Centre for Internet and Society

Report on the 31st Session of the Standing Committee on Trademarks

puneeth — 2014-05-06T07:22:11Z

Puneeth Nagraj reports about the 31st Session of the Standing Committee on Trademarks (SCT) that he attended.

The 31st meeting of the SCT was held from March 17 to 21, 2014.[1]The meeting was important as Members sought to finalise the issues in the Design Law Treaty (DLT) before the Diplomatic Conference. The session also saw proposals by the delegations of Jamaica, the United States and Hungary.[2].

Adil El Maliki of Morocco was elected Chair, and Mr. Imre Gonda of Hungary and Ms. Günseli Güven of Turkey were elected Vice-Chairs of the 31^st session. The Session was dominated by negotiations around the DLT and very little time was devoted to the Plenary attended by this observer.

Design Law Treaty

The 31^st session had a mandate from the WIPO General Assembly to finalise the text of the DLT before the Diplomatic Conference. However, disagreements over the technical assistance and capacity building provisions threatened to delay the process further. While Developing Countries preferred a provision in the Treaty on technical assistance, developed countries were against a binding provision and were in favour of a resolution on the issue.

Members of the African Group insisted that a Diplomatic Conference would be convened only if the Treaty included a provision on Technical Assistance and Capacity Building. The Delegate of Kenya said that the adoption of this treaty would require significant changes in the national IP systems of developing countries which are likely to go beyond the capacity and ability of individual countries to implement the treaty. The Delegate then emphasised the need for such a provision in upgrading their national IP system to conform with and to implement the treaty. The stance of the Kenyan delegate was further supported by Brazil, the GRULAC and Bangladesh in addition to other DAG members.

The delegate of Japan on behalf of Group B said that the text of the designs law treaty aimed to streamline and enhance design law formalities and would benefit all countries irrespective of their status of development. The delegate also stated that the issue of technical assistance should not stop the convening of a Diplomatic Conference. The EU on a similar note said that the convening of a Diplomatic Conference should be priority outcome of the 31^st Session.

Proposals

The delegate of Jamaica submitted a proposal for the protection of country names.[3]The proposal sought to establish a coherent and consistent framework to deal with trademark cases which deal with country names. The proposal received support from some delegations in addition to suggestions to revise it. Switzerland emphasised the need for “pragmatic affordable way to protect country names” and to ensure that product names were used only for countries that produce such products. The EU also noted that this issue has been under discussion since 2009 and called for an awareness mechanism to ensure refusal of trademarks for products with country names. The US raised many doubts as to whether such a proposal would be feasible arguing that the government would have to act as a brand owner like others and that this was not a historical role that governments have played. The US also stated that not all countries shared an interest in protecting such rights and that it was premature to initiate text based questions on the proposal. Instead, the delegate called on the chair to conduct research on whether a system to protect country names could exist. In response to suggestions, the delegation of Jamaica offered to consider them and present a revised proposal at the next session.

There were also two proposals on Geographical Indications. The US submitted a proposal to suggest a work plan for the reform of the GI filing system.[4] While some delegations supported this proposal, others expressed opposition. The delegation of Hungary submitted a joint proposal to conduct a study concerning the protection of geographical indications in the domain name system. Again opinion on this proposal was divided- with some asking for more time to consider the proposal since it was submitted late. The Chair cited the lack of agreement on these proposals to put off further discussions until the next session.

[1]. See http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=32083.

[2]. The Hungarian proposal was jointly sponsored by Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Moldova and Switzerland.

[3]. See SCT/31/5.

[4].See SCT/31/7.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-on-31-session-of-standing-committee-on-trademarks

Mapping Institutions of Intellectual Property (Part A): India's National Programme on Intellectual Property Management

nehaa — 2014-06-10T07:34:34Z

This blog post discusses India’s National Program on Intellectual Property Management, including the establishment of a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights.

On the 21^st of February, 2014, the Planning Commission and the Ministry of Human Resource Development (“MHRD”), Government of India organized a Stakeholders Consultation at New Delhi (“the Consultation”). I attended this meeting on behalf of CIS. The discussion was centred around devising a strategy for India’s National Program on Intellectual Property Management under our 12^th Five Year Plan (2012 to 2017). On the agenda were two key issues:

Evaluating and rethinking the role of IPR Chairs established by the MHRD
Establishing a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights

Pawan Agarwal, Advisor, Higher Education, Planning Commission, Government of India made a detailed presentation on both of these issues. The key parts of his presentation and the ensuing discussions have been reproduced below.

Presentation and Ensuing Discussions

The diagrams in this section correspond to those in Pawan. Agarwal’s presentation.

Ecosystem

In Figure 1, the proposed structure of the national intellectual property system has been outlined. Those government departments and ministries that would have a role to play have been identified, as well as the functions expected to be performed.

In the discussion that followed it was observed that traditional knowledge should also be included within this ecosystem. The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“DIPP”) could coordinate and seek inputs from the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.


Figure 1

Education: Programs and Courses

Figure 2 details the proposed structure of IPR education, including courses, financial aid and the nature of the program. Members attending the Consultation were of the opinion that having ten centres for doctoral education was an ambitious target. They were also of the opinion that there was need to integrate IPR education with more courses, for instance, MBA and MSc.


Figure 2

Education: Various Elements

Figure 3 deals with other elements of the IP education universe- curriculum development (envisaged as a joint effort), faculty development (of selected faculty) and funding. Various suggestions emerged on the role of the IP Chairs. This has been examined in greater detail subsequently in this blog post. A key suggestion was made regarding the establishment of more law schools in the IITs, along the lines of the Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law at the Indian Institute of Technology (“IIT”), Kharagpur.


Figure 3

Research and Policy Support

Figure 4 lays out the details of the research and policy support to be provided by the Government towards developing this IPR ecosystem. The Government seeks to achieve this through the existing institutions of the IP Chairs, by way of awarding fellowships and research grants. Once again, concerns and questions were raised regarding the role of MHRD IP Chairs, which will be discussed subsequently in this blog post.


Figure 4

Training & Capacity building

Training and capacity building has been visualised on two levels- basic awareness building about intellectual property rights in institutions of higher education and on the advanced level, dealing with specialised courses on trademark/patent drafting or technology licensing, among others.


Figure 5

Creation/ Protection and Management

For the creation, protection and management of intellectual property, a two pronged approach has been envisaged- the establishment of cells for the management of intellectual property in institutions of higher education and an increased focus on patents, including the creation of incentives for patenting for researchers. Figure 6 lays out the scheme.


Figure 6

National/ Regional Centres/ Chairs

This program on intellectual property outlines a proposal for the establishment of one national centre, five regional centres and twenty chairs, with a distinct role outlined for each. Details are available in Figure 7.


Figure 7

Governance

The National Program on intellectual Property Management lays out a three tiered governance structure, headed by the National Steering Committee on IPR, assisted by the Advisory and Project Approval Committees, with five Regional Committees constituting the final tier. This has been represented in Figure 8.


Figure 8

Funding Arrangements


Figure 9

The discussion that occurred after Pawan Agarwal’s presentation was centred around the issues of intellectual property education, revisiting the role of the MHRD IPR Chair Professor and on the establishment of a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights.

Intellectual Property Education

On a broader level, the Consultation dealt with the subject of intellectual property education, which the proposed plan envisaged on a generic basic level as well as a more advanced technical level. Narendra Sabharwal, former Deputy Director General, World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) was had a three pronged opinion on intellectual property education- first, that intellectual property education had to be mainstreamed, and that this mainstreaming should be a part of the vision and strategy of any national plan on intellectual property; second, that intellectual property education should be used to synergise and encourage the creation of more IP assets and third that the proposed national institute should play an advisory role in the intellectual property education framework.

Evaluating and Rethinking the Role of IPR Chairs Established by the MHRD

Background

The MHRD has, under the Scheme for Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach (“the Scheme”), established twenty IPR Chairs in various universities and other institutions of higher learning across the country. According to the MHRD IPR Chairs website, six of these Chairs have been set up in Universities (University of Delhi, University of Madras, Tezpur University, CUSAT- Kochi, JNU- Delhi and the Delhi School of Economics); five in National Law Universities (NLSIU- Bangalore, NALSAR- Hyderabad, NLU- Jodhpur, NLIU- Bhopal and WBNUJS- Kolkata); six in the Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT- Delhi, IIT- Madras, IIT- Kanpur, IIT- Kharagpur, IIT- Bombay and IIT- Roorkee) and three in the Indian Institutes of Management (IIM- Bangalore, IIM- Kolkata and IIM- Ahmedabad).

With the purpose of creating awareness among the “general public intelligentsia etc. on IPR Copyright and WTO Studies”[1] , the Scheme has been implemented with the objectives of encouraging the study of intellectual property rights in universities and other institutions of higher learning and developing and encouraging study in specialized courses of IPR; creating awareness about IPRs; organizing activities such as seminars and workshops for IPR awareness; creating knowledge resources, developing policy inputs and negotiating strategies and course awareness- all on WTO matters and evolving strategies of Regional Cooperation and Regional Trading Agreements. Expenditure under the Scheme may be incurred by the MHRD (directly or indirectly) for a wide array of purposes including inter alia, the institution of “Chairs” for IPR Studies for higher education and “also on WTO Studies” (sic.).

At the Consultation

There was a general consensus on the need to restructure the existing ‘MHRD Chair’ institutions and questions were raised regarding their longevity and the sustainability. Veena Ish, Joint Secretary, Department of Higher Education, MHRD, Government of India, spoke of the need to strengthen the existing IPR Chairs and bring about changes in the funding scheme. She also sought inputs on what form and structure the institutions should adopt.

Faculty members of various educational institutions present at the meeting were of the opinion that there was an urgent need to set norms clarifying the role of Chairs. Out of the various suggestions put forth, some of them were as under:

Specify the number of hours (if any) that a Chair was expected to teach. This proved to be a contentious issue at the meeting, with various members of the faculty raising questions on how one was to balance teaching requirements with research and policy feedback obligations.
Envisage the role of the Chair as that of a mentor who would not teach except for the occasional guest lecture, but would guide younger faculty in teaching. The Chairs would then instead produce at least three research outputs in a year based on topic inputs from the National Institute/Centre for Intellectual Property Rights. These research outputs would then act as policy inputs to the government.
The Chair would liaison with industry, academia and policy makers to identify issues of policy concern and research interest.
The institution of the MHRD Chair should be delinked from the university set up. Chairs should be appointed directly by the MHRD through a transparent and accountable process, distinct from the present state of affairs where the Vice Chancellors of universities were allowed to exercise discretion in appointments.

Establishment of a National Institute of Intellectual Property Rights

Context
The present circumstances that might necessitate the establishment of a National Institute of Intellectual property Rights were highlighted at the Consultation by D.V. Prasad, Joint Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“DIPP”), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. He said that there was a need for a nodal agency for World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) matters. He also said that there was a need for a body to focus on government policy and provide policy inputs to the DIPP and other departments and ministries working on intellectual property law and policy issues. At the moment, he said, there were no formal mechanisms in place though which the DIPP sought policy input, and instead relied on basic inputs from paid external consultants.

At the Consultation

The discussion at the Consultation pertained to the form and functions of this proposed institution. D.V. Prasad emphasised that this institution ought not to become an academic exercise or a university and that the focus should remain policy inputs to the government. This view was echoed by Shilpi Jha of the Confederation of Indian Industries. V.C .Vivekanandan, MHRD Chair Professor, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, was also in agreement with D.V. Prasad and Shilpi Jha, and said that the proposed institution ought to be a ‘stand alone model’. Narendra Sabharwal envisaged this institution as a think-tank that would research on legal and policy issues and international relations on emerging areas of technology. This would be distinct from university research undertaken by MHRD Chairs, although some of the university research ought to feed into the think-tank. N.S. Gopalakrishnan, former MHRD Chair Professor at CUSAT, Kochi was of the opinion that this proposed institution ought not to be within the aegis of the University Grants Commission. Further, he said that it was critical to develop capacity for policy research within the country, but until that time, it was critical to attract people from both within as well as outside India to undertake policy research. Sunita Tripathy, Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School was also of the opinion that there was a need to build capacity for policy research in India.

Concluding Observations

From the conversation at the Consultation it seems evident that there is a need to revisit the institution of the MHRD Chair Professor, but what remains moot is the form that it should take. The viability of the proposed national institute would also have to be studied in further detail, against similar models in other countries.

This is an exercise that we shall continue to undertake in subsequent blog posts as a part of this series of mapping institutions of intellectual property.

[1].See Scheme for Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach, available at http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf (last accessed 03 June, 2014) at page 1.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mapping-institutions-of-intellectual-property-part-a

India's Opening Statement on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired at SCCR 24

pranesh — 2012-07-23T15:24:26Z

This was the opening statement of the Indian delegation, delivered by G.R. Raghavender, on Thursday, July 19, 2012, at the 24th meeting of the SCCR at WIPO in Geneva. The statement called upon all countries to conclude textual work on the treaty and call for a Diplomatic Conference to finalize it. This statement received applause, which is highly unusual at the SCCR.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Indian delegation is a little bit disappointed about the way we have started this topic of the Treaty for the Visually Impaired. Forgive me, Mr. Chairman, we have confidence in your abilities, but unfortunately we have already lost one hour in this afternoon session. We have only two hours left, unless and until we decide to work beyond 6:00 P.M.

We have a document, SCCR/23/7, on the table. Everybody has this document. We all decided in the last SCCR that we will work on this document and move towards a meaningful treaty. We said, in this very 24th SCCR, we will be ready for that. We should have started article-by-article discussions by now. And as we are involved in the general statements in our agenda, I can go on reading a statement for another 20 minutes as I have about five pages written out. But given our support for the treaty, I won't.

I'm sorry, I respect all the distinguished delegations: they have their own concerns, but Mr. Chairman, under your leadership we should have started article-by-article discussions by now. Yesterday, in the evening at the Chairman plus group leaders plus 3, we all requested that. Whatever happened during the 14, 15 intersessional meetings, we have no objection to that, but people raise the issue of transparency and availability of the document. Whatever changes have been made to the document must be public. If no one is ready to post that document either during the informal discussions, or here in the plenary, they can always come out with the changes made to particular articles, or para in the preamble, when the discussion starts.

We should be ready to work towards finalizing this treaty. We are even open to working on Saturday and Sunday, Mr. Chairman.

If we don't finalize in this SCCR, we cannot go to the General Assembly in the first week of the month of October. If we lose that time, we will have to wait until the next General Assembly, because we cannot have a General Assembly in between.

So we will be simply wasting our time in the November SCCR and again next July SCCR, waiting for the next General Assembly.

So kindly guide us to start text-based article-by-article discussions, so that we won't go back empty-handed. The Indian delegation won't go back empty-handed, facing the 15 million blind people in India, which is almost 50 percent of the world blind population, that is 37 million.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/india-opening-statement-sccr24-tvi

Transcripts of Discussions at WIPO SCCR 24

pranesh — 2012-07-31T12:35:43Z

We are providing archival copies of the transcripts of the 24th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which is being held in Geneva from July 16 to 25, 2012.

This is an unedited rough transcript of the discussions at SCCR 24, which is live-streamed and made available by WIPO at http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=WIPO. We are hosting the live-streamed text for archival purposes:

WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 19, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 19, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 20, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 20, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 23, 2012)
(There was no post-lunch plenary session on July 23, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 24, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 24, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 25, 2012)
WIPO SCCR 24 Post-lunch Text (July 25, 2012)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/wipo-sccr24-discussions-transcripts

WIPO SCCR 24 Pre-lunch Text (July 24, 2012)

praskrishna — 2012-07-25T03:51:38Z

This is a rough transcript of the WIPO-SCCR discussions.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/2012-07-24-sccr-24-pre-lunch.txt

EU stalls treaty talks to allow copyright waiver for print disabilities

praskrishna — 2012-07-25T09:37:25Z

India and other developing countries support such a legally binding treaty, writes Priscilla Jebaraj in an article published in the Hindu on July 25, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The European Union is holding up a treaty to allow books and other printed works to be converted into a format accessible to the visually impaired and other print disabled people without seeking the permission of the copyright holder.

India, and most other developing countries, strongly support such a legally binding treaty currently being negotiated at a World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) meeting in Geneva. However, non-governmental organisation sources at that summit say that the EU is stalling the treaty by placing unreasonable restrictions on how copyrighted works are to be converted, and by whom. The EU office in Delhi and Brussels did not respond to a request for comment on their position.

"[The treaty] would allow organisations working for the blind to import and export accessible works without seeking the copyright holder's permission, since very little money is spent in developing countries on converting books into accessible formats, while they are much more readily available elsewhere," according to Pranesh Prakash of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society who is attending the summit as an NGO member. If the treaty is not finalised by Wednesday, when the meeting ends, disabled people could be forced to wait till 2014 for their next chance.

Last week, Indian delegate G.R. Raghavender pleaded with negotiators to finalise the treaty without further delay "so that we won't go back, especially the Indian delegation won't go back empty-handed, facing the 15 million blind people in India, which is almost 50 percent of the world blind population, that is 37 million."

In fact, the treaty will benefit a much larger group of print-disabled, including those who suffer from motor disabilities which prevent them from holding a book, or learning disabilities such as dyslexia, or autism, which make it hard to read. There are approximately 70 million print-disabled people in India.

Accessible formats would include Braille, electronic text and audio versions of books, making Western publishers' jittery about piracy fears. Hence, some countries are demanding stringent tracking mechanisms and legal requirements that activists say will effectively block access to disabled people in developing countries — where more than 85 per cent of them live.

"An instrument that subjects the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms by persons with visual impairments to market forces and bureaucratic practices will not work," Mr. Prakash said, in his statement to WIPO delegates. "In India, our Parliament recently passed an amendment to our copyright law that grants persons with disabilities, and those who are working for them, a strong yet simply-worded right to have equal access to copyrighted works as sighted persons."

In fact, the EU Parliament had given its unanimous approval to the treaty in February 2012. "It would be a democratic travesty if the EU’s representatives here today posed any problems to a clear road map for a binding international treaty, especially by posing unrealistic proposals with regards to authorised entities and other issues very far from consensus positions in the WIPO and in clear contradiction with the aims of the World Blind Union," said David Hammerstein, a representative of American and European consumer organisations, making a statement at the Geneva meeting.

Read the original published in the Hindu

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/eu-stalls-treaty-talks-to-allow-copyright-waiver-for-print-disabilities

March 2010 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-08-13T05:02:42Z

Greetings from the Centre for Internet and Society! We bring you updates of our research, news, and events for the month of March 2010 in this bulletin.

News Updates

An Open Answer to Office
OpenOffice with its new features is giving Microsoft Word tough competition, says Deepa Kurup in this article published in The Hindu.
http://cis-india.org/news/open-office

Upcoming Events

CPOV: Wikipedia Research Initiative
The second WikiWars conference will be held in Amsterdam from 26 to 27 March 2010
http://cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/cpov

CI Global Meeting on A2K
CIS is a co-sponsor of the Consumers International Meeting on A2K to be held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on April 21 and 22, 2010.
http://cis-india.org/events/ci-global-meeting-a2k

Research

India Game Developer Summit Bangalore 2010
The India Game Developer Conference held at Nimhans Convention Centre on the 27th of February, 2010 was attended by Arun Menon who is working on The Gaming and Gold Project at The Centre for Internet and Society. The Developer forum brought together game developers from different sectors of the Game Production Cycle, with hardware manufacturers like Nvidia demonstrating their latest 3d technology and Software developers like Crytek and Adobe demonstrating the latest in developer tools for creating and editing games on multiple platforms.
http://cis-india.org/research/cis-raw/histories/gaming/india-game-developer-summit-in-bangalore-2010

10 Legendary Obscene Beasts
Nishant Shah analyses a peculiar event of vandalism which has now become the core of free speech and anti-censorship debates in mainland China. Looking at the structure of user generated knowledge websites and the specific event on the Chinese language encyclopaedia, 'Baidu Baike', he shows how, in cities where spaces of political spectacle and public protest are quickly diminishing, the Internet has become a tool for producing new public spaces of demonstration and protest.
http://cis-india.org/research/grants/ISShanghai/itcity4

WikiWars - A report
In this blog, Nishant Shah analyses about the WikiWars, the first of the three events held in Bangalore on January 12 and 13.
http://cis-india.org/research/conferences/conference-blogs/wwrep

Telecom

Understanding Spectrum
What is spectrum and how do government and commercial decisions on this scientific phenomenon affect public facilities and costs? Shyam Ponappa examines this in his latest blog published in the Business Standard on March 4, 2010.
http://cis-india.org/advocacy/telecom/blog/understanding-spectrum

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/march-2010-bulletin

Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012 — India Report

pranesh — 2012-08-16T10:23:36Z

Pranesh Prakash prepared the India Report for Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012. The report was published on the A2K Network website.

Summary

India's Copyright Act is a relatively balanced instrument that recognises the interests of consumers through its broad private use exception, and by facilitating the compulsory licensing of works that would otherwise be unavailable. However, the compulsory licensing provision have not been utilized so far, because of both a lack of knowledge and more importantly because of the stringent conditions attached to them. Currently, the Indian law is also a bit out of sync with general practices as the exceptions and limitations allowed for literary, artistic and musical works are often not available with sound recordings and cinematograph films. There are numerous other such inconsistencies. Positively retrogressive provisions, such as criminalisation of individual non-commercial infringement also exist. India's Copyright Act is a relatively balanced instrument that recognises the interests of consumers through its broad private use exception, and by facilitating the compulsory licensing of works that would otherwise be unavailable. However, the compulsory licensing provision have not been utilized so far, because of both a lack of knowledge and more importantly because of the stringent conditions attached to them. Currently, the Indian law is also a bit out of sync with general practices as the exceptions and limitations allowed for literary, artistic and musical works are often not available with sound recordings and cinematograph films. There are numerous other such inconsistencies. Positively retrogressive provisions, such as criminalisation of individual non-commercial infringement also exist.

It is unfortunate that the larger public interest in copyright-related issues are never foregrounded in India. For instance, the Standing Committee tasked with review of the Copyright Amendment Bill has held hearings without calling a single consumer rights organization, and without seeking any civil society engagement, except for the issue of access for persons with disabilities. This was despite a number of civil society organizations, including consumer rights organizations, sending in a written submission to the Standing Committee.

This lopsidedness in terms of policy influence is resulting in greater imbalance in the law, as evidenced by the government's capitulation to a handful of influential multinational book publishers on the question of allowing parallel importation of copyrighted works. Furthermore, pressure from the United States and the European Union, in the form of the Special 301 report and the India-EU free trade agreement that is being negotiated are leading to numerous negative changes being introduced into Indian law, despite us not having any legal obligation under any treaties. Such influence only works in one direction: to increase the rights granted to rightsholders, and has so far never included any increase in user rights.

It is true that copyright infringement, particularly in the form of physical media, is widespread in India. However this must be taken in the context that India, although fast-growing, remains one of the poorest countries in the world. Although India's knowledge and cultural productivity over the centuries and to the present day has been rich and prodigious, its citizens are economically disadvantaged as consumers of that same knowledge and culture. Indeed, most students, even in the so-called elite institutions, need to employ photocopying and other such means to be able to afford the requisite study materials. Visually impaired persons, for instance, have no option but to disobey the law that does not grant them equal access to copyrighted works. Legitimate operating systems (with the notable exception of most free and open source OSes) add a very high overhead to the purchase of cheap computers, thus driving users to pirated software. Thus, these phenomena need to be addressed not at the level of enforcement, but at the level of supply of affordable works.

Source URL: http://bit.ly/QEJf5l
Click to download the report [PDF, 201 Kb]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/consumers-international-ip-watchlist-report-2012

Intellectual Property Rights & TRIPS: An Overview

Job Michael Mathew — 2016-01-31T05:54:02Z

The Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariff began in 1986 with a Ministerial Deceleration in Punta del Este.

One of the 13 subjects for negotiation in Part I of the declaration dealing with trade in goods was the mandate on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The essence of the mandate was to develop an effective and adequate standard of protection of intellectual property rights and a multilateral framework of principles, rules and disciplines dealing with international trade in counterfeit goods. The agreement laid the architecture for a uniform global treatment of IPR by providing for minimum standards of IP protection, national enforcement mechanisms and dispute settlement mechanisms.

GATT and IPR

Article IX: 6 was the only provision in the GATT that specifically dealt with the protection and promotion of IP. The Article dealt with distinctive regional or geographical names and did not lay down any standards of protection but rather called on States to corporate with each other on its protection. The first attempt at addressing questions of IPR within the GATT framework was made by the United States in 1978 towards the end of the Tokyo Round of multilateral trade negotiations. The focus at this point of time was to develop a plurilateral agreement on trade in counterfeit goods. No progress was made on this front due to lack of support from any country/bloc apart from the EC.The matter was raised again in the 1982 Ministerial meeting and the Ministerial Declaration included an instruction to the GATT council to look into the question of counterfeit goods and the appropriateness and modalities of joint action within the GATT framework to counter the same. The expert group constituted pursuant to the Ministerial Declaration called for enhanced international action to tackle the problem of trade in counterfeit goods but stopped short of agreeing that GATT was the right forum for this. The preparations for the Uruguay Round in 1986 arrested any further progress by the expert group, even as active efforts were made to include IP in the Round.

IPR in the Uruguay Round

The United States was the major force behind the inclusion of IP in the Uruguay Round. Ineffective protection of US IP abroad was thought to be undermining the competitiveness of the US industry by both the US Government and industry. The objective was to evolve substantial standards of protection of IP in other countries along with effective enforcement mechanisms. This objective had earlier found expression in the US Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 which states explicitly that adequate foreign IP protection is a major US objective in trade negotiations.

In the initial stages of the Uruguay Round it was only US and Japan that were at the forefront for the inclusion of IPR’s in the mandate of negotiations. As a consequence of this, the first two years of the TRIPS Negotiating Group was an effort towards clarifying its negotiating mandate. The United States wanted the mandate to extend to substantive standards of protection of IP and internal enforcement; other developed countries were measured in their response. In particular, EC had an ambivalent stand at the beginning due to the added complication of distribution of competences between member states as EC institutions now had exclusive competence in GATT related matters. However as negotiations proceeded industrialized countries including Australia, Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand and the Nordic countries joined the pro IP bandwagon recognizing their shared interests in the deal. Even as industrialized countries were on one page in relation to the need for substantial IP protection to be part of multilateral trade rules there were still differences among them on the scope of protection of certain IPRs and with respect to special measures for developing countries such as transition periods , ‘pipeline protection’ and compulsory licensing. The underlying consensus on the need for IP protection within the GATT framework among these countries ensured that differences as noted above did not end up derailing the agreement.

Developing countries on the other hand were apprehensive about the inclusion of IPR within the GATT framework. The reasons for such a stand include, the belief that the mandate of GATT should not extend beyond ‘goods’, that such an inclusion will intrude into the domestic policy space of these countries and adversely affect their sovereignty in pursuing socio-economic policies according to their own needs and finally that there was nothing to be gained from undertaking obligations when 99% of the global patents and other forms of IP are owned by industrialized countries. However in the midterm review meeting held at Montreal in 1988 it started to appear that some of these developing countries shifted their stand in favour of inclusion of IPR in the GATT framework. This change in stand was not due to any new found clarity on the need for stricter and stronger IP protection at a global level. The future of multilateral trading system and the market access it secured came to be linked with the success of the Uruguay Round and a successful completion of TRIPS agreement was increasingly seen as a prerequisite for such an outcome. This belief was buttressed by the fact that the WTO agreement created new trade rights and did not incorporate pre-existing rights of the GATT with the result that any Government not joining it would lose the rights they enjoyed prior to the agreement. There was growing acceptance that refusing to deal with IP within the GATT will lead to a situation where developing countries will have to address it through bilateral agreements where the balance of power is further skewed in favour of developed countries. Further the potential benefits the agreement could bring in, in the fields of agriculture and textile was becoming clearer. Most importantly developing countries believed that using their collective bargaining power they could build into the agreement adequate flexibilities which will achieve a better balance of the interests of the developed and developing world.

Inherent Flexibilities in TRIPS

Although the mandate of TRIPS was to evolve a uniform global IP system with minimum standards of protection and effective enforcement mechanisms it does include a number of flexibilities that facilitate development and protection of public interest. In 1990 even as negotiations were in full swing to iron out differences between developed and developing countries , a draft TRIPS agreement was tabled by industrialized countries the focus of which was minimum protection , enforcement mechanisms and dispute settlement measures. In response to this draft, developing countries proposed their own draft legal text which aimed to maintain some flexibility in the agreement to allow countries to implement economic and social development objectives. The idea that was being emphasized was that intellectual property is not an end in itself and its objective should be the overall benefit of society as opposed to mere private benefit. These concerns of the developing countries found expression in Article 7 and 8 of the TRIPS of the agreement.

Article 7 and 8 of the agreement explicitly provide the important objectives and principals that need to be considered in the interpretation of the Agreement. Article 7 sets out the objective of the agreement to be promotion of technological innovation, transfer and dissemination of technology, production and use of technological knowledge while giving due attention to social and economic welfare. Article 8 gives countries the freedom to amend their laws to protect public health, nutrition and to promote public interest. Further, the preamble of the agreement recognizes underlying public policy objectives of countries in the protection of intellectual property rights which include developmental and technological objectives. A combined reading of Article 7, 8 and the Preamble of the agreement ‘in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty’ reveals that the agreement shows due deference to the domestic policy considerations of member countries. Thus even though TRIPS had its genesis in the strategic interests of the developed world , by the time the agreement was agreed and entered into , the developing world by virtue of its collective bargaining power had managed to incorporate certain flexibilities to make the agreement a more balanced framework for the protection and promotion of intellectual property.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/intellectual-property-rights-trips-an-overview

Leading Up To The GCIP: A Chat With Jayashree Watal

Job Michael Mathew — 2016-01-31T09:00:56Z

The fifth discussion in our pre-GCIP discussion series is with Jayashree Watal.

The blog post was published on the Global Congress page on December 15, 2015.

Profile: Jayashree Watal has been Counsellor in the Intellectual Property Division of the World Trade Organization since February 2001. She worked in the Ministry of Commerce of the Government of India as Director, Trade Policy Division, New Delhi (1995–1998). She represented India at a crucial stage in the Uruguay Round TRIPS negotiations from 1989–1990.

JMM: One of the major reasons for developing countries agreeing to the TRIPS agreement was the incorporation of Articles 7 and 8 which allow countries certain flexibilities in enforcing obligations under the agreement. Two decades since the beginning of TRIPS many if not most developing countries have not been able to take full advantage of these flexibilities. What explains this gap between the text of the agreement and its practical application?

JW: There were several reasons for developing countries like India agreeing to the TRIPS Agreement. Firstly, TRIPS contains policy options, including through exceptions and limitations to IPRs, that allow WTO members to take measures to protect public interest, for example through compulsory licences and parallel imports. Secondly, not accepting TRIPS would have meant leaving the multilateral trading system and facing unilateral action – a price considered by many countries to be too high given that the final agreement was fairly balanced and that there were trade benefits to be obtained especially in textiles and agriculture. Thirdly, many of these countries were already TRIPS compliant with the exception of a limited number of provisions. At the same time, many were already responding to contemporary geopolitical changes by unilaterally liberalizing their trade and investment policies; maintaining certain minimum IPR standards without compromising vital public interest went in the same direction.

The perspective of some twenty years ago has hence changed and TRIPS has come into focus as a reasonably flexible framework rather than the highly restrictive constraint on domestic policymaking and pre-emption of policy options that some feared. Experience has shown that developing countries have been able to work within the TRIPS framework in diverse ways interpreting and applying TRIPS standards, and framing their IP laws and policies, in diverse ways that are tailored to their national interests and domestic circumstances. Articles 7 and 8 of the TRIPS Agreement are indeed important benchmarks for policymakers taking account of public policy when framing and implementing IP laws and policies, but the practical experience we can now survey from countries across the globe in applying specific TRIPS provisions offers concrete insights into the constructive way the general standards of the agreement are adapted and implemented to take account of changing policy needs, and other social, economic and technological changes. Empirical surveys such as the useful work done by the WIPO Secretariat in reporting to the WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property on the use of patent-related flexibilities not only show the extent of flexibilities implemented, but potentially serve as a factual basis for constructive dialogue and mutual learning about contemporary trends in IP policymaking in the developing world within the TRIPS framework. See http://www.wipo.int/ip-development/en/agenda/flexibilities/search.jsp

JMM: The TRIPS Agreement was an example of consensus based multilateral norm setting on intellectual property. Two decades since TRIPS, multilateral norm setting on intellectual property is at a standstill and regional and bilateral avenues which certain commentators have called ‘power based’ as opposed to ‘rule based’ are setting norms on IP. How do you think a change in forum from multilateral to bilateral or plurilateral affects the negotiating power of developing country negotiators? Further can you shed some light on the additional challenges negotiators from developing countries faced during the TRIPS negotiations on account of the politically sensitive nature of intellectual property negotiations considering its impact on access to medicine etc?

JW: It is worth bearing in mind that the genesis of the TRIPS negotiations can be found, at least in part, in the desire of many countries – including developed countries – to find a more transparent, rules-based approach to dealing with inevitable bilateral disagreements over the trade dimension of IP: the preamble of TRIPS refers to the reduction of tensions through multilateral resolution of disputes. This background lies behind the consensus to conclude an agreement on TRIPS. Equally, though, the TRIPS negotiations illustrated how developing countries can benefit in trade negotiations from strong coalitions among themselves, coalitions that can also bridge across the traditional north-south divide. , A broader base of support and engagement in multilateral settings can offset the more narrowly defined targets of demandeurs in the negotiations. This can happen in a multilateral context or even in a plurilateral context. This more inclusive approach is less likely by definition in a bilateral trade negotiation. A recent WTO publication The Making of the TRIPS Agreement is available for free download chapter by chapter at https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/trips_agree_e.htm . There are many chapters authored by developing country negotiators that discuss exactly these considerations.

JMM: In the context of a number of trade agreements involving intellectual property chapters negotiated in secret, what are the pros and cons of conducting open negotiations?

JW: In any negotiation process with significant issues at stake, there are competing considerations of transparency and inclusion, and managing the dynamics of negotiations. Reaching consensus in a multilateral or plurilateral negotiation, irrespective of forum or subject, is very difficult. It is even more so when each party's "bottom lines" or "red lines" are known to other parties, and the actual progress of negotiations is entirely open to immediate debate and analysis. Compromises and understandings that have to be made to progress any negotiation become more difficult if the entire process is open to all to observe. It is hard to prescribe the correct way of addressing this balance for each and every trade negotiation, and to determine the best mechanism for transparency and consultation that should apply in each case. As a general observation, however, it does behove negotiators and those instructing them, to ensure a good degree of transparency and a broad base of consultation, not least because this will build understanding and acceptance of the ultimate negotiated outcome.

JMM: What role can multilateral institutions such as WTO and WIPO play in the context of intellectual property negotiations moving to bilateral or plurilateral forums?

JW: The range and complexity of recent intellectual property norm-setting in bilateral and regional forums is unprecedented. Setting aside the question of the perceived virtues and shortcomings of this approach, there is unquestionably a common challenge in developing a comprehensive overview of the cumulative effect of several hundred new treaties dealing with IP norms, and the overall trends that can be discerned. Considering the role of the WTO, while WTO Members are clearly entitled to enter into regional trade agreements (RTAs, also known as free trade agreements or preferential trade agreements)subject to the conditions laid down in the multilateral trade agreements, the WTO system provides for transparency and review of their provisions. This work is actively undertaken in the Committee on RTAs; the WTO Trade Policy Review Mechanism has also produced valuable information on RTAs and similar agreements with IP standards. The TRIPS Council has from time to time had bilateral and plurilateral norm setting questions on its agenda. WTO is a member-driven organization and members continue to debate on how to respond to the overall trend towards bilateral and plurilateral norm setting, and its implications for the multilateral system. Among analysts, some maintain FTAs can serve as building blocks for further multilateral trade liberalization. Other analysts question the continuing effectiveness of a "single undertaking" approach to multilateral negotiations, and advocate pre- Uruguay Round type plurilateral agreements.

JMM: The years since the TRIPS have seen a changing landscape of innovation in the fields of biotechnology, computer technology etc. Do these changes necessitate a revision of the TRIPS agreement or can the flexibilities in the agreement take care of such changes?

JW: TRIPS is a minimum standards agreement and provides a balanced framework that can accommodate the evolving technological landscape. An example would be the revolutionary developments in biotechnology that have occurred in the past two decades: WTO Members, through policy processes, legislation, and court decisions, have dealt with the implications of these developments in flexible ways within the established TRIPS framework. The TRIPS negotiations took place at a time when the internet was largely unknown and in the meantime, digital technology has revolutionised not only copyright but the way in which much creative content is distributed and traded. The WIPO Internet Treaties of 1996 represented a multilateral step forward taking account of digital technologies in a manner consciously consistent with TRIPS. Since that time, there has been a great deal of norm-setting in this area in bilateral negotiations and more recently in plurilateral processes. It is for the international community to take collective stock of these developments, although there is currently no apparent momentum. The TRIPS Agreement does contain provision for reviews "in the light of any relevant new developments” which might “warrant modification or amendment” of the Agreement. However, there are no proposals tabled by WTO Members at present under this provision.

[1] Jayashree Watal has researched and published articles on issues related to the law and economics of intellectual property rights, including a book Intellectual Property Rights in the WTO and Developing Countries (Oxford University Press, India and Kluwer Law International, 2001). She was the editor of the book ‘The Making of the TRIPS Agreement’ which details the negotiating process of the agreement from the standpoint of the negotiators themselves.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/leading-up-to-the-gcip-a-chat-with-jayashree-watal

Invisible Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen

pranesh — 2012-01-04T08:59:14Z

The Indian government wants to censor the Internet without being seen to be censoring the Internet. This article by Pranesh Prakash shows how the government has been able to achieve this through the Information Technology Act and the Intermediary Guidelines Rules it passed in April 2011. It now wants methods of censorship that leave even fewer traces, which is why Mr. Kapil Sibal, Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology talks of Internet 'self-regulation', and has brought about an amendment of the Copyright Act that requires instant removal of content.

Power of the Internet and Freedom of Expression

The Internet, as anyone who has ever experienced the wonder of going online would know, is a very different communications platform from any that has existed before. It is the one medium where anybody can directly share their thoughts with billions of other people in an instant. People who would never have any chance of being published in a newspaper now have the opportunity to have a blog and provide their thoughts to the world. This also means that thoughts that many newspapers would decide not to publish can be published online since the Web does not, and more importantly cannot, have any editors to filter content. For many dictatorships, the right of people to freely express their thoughts is something that must be heavily regulated. Unfortunately, we are now faced with the situation where some democratic countries are also trying to do so by censoring the Internet.

Intermediary Guidelines Rules

In India, the new 'Intermediary Guidelines' Rules and the Cyber Cafe Rules that have been in effect since April 2011 give not only the government, but all citizens of India, great powers to censor the Internet. These rules, which were made by the Department of Information Technology and not by the Parliament, require that all intermediaries remove content that is 'disparaging', 'relating to... gambling', 'harm minors in any way', to which the user 'does not have rights'. When was the last time you checked wither you had 'rights' to a joke before forwarding it? Did you share a Twitter message containing the term "#IdiotKapilSibal", as thousands of people did a few days ago? Well, that is 'disparaging', and Twitter is required by the new law to block all such content. The government of Sikkim can run advertisements for its PlayWin lottery in newspapers, but under the new law it cannot do so online. As you can see, through these ridiculous examples, the Intermediary Guidelines are very badly thought-out and their drafting is even worse. Worst of all, they are unconstitutional, as they put limits on freedom of speech that contravene Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution, and do so in a manner that lacks any semblance of due process and fairness.

Excessive Censoring by Internet Companies

We, at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, decided to test the censorship powers of the new rules by sending frivolous complaints to a number of intermediaries. Six out of seven intermediaries removed content, including search results listings, on the basis of the most ridiculous complaints. The people whose content was removed were not told, nor was the general public informed that the content was removed. If we hadn't kept track, it would be as though that content never existed. Such censorship existed during Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union. Not even during the Emergency has such censorship ever existed in India. Yet, not only was what the Internet companies did legal under the Intermediary Guideline Rules, but if they had not, they could have been punished for content put up by someone else. That is like punishing the post office for the harmful letters that people may send over post.

Government Has Powers to Censor and Already Censors

Currently, the government can either block content by using section 69A of the Information Technology Act (which can be revealed using RTI), or it has to send requests to the Internet companies to get content removed. Google has released statistics of government request for content removal as part of its Transparency Report. While Mr. Sibal uses the examples of communally sensitive material as a reason to force censorship of the Internet, out of the 358 items requested to be removed from January 2011 to June 2011 from Google service by the Indian government (including state governments), only 8 were for hate speech and only 1 was for national security. Instead, 255 items (71 per cent of all requests) were asked to be removed for 'government criticism'. Google, despite the government in India not having the powers to ban government criticism due to the Constitution, complied in 51 per cent of all requests. That means they removed many instances of government criticism as well.

'Self-Regulation': Undetectable Censorship

Mr. Sibal's more recent efforts at forcing major Internet companies such as Indiatimes, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, to 'self-regulate' reveals a desire to gain ever greater powers to bypass the IT Act when censoring Internet content that is 'objectionable' (to the government). Mr. Sibal also wants to avoid embarrassing statistics such as that revealed by Google's Transparency Report. He wants Internet companies to 'self-regulate' user-uploaded content, so that the government would never have to send these requests for removal in the first place, nor block sites officially using the IT Act. If the government was indeed sincere about its motives, it would not be talking about 'transparency' and 'dialogue' only after it was exposed in the press that the Department of Information Technology was holding secret talks with Internet companies. Given the clandestine manner in which it sought to bring about these new censorship measures, the motives of the government are suspect. Yet, both Mr. Sibal and Mr. Sachin Pilot have been insisting that the government has no plans of Internet censorship, and Mr. Pilot has made that statement officially in the Lok Sabha. This, thus seems to be an instance of censoring without censorship.

Backdoor Censorship through Copyright Act

Further, since the government cannot bring about censorship laws in a straightforward manner, they are trying to do so surreptitiously, through the back door. Mr. Sibal's latest proposed amendment to the Copyright Act, which is before the Rajya Sabha right now, has a provision called section 52(1)(c) by which anyone can send a notice complaining about infringement of his copyright. The Internet company will have to remove the content immediately without question, even if the notice is false or malicious. The sender of false or malicious notices is not penalized. But the Internet company will be penalized if it doesn't remove the content that has been complained about. The complaint need not even be shown to be true before the content is removed. Indeed, anyone can complain about any content, without even having to show that they own the rights to that content. The government seems to be keen to have the power to remove content from the Internet without following any 'due process' or fair procedure. Indeed, it not only wants to give itself this power, but it is keen on giving all individuals this power.

It's ultimate effect will be the death of the Internet as we know it. Bid adieu to it while there is still time.

The article was translated to Marathi and featured in Lokmat

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship

SCCR 29: Public Interest Organizations Statements regarding the Broadcasting Treaty

praskrishna — 2014-12-27T16:44:18Z

Also presented during the afternoon plenary, here are 3 statements by public interest organizations, the TACD, EFF and CIS:

The article was published in Knowledge Ecology International on December 9, 2014.

TACD: Thank you very much the transAtlantic consumer dialogue is concerned that the discussion on this treaty whereas in the past due to the lack of definitions we called it an unidentified flying object, now, as the definitions get a bit clearer, we feel it's becoming a more identified flying object in the air as a transmission and precisely because it's becoming identified some of these definitions we consider are concerning us and we are worried about these definitions because we think these definitions and these protections of rights could mean a threat to access to culture, a threat even to freedom of speech, and a threat to the public domain. And we are talking about a public domain, about public broadcasting signals.
And we think these threats are coming from a scope that is much broader than is recommendable. It is a scope that could take into account a lot of the digital rights that millions of young people around the world are fighting for and defending. And I think this sensitivity of digital rights of mixing, of the type of things that go on every day millions of times on the Internet should not be threatened by this treaty. So how can we avoid that? We could avoid that by avoiding any post fixation rights.

We could avoid it by a very narrow definition of simultaneous or near simultaneous traditional broadcasting signals to the public in the air. We could -- broadcasting should mean, similar to the Rome Convention, the transmission by wireless over the air means for public reception of sounds, of images and of words.
As well, what is a signal? What is a signal? A signal obviously could not just mean everything. A signal means an electronically generated carrier over the air with sounds and images, and what we really need, what we really need is to narrow down the scope to a point where we don't see this as something that can be a threat to the creativity, innovation, new business models at a time when we know that the new business models need that flexibility, what we don't need is yet another layer of bureaucratic costly rights that will be burdensome for the future of the Internet.

So for that reason, for consumers, for Internet users, for culture, for new innovation, we would like really to call for this very narrow definition of the scope. Thank you very much.

The call for a narrow based possible treaty was echoed by EFF https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/danger-post-fixation-rights-wipo-b...

>> Electronic frontier foundation: This year marks the tenth anniversary of EFF discussions over the WIPO treaty for broadcasting organisations. And during that time our position has been constant that any such treating should be limited to addressing the unauthorized simultaneous and near simultaneous retransmission of traditional broadcast untiles to the public without assigning new exclusive rights in the content of those signals. We also note it would be possible to include a right to prohibit the transmission of prebroadcast signals within a snail based approach and without assigning any new exclusive rights. Although this has been [decided?] in the past when WIPO dwed at the 2007 assembly to follow a signal based approach. Current discussions on post fixation rights have backtracked from this commitment and it's that more than anything else that has led these negotiations to become more protracted.
Creating new exclusive rights in post broadcast fixations would impede access to public domain material and material over which copyright limitations and exceptions may apply. This is because some material may not be readily available other than from broadcasts such as in the case of broadcast of sport or use events. It would impede the use of technological innovations that add val you to broadcast. Especially if it curtailed the use of circumvention devices this could affects digital media players and new innovations we can't even envision yet especially those running on free and open source marredware and software. So EFF urges WIPO members to be disciplined in their add harns to a narrow signal based approach as we see this as the only way that a treaty for broadcasting ors organisations can be conclude in 2015 or at all. Thank you.

The CIS made a technical analysis of the "charts" that cannot (yet) be provided to the public also here: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wipo-sccr-29-cis-intervention-on-proposed...

> CIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This intervention will be based on your chart detailing the concepts corresponding to the various definitions we are discussing here today. We believe that there are certain elements to these concepts that are inconsistent with the broadcast treaty based on a signals based approach and over the course of the next few minutes, I would like to briefly discuss these.
First, Mr. Chair, in the first column, and broadcasting or cable casting organisation in the traditional sense where communication of the signal has been listed under the scope of responsibility. Mr. Chair, as we have submitted in other statements before this community, before this committee, communication itself we believe is a concept that is an element of copyright, and it's distinction broadcast rights char related rights. A signal, Mr. Chair, we, therefore, believe could be broadcast or transmitted and accordingly under the element that deals with the scope of responsibility, we are of the money opinion that it should read broadcast or transmission of the signal and not communication of the signal, and the focus should not be communication to the public.

A concept that's also been discussed in certain alternatives to the definitions under Article 5 which accordingly we would loss not favor. Second, Mr. Chair, in the second column in broadcasting and cable casting transmission, we have three observations. Fist, under the means of transmission, we believe the transmission over computer networks is wide enough to encompass IP based tran missions and, therefore, should be excluded in order for the treaty to be consistent with the signals based approach.

Second, on the reception of the broadcast or cable cast prance mission, we believe that it should be qualified using the phrase general public. We are of the opinion that there is a danger that a limited public, say, family members, could be covered under the term public but would be excluded from the term general puck public which in any case is the targeted audience of a broadcast. Third, Mr. Chair, on whether the transmission would be encrypted or not, which also flows into the thought column on the signal, and whether the signal itself is encrypted or not, encrypted or not.

And which would also then relate to whether broadcasting organisations will have the right to prevent unauthorized decription. Mr. Chair, we don't think there should be a separate right to prevent unauthorized decription. Given that signal theft is a crime, having a spect decription might result in an absurdity where it would cover decrypting and unauthorized retransmission without authorization from the retransmitter where the transmission by the retransmitter was illegal to begin with.

Finally, Mr. Chair, in the third column and on the meaning of the signal, we submit that our preferred definition would be one where the definition of a signal is confined, and is understood as an electronically generated carrier transmitting a broadcast or a cable cast and not one which has the capability of such transmission as has been stated in your third chart.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/knowledge-ecology-international-sccr-29-public-interest-organizations-statements-regarding-the-broadcasting-treaty

SCCR 29 Libraries, Archives and Public Interest NGOs in Q&A with Dr. Crews

praskrishna — 2014-12-27T16:54:58Z

While the many publishers representatives took the floor to explain that there are truly no problems with limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives (and anyway according to them if there are problems that can be solved with licenses), libraries & archives as well as public interest groups make their case: the committee must continue its work on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and find solutions.

This blog entry was published on the website of Knowledge Ecology International on December 11, 2014.

Here are excerpts from some of the interventions:

Hasmik Galstyan, Yerevan, Armenia speaking for the Electronic Information for LIbraries (eIFL.net):

>> EIFL: I'm speaking on behalf of the electronic information for libraries and that works with libraries and library con sort Sha in more than 60 developing and transition economy countries. We thank the Secretariat for commissioning the updated study that provided a comprehensive overview in the IP law. We thank professor crews for his clear presentation.
The report contains positives and negatives from our Point of View. The positives include the fact that law makers are to some degree responding to the need for legal change and a small number of countries have over the last six years created new exceptions especially with regard to digital services. These changes are to be commended. On the other hand, it is discouraging that 18% of countries including five EIFL partner countries have new exceptions for libraries and over one-third located almost totally in the developing world still do not have an exception allowing libraries to make copies of their works for the users. The trend regarding digital library services doesn't look good. Even for states that introduce amendment 2008 digital is barred in 50% in some cases for preservation and it states with anti-circumvention protection while some have applied library exceptions as mentioned by professor crews half of the countries have provided no library exceptions. So while a small number of countries are moving ahead and reforming their copyright laws the digital divide is being perpetuated at a time when libraries everywhere are adopting new technologies and Developing Countries are rapidly moving to mobile. My question is how can the situation be addressed. How can WIPO as an UN agency with a commitment to work with Developing Countries to enhance their participation in the global innovation economy most effectively support countries to be at the forefront of digital developments. To ensure that our libraries that are working hard to support education and development are not operating with one hand tied behind our backs.

My second question is considering that between 2008 and 2014 only a handful of countries have been implemented made changes benefitting libraries and their users and imagining that the current rate of support for a change stays the same, how long do you think it will take before all WIPO Member States have exceptions good enough to support library activities in the Digital Age? And the last question, please. Libraries collections contain materials of unique cultural and historical significance to people in other countries to the national border changes shared languages and a host of other reasons. In addition collaboration among researchers today is international. Therefore libraries increasingly need to send and receive information across borders. In our examination of copyright laws how do they accommodate or not these activities? Thank you very much.

The libraries representatives were echoed by archives representatives. William Maher, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, representing the Society of America Archivists.

Thank you for producing a study that brings such clarity to the quite confusing maze of the laws that librarians and archivists must work with. Archives has been mentioned a lot over the past couple of days but I am only the second archivist to be addressing this issue at SCCR. Archivists know that the general populations does not understand what archives are and how and why we do what we do. However, it seems reasonable that those who draft copyright laws should understand that archives are fundamentally about the unpublished legacy of humankind. Yet, when looking at the 70 or so countries in the 2014 study, archives are seriously overlooked–Despite whatever minimal improvement for libraries, archives have been left out of 53% of the exceptions for preservation and 72 % of the exceptions for copying for research. Is this absence of provisions also reflected in the fact that the laws lack definitions of archives? Can this oversight be read as meaning that archives do not matter to the nations copyright system, or does it mean that copyright should not matter to archives?
>> KENNETH CREWS: Well, thank you very much. Yes, I think you have also heard me speak very strongly about the distinct interests of archives and maybe I should say even more important the distinct interests of our citizens in archives and in the works that they are -- the work that they are doing. And their ability to use these copyright provisions for the benefit of the country and of its citizens. I certainly can't emphasize that enough. So I -- I'm not going to read in to the lack of reference to archives. The kind of meaning that you are asking about. But instead I think we can certainly say that it makes you wonder if archives have been recognized by the drafters of many of these statutes and if in the case of following through on the example of the models influencing domestic law it really is have archives come to the attention of the individuals who have been responsible for developing some of the models. So I believe very strongly that the future statutes in individual countries and the drafting of different kinds of instruments or models that may come from WIPO or any other organization need to encompass archives. And the -- because the preservation and research access and other kinds of beneficial uses of archival material goes directly to the preservation of the culture and the history of our countries and our people. And it is vital that we be able to do that and keep archives at the table. And I thank you very much for being here.

Another stakeholder, Nehaa Chaudhari, Lawyer, Programme Officer at the Centre for Internet and Society questioned Dr. Crews on provisions regarding digital works:

CIS: Thank you Madame Chair. Thank you very much professor crews for your presentation yesterday and this comprehensive study on libraries and archives. Very timely and very important to us from the [...] access to knowledge and information most critically.
I have two questions. My first question: did you find in your examination that in terms of or on the question of limitations and exceptions did you find that there was an equal or equitable treatment of digital resources in comparison to resources available in more traditional formats? And if not, where do you think that are lever of change lies to ensure that fair use of fair dealing provisions are extended e equitably to the digital environment as well.

My second question is on the interoperability of limitations and exceptions. Given that copyright is a very national thing and as your study has also well established countries have a whole range of veridy veers approaches and practices on limitations and exceptions. But also given the fact that we live in an increasingly globalized world we need a system that is interoperable with respect to the transboundary movement of works with as little fiction as possible. Again both in the physical as well as in the digital environments. So what did your examination show of how interoperable or not the range of limitations and exceptions actually have. Those are my two questions. Thank you very much.

> KENNETH CREWS: Thank you very much. On the second question, I'm afraid I might mind myself only repeating some of the concepts that have already said about transborder and really about in the statutes anyway, a lack of recognition of transborder. And the transborder concept, so I will add this piece to the conversation, the transborder concept seldom if ever appears in these library exceptions to the extent that we are going to find it in copyright law or some other part of a national law it may very well be over in the import/export kind -- area of the law. But that also goes to the interoperability which think we have answered a few times just this sort -- the lack of exact harmonization and as others have reminded me I have said before that I may not be a fan of exact precise harmonization and indeed it may not be possible or even desirable. But some degree of harmonization can help with that interoperability. Interesting question, you do -- you did raise a new point about digital. We have talked several times in this conversation about use of digital technologies in the exercise of the rights of use under the exception. However what I think you were asking about is the ability to apply the exception to works that are digital in the first place that are what we call born digital and that's a very interesting question. The statutes do not address that. Sometimes you will see a statute that refers to -- that says it applies to all these different kinds of works but not computer software. That tells you somebody was thinking it shouldn't apply to software but somehow software is different and there are problems with that. We know that software has changed and been incorporated in to many different works. But we generally see a statute almost always see a statute that's about books or archival materials or some other kind of work without specifying the technology. So can it apply to an e-book in addition to the paper book? The statutes don't go there. They don't sort that out.

So in my common law tradition I look at that and see that as a question for interpretation. In
a civil code system I might look at it and see it a little bit more firmly for lack of a better word
about what the scope of that word book, for example, really means. Really good question. And it is one that the statutes have not picked up on. Thank you very much.

Finally, the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) representative David Hammerstein made the following political and philosophical intervention:

Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Crews for your presentation. I would like to say a few general words. Internet and the digital obviously is global. Copyright laws are national. Economic power is global. Politics is national. This is very relevant to our discussion.
And other relevant factor is that copyright law and the idea of exceptions and limitations are very complicated. It is for small circles of specialists usually and when these things come out in to the open to the greater public opinion things change radically. I can only remind peep of this room for the debate on ACTA or the debate for SOPA and PIPA in the United States. When these issues come out of the closet things are seen in a very, very different light. The opinion of copyright specialist especially where I know in the European Union and totally different with the opinions of the general public. And the general public the vast majority are frustrated by copyright law because social reality that applies de facto and I am not talking about piracy, I am talking about de facto flexibilities and exceptions and limitations are very, very far from the legal reality of the copyright. The vast majority of Europeans would like to have a harmonized and mandatory exceptions and limitations that we are speaking about, whether it be more text and data mining, whether it be for libraries whether it be cross-border, whether it be preservation of cultural heritage, they would like that. Now the opinions of the often of political structures are captured by certain experts and very special groups that are interested in what they want. Especially the European Union is at a cross roads and we can see it politically because around a year ago the European Union launched a process called lnss for Europe where some of the ideas presented by some of the industry people were brought up memorandums of understanding and that the solution to exceptions and limitations for these issues could be found in voluntary measures between stakeholders. This was a failure. This was a terrible failure. We had letters many many many Nobel Prize winners who are asking tore a legal exceptions and limitations for text and data mining for other scientific research and we think that many orphan works legislation does not go far enough. Et cetera, et cetera, self generated user content. How can that Democratic debate take place and these cross roads can be made a positively by real decisions. And I think those real decisions have to be deal with the public dough minute yon, what is public knowledge and things about the commons, we are talking about the knowledge commons here need to have a democratic debate and need to have democratic management. Now this could be done by very delayed mediation to end up in the hands of a few copyright experts that are very close to very narrow industry that I think is defending outdated models or we could open a democratic debate where exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives for preservation for scientific limitation would be beyond borders. Even inside the European Union today it is almost hard to imagine there to be harmonization in the internal market. And the people making money prefer a fragmented market even though European site sents want a harmonized market for these things. My question is impossible question. I am sorry to put you on spot of how to open up the door, how to bring this issue out of the closet and how to involve millions of people who really want that change. Thank you very much

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/knowledge-ecology-international-sccr-29-december-11-2014-libraries-archives-public-interest-ngos-q-a-with-dr-crews

National IPR Policy Series : The Development of the National IPR Policy

nehaa — 2015-01-22T00:48:33Z

This is the first blog post in a series of posts on India's National IPR Policy. In this post, CIS intern, Varnika Chawla traces the evolution of the National IPR Policy.

Significant changes have been implemented in the Intellectual Property regime of India since India's accession to TRIPS in 1995. This post details the timeline of the development of Intellectual Property law in India, highlighting the discourse around the formulation of a National IPR Policy. The author has also looked at the formulation of IP Strategies in different nations across the world, summarized in the infographic, observing that the trend for the same is very recent and has only emerged over the last decade.

"Intellectual Property Right is a private right recognized within the territory of a country and assigned to an individual or individuals for a specified period of time in return for making public, the results of their creativity and innovation." India has a well-established and comprehensive legislative, judicial and administrative framework for intellectual property. The decade of 2010-2020 was declared as the Decade of Innovation, with an objective of expanding the space for dialogue for inclusive growth. With the emergence of globalization, the Indian society has become more knowledge-intensive giving rise to rapid development in the field of information technology and consequently intellectual property, thereby increasing the role of the legislature as well as the judiciary to protect and promote intellectual property rights.

India gained membership of the World Trade Organization in 1995. This membership initiated a new round of revisions resulting in the upheaval of the Indian intellectual property system. All IP legislations were hereby required to comply with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement by 2000, with the exception of the Patents Act, which had an extended time limit to be compliant till 2005.

The Indian system of intellectual property rights is designed in a manner to ensure the protection of intellectual property while maintaining a balance between rights and obligations. There are several legislations which deal with the protection of intellectual property in India. These include thePatents Act, 1970, the Trade Marks Act, 1999, theGeographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Design Act, 2000, the Competition Act, 2002 as well as theBiological Diversity Act, 2002. India is also thefirst country to ratify theMarrakesh Treaty, 2013 for access to copyright works for visually impaired persons. India also recently acceded to the Madrid Protocol in 2013.

National IP Strategy and the Role of WIPO

A National IP strategy has been defined by WIPO as "a vehicle for creating better functional linkages between the national economic objectives, development priorities and resources, and the IP system of the country concerned."[1] It is therefore a set of policy measures undertaken by governments in order to facilitate the proper use of IP as a strategic tool, for economic, social, cultural and technological development.[2] WIPO also gave the framework of the planning process each country should implement, in its efforts to adopt an IP strategy. As per this, the process is divided into four main stages:

Government initiative
Establishment of a National IP Strategy Formulation Committee
Presentation of draft strategy before stakeholders
Government approval of National IP Strategy,[3]

WIPO can assist in the formulation of a National IP Strategy by advising the governments as well as providing technical expertise during the planning process and providing support and assistance as and when required.[4]

India's National IPR Strategy

Realizing the significance of having a strong and well-balanced IP system in the emerging economy of India, several initiatives have been undertaken by the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion at the policy level to create an environment conducive for the development of intellectual property and technology. Accordingly, a draft for the National IPR Strategy, outlining a set of measures and guidelines to encourage and facilitate the effective creation, protection, management and commercialization of IP for accelerating economic, social, cultural and technological development and for enhancing enterprise competitiveness prepared by the Sectoral Innovation Council on IPR was released by DIPP on September 26, 2012, inviting views from various stakeholders. It was felt that the National IP Strategy needs to be developed in a manner such that it is integrated with the overall national plan for development in order for better cooperation with IP components of specific and targeted national strategies in areas such as trade and investment, education, food and agriculture, science and technology etc.

Subsequently, a revised draft for the National IPR Strategy in India was released on July 21, 2014, detailing a vision statement, objectives and means to achieve the same.

The DIPP constituted an IPR Think Tank , as notified on November 13, 2014, in order to draft the National Intellectual Property Rights Policy and to advise DIPP on IPR-related issues. Finally, a First Draft of the National IPR Policy was submitted by the IPR Think Tank on December 19, 2014 , inviting comments and suggestions from all stakeholders on or before January 30, 2015.

National IP Strategies: Around the World

WIPO Member States adopted 45 recommendations at the 2007 General Assembly, made by the Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda. This also included Member States setting up "appropriate national strategies in the field of intellectual property." These recommendations were identified for immediate and effective implementation, resulting in countries beginning to adopt the same, with the objective of promoting and enforcing IP rights. The info-graphic below highlights the formulation of IP Strategies in Member States around the world.

China announced its "National Intellectual Property Strategic Principles" in June, 2008. Japan established its "Intellectual Property Strategy Headquarters" in 2003, and its Intellectual Property Strategic Program in 2004, while USA legislated the " Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act" in 2008. Furthermore, the Presidential Advisory Council on Education, Science and Technology in Korea announced the " Strategy for Intellectual Property System Constructing Plan" on June 27, 2006, consisting of three aspects: Creation and Application, Law and Regulation, and Infrastructure. The European Union has adopted a " Strategy for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Third Countries", aimed at evaluating the recent major changes that have taken place in the international IP arena, preparing to meet the challenges in an effective manner. Finland adopted " The Government's Resolution on the Strategy Concerning Intellectual Property Rights " on March 26, 2009. Therefore, it is observed that the trend of National IP Strategies has only started recently, in the last decade.

Therefore we see the emerging need of an all-encompassing IP Policy arising in nations around the world, aimed at promoting a holistic environment conducive to the development of Intellectual Property.

[1] WIPO's Contribution to the Elaboration and Implementation of Strategies and National Plans for the Development of IP and Innovation , WTO Strategic Planning Workshop, Geneva, Switzerland, June 13, 2014.

[2] Id .

[3] Id .

[4] Id.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-development-of-the-national-ipr-policy

RTI Responses - MHRD IP Chairs: Details of Funding & Expenditure

nehaa — 2015-02-02T13:28:30Z

In an earlier blog post titled "MHRD IPR Chairs — Underutilization of Funds and Lack of Information Regarding Expenditures", we discussed the lack of information regarding the expenditure by various MHRD Chairs in the country. We sent out RTI requests to find out more. This blog post discusses the responses that we have received so far. (Many thanks to CIS intern Varnika Chawla for her assistance)

See the earlier post on MHRD IPR Chairs — Underutilization of Funds and Lack of Information Regarding Expenditures

A wide variation in the allocation of funds among different Universities was observed. Further, it was noted that no information was available on any platform, regarding the actual utilization of these funds, and therefore, CIS had filed a Right to Information request for the same with the concerned authorities.

A four-pronged Right to Information query (dated 17.11.2014) was filed by CIS with various Universities, seeking the following:

A report on the implementation of the IPERPO Scheme and the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the Scheme at different Universities across India, for the year 2013-14;
Documents on the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO Scheme at different Universities, for the year 2013-14;
Documents relating to the receipt of utilization certificates and audited expenditures statements and matters related to all financial sanctions with regard to funds granted to the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO Scheme for the year 2013-14;
Documents regarding all matters related to finance and budget related to the MHRD IPR Chair under the IPERPO Scheme for 2013-14 established across different Universities.

Accordingly, CIS received the following information from Universities:

Name of University	Implementation of IPERPO Scheme	Release of Grants	Utilization Certificates & Exp. Stmts.	Finance & Budget Matters
WBNUJS, Kolkata	Information not yet available	-	-	-
DU, Delhi School of Economics, Tezpur University	Information not yet available	-	-	-
Jawaharlal Nehru University	Information not yet available	-	-	-
IIM, Ahmedabad	No MHRD IPR Chair	-	-	-
IIM, Bangalore	Established a Chair	Rs. 23,50,000	Rs. 23,50,000	Submitted
IIT Delhi	No MHRD IPR Chair	No money has been received	-	-
NLU, Jodhpur	Established a Chair	Rs. 36,00,000	Rs. 18,86,566	Submitted
University of Madras	No MHRD IPR Chair	No money has been received	-	-
Nalsar University of Law, Hyderabad	Established a Chair	Rs. 40,00,000	Rs. 37, 88,349	Submitted
NLSIU, Bangalore	Established a Chair	Rs. 45,00,000	Rs. 45,31,927	-
CUSAT, Kerala	Information not yet available	-	-	-
IIT, Bombay	No IPR Chair for 2013-14	Rs. 35,00,000	Rs. 15,66,179	Submitted

The RTI Requests were returned by NUJS Kolkata as well as IIT, Kanpur, in a response dated 28.11.2014.

IIM Ahmedabad in its response (dated 9.12.2014), informed of the fact that no MHRD IPR Chair has been established under the IPERPO Scheme at the institution.

Details of the activities undertaken by the MHRD IPR Chair, as well as their finance and budget allocation were received from IIM, Bangalore (dated 16.12.2014). It was disclosed that the focus of the IPR Chair is on research on the economic and management dimensions of IPR with special reference to the corporate, SME and agricultural sectors. Since 2011-12, the Chair has focused on creative content management and protection with reference to cinema, electronic media and classical performing arts. Several activities were undertaken by the Chair, including finalization of a Research Monograph; inclusion of IPR Economics into the Core Course in Microeconomics for the Post Graduate Programme in Software Enterprise Management; a National Workshop on “Macro Policy Environment, IPR’s and Competition Policy” was organized; and 2 Research Assistants were appointed under the Chair. Against a request for Rs. 26,10,000, a grant of Rs. 23,50,000 was received, utilized for the payment of the Chair’s salary (Rs. 19,20,000), RA honorarium (Rs. 5,40,000) and Round Table Expenses.

IIT, Delhi, in its response (dated 16.12.2014) informed that no MHRD IPR Chair has been established under the IPERPO Scheme at the University. Further, no grant money has been received by the University under the Scheme.

NLU, Jodhpur submitted a detailed reply (dated 16.12.2014). A number of IPR research and learning initiatives have been undertaken under the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO Scheme, including IPR Awareness Programmes, formulation and conduction of various undergraduate and postgraduate IPR Courses, research and suggestions on IPR Law Reforms and IPR Policies etc. NLU Jodhpur conducted a training session for researchers and teachers of IPR, a workshop for students on IP Litigation, a conference on “The Impact of IPR on Access to Medicine”, Training, Sensitization and Outreach Programmes as well as lectures and paper presentations. Funding received from the grant was utilized towards payment of the coordinator’s salary (Rs. 5,78,800) RA honorarium (Rs. 6,00,000), Ph.D. fellows’ honorarium (Rs. 3,38,000), travel grants (Rs. 2,00,000) and miscellaneous expenditure. A total of Rs. 17,00,000 was spent on sensitization and outreach programmes, workshops, conferences as well as the IP Depository.

The University of Madras in its response (dated 29.12.2014) submitted that no MHRD IPR Chair has been established under the IPERPO Scheme and no grants were sanctioned to the University.

The requisite documents detailing expenditure incurred (Rs. 37,88,349) as well as the financial budget were made available by NALSAR University of Law (dated 22.12.2014). Expenditure was incurred towards the payment of the Chair Professor’s salary (Rs. 17,50,093), payments to the staff (Rs.7,11,544), the IPR Journal (Rs. 40,000), Travel (Rs.6,45,864), books (Rs. 2,67,740) and other miscellaneous expenditure. A link to an online report, was also made available. However, this is a dead link.

The website established for MHRD IPR Chairs itself is not functioning.

No information has been made available by Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi University, Delhi School of Economics and Tezpur University as well as CUSAT, Kerala as of now. Further, IIT, Kharagpur in its reply (dated 17.12.2014), sought exemption from providing the required information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.

IIT Bombay, in its reply (dated 15.01.2015) submitted that having established a MHRD IPR Chair under the IPERPO Scheme, activities such as research, training, academic courses (Introductory Foundation Course at U.G., P.G. Level, Elective Course at P.G. Level), conducting workshops, conferences and outreach programmes and maintaining an IP Depository have been undertaken. Details about budgetary allocation were also made available. From a grant of Rs. 35,00,000, a total amount of Rs. 15,66,179 has been utilized. However, there was no IPR Chair for the year 2013-14. Out of a cumulative grant of Rs. 1,95,00,000 received till March 31, 2014, the institution has spent a total of Rs. 1,62,60,265 on IPR Activities, workshops, honorariums, salaries, conferences etc. from 2007.

Lastly, as per the information received from NLSIU, Bangalore (dated 14.01.2015), an MHRD IPR Chair has been established at the University. Several activities have been organized at NLSIU, including a Workshop on IPR in S.J.R. College of Law, the release of an IP Newsletter publication “March of the IP Law”, a conference on the Advantages of Madrid Protocol, a conference on Patents, Innovation and Trade Secrets for MSMEs in IT/ITES Sectors in Karnataka, research activities such as the Fact-Screening-and-Transforming-Processor Project, the release of a website http://iprlawindia.org which is currently under construction, conducting awareness and outreach programmes etc. The MHRD IPR Chair at NLSIU was awarded a grant of Rs.45,00,000 which was largely spent on the payment of the Chair’s salary (Rs. 24,17,378), RA honorarium (Rs. 5,88,415), workshops and conferences (Rs.1,27,805), creation of a depository of IP books (Rs. 1,00,105), publication of newsletters (Rs.1,00,000) and staff payments.

It is therefore observed that firstly, there was a variation in replies to the RTI queries filed under the same format, with some Universities providing information, some blatantly refusing to do so (IIT Kharagpur), and some delaying the process for what appear to be minor procedural irregularities.

Four Universities have still not sent the requisite information, whereas no MHRD IPR Chair has been established in four of them. Only four replied with some information.

Moreover, for the year 2013-14, MHRD allocated a grant of Rs. 1,79,50,000 among 5 Universities, disproportionately (ranging from Rs.23 lakhs-Rs. 45 lakhs per University). Out of this grant, the Universities have incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 1,41,23,021, largely for the payment of salaries of the IPR Chair (Rs. 66,66,271), honorariums for Research Assistants (24,50,183), and conducting workshops, conferences and travel for the same.

The various responses received to the RTI queries filed reveal a great variation in not just the allocation of funds by the Ministry, but also on the utilization of these funds (if at all), as well as in the range of activities conducted by the Chairs.

We're still tracking this. Watch this space for more, including copies of our RTIs and the responses as well as details from other Universities who are yet to get back to us.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-responses-mhrd-ip-chairs-details-of-funding-and-expenditure