by Mike Carroll and Christine Farley (both of American University).
Anubha Sinha and Sunil Abraham along with Jorge Contreras (University of Utah), spoke on the panel titled "Fueling the Affordable Smartphone Revolution in India" where they presented work on the PT project.
CIS signed on as supporting members to the Civil Society Proposal for a Treaty on Education and Research Activities (TERA) which was formally finalized and made ready for organizational and individual endorsements. The treaty can be viewed here.

For more info on the sessions click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/5th-global-congress-on-ip-and-the-public-interest