Centre for Internet and Society

Screening of 'Steal this Film' (TV Cut)

pranesh — 2011-04-05T04:44:27Z

A screening of a new edit combining Steal this Film and Steal this Film II, which hasn't been released or screened before. The screening will be followed by a discussion with the director, Jamie King. The Centre for Internet and Society and Pedestrian Pictures

cordially invite you to a screening of
Steal this Film (TV Cut) by Jamie King

Film:
Steal This Film (TV Cut)
A new edit combining Steal This Film and Steal This Film II, which hasn't been previously released or screened.

Date and Time:
Saturday, November 8, 2007
17:30 - 19:00 hrs.

Venue:
Nani Cinematheque (CFD)
5th Floor, Sona Towers
71 Millers Road
Bangalore

Map:
http://bit.ly/nani-map

(For directions to the venue call, CIS on +91 80 4092 6283.)

More about the film:
'Steal this Film' is a documentary series (available for free download online) about the culture of piracy and issues
surrounding intellectual property, and the cultural and economic implications of the Internet.

It has been selected for screening at Sheffield International Documentary Film Festival, South By Southwest (SXSW) festival in
Austin, Texas, the Singapore International Film Festival, and the International Documentary Film Festival in Amsterdam.

Links:
http://www.stealthisfilm.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_This_Film
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/29/steal-this-film-part.html

More about the director:
Jamie King is a film maker, writer and activist working enthusiastically in the area of new media, post-IP culture and social
organisation. A former editor of Mute Magazine, lobbyist at the UN, journalist at ITN News, and consultant for Channel 4 Television, Jamie is now focused on radical approaches to sharing, exchange and co-operation indicated by network technologies across a variety of media.

Co-organiser of the 2003 WSIS? We Seize! counter-UN summit, Jamie continues to be involved in highlighting the importance of information politics in the social movements. STEAL THIS FILM I and II, documentaries exploring the uncertain future of intellectual property, have been downloaded over 4 million times via BitTorrent and featured at numerous international film festivals.

Add to Google Calendar:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/screening-of-steal-this-film-tv-cut

Software Freedom Day Inter-college Contest

praskrishna — 2011-04-04T07:24:09Z

The Centre for Internet and Society in partnership with Mahiti Infotech is co-organising the Software Freedom Day at Gandhi Statue, MG Road, Bangalore on 18 September 2010.

Download the poster for the event
Download the information about the competition

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/software-freedom-day

Seminar on Software Patents and the Commons

praskrishna — 2011-04-05T03:59:59Z

A seminar on Software Patents and Commons is being held on 1 September, 2010 in Delhi. It is jointly organised by CIS, Knowledge of Commons and the Software Freedom Law Centre. The event is sponsored by Red Hat. Pranesh Prakesh will speak on Arguments against Software Patents in India.

For the full event details and the agenda, click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/software-patents-commons

Global IP Convention, 2011

praskrishna — 2011-05-08T04:04:31Z

The Global IP Convention, 2011 is being held at the Lalit Ashok Hotel in Bangalore from 28 to 30 April 2011.

Institute of International Trade and Sughrue are the knowledge partners, Thomson Reuters, Licensing Executives Society India and Society of Indian Law Firms are the supporting organisers, and the sponsors include Bird & Bird, Finnegan, watermark, MOS AID, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, Philips, Kilburn & Strode, Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, Questel, SCOPE, EVALUESERVE, STN, DoW, United Phosphorus Limited, Yahoo India, Indian Oil, DANIEL, Global IP Services, Jitendra Intellectual Property, Novel Patent Services Limited and resurgentindia. CIPA, iam, World Trademark Review, manupatra, Lex Witness and LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa are the media partners. The event is convened by Tata Consultancy Services and Intangible Business.

Speakers

Narendra K. Sabharwal, Former Deputy Director General [World Intellectual Property Organization]
Chid Iyer, Partner [Sughrue Mion PLLC, USA]
Michael R. Dzwonczyk, Partner [Sughrue Mion, PLLC, USA]
Jay Lytle, Partner [Sughrue Mion PLLC, USA]
Susan Pan, Partner [Sughrue Mion PLLC, USA]
Alban Kang, Managing Partner [ATMD Bird & Bird LLP, Singapore]
Anand K. Sharma , Partner [Finnegan, USA]
Dr. Raj Gupta, Partner [Finnegan, USA]
Richard Baddeley, Principal [Watermark, Australia]
Thayne Forbes, Joint Managing Director [Intangible Business, UK]
Ralph J. Gabric, Partner [Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, USA]
Nicholas G. de la Torre, Partner [Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, USA]
Manish Mehta, Partner [Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, USA]
Rana Gosain, Senior Partner [Daniel Advogados, Brazil]
Nick Lee, Partner [Kilburn & Strode LLP, UK]
Ravi Srinivasan, Partner [JA Kemp & Co. UK]
Paul Teng, Partner [COOPER & DUNHAM LLP, USA]
Richard Liu, Regional IP Director, Asia Pacific [Yahoo!]
Pravin Anand, Managing Partner [Anand and Anand]
V Lakshmi Kumaran, Founder and Managing Partner [Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan]
N. L. Mitra, Senior Partner [FoxMandal Little]
Dr. Rahul Verma, Assistant Vice President [Evalueserve]
Deepak Maheshwari, Director - Corporate Affairs [Microsoft]
S K Murthy, Patent Counsel [Intel India]
Vinod Kumar, Sr. Director, Business Development *TBC [MOSAID Technologies Inc., Canada]
Terry Ludlow, Founder and CEO [Chipworks, Canada]
Benjamin C. Adams, Director - Legal and Intellectual Property [Nokia]
Alex Jamal, Director-Patent Licensing [Ericsson Group]
Dr. Pinaki Ghosh, Head IP [Infosys Technologies Ltd]
Dr. Viswanathan Seshan, Country Manager -IP&S India [Philips Electronics India Ltd.]
Chandra Bajagur, Head- IP [Shell Technology India Private Ltd]
Dr. Aravind Chinchure, Head-IP [Reliance Industries Ltd.]
Dr. Anindya Sircar, Head – IP [Infosys Technologies Ltd]
Dr. Arun Kumar Kashyap, Chief Research Manager – IPR [Indian Oil Corporation Ltd]
Anup Kacker, General Manager (IP) [Indian Oil Corporation Ltd]
T C James, Director [National Intellectual Property Organisation]
Dr. Samiran Mahapatra, Open Innovation Director- Asia [Hindustan Unilever Limited]
Dr. A.S. Narayan [Unilever Research Center]
Dinesh Jotwani, President, National Bar Association of India [National Bar Association of India]
Santanu Mukherjee, Lead IPR Attorney [Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd.]
Neeraj Panchal, Senior Manager – IP [John Deere]
Murthy Kotra, General Manager, Technical Information Services [Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd.]
Arun Bhardwaj, Director – Business Development [Dell Global]
Dr. Raghunadh Vajjula, IP Analyst [GE India Technology Center]
Anubha Sharma, Senior Legal Counsel and Head-IP [Bharti Enterprises]
Dawn Jos, Patent Strategy Coordinator- Asia [Texas Instruments]
Dr. Pradeep V Desai, Principal Consultant [Tata Consultancy Services]
Faiz ur Rahman, Manager – IP [Wipro Technologies]
Ayan Roy Chowdhury, Senior Manager - Legal & IP [Sony Entertainment Television]
Stephen Mathias, Partner [Kochhar & Co]
Lokesh V, Founder and CEO [Innomantra Consulting]
Lakshminarayanan R, IPR Specialist [Nokia]
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Sigram Schindler, CEO [TELES AG Informationstechnologien, Germany]
Navneet K Bhushan, Founder Director [Crafitti Consulting Pvt Ltd]
Hasit Seth, Director [Coofluence]
Mohammad S. Rahman [Rahman LLC, USA]
Sunil Abraham, Executive Director [Centre for Internet and Society]
Dr. Vijay Soni, Executive Vice President-IP [Glenmark Generics Inc]
Dr. Balu Gupta, Vice President - Patent Estate [Dr. Reddy's Laboratories]
Dr. Rajiv Saha, General Manager, IP *TBC [Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd]
Gautam Bakshi, Head – Corporate Intellectual Property [PROMED Research Centre]
Dr. Swati Bal-Tembe, Vice President [Piramal Life Sciences Ltd]
Dr. Alpesh Pathak, Head- API Patent Cell [Alembic Research Center]
Ashwini Sandu , Senior GM- IPR [United Phosphorus Ltd]
Jayanthi M, Senior Executive – IPM [Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd]
Dinesh Pillai, CEO [Mahindra Special Services Group]

For more details, click here

Download the event brochure here [PDF, 1.09 MB]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/notices/global-ip-convention

Seminar on Exceptions and Limitations in Copyright

sachia — 2011-08-17T08:50:52Z

This is a report on a seminar organised by the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, and Government of India on 14 and 15 May 2009, in Kochi, Kerala, to look at exceptions and limitations in copyright. Programme Manager Nirmita Narsimhan, of the Centre for Internet and Society, attended the seminar.

CIS Programme Manager Nirmita Narsimhan attended a seminar on exceptions and limitations in copyright, organised by the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, and Government of India on 14 and 15 May 2009, in Kochi, Kerala. The seminar was intended to bring up key issues affecting access to knowledge, which are to be taken up by the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) later this month. Resource persons identified for different topics were eminent scholars, academicians and practitioners across India. The seminar covered eight topics. On each topic, a paper was presented by a resource person with commentary by an expert in the field, after which there was an open discussion.

The first day featured, amongst others, a paper presented by Lawrence Liang, Distinguished Fellow, CIS. He spoke at length on the exceptions and limitations for education.

The second day featured a paper by Mr. Madhukar Sinha, former Registrar of Copyright. Mr. Sinha presented on the topic 'Use of works by visually impaired and other miscellaneous exceptions of use of works under Indian Copyright Act: Section 52(1) (q), (r), (s), (t), (u), (v), and (x), (y), (z)'. His paper went into great length on definitions of visual disability and tried to evolve an economic model to support conversion of books into accessible formats for the visually challenged. The paper drew parallels with existing laws and best practices in different countries, made a detailed analysis of exceptions for the blind in the light of the Berne three-step test and the TRIPS agreement, and concluded by recommending that the Copyright Act should be amended to include exceptions and limitations which would permit conversion of books into formats in certain special cases. Mr. Sinha also recommended that India should look at solutions which go beyond the limits of the Copyright Act to solve such problems.

The response to this was prepared by Mr. Rahul Cherian of Indo Juris Law offices. The response paper drew attention to the fact that half of the total blind population of the world is in India and that amounts to a population of more than a crore. In the light of the economic and logistic considerations of our country, the Copyright Act should

Expressly include a limitation to permit conversion of books into accessible formats for visually challenged persons;
Permit conversion by stakeholder organizations as well as interested family members and friends of beneficiaries;
Adopt a functional definition of disability and not a medical one as is currently the case in the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995, and extend the benefit of the exception to all persons, who by reason of any disability are unable to access the work in its original format;and
Not restrict conversion only to those formats which are exclusively for the use of blind persons. Visually challenged persons should be able to make use of available mainstream formats like PDFs or Word as well.

The paper also dealt extensively with the Treaty for Improved access for the Blind, Visually Impaired and Other Reading Disabled, which was proposed by the World Blind Union in WIPO last year and is coming up again for discussion later this month.

Please click here to see the complete text of the paper.

The seminar was extremely productive because there was a strong recommendation and support for the inclusion of a limitation for conversion into accessible formats for persons with disabilities in the Indian Copyright Act. All the members present came to a consensus that the Indian Government should take a supportive stand towards the Treaty for the Blind proposed by the WBU at the SCCR this month. A representative of a leading publishing house committed himself to working towards providing books to certain organizations for the blind, if they could assure him that those books would be circulated only to blind persons and not to others.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/seminar-on-exceptions-and-limitations-in-copyright

Response to the Call from Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry for Review of the Copyright Act

sachia — 2011-08-17T08:51:23Z

This blog entry contains a letter sent by Rahul Cherian of Indojuris and Nirmita Narsimhan of the Centre for Internet and Society in response to a call from the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry for review of the Copyright Act.

The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) has recently constituted a Consultative Working Group to analyse various issues in the Copyright Act. This has been approved by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP). The group is to be chaired by Shri Amit Khare, Joint Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development. The purpose of the Consultative Working Group would be to look into the existing provisions of the copyright law and the proposed amendments, as well as into the international arrangements and suggestions. The Consultative Working Group is expected to submit its report along with amendments or suggestion, as required.

Rahul Cherian of Indojuris and Nirmita Narasimhan of CIS have submitted a report on the provisions of the Copyright Act with respect to the limitations for print disabled persons. This has been submitted in the form of a letter to Sheetal Chopra of FICCI; the letter is reproduced below.

-----

Sheetal Chopra

Senior Assistant Director and Head

IPR Division

FICCI

Dear Madam:

Subject: Consultative Working Group on Copyright Issues – issues to be addressed by the Consultative Working Group.

As required by you we give below the issues to be addressed by the Consultative Working Group. This document is prepared by Nirmita Narasimhan of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, and Rahul Cherian Jacob of IndoJuris Law Offices, Chennai.

Scope - Exceptions and Limitations for Print Impaired Persons

The scope of the issues raised here are limited to the exceptions and limitations under the Copyright Act that are required to facilitate access of books by the visually impaired and other print impaired persons.

Problem faced by Print Impaired Persons

India has approximately 70 million Print Impaired Persons (loosely defined as persons who are unable to access print as a result of disability and include persons who are visually impaired, persons who have learning disabilities such as dyslexia and persons who due to physical disability are unable to hold a book or turn pages) who do not have access to knowledge due to a lack of reading material in accessible formats. It is estimated that even in developed countries not more than 5% of publications get converted into accessible formats for the benefit of Print Impaired Persons. As a result, Print Impaired Persons are excluded from the education system, are unable to seek meaningful employment and are on the whole excluded from all aspects of civil society.

It is observed that publishers do not make available books in formats accessible by Print Impaired Persons and the Copyright Act does not provide exceptions and limitations to the rights of the copyright owner for third parties to convert and make available books in accessible formats for Print Impaired Persons. This has lead to a “book famine” from the perspective of Print Impaired Persons.

Technological Advances and Accessible Formats

Till a few years ago, Print Impaired Persons had to rely on audio files and Braille (in the case of the persons who became visually impaired at a young age) to enjoy printed matter. Each of these formats have severe limitations. For example audio files have to be played serially and navigation is severely limited. In the case of Braille, the printing costs are expensive, reading a Braille book is up to 4 times slower than a normal book, Braille is extremely difficult to learn if you loose sight at a later age, and persons using Braille can communicate only with others who know Braille. However with the information technology revolution and the creation of text-to-speech screen readers that read out documents in electronic formats to Print Impaired Persons there are now countless ways in which Print Impaired Persons can access books in any easy and simple manner. Specialized electronic formats such as the DAISY Format not only permit the visually impaired to “read” the material using screen readers but also permit a digital file to be printed in Braille for the blind, in large print for the partially sighted and also provide audio with inbuilt search and indexation features for those Print Impaired Persons who have computers. The key is that technological innovation now provides the much-needed flexibility required by Print Impaired Persons to access material in formats they are most comfortable with. However the availability of these technology solutions alone does not solve the problem of dearth of books in formats that can be enjoyed by Print Impaired Persons.

Legal compulsions for providing exceptions and limitations for the benefit of Print Impaired Persons

At present Indian copyright law does not provide exceptions and limitations to the rights of copyright owners for the benefit of Print Impaired Persons. The Indian Constitution expressly provides for “equality” (Article 14), “non-discrimination” (Article 15), “freedom of speech and expression” (Article 19), and “right to life” (Article 21). Indian courts have not yet had the opportunity to pronounce any judgment on whether the Constitution requires copyright law to provide exceptions and limitations for the benefit of Print Impaired Persons. However, Indian courts have routinely upheld the rights of persons with disability and the Supreme Court has specifically recognized that the “right to life” as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution includes right to dignity including basic necessities such as reading and writing. Right to education has also been recognized as a fundamental right. For Print Impaired Persons to enjoy their fundamental rights it is essential that they have access to material, including but not limited to educational material, in accessible formats. As present, 70 million Indians cannot enjoy their fundamental rights due to the fact that the Copyright Act does not provide exemptions and limitations for Print Impaired Persons. It is to be noted that about 50 countries around the world already provide copyright exceptions and limitations for the benefit of the visually impaired/printed impaired.

India has also ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the objects of the aforesaid convention include providing persons with disability, access, on an equal basis with others, to information and communication. Indian courts have read into Indian law provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It is also to be noted that the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights of the World Intellectual Property Organisation is currently discussing the proposed WIPO Treaty for Blind, Visually Impaired and Other Reading Disabled Persons.

India has also recognized the requirements of Print Impaired Persons and had circulated draft amendments to the Copyright Act in _________ for feedback and comments from the public. All the leading organisations representing visually impaired persons has submitted their responses stating that the proposed amendments did not adequately meet the requirements of visually impaired persons.

In light of the above the question is not whether exceptions and limitations for the benefit of Print Impaired Persons must be provided (they must), but what form these exceptions and limitations must take.

Exceptions and Limitations – Issues to be considered

Given below are the issues that must be considered when providing exceptions and limitations for the benefit of Print Impaired Persons.

Beneficiaries – The beneficiaries of any amendment should include all persons with disability who, due to that disability, need an accessible format to access a book to substantially the same degree as a person without a disability. This definition should be functional and not medical since medical definitions cannot be exhaustive.

Formats – Print Impaired Persons should be able to enjoy the benefits of the information technology revolution in the same way that non-disabled persons have been able to. Any amendment should therefore take into account technological developments and should be format neutral to give full flexibility and utility to Print Impaired Persons. As mentioned above Braille as a format has limited application and a majority of visually impaired persons are not able to use Braille. Moreover, Braille cannot be used by persons with other print impairments such as dyslexia or persons with physical disabilities.

Permitted Activities – The activities permitted by any amendment should include the making of accessible formats of a work, supplying that accessible format, or copies of that format, to Print Impaired Persons by any means, including by lending or by electronic communication by wire or wireless means, and undertaking any intermediate steps to achieve these objectives.

Who can conduct the Permitted Activities – It is noted that the cost of making an accessible copy of a book is far higher than the cost of the book itself. It is observed that non-profit organisations have been able to convert only a few thousands books till date due to lack of funds. Print Impaired Persons, their families and other members of their support group also convert books into accessible formats at very high cost. The number of books converted by these persons is also minimal. Keeping in mind the fact that publishers are not selling books in accessible formats there appears to be complete market failure in this area. The solution for this problem appears to be that, apart from non-profit organisations, Print Impaired Persons and their support group being permitted to conduct the Permitted Activities, volunteers and for-profit organisations should also be able to conduct the Permitted Activities. If any of the Permitted Activity is undertaken for profit, then the entity carrying out the Permitted Activity must give notice to, and pay prescribed royalty to the copyright owner. The quantum of royalty payable should be determined keeping in mind the fact that the average income of Print Impaired Persons is far lower than the income of non disabled persons. The possibility of creating a collecting society for this purpose can also be explored.

Conclusion

“Inclusiveness” is the underlying theme of the Indian Constitution and “Inclusion” is a word used liberally by the courts and politicians alike. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. The United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons of Disabilities aims to support the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in social life and development; and to advance the rights and protect the dignity of persons with disabilities and to promote equal access to employment, education, information, goods and services.

However, these concepts mean nothing to Print Impaired Persons as long as their most basic fundamental rights continue to be denied due to the fact that Indian copyright law does not provide exceptions and limitations for the benefit of Print Impaired Persons.

In light of the above, appropriate amendments must be made to the Copyright Act as soon as possible to remove the barriers placed before Print Impaired Persons that prevent their exercise of fundamental rights.

If you require any additional information or any clarification regarding the above please let us know. Thank you and best regards,

Nirmita Narasimhan and Rahul Cherian

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/response-to-ficcis-call-for-review-of-the-copyright-act

Comments on the Draft Rules under the Information Technology Act

pranesh — 2011-09-21T06:13:42Z

The Centre for Internet and Society commissioned an advocate, Ananth Padmanabhan, to produce a comment on the Draft Rules that have been published by the government under the Information Technology Act. In his comments, Mr. Padmanabhan highlights the problems with each of the rules and presents specific recommendations on how they can be improved. These comments were sent to the Department of Information and Technology.

Comments on the Draft Rules under the Information Technology Act as Amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008

Submitted by the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore

Prepared by Ananth Padmanabhan, Advocate in the Madras High Court

Interception, Monitoring and Decryption

Section 69

The section says:

Where the Central Government or a State Government or any of its officer specially authorised by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in this behalf may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence, it may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource.
The procedure and safeguards subject to which such interception or monitoring or decryption may be carried out, shall be such as may be prescribed.
The subscriber or intermediary or any person in-charge of the computer resource shall, when called upon by any agency referred to in sub-section (1), extend all facilities and technical assistance to-

(a) provide access to or secure access to the computer resource generating transmitting, receiving or storing such information; or

(b) intercept, monitor, or decrypt the information, as the case may be; or

The subscriber or intermediary or any person who fails to assist the agency referred to in sub-section (3) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Recommendation #1
Section 69(3) should be amended and the following proviso be inserted:

Provided that only those intermediaries with respect to any information or computer resource that is sought to be monitored, intercepted or decrypted, shall be subject to the obligations contained in this sub-section, who are, in the opinion of the appropriate authority, prima facie in control of such transmission of the information or computer resource. The nexus between the intermediary and the information or the computer resource that is sought to be intercepted, monitored or decrypted should be clearly indicated in the direction referred to in sub-section (1) of this section.

Reasons for the Recommendation
In the case of any information or computer resource, there may be more than one intermediary who is associated with such information. This is because “intermediary” is defined in section 2(w) of the amended Act as,

“with respect to any electronic record means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record, including telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, webhosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes”.

The State or Central Government should not be given wide-ranging powers to enforce cooperation on the part of any such intermediary without there being a clear nexus between the information that is sought to be decrypted or monitored by the competent authority, and the control that any particular intermediary may have over such information.

To give an illustration, merely because some information may have been posted on an online portal, the computer resources in the office of the portal should not be monitored unless the portal has some concrete control over the nature of information posted in it. This has to be stipulated in the order of the Central or State Government which authorizes interception of the intermediary.

Recommendation #2
Section 69(4) should be repealed.

Reasons for the Recommendation
The closest parallels to Section 69 of the Act are the provisions in the Telegraph Rules which were brought in after the decision in PUCL v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301, famously known as the telephone tapping case.

Section 69(4) fixes tremendous liability on the intermediary for non-cooperation. This is violative of Article 14. Similar provisions in the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, which demand cooperation from members of the public as regards production of documents, letters etc., and impose punishment for non-cooperation on their part, impose a maximum punishment of one month. It is bewildering why the punishment is 7 years imprisonment for an intermediary, when the only point of distinction between an intermediary under the IT Act and a member of the public under the IPC and CrPC is the difference in the media which contains the information.

Section 69(3) is akin to the duty cast upon members of the public to extend cooperation under Section 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by way of providing information as to commission of any offence, or the duty, when a summons is issued by the Court or the police, to produce documents under Sections 91 and 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The maximum punishment for non-cooperation prescribed by the Indian Penal Code for omission to cooperate or wilful breach of summons is only a month under Sections 175 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code. Even the maximum punishment for furnishing false information to the police is only six months under Section 177 of the IPC. When this is the case with production of documents required for the purpose of trial or inquiry, it is wholly arbitrary to impose a punishment of six years in the case of intermediaries who do not extend cooperation for providing access to a computer resource which is merely apprehended as being a threat to national security etc. A mere apprehension, however reasonable it may be, should not be used to pin down a liability of such extreme nature on the intermediary.

This would also amount to a violation of Articles 19(1)(a) as well as 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, not to mention Article 20(3). To give an example, much of the information received from confidential sources by members of the press would be stored in computer resources. By coercing them, through the 7 year imprisonment threat, to allow access to this computer resource and thereby part with this information, the State is directly infringing on their right under Article 19(1)(a). Furthermore, if the “subscriber” is the accused, then section 69(4) goes against Article 20(3) by forcing the accused to bear witness against himself.

Draft Rules under Section 69

Rule 3
Directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource under sub- section (2) of section 69 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) shall not be issued except by an order made by the concerned competent authority who is Union Home Secretary in case of Government of India; the Secretary in-charge of Home Department in a State Government or Union Territory as the case may be. In unavoidable circumstances, such order may be made by an officer, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, who has been duly authorised by the Union Home Secretary or by an officer equivalent to rank of Joint Secretary to Government of India duly authorised by the Secretary in-charge of Home Department in the State Government or Union Territory, as the case may be:

Provided that in emergency cases –
(i) in remote areas, where obtaining of prior directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of information is not feasible; or
(ii) for operational reasons, where obtaining of prior directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource is not feasible;

the required interception or monitoring or decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource shall be carried out with the prior approval of the Head or the second senior most officer of the Security and Law Enforcement Agencies (hereinafter referred to as the said Security Agencies) at the Central Level and the officers authorised in this behalf, not below the rank of Inspector General of Police or an officer of equivalent rank, at the State and Union Territory level. The concerned competent authority, however, shall be informed of such interceptions or monitoring or decryption by the approving authority within three working days and that such interceptions or monitoring or decryption shall be got confirmed by the concerned competent authority within a period of seven working days. If the confirmation from the concerned competent authority is not received within the stipulated seven working days, such interception or monitoring or decryption shall cease and the same information shall not be intercepted or monitored or decrypted thereafter without the prior approval of the concerned competent authority, as the case may be.

Recommendation #3
In Rule 3, the following proviso may be inserted:

“Provided that in the event of cooperation by any intermediary being required for the purpose of interception, monitoring or decryption of such information as is referred to in this Rule, prior permission from a Supervisory Committee headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Courts shall be obtained before seeking to enforce the Order mentioned in this Rule against such intermediary.”

Reasons for the Recommendation
Section 69 and the draft rules suffer from absence of essential procedural safeguards. This has come in due to the blanket emulation of the Telegraph Rules. Additional safeguards should have been prescribed to ensure that the intermediary is put to minimum hardship when carrying on the monitoring or being granted access to a computer resource. Those are akin to a raid, in the sense that it can stop an online e-commerce portal from carrying out operations for a day or even more, thus affecting their revenue. It is therefore recommended that in any situation where cooperation from the intermediary is sought, prior judicial approval has to be taken. The Central or State Government cannot be the sole authority in such cases.

Furthermore, since access to the computer resource is required, an executive order should not suffice, and a search warrant or an equivalent which results from a judicial application of the mind (by the Supervisory Committee, for instance) should be required.

Recommendation #4
The following should be inserted after the last line in Rule 22:

The Review Committee shall also have the power to award compensation to the intermediary in cases where the intermediary has suffered loss or damage due to the actions of the competent authority while implementing the order issued under Rule 3.

Reasons for the Recommendation
The Review Committee should be given the power to award compensation to the loss suffered by the intermediary in cases where the police use equipment or software for monitoring/decryption that causes damage to the intermediary’s computer resources / networks. The Review Committee should also be given the power to award compensation in the case of monitoring directions which are later found to be frivolous or even worse, borne out of mala fide considerations. These provisions will act as a disincentive against the abuse of power contained in Section 69.

Blocking of Access to Information

Section 69A

The section provides for blocking of websites if the government is satisfied that it is in the interests of the purposes enlisted in the section. It also provides for penalty of up to seven years for intermediaries who fail to comply with the directions under this section.
The rules under this section describe the procedure which have to be followed barring which the review committee may, after due examination of the procedural defects, order an unblocking of the website.

Section 69A(3)
The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine.

Recommendation #5
The penalty for intermediaries must be lessened.

Reasons for Recommendations
The penal provision in this section which prescribes up to seven years imprisonment and a fine on an intermediary who fails to comply with the directions so issued is also excessively harsh. Considering the fact that various mechanisms are available to escape the blocking of websites, the intermediaries must be given enough time and space to administer the block effectively and strict application of the penal provisions must be avoided in bona fide cases.

The criticism about Section 69 and the draft rules in so far as intermediary liability is concerned, will also apply mutatis mutandis to these rules as well as Section 69A.

Draft Rules under Section 69A

Rule 22: Review Committee
The Review Committee shall meet at least once in two months and record its findings whether the directions issued under Rule (16) are in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 69A of the Act. When the Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions referred to above, it may set aside the directions and order for unblocking of said information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource for public access.

Recommendation #6
A permanent Review Committee should be specially for the purposes of examining procedural lapses.

Reasons for Recommendation
Rule 22 provides for a review committee which shall meet a minimum of once in every two months and order for the unblocking of a site of due procedures have not been followed. This would mean that if a site is blocked, there could take up to two months for a procedural lapse to be corrected and it to be unblocked. Even a writ filed against the policing agencies for unfair blocking would probably take around the same time. Also, it could well be the case that the review committee will be overborne by cases and may fall short of time to inquire into each. Therefore, it is recommended that a permanent Review Committee be set up which will monitor procedural lapses and ensure that there is no blocking in the first place before all the due procedural requirements are met.

Monitoring and Collection of Traffic Data

Draft Rules under Section 69B

The section provides for monitoring of computer networks or resources if the Central Government is satisfied that conditions so mentioned are satisfied.

The rules provide for the manner in which the monitoring will be done, the process by which the directions for the same will be issued and the liabilities of the intermediaries and monitoring officers with respect to confidentiality of the information so monitored.

Grounds for Monitoring
Rule 4
The competent authority may issue directions for monitoring and collection of traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource for any or all of the following purposes related to cyber security:
(a) forecasting of imminent cyber incidents;
(b) monitoring network application with traffic data or information on computer resource;
(c) identification and determination of viruses/computer contaminant;
(d) tracking cyber security breaches or cyber security incidents;
(e) tracking computer resource breaching cyber security or spreading virus/computer contaminants;
(f) identifying or tracking of any person who has contravened, or is suspected of having contravened or being likely to contravene cyber security;
(g) undertaking forensic of the concerned computer resource as a part of investigation or internal audit of information security practices in the computer resource;
(h) accessing a stored information for enforcement of any provisions of the laws relating to cyber security for the time being in force;
(i) any other matter relating to cyber security.

Rule 6
No direction for monitoring and collection of traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource shall be given for purposes other than those specified in Rule (4).

Recommendation #7
Clauses (a), (b), (c), and (i) of Rule 4 must be repealed.

Reasons for Recommendations
The term “cyber incident” has not been defined, and “cyber security” has been provided a circular definition. Rule 6 clearly states that no direction for monitoring and collection of traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource shall be given for purposes other than those specified in Rule 4. Therefore, it may prima facie appear that the government is trying to lay down clear and strict safeguards when it comes to monitoring at the expense of a citizens' privacy. However, Rule 4(i) allows the government to monitor if it is satisfied that it is “any matter related to cyber security”. This may well play as a ‘catch all’ clause to legalise any kind of monitoring and collection and therefore defeats the purported intention of Rule 6 of safeguarding citizen’s interests against arbitrary and groundless intrusion of privacy. Also, the question of degree of liability of the intermediaries or persons in charge of the computer resources for leak of secret and confidential information remains unanswered.

Rule 24: Disclosure of monitored data
Any monitoring or collection of traffic data or information in computer resource by the employee of an intermediary or person in-charge of computer resource or a person duly authorised by the intermediary, undertaken in course of his duty relating to the services provided by that intermediary, shall not be unlawful, if such activities are reasonably necessary for the discharge his duties as per the prevailing industry practices, in connection with :
(vi) Accessing or analysing information from a computer resource for the purpose of tracing a computer resource or any person who has contravened, or is suspected of having contravened or being likely to contravene, any provision of the Act that is likely to have an adverse impact on the services provided by the intermediary.

Recommendation #8
Safeguards must be introduced with respect to exercise of powers conferred by Rule 24(vi).

Reasons for Recommendations
Rule 24(vi) provides for access, collection and monitoring of information from a computer resource for the purposes of tracing another computer resource which has or is likely to contravened provisions of the Act and this is likely to have an adverse impact on the services provided by the intermediary. Analysis of a computer resource may reveal extremely confidential and important data, the compromise of which may cause losses worth millions. Therefore, the burden of proof for such an intrusion of privacy of the computer resource, which is first used to track another computer resource which is likely to contravene the Act, should be heavy. Also, this violation of privacy should be weighed against the benefits accruing to the intermediary. The framing of sub rules under this clearly specifying the same is recommended.

The disclosure of sensitive information by a monitoring agency for purposes of ‘general trends’ and ‘general analysis of cyber information’ is uncalled for as it dissipates information among lesser bodies that are not governed by sufficient safeguards and this could result in outright violation of citizen’s privacy.

Manner of Functioning of CERT-In

Draft Rules under Section 70B(5)

Section 70B provides for an Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) which shall serve as a national agency for performing duties as prescribed by clause 4 of this section in accordance to the rules as prescribed.
The rules provide for CERT-In’s authority, composition of advisory committee, constituency, functions and responsibilities, services, stakeholders, policies and procedures, modus operandi, disclosure of information and measures to deal with non compliance of orders so issued. However, there are a few issues which need to be addressed as under:

Definitions
In these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires, “Cyber security incident” means any real or suspected adverse event in relation to cyber security that violates an explicit or implied security policy resulting in unauthorized access, denial of service/ disruption, unauthorized use of a computer resource for processing or storage of information or changes to data, information without authorization.

Recommendation #9
The words ‘or implied’’ must be excluded from rule 2(g) which defines ‘cyber security incident’, and the term ‘security policy’ must be qualified to state what security policy is being referred to.

Reasons for Recommendation
“Cyber security incident” means any real or suspected adverse event in relation to cyber security that violates an explicit or implied security policy resulting in unauthorized access, denial of service/disruption, unauthorized use of a computer resource for processing or storage of information or changes to data, information without authorization.

Thus, the section defines any circumstance where an explicit or implied security policy is contravened as a ‘cyber security incident’. Without clearly stating what the security policy is, an inquiry into its contravention is against an individual’s civil rights. If an individual’s actions are to be restricted for reasons of security, then the restrictions must be expressly defined and such restrictions cannot be said to be implied.

Rule 13(4): Disclosure of Information
Save as provided in sub-rules (1), (2), (3) of rule 13, it may be necessary or expedient to so to do, for CERT-In to disclose all relevant information to the stakeholders, in the interest of sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence relating to cognizable offence or enhancing cyber security in the country.

Recommendation #10
Burden of necessity for disclosure of information should be made heavier.

Reasons for the Recommendation
Rule 13(4) allows the disclosure of information by CERT-In in the interests of ‘enhancing cyber security’. This enhancement however needs to be weighed against the detriment caused to the individual and the burden of proof must be on the CERT-In to show that this was the only way of achieving the required.

Rule 19: Protection for actions taken in Good Faith
All actions of CERT-In and its staff acting on behalf of CERT-In are taken in good faith in fulfillment of its mandated roles and functions, in pursuance of the provisions of the Act or any rule, regulations or orders made thereunder. CERT-In and its staff acting on behalf of CERT-In shall not be held responsible for any unintended fallout of their actions.

Recommendation #11
CERT-In should be made liable for their negligent action and no presumption of good faith should be as such provided for.

Reasons for the Recommendation
Rule 19 provides for the protection of CERT-In members for the actions taken in ‘good faith’. It defines such actions as ‘unintended fallouts’. Clearly, if information has been called for and the same is highly confidential, then this rule bars the remedy for any leak of the same due to the negligence of the CERT-In members. This is clearly not permissible as an agency that calls for delicate information should also be held responsible for mishandling the same, intentionally or negligently. Good faith can be established if the need arises, and no presumption as to good faith needs to be provided.

Draft Rules under Section 52

These rules, entitled the “Cyber Appellate Tribunal (Salary, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2009” are meant to prescribe the framework for the independent and smooth functioning of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal. This is so because of the specific functions entrusted to this Appellate Tribunal. Under the IT Act, 2000 as amended by the IT (Amendment) Act, 2008, this Tribunal has the power to entertain appeals against orders passed by the adjudicating officer under Section 47.

Recommendation #12
Amend qualifications Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003, to require judicial training and experience.

Reasons for the Recommendation
It is submitted that an examination of these rules governing the Appellate Tribunal cannot be made independent of the powers and qualifications of Adjudicating Officers who are the original authority to decide on contravention of provisions in the IT Act dealing with damage to computer system and failure to furnish information. Even as per the Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003, persons who did not possess judicial experience and training, such as those holding the post of Director in the Central Government, were qualified to perform functions under Section 46 and decide whether there has been unauthorized access to a computer system. This involves appreciation of evidence and is not a merely administrative function that could be carried on by any person who has basic knowledge of information technology.

Viewed from this angle, the qualifications of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal members should have been made much tighter as per the new draft rules. The above rules when read with Section 50 of the IT Act, as amended in 2008, do not say anything about the qualification of the technical members apart from the fact that such person shall not be appointed as a Member, unless he is, or has been, in the service of the Central Government or a State Government, and has held the post of Additional Secretary or Joint Secretary or any equivalent post. Though special knowledge of, and professional experience in, information technology, telecommunication, industry, management or consumer affairs, has been prescribed in the Act as a requirement for any technical member.

Draft Rules under Section 54

These Rules do not suffer any defect and provide for a fair and reasonable enquiry in so far as allegations made against the Chairperson or the members of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal are concerned.

Penal Provisions

Section 66A

Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,
    (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
    (b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,
    (c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.
Sec. 32 of the 2008 Act inserts Sec. 66A which provides for penal measures for mala fide use of electronic resources to send information detrimental to the receiver. For the section to be attracted the ‘information’ needs to be grossly offensive, menacing, etc. and the sender needs to have known it to be false.

While the intention of the section – to prevent activities such as spam-sending – might be sound and even desirable, there is still a strong argument to be made that words is submitted that the use of words such as ‘annoyance’ and ‘inconvenience’ (in s.66A(c)) are highly problematic. Further, something can be grossly offensive without touching upon any of the conditions laid down in Article 19(2). Without satisfying the conditions of Article 19(2), this provision would be ultra vires the Constitution.

Recommendation #13
The section should be amended and words which lead to ambiguity must be excluded.

Reasons for the Recommendation
A clearer phrasing as to what exactly could convey ‘ill will’ or cause annoyance in the electronic forms needs to be clarified. It is possible in some electronic forms for the receiver to know the content of the information. In such circumstances, if such a possibility is ignored and annoyance does occur, is the sender still liable? Keeping in mind the complexity of use of electronic modes of transmitting information, it can be said that several such conditions arise which the section has vaguely covered. Therefore, a stricter and more clinical approach is necessary.

Recommendation #14
A proviso should be inserted to this section providing for specific exceptions to the offence contained in this section for reasons such as fair comment, truth, criticism of actions of public officials etc.

Reasons for the Recommendation
The major problem with Section 66A lies in clause (c) as per which any electronic mail or electronic mail message sent with the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience is covered within the ambit of offensive messages. This does not pay heed to the fact that even a valid and true criticism of the actions of an individual, when brought to his notice, can amount to annoyance. Indeed, it may be brought to his attention with the sole purpose of causing annoyance to him. When interpreting the Information Technology Act, it is to be kept in mind that the offences created under this Act should not go beyond those prescribed in the Indian Penal Code except where there is a wholly new activity or conduct, such as hacking for instance, which is sought to be criminalized.

Offensive messages have been criminalized in the Indian Penal Code subject to the conditions specified in Chapter XXII being present. It is not an offence to verbally insult or annoy someone without anything more being done such as a threat to commit an offence, etc. When this is the case with verbal communications, there is no reason to make an exception for those made through the electronic medium and bring any electronic mail or message sent with the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience within the purview of an offensive message.

Section 66F

The definition of cyber-terrorism under this provision is too wide and can cover several activities which are not actually of a “terrorist” character.
Section 66F(1)(B) is particularly harsh and goes much beyond acts of “terrorism” to include various other activities within its purview. As per this provision,
“[w]hoever knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons for the security of the State or foreign relations, or any restricted information, data or computer database, with reasons to believe that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause or is likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, group of individuals or otherwise, commits the offence of cyber terrorism.”

This provision suffers from several defects and hence ought to be repealed.

Recommendation #15
Section 66F(1)(B) has to be repealed or suitably amended to water down the excessively harsh operation of this provision. The restrictive nature of the information that is unauthorisedly accessed must be confined to those that are restricted on grounds of security of the State or foreign relations. The use to which such information may be put should again be confined to injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order. A mere advantage to a foreign nation cannot render the act of unauthorized access one of cyber-terrorism as long as such advantage is not injurious or harmful in any manner to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order. A mens rea requirement should also be introduced whereby mere knowledge that the information which is unauthorisedly accessed can be put to such uses as given in this provision should not suffice for the unauthorised access to amount to cyber-terrorism. The unauthorised access should be with the intention to put such information to this use. The amended provision would read as follows:

“[w]hoever knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons for the security of the State or foreign relations, with the intention that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order, commits the offence of cyber terrorism.”

Reasons for the Recommendation
The ambit of this provision goes much beyond information, data or computer database which is restricted only on grounds of security of the State or foreign relations and extends to “any restricted information, data or computer database”. This expression covers any government file which is marked as confidential or saved in a computer used exclusively by the government. It also covers any file saved in a computer exclusively used by a private corporation or enterprise. Even the use to which such information can be put need not be confined to those that cause or are likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, or friendly relations with foreign States. Information or data which is defamatory, amounting to contempt of court, or against decency / morality, are all covered within the scope of this provision. This goes way beyond the idea of a terrorist activity and poses serious questions. While there is no one globally accepted definition of cyberterrorism, it is tough to conceive of slander as a terrorist activity.

To give an illustration, if a journalist managed to unauthorisedly break into a restricted database, even one owned by a private corporation, and stumbled upon information that is defamatory in character, he would have committed an act of “cyber-terrorism.” Various kinds of information pertaining to corruption in the judiciary may be precluded from being unauthorisedly accessed on the ground that such information may be put to use for committing contempt of court. Any person who gains such access would again qualify as a cyber-terrorist. The factual situations are numerous where this provision can be put to gross misuse with the ulterior motive of muzzling dissent or freezing access to information that may be restricted in nature but nonetheless have a bearing on probity in public life etc. It is therefore imperative that this provision may be toned down as recommended above.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-draft-rules

WIPO reaches agreement on treaty for blind

praskrishna — 2013-07-01T09:59:29Z

Officials at the World Intellectual Property Organisation have reached an agreement to provide wider access to books for the visually impaired in different countries, a long-pending demand of the World Blind Union and activist groups.

The article by Pankaj Mishra was published in Livemint on June 26, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

If officially approved, the treaty will help distribution of specially formatted books for the blind and visually impaired in different countries by removing copyright law hurdles. For instance, US-based Bookshare, which is an online library for people with sight disabilities, has about 200,000 books in its collection, but only about 75,000 of them can be distributed in the UK because of copyright restrictions.

According to the Intellectual Property Watch website that track international policy on the subject, the agreement was reached over the weekend in Marrakesh, Morocco, where a conference to facilitate access to published books for people with sight disabilities is being held.

“The text, which has not been presented to the conference plenary, nor adopted yet, also addresses the issue known as ‘the Berne gap’, which refers to countries which are not part of international treaties governing copyright, such as the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and the WIPO Copyright Treaty,” the website said in a report on 24 June.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), India has 63 million visually impaired people, of whom about 8 million are blind.

Experts such as Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society said Indian negotiators played a crucial role in pushing for these amendments.

“India’s copyright law after the latest amendment has a very robust exception for the disabled. It is disability neutral and works neutral. We must applaud the Indian negotiators for exporting Indian best practice to global copyright policy. India continues to be a leader in WIPO when it comes to protecting the public interest and facilitating access to knowledge,” said Abraham.

The treaty, which promotes sharing the books in any format for the blind or visually impaired, is expected to alleviate the “book famine” experienced by many of the WHO-estimated 300 million people suffering from such disability in the world, Intellectual Property Watch said.

“The treaty however is both disability specific, i.e. the visually impaired, and works specific, mostly targeted at ending the book famine,” Abraham said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-pankaj-mishra-june-26-2013-wipo-reaches-agreement-on-treaty-for-blind

Governance in the Age of the Internet and Free Trade Agreements

praskrishna — 2013-07-03T05:04:39Z

Sunil Abraham was a speaker at this event organized by Thai Netizen Network on June 8, 2013 at Queen Sirikit National Convention Center. The Ministry of Information and Communication and the National Science and Technology Development Agency were co-hosts for the event.

Click to read the details of the event published on Internet Society website

In the age of accelerated international trade and the promotion of free flowing cross-border data transactions, countries and regions are working towards forming a commonly agreed modus operandi and protocols. These protocols seek to facilitate the growth of e-trade, ensure a secure data flow(economic transactions) and protection of its data in the network. In the recent, there has been strong attention by consumers and businesses with the growing scope and content of these agreements addressing Intellectual Property (IP). Emerging trend studies show that there is a growing practices to incorporate mutually exclusive arrangements without involving other stakeholders which happens in closed door negotiations i.e. government to government.

For instance, the European’s Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) proposal and the U.S. Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).

The bigger concern raised by other stakeholders has been the secrecy of these arrangements and the insufficient protection of consumers and citizens rights in its consideration. So far, the lack of legitimacy and proportionality of legal policy measures has created unintended consequences and collateral damages in far reaching manners whether socially, economically or technologically. Citing practices of filtering technology, deep packet inspection, and Internet cut-off, are introduced by internet service providers to meet legal requirements. Activities in question may vary from country to country, some focus on violations of intellectual property, some on the control of political voices.

Notably, list of concerns have been raised explicitly by UN Special Rapporteur to adhere to the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression were recommended.

This workshop is aim to create discussion on the related topics among stakeholders both in Thailand and in the region of the direct and indirect implications of various developments.

Target: Regulators, consumer rights, human rights activities, Lawyers

Expected Outcomes

Understanding the dynamics of free trade agreements (i.e. APEC, TPP, and ACTA) and its implications on Internet regulations, national sovereignty, and civil rights from various perspectives. (Big picture)
Basic understanding of how various policy and technology related measures or solutions (i.e. digital rights management technology and deep-packet inspection) are used to address Intellectual Property (IP) and how it directly impacts freedom of expression and individual privacy.
Looking Ahead: The developments and upcoming legislations/regulation challenges in both Thailand and the region i.e. new draft of Computer-related Crime Act, new draft of Copyright Act, and the Personal Data Protection Bill.

Panelists

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor, Internet Society, Geneva
Nakorn Serirak, Policy Advisor, Thai Netizen Network, Bangkok
Sawatree Suksri, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Thammasat University, Bangkok
Lokman Tsui, Policy Advisor, Google Asia Pacific, Hong Kong

Moderator

Mike Hayes, Chair, International MA Program in Human Rights, Mahidol University

Click the PDFs below to download the full details and the presentation:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/inet-bangkok-june-8-2013-governance-in-the-age-of-internet-and-fta

Fifth International IPR Conference (GIPC 2013)

praskrishna — 2013-02-03T02:04:49Z

ITAG Business Solutions is organizing its Fifth International IPR conference "GIPC 2013" at Hotel LaLit Ashok, Bangalore, India on the theme "IPR: The Powerhouse of Tomorrow". Snehashish Ghosh is participating in the event and will speak on Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Market Place.

The Institute of International Trade and Sughrue are the co-organisers of this event. Full details of the event can be seen here.

The conference shall deal with specific technology in various industries, World leaders and the various IPR solutions.

The subjects to be covered in the conference are from idea to asset encompassing all relevant topics including valuation, commercialization, technology transfer, litigation, counterfeiting, analyzing the techno, legal and commercial solution to all associated problems in the field of intellectual property. The conference will deal with complex issues in simple manner about patentability of business methods, software and emerging field of technologies namely electronics, telecommunications, green technologies, nanotechnologies and pharmaceuticals. The emerging BRICS economies need to provide IP competitiveness to the Western Nations through innovation and creativity.

Click to see the agenda.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/fifth-intl-ipr-conference-gipc-2013

Global Congress On IP and Public Interest Adopts Principles for Negotiations

praskrishna — 2014-01-13T08:32:25Z

A recent conference on intellectual property and the public interest concluded with the adoption of public interest principles to guide international trade negotiations and international organisations.

This article by William New was published in the Intellectual Property Watch on January 6, 2014.

The Open African Innovation Research (Open A.I.R.) conference and the Global Congress on IP & the Public Interest took place in Cape Town, South Africa from 9-13 December. The conference hosted by the University of Cape Town was funded by Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC), and Germany’s Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), among others.

Principles adopted at the conference included transparency, preservation of rights within international agreements such as national flexibilities, protection for internet service providers, strengthening of the public domain, and access to knowledge and to medicines.

The event included a fairly diverse representation, and not all participants necessarily signed on to the principles that emerged from the event.

According to infojustice.org, some 200 people have signed the “Global Congress Declaration on Public Interest Principles for International IP Negotiations,” which is available here.

The declaration calls for “’a positive agenda in international intellectual property law making’ which would include a more open negotiating process, respect for stakeholders’ social and economic welfare, and preserve states’ freedoms to protect access to knowledge goods,” infojustice.org said.

In particular, the declaration took aim at the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) being negotiated by 12 countries led by the United States. It urged negotiators of the TPP and future negotiations to ensure the “ongoing release of proposed legal provisions for public comment and maximize the ability of all interested persons and organizations to observe and participate in negotiation processes.”

Other principles, which echo debates at international organisations in Geneva, include ensuring that nations: retain sovereignty to take actions in their public interest without constraint from intellectual property rights, be able to use anti-circumvention measures without liability, and that IP enforcement measures be “reasonable and proportional.”

Additional principles called for avoiding “the creation of new dispute resolution fora parallel to, and that may conflict with, the multilateral system,” and ensuring that IP agreements are “consistent with international law, including international human rights law and the Convention on Biological Diversity.”

Finally, the declaration said: "We record our serious concerns about the closed and secretive processes being used for current international negotiations while acknowledging the efforts of some countries to promote positive proposals within them."

Statement on Global Fund IP Policy and Generics

Also at the Cape Town event, a statement was adopted raising concern over a policy being considered by the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria that would establish tiered pricing for medicines.

“We note with growing concern the weakening of the Global Fund’s support for expanding access to safe, affordable generic medications as the answer to unaffordable essential drugs,” the statement said. “We are extremely concerned about the recent announcement of a ‘blue-ribbon Task Force’ on tiered-pricing of medicines in middle-income countries.”

In addition, the statement raised concern about a new Global Fund partnership with the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations on “fake medicines.” It said the effort could create confusion in consumers’ minds about generic medicines. For them, the best approach would be “strong drug regulatory agencies together with effective technology transfer.”

"The Global Fund should retain its public interest focus and disentangle the interests of public health from the interests of those who claim intellectual-property over drugs," it said. "Regressive policy suggestions and public campaigns that undermine generic competition are counter to the Fund’s public mission."

Open A.I.R.

One aspect of the Open A.I.R. project is that the fellows who have been trained over the past few years now will go out and spread the word.

Seble Baraki, legal researcher at the Justice and Legal Systems Research Institute in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, told Intellectual Property Watch, “I go and tell people what I’ve learned and see how it is going to help” on issues like health or branding to ensure high quality products.

"By being here, I think I have brought the issue of IP in my government," she said. For instance, they have a conference on law and development with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and she has consistently mentioned that they should include something on development and IP. Now, they have agreed to do it, she said.

From studying in the North (Sweden), she had a certain idea about intellectual property. "Being part of this project helped me to see how to look at how to use IP from a public interest and development perspective.

Now, she said, she plans to go home and look at how it really makes a difference in her city, to see how IP can be used. Being part of this project, she added, "changed how you think about IP."

Other Highlights

The weeklong conference was packed with speakers and activities, and involved many of the leading figures in the public interest movement related to intellectual property rights. It also involved a first-time training on traditional knowledge related to IP rights.

The death of South African leader and “father” Nelson Mandela profoundly impacted the meeting. For example, a participant from Côte d’Ivoire said he was going to “live tweet” a journey through Mandela’s whole life, traveling from country to country.

Separately, Diane Peters, general counsel at Creative Commons, suggested a focus on a positive agenda, not taking away the right of another. There are ways to structure a dialogue so that everyone’s needs are addressed, she said.

“We are all part of some ecosystem,” she said, thinking and learning from the ideas of others. Limitations and exceptions are a right, Peters said. Authors should recognise that they also are re-using others’ ideas, same for the people who re-use and remix. “I’m really happy with how the dialogue-shaping is going,” she said.

Peters also said Creative Commons takes the view that their licences are not an answer to the problems of the copyright system. (CC licences include the version used by Intellectual Property Watch allowing re-use of our content for non-commercial purposes with attribution).

[Update: Creative Commons recently issued a policy statement on copyright reform].

The Struggle for Balance

Discussions during the week showed the diversity of topics and interests in fields affected by intellectual property rights. There were few vocal champions of the IP system, but there also was no blanket condemnation of it. Rather, discussions were attempts to address specific opportunities within IP, or concerns about its effects in certain cases. Not everyone held the same view and there were some debates during the week.

But given the variety and number of advocates from different sectors, such as the access to medicines and access to knowledge movements, there were some rallying cries around certain issues.

One relatively common area was the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP), as concerns are high about raising IP protection levels without the participation of public interest groups. A speaker asserted that the United States is using the TPP to target BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) as it did in the negotiations for the 1994 World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

There also were a number of discussions about the meaning of “open,” in issues like open access, open education, and open source. On a related note, Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore, India-based Centre for Internet and Society, said there are different types of open standards, and that using digital signatures instead of biometrics gives a decentralised system that protects human rights.

One speaker said they had been struck during the week by the need for a South-South network. Another asked how developing countries can use IP frameworks that have been predetermined in the North and that are not appropriate.

Participants repeatedly expressed positive attitudes about such a large and high-energy gathering (which the beautiful setting did nothing to diminish), allowing endless networking opportunities. But there was an urgency about the gathering for many, as global efforts to strengthen the IP system are working against their goals.

“We are seeing an assault on pretty much every single level,” one public health advocate said at the closing session. “Even when we win” and are able to advance the cause for access to medicines, the judges have been trained by the North (meaning with a pro-IP slant) and “turn the whole thing over.”

George Washington University Prof. Susan Sell described the “forum-shifting” that occurs with forces seeking to strengthen global intellectual property rules, as they seek international organisations where they can effect change in their favour. She likened it to a “cat and mouse” situation. She also said that IP policy is not an end in itself, but is public policy.

A participant from Jordan said that country did not play “cat-and-mouse” very well as when it signed its bilateral free trade agreement with the United States it took in all the bad aspects of the US copyright law.

Another speaker said the IP system does not encourage innovation for need but rather innovation for profit. He said governments in countries with strong rights holders are “captured,” and that governments need to be recaptured. He said organisations like the Gates and Clinton foundations are promoters of strong IP protection. Developing countries, activists, need to stop being the mouse, he said, and “start becoming the dog that chases the cat.”

“How do we forum-shift to all of the spaces we can win,” another speaker asked later, “[and] push the IP maximalist agenda to where we are not always on the defensive?”

“We are seeing an assault on pretty much every single level,” said a third. “Even when we win and are able to insert an agenda for [access to medicines], the judges have been trained by the North and turn the whole thing over.”

The mood, as Sell characterised it, is that “we can never stop and congratulate ourselves too much, because it just keeps coming.”

The annual event will continue next December, this time in Kuala Lumpur.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ip-watch-january-6-2014-william-new-global-congress-on-ip-and-public-interest-adopts-principles-for-negotiations

Arguments Against the PUPFIP Bill

pranesh — 2011-09-12T11:03:09Z

The Protection and Utilisation of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill (PUPFIP Bill) is a new legislation being considered by Parliament, which was introduced in the 2008 winter session of the Rajya Sabha. It is modelled on the American Bayh-Dole Act (University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act) of 1980. On this page, we explore some of the reasons that the bill is unnecessary, and how it will be harmful if passed.

Summary

How is the legislation unnecessary?

The Indian government does not have vast reserves of underutilized patents, as the U.S. did in 1980.
Technology transfer is very important, but pushing IPRs aggressively is not the best way of ensuring technology transfer.

How is the legislation harmful?

Excessive patenting lead to gridlocks and retards innovation.
The legislation makes mandatory that which is optional now, and is anyway being followed in many institutions.
Copyright, trademark, etc., seem to be covered under the definition of “public funded IP”.
It will result in a form of double taxation for research, and will increase the consumer cost of all products based on publicly-funded research.
It could have unintended consequences of varied kinds, including discouraging fundamental research as well as discouraging industrial research.
Non-disclosure requirements in the Bill restricts the dissemination of research within the academic community, and curtails freedom of speech.
Exclusive licensing enables restriction on the dissemination of academic research in the marketplace, and increase in cost of products based on public-funded research.

Arguments

How is the legislation unnecessary?

1) The Indian government does not have vast reserves of underutilized patents, as the U.S. did in 1980.

The idea behind the Bayh-Dole Act was that the research funded by the government (and owned, in the US, by the government) was being underutilized. In 1980, over 28,000 unlicensed patents lay with the U.S. government.[1] The Act shifted the title of such works from the government to the University or small business that conducted the research, thus allowing them to take out patents on the research outputs. In India, under present laws, the researcher(s) own the rights over their research whether they be government-funded or not. Usually, due to employment contracts, the research institutes already have the right to patent their inventions. Thus, currently, there is no need for an enabling legislation in this regard, as there was in the U.S.

In fact, currently, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has over 5173 patents (counting both those in force and those under dispute), while only 222 patents are licensed (with 68 of them being under dispute). Thus, even with the IP being in the institute's hands, there is a "problem" situation similar to that which necessitated Bayh-Dole in the U.S. Thus, quite contrary to the aims of the Act, further patenting will only lead to a situation of even more underutilized patents.

2) Technology transfer is very important, but pushing IPRs aggressively is not the best way of ensuring technology transfer.

At a recent seminar held at NUJS Kolkata on the PUPFIP Bill, it was revealed that while IIT-Kharagpur’s TTO-equivalent (called the Sponsored Research & Industrial Consultancy division - SRIC) currently handles over Rs.300 crores through 850 projects, only around Rs. 5-15 crores (exact figures weren't available) are currently made through its patent portfolio.[2] Thus patents don't seem, on the face of things, to be the best way of ensuring technology transfer. Indeed, the oft-cited 28,0000 unlicensed patents held by the U.S. government were composed primarily of patents for which industry had refused to take exclusive licences.[3]

Many contend that one of the most important functions of a patent is to get inventors to disclose their inventions rather than keep them as secrets. This reason for awarding a patent is invalidated if stronger protection is granted to trade secrets (no term limit, for instance) than for patents. Secondly, this reason for granting patents is not valid in case of government-funded research in academia and research institutes. The culture of publication and the economy of reputation are sufficient to ensure disclosure. Even without these intrinsic factors, there grant requirements can necessitate publication. If mere publication is believed to be insufficient, then the government would do well to ask for technology dissemination plans before grants are made. At any rate, monopoly rights in the form of patents are thoroughly unnecessary.

How is the legislation harmful?

1) Excessive patenting lead to gridlocks and retard innovation.

It sees protection of IPR as the sole means of encouraging innovation and driving research to the doorstep of consumers. The trend around the world is that of exploring alternative forms of spurring innovation. Even in India, CSIR has gone for an innovative "Open Source Drug Discovery" project, which has proven very successful so far. Furthermore, recent literature shows that excessive patenting is harming research and innovation by creating gridlocks.[4] If platform technologies and basic research (such as SNP) gets mired in patents, then the transaction costs increase (not only in terms of money, but more importantly in administrative terms). This ends up in research clearances getting blocked, and thus retards innovation. It must be remembered that intellectual property is not only an output, but also an input. The more aggressively the outputs are guarded and prevented from being shared, the more the inputs will be affected. The study of patent thickets and gridlocks has reached such a stage that the U.S. law has been changed to reflect this. Firstly, the Bayh-Dole Act was amended in 2000 to state that the objectives of the Bayh-Dole Act were to be carried out "without unduly encumbering future research and discovery". Now, the courts (in the Bilski case) have increased the standard of obviousness in patent law (which means that less patents will be granted). Furthermore, the U.S.P.T.O. and the U.S. Senate are currently considering means of overhauling the U.S. patent system, which many fear is close to breaking down due to over-patenting. All these are signs that the footsteps we are seeking to follow are themselves turning back.

2) The legislation makes mandatory that which is optional now, and is anyway being followed in many institutions.

While the CSIR labs pursue patents aggressively, they also run the OSSD project. The latter might not be permissible if the Act is passed as it stands. Furthermore, this would increase the number of underutilized patents, which is a problem faced currently by CSIR, which has had an aggressive patent policy since the 1990s. Unlicensed patents constitute around 93% of CSIR's total patent portfolio. (In contrast, MIT averages around 50% licensing of patents.) If aggressive patenting is made mandatory, it adds substantially to administrative costs of all institutes which receive any grants from the government. These institutes might not be large enough to merit a dedicated team of professionals to handle

3) Copyright, trademark, etc., seem to be covered under the definition of "public funded IP".

This leads to a ridiculous need to attempt to commercialise all government-funded research literature (and the government funds science research, social sciences, arts, etc.). Furthermore, while the definition of "public funded IP" includes copyrights, trademarks, etc., yet the substantive provisions seem to only include those forms of IP which have to be registered compulsorily (copyright and trademark don't -- copyright comes into existence when an original work is expressed in a medium, and trademark can come into existence by use). Importantly, seeking to commercialise all copyrighted works of research would hamper the movement for open access to scholarly literature. The inititative towards open access to scholarly literature is something that National Knowledge Commission has recommended, and is a move that would result in increased dissemination of public-funded research, which seems to be an aim of the PUPFIP Bill as well.

4) It will result in a form of double taxation for research, and will increase the consumer cost of all products based on publicly-funded research.

This bill would increase the consumer cost of all products based on publicly-funded research, because of the additional burden of patent royalties.

Public funds research -> Institute patents research -> Pharma MNC gets exclusive license over research -> Drug reaches market.

Assuming an exclusive licence: Cost of the drug = cost of manufacturing, storage, etc. + mark-up (monopolistic) cost + cost of licence.

Thus, in effect, the public has to pay twice for the research: it pays once to enable the scientist to conduct the research, and once again in the form of royalties to have that research brought to the marketplace.

5) It could have unintended consequences of varied kinds, including discouraging fundamental research as well as discouraging industrial research.

The former could happen since institutions and individual scientists have a financial incentive to shift their focus away from fundamental research; the latter, conversely, because the filings and bureaucracy involved could drive scientists away from reporting or even engaging in industrial research [pdf]. Faculty and researcher involvement in the business of licensing is a sub-optimal usage of their talents, and there are scientists who would rather stay away from business (as is shown by the intake of former industry-researchers into government-funded labs such as those of CSIR).

6) Non-disclosure requirements in the Bill restricts the dissemination of research within the academic community, and curtails freedom of speech.

This will bring about a shift in science and research which is always done upon others' work. This is why in the U.S., the National Institute of Health (N.I.H.) has sought to ensure (without any legal authority) that it only finances that research that on single nucleotide polymorphism (S.N.P.) which is not patented, and is shared freely amongst scholars. Since this requirement of the N.I.H.'s does not have any legal backing (since it is contradictory to the Bayh-Dole Act), institutions are free to get the grant from N.I.H. and then go ahead and patent their inventions.

7) Exclusive licensing enables restriction on the dissemination of academic research in the marketplace, and increase in cost of products based on public-funded research.

The bill allows for both assignment of licences as well as exclusive licences. Both of these enable monopolistic pricing to be undertaken by the licensee/assignee. There are not even any mechanisms in the Act to ensure, for instance, that a public call is made to ascertain that no parties are willing to consider a non-exclusive licence. Patents are generally said to grant a monopoly right because of the opportunity to recover costs of research and development. When the research is being done by public-funded money, there is no justification for monopoly rights on that research, since there are no excessive costs to recover.

Footnotes:

[1] See So et al. and Thursby and Thursby, quoted in the National Knowledge Commission's letter to the Prime Minister.

[2] See Prof. Vivekanandans' presentation "Patenting and Technology Transfer-the IIT Khargpur Experience"

[3] See Anthony So et al., Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries, 6 PLoS Biol e262 (2008)

[4] See Michael A. Heller & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, 280 Science 698 (1998)

Additional Resources

On the PUPFIP Bill

February 5, 2004: NIPER holds parallel session of Indian Science Congress (Express Pharma)
October 27, 2006: Susan Finston, India to Propose New Technology Transfer Legislation (Bayh-Dole 25)
January 16, 2007: National Knowledge Commision's Letter to Indian Prime Minister (National Knowledge Commission)
April 15, 2007: Archita Bhatta, Proposed IPR law raises concern (Down to Earth)
May 31, 2007: Science & Technology needs to be core of the economic development says Kapil Sibal (PIB Press Release)
November 13, 2007: Government Accords Approval to National Biotechnology Development Strategy (PIB Press Release)
February 1, 2008: Yudhijit Bhattacharjee, Indian Government Hopes Bill Will Stimulate Innovation (Science)
February 19, 2008: Shamnad Basheer, Exporting Bayh Dole to India: Whither Transparency? (Part 1) (Part 2) (SpicyIP)
March 17, 2008: Kalpana Pathak, Varsities may soon own patent rights (Business Standard)
March 17, 2008: P.T. Jyothi Datta, Public-funded research may pay dividends for scientists (Business Line)
March 17, 2008: Joff Wild, India considers Bayh-Dole style legislation (IAM Magazine)
April 30, 2008: M.K. Unnikrishnan and Pradeepti Nayak, Lessons from Bayh Dole Act and its relevance to India (PharmaBiz)
July 2008: Sean M. O'Connor, Historical Context of U.S. Bayh-Dole Act: Implications for Indian Government Funded Research Patent Policy (STEM Newsletter)
July 7, 2008: Shamnad Basheer, Mysterious Indian "Bayh Dole" Bill: SpicyIP Procures a Copy (SpicyIP)
July 09, 2008: Latha Jishnu, Does India need a Bayh-Dole Act? (Business Standard)
September 2008: V.C. Vivekanandan, Transplanting Bayh-Dole Act- Issues at Stake Authors (13 Journal of Intell. Prop. 480)
September 18, 2008: Shamnad Basheer, Indian Patent Bill: Let's not be too hasty (SciDev.net)
October 28, 2008: Anthony So et al., Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries, 6 PLoS Biol e262 (2008)
October 31, 2008: Cabinet gives approval for Protection and Utilization of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill, 2008 (PIB Press Release)
November 2008: Annette Lin et al., The Bayh-Dole Act and Promoting the Transfer of Technology of Publicly Funded-Research (UAEM White Paper on the Proposed Indian Bayh-Dole Analogue)
November 1, 2008: Editorial: Not in Public Interest (Mint)
November 12, 2008: Ben Butkus, As India Mulls Bill Modeled on Bayh-Dole, Critics Claim It May Stifle Innovation (Biotech Transfer Weekly)
December 16, 2008: Pranesh Prakash, Indian "Bayh Dole" Bill before Parliament (Commons Law)
January 23, 2009: Editorial: Time to Rethink Intellectual Property Laws (SciDev.net)
March 12, 2009: Feroz Ali Khader, Does Patenting Research Change the Culture of Science? (The Hindu)
April 24, 2009: Sunil Abraham & Pranesh Prakash, Does India Need Its Own Bayh-Dole? (Indian Express)
September 21, 2009: C.H. Unnikrishnan, Proposed Patent Bill Is Flawed, Say Experts (Mint)
September 23, 2009: Editorial: An Idea That's A Patent Misfit (Mint)
October 2009: Bhaven N. Sampat, The Bayh-Dole Model in Developing Countries: Reflections on the Indian Bill on Publicly Funded Intellectual Property (UNCTAD - ICTSD Policy Brief No. 5)
January 2010: Amit Shovon Ray & Sabyasachi Saha, Patenting Public-Funded Research for Technology Transfer: A Conceptual-Empirical Synthesis of US Evidence and Lessons for India (ICRIER Working Paper No. 244)
January 2010: Mrinalini Kochupillai, The Protection and Utilization of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill, 2008: A Critique in the Light of India's Innovation Environment, 15 J. Intell. Prop. Rights 19 (2010)
January 16, 2010: Amit Shovon Ray & Sabyasachi Saha, Intellectual Bottlenecks (Financial Express)
January 21, 2010: Latha Jishnu, Perils of the US Model (Business Standard)
January 22, 2010: Rema Nagarajan, Scientists Fume Over New Patent Bill (Times of India)
January 26, 2010: Shamnad Basheer, The Problem with Patents (Mint)
February 5, 2010: Shalini Butani, Public Research May Become More Private (Business Line)
February 8, 2010: Anika Gupta, Scientists Want Changes in Innovation Bill (Mint)
February 9, 2010: C.H. Unnikrishnan, Parliament Panel Wants Govt Review on Innovation Bill (Mint)
February 15, 2010: Leena Menghaney, A Bad Example from the U.S. (Down to Earth)
February 19, 2010: Pranesh Prakash, A Patent Conundrum (Indian Express)
SpicyIP coverage by tag 'Bayh Dole'
Presentations from NUJS, Kolkata conference on the PUPFIP Bill

On Bayh-Dole

Newspapers and Magazines

Academic Journals

Amy Kapczynski et al., Addressing Global Health Inequities: An Open Licensing Approach for University Innovation, 20 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1031 (2005)
Anthony So et al., Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries, 6 PLoS Biol. e262 (2008)
Arti K. Rai & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine, 66 Law & Contemp. Probs. 289 (2003)
David C. Mowery & Arvids A. Aiedonis, Numbers, Quality, and Entry: How Has the Bayh-Dole Act Affected U.S. University Patenting and Licensing?, 1 Innovation Pol'y Econ. 187 (2000)
David C. Mowery, et al., Learning to Patent: Institutional Experience, Learning, and the Characteristics of U.S. University Patents After the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992, 48 Mgmt. Sci. 73 (2002)
Donald Kennedy, Editorial: Enclosing the Research Commons, 294 Science 2249 (2001)
F.M. Scherer, The Political Economy of Patent Policy Reform in the United States, 7 Colorado J. Telecomm. High Tech. L. 167 (2009)
Henry Steck, Corporatization of the University: Seeking Conceptual Clarity, 585 Annals of Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 66 (2003)
Jason Owen-Smith, Trends and Transitions in the Institutional Environment for Public and Private Science, 49 Higher Educ. 91 (2005)
Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, University Licensing and the Bayh-Dole Act, 301 Science 1052 (2003)
Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, Who is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing, 48 Mgmt. Sci. 90 (2002)
Josh Lerner, Review of 'Ivory Tower', 43 J. Econ. Litt. 510 (2005)
Joshua B. Powers, R&D Funding Source and University Technology Transfer: What is Stimulating Universities to Be More Entrepreneurial?, 45 Research in Higher Educ. 1 (2004)
Lita Nelsen, The Rise of Intellectual Property Protection in the American University, 279 Science 1460 (1998)
Marcia Angell & Arnold S. Relman, Patents, Profits & American Medicine: Conflicts of Interest in the Testing & Marketing of New Drugs, 131 Daedalus 102 (2002)
Maria Jelenik, Review: Two Books on Technology Transfer, 50 Admin. Sci. Q. 131 (2005) (Review of 'Ivory Tower')
Michael A. Heller & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, 280 Science 698 (1998)
Rebecca Henderson, et al., Universities as a Source of Commercia Technology: A Detailed Analsis of University Patenting, 1965-1988, 80 Rev. Econ. Statistics 119 (1998)
Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Technology Transfer in Government-Sponsorded Research, 82 Virginia L. Rev. 1663 (1996)
Rebecca S. Eisenberg & Richard R. Nelson, Public vs. Proprietary Science: A Fruitful Tension?, 131 Daedalus 89 (2002)
Richard Jensen & Marie Thursby, Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions, 91 Am. Econ. Rev. 240 (2001)
Roberto Mazzoleni & Richard R. Nelson, Economic Theories about the Benefits and Costs of Patents, 32 J. Econ. Issues 1031 (1998)
Thomas A. Massaro, Innovation, Technology Transfer, and Patent Policy: The University Contribution, 82 Virginia L. Rev. 1729 (1996)
Walter W. Powell & Jason Owen-Smith, Universities and the Market for Intellectual Property in the Life Sciences, 17 J. Pol'y Analysis Mgmt. 253 (1998)
William M. Sage, Funding Fairness: Public Investment, Proprietary Rights and Access to Health Care Technology, 82 Virginia L. Rev. 1737 (1996)
Zach W. Hall & Christopher Scott, University-Industry Partnership, 291 Science 553 (2001)

Resources

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip/why-no-pupfip

4th Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest: Statement of Conclusion for the IP and Development track

nehaa — 2015-12-25T02:22:52Z

The 4th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest was held from December 15 to 17, 2015 in New Delhi. This post provides a summary of the event.

This was also published on the Global Congress blog.

Wrap up note 1: Feedback on broad discussion in the IP and Dev track – set of collected key points:

This year, the discussions included attention to broad perspectives on clarifying the meaning and reality of open collaborative innovation, as well as significant focus on the sub-themes of economic development (innovation and software patents, clean technologies, climate change and green patenting, issues of branding and plain packaging); sustainable development (agriculture and geographic indicators [GI]); policy, law and regulation (role of governments, patenting, compulsory licensing [CL], global institutions [particularly WTO, WIPO and WHO] and national institutions [particularly patent offices]). Trade dominated the discussions across the IP and Dev track, including the TPP and other issues, reflecting the strong global trade agenda.

Missing areas in the track papers, workshops and panel discussions included the limited discussion on traditional knowledge (TK); the work of indigenous groups and how they are navigating the IP landscape; biodiversity; biotech and food security; innovation in the nanotechnology sphere; and inclusive development. Accessibility to innovations for low-income households, and accessibility to innovations at the country level needs greater attention. These topics can be brought out more strongly, more directly.

The value of building research networks to create explicit knowledge and coherence in research-based evidence for advocacy and policy-making was made visible in the workshop session presented by Open AIR, with the Open AIR network as the exemplar. The challenge is to translate the kinds of research and evidence presented at the GC into content and value for policy-making and trade negotiations.

Wrap up note 2: Value of the deliberations and future research:

This is a new track in the GC, introduced in 2015. It is an important track for this and future Global Congresses because it brings together the many strands of research, advocacy and other work that are related to topics in innovation, IP and development, but which are not specifically about openness, user rights or A2M. This is a very broad range of fields of study, from agriculture to nanotechnology. It was proposed that the track be renamed “Innovation and Development” to more explicitly describe its focus.

From this GC, it has become clearer what future topics may be considered for papers and other inputs into the IP and Dev track. Such topics include counter-narratives to mainstream IP perspectives; bringing IP for development in multiple sectors to the fore – in education; in automotive manufacturing; in technology evolution; in agricultural production and food security; in the broad policy, law and regulatory environment pertinent to these and other sectoral perspectives. For example, in the paper on green patenting, reference was made to Tesla and Toyota releasing patents, but the session did not get to discuss that. The papers presented at the 4th GC suggest many areas of focus for future research and future GCs – perhaps the best way to think about this exploration is through greater attention to innovation in a range of social and economic sectors; to consider the particular challenges of innovation, IP and development in LDCs; to study innovation ecosystems and where IP fits in these ecosystem. Cross-track sessions are also considered to be very important because of the knowledge sharing that takes place across sectors, for example the discussions on patent wars in the access to medicines (A2M) track provided food for thought with respect to emerging issues in the software sector.

Wrap up note 3: Ideas and implications of GC sessions for future directions for research, collaborations and next GC:

For the next GC, mobilization is required across various geographic regions and a significant discussion is required on preparation and design of the sub-themes, based on the notes above. The requirement for more evidence-based research was noted. It was recommended that the future name of the track should be Innovation and Development. The core group, comprised of track leaders and sessions chairs, should continue the leadership of the track from GC to GC, bringing additional interested persons on board, in particular with respect to the design of sub-themes well in advance of the 5th GC, to guide prospective submissions.

Ends.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/4th-global-congress-on-ip-and-the-public-interest-statement-of-conclusion-for-the-ip-and-development-track

National IPR Policy Series : Who is a 'public authority' under the RTI Act?

nehaa — 2015-05-21T17:03:30Z

In this blog post, CIS intern Devrupa Rakshit examines case law with respect to the understanding of a 'public authority' under the Right to Information ("RTI") Act, 2005.

In earlier blog posts, India’s National IPR Policy has been discussed at length. In February 2015, three RTI applications were made by the Centre for Internet and Society to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (hereinafter, the “DIPP”). The response of the DIPP to these requests could be described as vague, at best. A detailed blog post by Nehaa Chaudhari discusses the questions, the responses and the other nuances of this endeavour at length.

Having failed repeatedly in our attempts to retrieve information pertaining to the IPR Think Tank that was, essentially, in charge of formulating the National IPR Policy, we put forth an RTI request to the IPR Think Tank earlier this month. The response is awaited, at the moment. In the meantime, we have undertaken the task of finding out whether the IPR Think Tank can indeed be classified as a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, (hereinafter, the “RTI Act”, or simply the “Act”) because if it can, then it must have a Public Information Officer as per Section 5 of the Act.

The RTI Act defines “public authorities” in Section 2(h) –

A “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self- government established or constituted –

(a) by or under the Constitution;

(b) by any other law made by Parliament;

(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;

(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any –

(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;

(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.

A. Who is a "Public Authority"?

In 2011, the Punjab-Haryana High Court[1] while deciding on 24 civil writ petitions against the Central/State Information Commissioners had held that if any person, or body, satisfies the following conditions then it would "squarely fall within the ambit and scope of definition of 'public authorities'" and would be "legally required to impart the indicated information as envisaged under the RTI Act" -

(i) the institution cannot come into existence and function unless registered and regulated by the provisions of a legislation; or

(ii) the State Government has some degree of control over it through the medium of Acts/Rules; or

(iii) it is substantially financed by means of funds provided directly, or indirectly, by the appropriate Government; or

(iv) the mandate and command of the provisions of the RTI Act along with its Preamble, aims, objects and regime extends to their public dealing; or

(v) the larger public interest and totality of the other facts and circumstances emanating from the records suggest that such information may be disclosed.

The Court was further inclined to believe that arguments to the contrary would "nullify the aims and objects of the RTI Act, perpetuating and inculcating the injustice to the larger public interest in general."

The Central Information Commission (hereinafter, the "CIC") has also held[2] that pension trusts are "public authorities" under the RTI Act.

The CIC also held[3] that the LIC Housing Finance Limited (hereinafter, the "LICHFL") and LIC Mutual Fund Asset Management Co. Ltd. would qualify as "public authorities" under the RTI Act. It was held that LIC is a body established, constituted, owned and controlled by Central Government. Further, LIC is a public authority having been constituted by an Act of Parliament. And, since the Chairman and Managing Director for both LIC and LICHFL is the same, and since LIC has 40.497% of the shares of LICHFL, LICHFL would be regarded as a "public authority" for the purposes of the RTI Act.

In a verdict that has remained prominent for over half-a-decade now, the CIC had alluded to the judgment of the Madras High Court in Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers Ltd v. State Information Commission. In this case, the court had observed that since the mere requirement of the RTI Act for an institution to be deemed a "public authority" is that the Government must substantially finance it, and exercise control over its affairs, it is not necessary that the Government must be the majority shareholder in that institution. The Court had further gone ahead to make an observation that whether or not the government exercises such control is immaterial. Having relied heavily upon this judgment by the Madras High Court, the CIC had further stated that the practice of funding and general control over the affairs and functions of the LIC Mutual Fund by the Central Government is nothing but a manner of indirect funding, and hence LIC Mutual Fund would qualify as a "public authority" under the RTI Act.

In the same case, it was held that the GIC Housing Finance Limited is also a "public authority" for the purposes of the RTI Act since "the shareholding of six Public Authorities in GIC Housing Finance is 47.68% and coupled with the control they exercise over the GIC Housing Finance, it is sufficient to bring them within the ambit of the definition of 'Public Authority' as defined in Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005."

Further, the Indian Olympic Association (hereinafter, the "IOA") was held[4] to be a "public authority" under the RTI Act on account of substantial funding by the Government not only for the discharge of functions of the IOA, but also for the construction of its building. In fact, the level of funding by the Government, here, is such that without it, the IOA is unlikely to be able to discharge its functions under the Olympic Charter itself.

In another judgment[5], where it was contended that the body, in question, was a non-governmental organisation, and was not funded by the Government, the CIC held that the impugned body would be a "public authority" as it had been substantially financed by the funds provided by the Government.

In a judgment[6] by the Madras High Court, even an aided private school was held to fall under the ambit of the RTI Act as its entire teaching staff received 100% of their salary from the aid received from the government. The same line of reasoning was resonated in a judgment by the Allahabad High Court in the following year.[7] Yet another private recognised school was held[8] by the CIC to be a "public authority" under the RTI Act because it was substantially funded by the appropriate Government, and was under its control.

The Delhi High Court held[9] the Krishak Bharti Co-operative Ltd. (hereinafter, the "KRIBHCO") - a society registered under the Multi-State Co- operative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter, the "MSCS Act" - to be a "public authority" for the purpose of the RTI Act because certain devices laid down in the MSCS Act itself makes KRIBHCO amenable to the control of the Government. On the same grounds, the National Cooperative Consumer Federation of India Ltd. (and the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation of India Ltd. (hereinafter, the "NAFED") - two other societies registered under the MSCS Act - are "public authorities".

Furthermore, the NAFED is also "a nodal agency of the Government of India for the purchase of agricultural and non- agricultural commodities under Market Intervention Scheme and the losses incurred in the implementation of the schemes by NAFED are shared by the Government of India and the State Government concerned in the ratio of 50:50."

Continuing its trend of according a liberal approach to "public authorities" under the RTI Act, the Madras High Court stated in the New Tirupur Area Development case[10] that while Section 2(h)(d)(i) qualifies a "body owned" or a "body controlled", nowhere does it state that the body must be wholly owned, or wholly controlled, by the State. And, as the court observed, even the term "substantially financed" has not been defined though it has been qualified by the terms " directly or indirectly". Section 2(h)(d)(ii) further ropes in non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that are substantially financed. This reflects the intent and purpose of the legislators. In any case, the object of the Act to is to provide the citizens with a right to information from public authorities, and hence, as the Division Bench of the court had previously opined in the Tamil Nadu Road Development Corporation Ltd.'s case[11], the impugned section must receive a liberal interpretation.

Further ahead in this judgment[12], the court made an observation saying that if the State Government, instead of undertaking a work that is essentially its own duty, substantially funds an agency to do it, then such work can hardly be deemed as a private activity. It evolves "very much (into) a public activity over which public interest can generate."

In the same case[13], it was also observed that under the Act, the quantum of the finance required for a body to qualify as "substantially financed" is not spelt out. On this point, the High Court also relied on a precedent [14] (the Tamil Nadu Road Development case decided by Justice A.K. Ganguly) where the court had refused to accept the argument of the petitioner, which stated that the financial support by the government was meagre at best.

B. Which bodies are exempted from the Ambit of "Public Authorities"?

The Kerala High Court, in a 2011 judgment[15], exempted the offices and officers of public religious institutions and endowments to which the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 applies from the definition of "public authorities" under the RTI Act.

In a subsequent case[16], the CIC said that despite the fact that 46% of the equity capital of the National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Ltd. was held by the PSUs (which are, of course, public authorities), the National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Ltd. cannot, in itself, be regarded as a "public authority" as there is no direct or indirect funding by an appropriate Government.

Three Karnataka High Court judgments in 2009 [(a) dealing with the Basava Samithi[17] - an organisation that promotes the Basava Philosophy of Life and is registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1961; (b) dealing with a co-operative housing society[18] in Malleswaram, Bangalore; (c) dealing with a Bank [19]] held three different bodies as not the creation of any law made by the Legislature, or not as bodies owned or controlled or substantially financed by the Government, and hence, exempt from the ambit of a "public authority" under the RTI Act. These judgments were, however, criticised in the Punjab and Haryana High Court[20] wherein it said that in the three 2009-judgments, the Karnataka High Court had overlooked the basic aims and objectives of larger public interest enshrined in the Preamble of the RTI Act.

C. Conclusion

The easiest way to establish that the IPR Think Tank would qualify as a "public authority" under the RTI Act would be to show that it is a body owned, controlled or substantially funded directly or indirectly by the Government, or that it is created either by any other law made by the Parliament or State Legislature, or under the Constitution itself.

Moreover, it appears from The Hindu Urban Cooperative Bank Limited v. The State Information Commission[21] that when discharging public functions, even though a private entity does not become a State per se, considering the public interest involved, it must be deemed to be a "public authority" in a bid to avoid diluting the aims and objectives of the RTI Act. Now, since the drafting of the National IPR Policy can, in all likelihood, be described as the exercise of a public function, the IPR Think Tank should then qualify as a "public authority" under the Act.

In addition, the underlying principle used in Indubala Agarwal v. National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Ltd. [22] was that while the public bodies engaging in commercial or business activities - often, even profitable - that are created by any government in exercise of its sovereign functions would qualify as "public authorities" as per Section 2(h) of the Act, the set of commercial bodies further created by these public bodies as part of their business ventures would not qualify as "public authorities" as per Section 2(h). The simple reason behind this discrimination of sorts is that the latter set of bodies lacks any direct, or indirect, involvement of an appropriate government. However, it is unlikely that this rationale could be used to keep the IPR Think Tank outside the domain of "public authorities" under the Act since it would hardly qualify as a commercial body. Furthermore, it was not created by the DIPP merely in a bid to expand its business interests, but to formulate a National IPR Policy that is quite a far cry from being classified as a commercial activity.

On a different but related note, in the well-known case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [23], the test laid down for a "public body" was whether a said person, or body, is an instrumentality or agency of the State, and not as to how it was brought into existence, i.e., the idea is to find out why it was created, and not how. No doubt, the context of the judgment was Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and not the RTI Act. Nonetheless, considering that there is no apparent reason to distinguish between public bodies under Article 226 and under the RTI Act, what if this test were to be applied to the issue at hand? Since the IPR Think Tank has been created for the purpose of drawing up the National IPR Policy which obviously affects the public, it may not be entirely wrong to state, then, that it would fall within the ambit of "public authorities" the RTI Act .

[1] The Hindu Urban Cooperative Bank Limited and Ors . v. The State Information Commission and Ors. [2011] (Pun & Har HC)
available at - <http://indiankanoon.org/doc/155741837/>

[2] Mr. SK Choudhary v. Delhi Transco Limited [2010] (CIC) available at - < http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/SG-26022010-12.pdf>

[3] Shri Nisar Ahmed Shaikh and Ors. v. LIC Housing Finance Limited and Ors. [2009] (CIC) available at - < http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/FB-28102009-01.pdf>

[4] Veeresh Malik v. Indian Olympic Association [2006] (CIC) available at - http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/Decision_28112006_3.pdf >

[5] Mrs Navneet Kaur v. Electronics and Computer Software Export Promotion Council [2006] (CIC) available at - < http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/CIC_Order_Dtd_22032006.pdf>

[6] Diamond Jubilee Higher Secondary School v. Union of India [2007] (Mad HC) available at - <http://indiankanoon.org/doc/563155/ >

[7] Dhara Singh Girls High School v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2008] AIR (All HC) available at - < http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1378411/>

[8] Mr. Tilak Raj Tanwar v. The PIO, Deputy Director of Education [2012] (CIC) available at - < http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_AD_A_2011_001699_M_73865.pdf >

[9] Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. v. Ramesh Chander Bawa [2010] (Del HC) available at - < http://indiankanoon.org/doc/159896809/>

[10] New Tirupur Area Development v. State of Tamil Nadu [2010] (Mad HC) available at - < http://judis.nic.in/judis_chennai/qrydisp.aspx?filename=25472>

[11] Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Limited v. Tamil Nadu Information Commission [2008] 6 MLJ 737 (Mad HC) available at - < http://indiankanoon.org/doc/454066/>

[12] ibid .

[13] See n 12.

[14] See n 13.

[15] AC Bhanunni Valluvanattukara v. The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board [2011] (Ker HC) available at - < http://judis.nic.in/judis_kerala/qrydisp.aspx?filename=239775>

[16] Indubala Agarwal v. National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Ltd. [2010] (CIC) available at - <Part 1: http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/LS-01012010-08.pdf> and <Part 2 - http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/LS-08022010-06.pdf>.

[17] SS Angadi v. State Chief Information Commissioner [2009] 5 RCR (Civil) 312 (Kar HC) available at - < http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1198428/>

[18] Dattaprasad Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Karnataka State Chief Information Commissioner [2009] 5 RCR (Civil) 833 (Kar HC) available at - < http://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=018002943000 >

[19] Bidar District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Karnataka Information Commission, Bangalore [2009] 5 RCR (Civil) 394 (Kar HC) available at - < http://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=018002573000 >

[20] See n 1.

[21] See n 1.

[22] See n 16.

[23] Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [1981] 2 SCR 79 (SC) available at - < http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1186368/>

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-who-is-a-public-authority-under-rti-act

Report: Global Intellectual Property Convention 2015

rohini — 2015-06-21T13:36:18Z

The Global Intellectual Property Convention was held in January 2015 in Mumbai. Interns Anna Liz Thomas and Nayana Dasgupta assisted with the making of this report.

Conference Schedule [PDF]

National IPR Policy Recommendations [PDF]

Harshvardhan Lale, Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC)

Digital piracy in India

Special 301 Report:

India is second among 10 countries on the Priority Watch List of the United States Trade Representatives (USTR), according to the Special 301 Report published in May 2014. Once every two years, the US, through its trade representatives releases the Special 301 Report, which deals with piracy across the globe, especially in the places where US business interests lie. Though the police conduct at least 25 raids every week across India, it has made no difference to the rate of piracy in the country. When a couple of software publishers entered India, they were very confident that none of their products, in any shape and form, could be pirated in India. I took one of the heads of Compliance to the [pirated goods] market where we got a product worth Rs. 5 crores for Rs. 100.

The Special 301 Report also suggests that none of the previous governments or government bodies in India have taken any initiative whatsoever to ensure that even the products used in the government offices are not pirated. According to US government agencies (2013), there were serious difficulties in attaining constructive engagement on IPR issues with the UPA government.

Video piracy:

India is rated as one of the countries with the highest incidence of video piracy by MPDA, well above Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Greece, and Peru. We [supporters of stricter IP] are now trying to get the digital rights management provision in the [Indian] Copyright Law [redacted], but that is still in the future.

Broadcast piracy:

A few Indian television channels are facing this problem because of demand [to view their content] from Indians living abroad.

Online piracy:

The Internet has been an enabler for the movie and music industry. Many cinema and music publishers have their own channels, say, on YouTube. Although content cannot be directly downloaded from YouTube, "YouTube grabber" software enables piracy.

Surreptitious recording of public performances on mobile phones and recording of cinema screenings using camcorders are other instances of piracy. These recordings are later circulated on the Internet.

Software piracy:

Recently, one automobile manufacturer had to recall a set of its vehicles from the Indian market. Investigations revealed that one of the automobile components, which was procured from a supplier, was created using pirated software. There is a fair chance that a pirated product won't provide all the functionalities that you might otherwise get, or that some APIs (Application Programming Interface) may be missing, which may lead to erroneous or inaccurate design.

Counterfeiting, online piracy, end user piracy, client overuse, and hard disk loadings [sideloading] amount to most of the software piracy in India. One of the software companies for whom we [PWC] are doing an audit - it happens to be one of the leading information technology companies in India - we identified a gap of 20 million [US] dollars for one software publisher in their India operations. Whether this was deliberate or not can be debated, but it is a serious problem.

A survey on software piracy conducted across the globe by Business Software Alliance indicates that India has improved from bring ranked tenth to twelveth. Estimated use of unlicensed software stands at 43% globally; India is at 60% [as per the latest figures]. In 2010, India was at 64%, in 2011 at 63%. There is a recent case of a patent getting rejected because the organisation that had applied for it had used unlicensed software for designing the product. Another serious impact with regard to RnD and patents is on privacy. [Pirated software could contain] malware with the potential of stealing information].

Some of the major problems are that organisations are not aware of the implications of using pirated software and media, leading to potential non-compliances. [Owing to] lack of knowledge of licensing, the different software licenses, software publishers not using a standard format of licensing, the end consumer does not understand what licensing is. In the license terms, there is a "Right to Audit", which gives every software publisher the right to evaluate your organisation at any time.

Corporates are trying to align themselves with consultants like us [PWC] to support the industry in curbing piracy. The Make in India program has a dedicated section on intellectual property (IP). There is a special focus on intellectual property rights (IPR) for the manufacturing sector, which is directly affected by digitalisation. We hope that with the new government, some change will happen in the software piracy space.

Omesh Puri, Senior Associate, LexOrbis

Effective Copyright Enforcement in the Digital Era: Relevance of John Doe Orders

Copyright enforcement challenges in the digital world:

Rapid growth in digital technology presents enormous opportunities for copyright owners as it expands their customer base, reduces distribution costs, and makes territorial boundaries almost a nullity. The disadvantage is that, unless regulated properly, it exposes copyrighted work to threat of blatant infringement spread across different media including the Internet. The main problem before copyright owners is ever-growing online piracy. The Internet grants anonymity to copyright infringers. There can be a number of occasions where copyright owners are not able to ascertain the infringer's identity even after spending considerable time or money. In such cases, a John Doe order comes as an effective enforcement tool.

The name John Doe is used to identify unknown and nameless infringers or defendants who have allegedly committed some wrong, but whose identity is unknown to the plaintiff. To avoid delay and injustice, the court names the defendant John Doe, until such time as the defendant is identified. The orders passed by courts in such cases are known as John Doe orders, and is an internationally accepted practice to enforce IPR, especially with respect to copyright and trademark. This is prevalent in various jurisdictions including the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. This order has also been formalised in the statutory provision of these countries. It is an ex-parte interim injunction with the added benefit that the plaintiff is given the liberty to add to the array of parties who would be identified after the filing of the suit. These orders are an exception to the general rule which requires the defendant to be identified prior to the filing of the suit. The ex-parte interim injunction then applies even against the later defendants. It is also against the defendants whose identities are unknown during the filing of the suit. The orders enjoin unknown defendants from engaging in any infringing activity.

Why are John Doe orders so popular?

These orders allow for immediate action in case any instance of infringement comes to light. As the copyright owners only need to serve a copy of the order to the erring parties instead of filing of a new suit. By filing a single action, and after obtaining a single John Doe order, the plaintiff would be able to cover all alleged and even potential infringements and violators, which would ultimately save a lot of time and costs. The plaintiff would not be required to file separate court actions before different courts in India. Once they obtain this order, it will block all unknown defendants and infringers. It is also able to reduce online piracy by mandating that internet service providers block access to infringing websites.

Some of the important John Does copyright injunctions passed in India:

The first John Doe order was passed in the famous case of Ten Sports entitled Taj Television v. Rajan Mandal. The plaintiff, Taj Television, a Dubai-based company, owned and operated an exclusive sports channel by the name Ten Sports. They had acquired the exclusive rights to broadcast the 2002 FIFA World Cup. They entered into agreements with various cable operators for transmission of the channel. However, many unlicensed cable operators started displaying Ten Sports without any permission or authorisation from Taj Television, which then instituted a suit against named and unnamed cable operators. In 2002, the Delhi High Court passed a pathbreaking order which stopped the unauthorised broadcast of FIFA World Cup matches.

The Indian Court has specifically held that such orders may be enforced against persons whose identities are unknown at the time of instituting the suit.

Whose identities fall within the scope of action?

So long as the litigating finger is directed at an unknown person, the inability to identify him by name is a mere misnomer. The principle of litigating finger was affirmed in this case. After this there have been a series of John Doe orders. However it is only in recent times that the Indian Judiciary has started granting these orders on a regular basis, especially for blocking websites. In another case in 2014, Star India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haneeth Ujwal, the plaintiff was one of the leading broadcasters in India. They had acquired the exclusive broadcasting rights, which includes television, mobile, Internet or on-demand rights with respect to the 2014 India vs. England Test Series. Star India filed the suit against websites, many of which were unidentifiable in nature or the owners could not be located. They were showing these cricket matches live without the permission of Star India. The websites' viewers could either view the ad-supported free version or the video-on-demand or pay-per-view subscription-enabled version. The availability of this content is supported by advertisements found on these websites.

How could the exclusive rights of the plaintiff be protected, and what can be the appropriate remedy?

Should the websites be blocked completely or only the specific URL providing access to the infringing content? The court held that both known and unknown defendants were liable for infringement as there was no remedy available to the plaintiff other than blocking the entire website. Blocking URLs was considered to be insufficient remedy by the court because, in its opinion, the website owners could easily change the specified URL by merely one character to circumvent the John Doe order passed by the Court.

Challenges:

While it has become routine to seek John Doe copyright injunctions before every big movie release or any major sporting event, many claim that they have largely remained unsuccessful in checking and controlling small street pirates. Lack of police cooperation may also render these orders unenforceable. There is another dispute going on whether these orders should be limited to entire websites or specific URLs. The Delhi HC has previously granted orders to extend the inclusion of these orders on the entire website. However, there is another opinion by Madras HC which said that these orders would be limited to specific URLs. In the absence of specific judicial guidelines, there is no clarity on the scope of these orders or under what circumstances these may be granted. There is a risk of misuse and improper implementation of these orders.

James Martin, Director, Fieldfisher

Online Infringement In the European Union

(Recent Court Rulings in the European Union Regarding Online Copyright Infringement and Database Rights)

The Svensson case:

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that the owner of a website may use hyperlinks to redirect Internet users to protected works available on other websites without the authorisation of the copyright holder of the linked website, provided that the linked website is freely available, that is, it can be accessed by anyone on the Internet.

The Retriever Sverige website operated to provide clickable links to articles published by other websites on the internet. The claimants were journalists who wrote articles for the Goteborgs-Posten website, and those articles were being linked by the Retriever Sverige website. The claimants argued that the Retriever Sverige hyperlink constituted an infringement of the claimant's copyright by making a communication to the public without the author's permission and they alleged that this was contrary to Article 3 of the Information Society Services Directive, commonly known as the InfoSoc Directive, which is the European Directive that harmonises copyrights across the 28 member states of the EU within the Information Society. The case made its way to the Swedish Court of Appeal which stayed the proceedings pending references to four questions to the CJEU.

1. If anyone other than the holder of copyright in a certain work supplies a clickable link to the work on his website, does that constitute communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive?

2. Is the assessment under Q1 affected if the work which the link refers is on a website on the Internet, which can be accessed by anyone without restrictions or if access is restricted in some way?

3. When making the assessment under Q1, should any distinction be drawn between a case where the work, after the user has clicked on the link, is shown on another website and one where the work, after the user has clicked on the link, is shown in such a way as to give the impression that the content is appearing on the same website, in other words, framing the content.

4. Is is possible for a [an EU] Member State to give wider protection to the author's exclusive rights by enabling communication to the public to cover a greater range of acts than provided for in Art. 3(1) of the Info Soc Directive?

In answer to the first question, the Court of Justice determined that "communication to the public " requires both a "communication" and a "public". The hyperlinks were determined to be making available, and therefore, they were an act of communication. However, there is a sting in the tail, because the Court of Justice held that the public must be a new public, and the communication must be directed to a new public. A public that wasn't taken into account by the copyright holders when they first authorised their initial communication to the public. In the second stanza for Svensson, the public targeted by the journalists' original articles consisted of all potential visitors to the Goteborgs-Posten website, which was unrestricted. Therefore they could be freely used and read by any Internet user. Consequently the links provided by the Retriever Sverige website were not to a new public and there was no need to obtain the author's consent.

In response to the second question, the situation would be different if the link allowed users to bypass restrictions designed to limit access to the public such as a paywall as can be found on The Times London websites, the Wall Street Journal websites and many others. Such users were not taken into account by the original copyright holders when the initial communication was authorised. So those people would constitute a new public.

Regarding the third question, the framing, the Court of Justice unusually held that it was irrelevant. The Internet user who clicks on a hyperlink is given the impression that the link is appearing on the site that contains the link, in other words, framing somebody else's content that is already freely available on the internet on your own website is absolutely fine, and there are obviously issues that arise out of that concerning advertising revenue streams that some people have on their websites where they are effectively making money by putting content freely on the internet by having advertising revenue surrounding their content. But of course if somebody can freely embed that content on their website, those adverts aren't necessarily seen. But as far as the European Court of Justice is concerned in the context of copyright, this is perfectly acceptable, and this applies across all 28 EU Member States.

In answering the fourth question, the CJEU held that member states do not have the right to give wider protection to copyright holders by widening the concept of "communication to the public" from that which is given in the InfoSoc Directive, as this would otherwise give rise to legislative differences between member states contrary to the purposes of the directive.

Bestwater ruling:

The Bestwater case reconfirmed the liberal approach that the Court of Justice takes towards embedding copyright material on a third party website. The judgement has been stayed pending the outcome of the decision handed down in the Svensonn case. And the CJEU has ruled that unless an original publisher uses technical access restrictions, then embedded content does not reach a new public. The effect of this judgement, combined with the Svensonn judgement is likely to lead to more restrictive publishing practices within the EU. Copyright holders will seek to avoid free riders taking advantage of the loophole that the court seems to have legitimised. So to provide background,

The Bestwater case was referred to the Court of Justice by the German Federal Court of Justice. It deals with a promotional video about water pollution that was produced by Bestwater International, a company that makes water filters. The film was originally published by Bestwater on its own company website and later uploaded to YouTube, allegedly without the permission or knowledge of Bestwater. The defendants were competitors of Bestwater, and they embedded the video on their websites, with the frames pointing to the YouTube copy. Now Bestwater objected to this use and sought an injunction against the two representatives of the rival company from the German Court. Bestwater's position was that the video was protected by copyright and that the exclusive rights to use the film belonged to Bestwater. So the German court referred the case to the CJEU asking whether the embedding of content of a third-party website on one's own website constitutes a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive.

After the Svensonn decision, the Court of Justice felt that it had already put an end to the debate regarding content on the Internet and it reverted to the German Court suggesting that the latter should withdraw its submission. In other words, saying that they did not want give an answer, saying that they had already answered it. The German Court insisted on a decision, one of the main reasons apparently being that in the Bestwater case, the YouTube video which the defendants were linking to and embedding on their website was itself a copyright violation. Nevertheless, in delivering its decision the CJEU followed the same rationale as in Svensonn and held that embedding content from another website does not amount to communication to the public if the uploader did not restrict access to the content and communicated it to the entire web community. There was no new public accessing the Bestwater video when it was embedded on the defendant's website, because when the video was uploaded on YouTube, whether lawfully or unlawfully, it was intended to be accessed by all who have access to the Internet. So this ruling somewhat cast doubt on the technical and economic understanding of modern media publication because the CJEU's position seems to be that the Internet is a medium rather than a mere technology. In other words, by analogy, a website does not compare to a particular magazine, newspaper, or a particular TV channel, but print media, TV in general, i.e, the relevant audience being all those who have access to magazines and newspapers rather than access to a particular newspaper, and all those who have access to TVs rather than a specific channel. So from a purely economic perspective these decisions raise concerns as they open up numerous possibilities to take advantage of copyright holders and content of other parties on the Internet. Based on these decisions, it's now possible to use written content, images or other videos that are hosted on another website for one's own website simply by embedding them. Apart from using somebody else's Internet bandwidth (which wasn't addressed by the CJEU at all), the CJEU in these copyright cases haven't taken account that the embedded content is actually taken out of its original context, and the advertisements displayed on the original website alongside the uploaded content may not appear on the embedded website, and the embedder may therefore spoil an important source of revenue for the copyright owner and use third-party copyright content for its own economic benefit. The most obvious response to these decisions will be that copyright owners will need to protect their content by implementing paywalls or other restrictive measures from the outset.

Another decision that the ECJ handed down involved the low-cost European Airline, RyanAir. This has been a long running dispute with various third parties, but one third party in particular, which accessed content on the RyanAir website to enable the sale of RyanAir flights and details about RyanAir time tables and schedules available on that third-party website, and interestingly, one thing that the Court of Justice raised in that decision is that it may be possible for owners of content to bind third parties in contract, but obviously you need to ensure that you are binding that third party in contract by accessing the website so that even if you cannot sue them for copyright infringement, you may be able to sue them for breach of contract for accessing your content and placing it on their website.

Database rights (AutoTrack v. GasPedaal)

The Court of Justice ruled in 2014 that the use of a meta-search engine can, in certain circumstances, constitute re-utilisation of the contents of the database in the meaning of Article 7(2)(b) of the Database Directive.

Database rights is an unusual concept, very newly come into the EU, and they provide protection above and beyond copyright protection. You don't necessarily need to have original content in a database, it's really protecting the investment an individual makes in actually producing the database, and that investment can be assessed on a qualitative or quantitative basis.

The Database Directive introduced the bespoke new form of legal protection. It is commonly referred to as the sui generis right . Article 7(1) in particular provides a "right for the maker of a database which shows that there has been qualitatively and/ or quantitatively a substantial investment in either obtaining, verification or presentation of the content to prevent extraction and/or re-utilisation of the whole or of a substantial part, evaluated quantitatively and/or qualitatively, of the contents of that database". Now for this purpose, Article 7(2)(b) provides that "re-utilisation means any form of making available to the public of all or a substantial part of the contents of a database by the distribution of copies, by renting, by online, or other forms of transmission". Article 7(5) provides that "the repeated and systematic extraction and/or re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the contents of the database implying acts which conflict with a normal exploitation of that database or which unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the maker of the database shall not be permitted."

The recitals to the Directive also back this up. So recital 42 of the Directive provides for "The right to prevent extraction and/or re-utilization related to acts by the user which go beyond his legitimate rights and thereby harm the investment". "The right to prohibit extraction and or re-utilization of all or a substantial part of the contents of a database relates not only to the manufacture of a parasitical competing product but also to any user who, through his acts, causes significant qualitative or quantitative detriment to the investment".

Turning to the facts of this case, Wegener operated a website called AutoTrack which carried car sale advertisements updated daily of to a 190,000 to 200,000 second hand cars of which around 40,000 were to be found on the AutoTrack website. Now Innoweb operated an online car advertisement website called GasPedaal. Rather than having its own database, it used a dedicated meta-search engine which then searched third party websites including AutoTrack's, using those websites to obtain results. So when a user typed in search terms on the GasPedaal website, the site's search engine would translate the relevant command into a language that could be understood by the AutoTrack web search engine. The AutoTrack search engine would then find any relevant advertisements and make them available on the GasPedaal search engine, which would then sort and collate those results from other dedicated search engines on other websites as well. The GasPedaal search engine would then note where more than one site produced the same advertisement and then made a single search result of those, presenting the user with links to the multiple sources. For each search performed, the GasPedaal search engine only returned results representing a small number of the advertisements on the AutoTrack site, but that is because it was only returning results that matched the relevant search terms given by the Internet user. Now Wegener successfully sued Innoweb for infringement of its database right. Innoweb appealed and the Hague Court of Appeal stayed the proceedings pending reference to the CJEU for a ruling on nine questions. The Court of Justice did not consider it necessary to consider all the nine questions. It ruled that it would be an infringement to the database right to use the meta-search engine in circumstances such as that involved in such proceedings. Under Article 7(1), an operator who makes available on the internet a dedicated meta-search engine such as GasPedaal re-utilises the whole or substantial part of the contents of a protected database, when that database's meta-search engine:

1) provides the end user with a search form which essentially offers the same range of functionality as the search form on the original database site.

2) where it translates queries from end users into the search engine for the database site in real time so that all the information on that database is searched through.

3) where it presents the results to the end user using a format of the website grouping duplications together into a single block item in an order that reflects the criteria comparable to those used by the search engine of the database site concerned for presenting results.

A dedicated meta-search engine is different from a general search engine based on an algorithm (like Google), primarily because a meta-search engine does not have its own data itself. It makes use of search engines of third party websites by transferring the queries from its users to the other search engines having first translated them into the relevant format required. It therefore offers the public a service where it searches the entire contents of the third-party databases or part of them in real time.

So Article 7(2)(b) has been broadly drafted to include "any other form of making available". The EUCJ attributed a broad meaning to the concept of reutilisation in its case law focusing on the objective of the database right which is to stimulate investment in data storage and processing systems. So in light of this objective, the re-utilisation has been construed as referring to any unauthorised act of making available to the public the results of the database maker's investment. Accordingly, in this case, it included any distribution to the public of the contents of the database regardless of the nature and form of the process used. When a website operator makes a dedicated meta-search engine available on the Internet, it does more than just point out the third-party databases that exist that a user can go to and consult. It gives the end user the means of searching all that data in most third-party databases without even visiting those third party databases' websites and akin to the Svensson and Bestwater case, this might mean that advertisers might stop advertising on the original third-party's site and might start placing advertisements on the meta-search engine's site. Now in this case we are looking at database rights, the EUCJ considered this dedicated meta-search engine to be close to a parasitical competing product. But it made a reference to the fact that this wording exists in Recital 42 of the Preamble of the Database Directive. The legislation is different, so this is why it has reached a different result, but still, it leads to a conflicting approach. So the Court of Justice held that the meta-search engine sites are close to being parasitical competing products and they've gone on to explain the fact that they resemble databases even though they themselves do not contain databases. And therefore in this case, and in similar cases, operators of such search engines would be making available to contents of third party websites within the meaning of Article 7(2)(b).

What are the effects of this judgement?

By bypassing the homepage and most other pages of the site that actually contain the database, meta-search engines can divert hits, and potentially advertising revenues. Operators of websites that scrape data from third parties and enable those third party sites to be searched, and by doing so thereby risks diverting advertising revenue may therefore need to review their technical business model in light of this judgement.

Chaitanya Prasad, Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks, India

In India, patents, trademarks, designs, and geographical indications are administered by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks. We have offices in New Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata and Ahmedabad. We have a Geographical Indications Registry located in Chennai as well as an Institute of Intellectual Property Management in Nagpur.

There are other IPR laws administered by different ministries. The Ministry of Human Resource Development looks after the Copyright laws. The Department of Information Technology looks after the Semiconductors, Integrated Circuits, and Layouts and Designs Act.

The number of patents in force in India in 2013 was 41,103 out of which 82 per cent were owned by non-resident Indians. The average age of patents in force in India is around 11.6 years, incidentally the second- highest in the world. The reason could be that India is a large market and companies want to exploit these patents and keep them in force.

National IP Trends

The filing of patents in India has gone up from around 35,000 to around 43,000 from 2007 to 2014, and the resident filing has gone up from 17% to 25%. In the year 2011-12, 11,000 patent applications were examined while in 2013-14, the number was 18,000. On a comparative basis, in India one patent examiner examined 140 patent applications in 2014 against 50 and 70 in the US and EU respectively. Therefore, it is the lack of human resources that is creating a backlog in the processing of patents in India vis-a-vis other countries.

Initiatives of the Indian Patent Office aimed at creating easy access to patents offices, and at Improving Its Quality and Services:

Comprehensive e-filing has been introduced where every document and form can be filed online, with regard to patent and trademarks. A payment gateway was launched in 2014, wherein Internet banking facilities of more than 70 banks can be used in addition to debit cards and credit cards for filing any patent or trademark. There is complete electronic processing in the patent and trademark office. Every paper that comes in is scanned, digitised and uploaded. Every paper that is issued from or received by the office is made available on the website.

An entry in the national phase can be done by filing Form 1 and the last page of the specification as we are directly streaming specifications from the WIPO patents scope. Incentives are being given for online filing. There is a 10% cost differential between online and offline filing since February 2014. One month after the incentive was introduced, online filing went up from 30% to 75%.

A new category has been introduced for Medium and Small Enterprises (MSMEs) in patents and designs. MSMEs get 50% discount for filing.

Quality management teams have been hired and skill development of personnel has been undertaken. Measures to introduce more transparency have been sought and efforts have been made to disseminate information with regard to IPRs. Real-time status of IP applications is available within tier file wrappers and e-registers.

The Indian Patent Office does weekly publication of online journals. We have a free public search facility. We have started instant email communications to applicants in trademarks specifically for filing purposes. We have started QR-coded communications for smartphones.

We have introduced a number of dynamic utilities where one can avail of information in real-time. Using the "stock and flow utility" one can find the stock of applications as well as the flow of applications from one process to another. From this, one can drill down to the office, the field, and the application itself and go to the file in the file wrapper and see the entire office thrown open to the world. One of the utilities counts and publicly displays the number of lapsed and expired patents in real-time. Because the patents have either lapsed or expired, these can be searched through fields of technology through any patent application that was not renewed or has expired. These applications are available on the website with the specification and search facility on a real-time basis. A number of other dynamic utilities for examinations, show-cause hearings, publications, registrations, et cetera have been made available online in real-time. We have started working as an international searching authority and have started giving high quality reports. These are currently available to all Indians.

We are shortly going to provide a searchable patent database. We are also bringing in an integrated search engine and are augmenting our human resources. The new government has approved 1,033 new posts in the patent and trademark offices, and with the training and skill of the increased human resources, we will stand on par with the best in the world with regard to the examination and disposal of both patent and trademark applications. We are completely overhauling our hardware and processing software. We will soon introduce new guidelines - one on computer-related inventions and another on search and examination generally.

Dr. Stefan V. Steinbrener, Consultant, Bardehle Pagenberg

Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions at the EPO

"Computer-implemented invention" (CII) is defined in the guidelines of the European Patents Office as an expression intended to cover claims which involve computers, computer networks, or other programmable apparatus, whereby prima facie one or more of the features of the claimed invention are realised by means of a programme or programs. Such a claim directed at computer-implemented inventions may take the form of a method of implementing said apparatus, apparatus set up to execute the method, or following the computer programme itself or as well as the physical media carrying the programme, computer programme product claims such as data carrier, storage medium, computer readable medium, or signal.

One can assume that an important part of all applications will fall under this definition. In 2010, the EPO granted 60,000 patents out of which 20,000 were covered by the said definition.

The core regulation is Article 52 of the EPC: European patents shall be granted for inventions in all fields of technology provided that they involve an inventive step and are susceptible for industrial application. Further, there is a list of non-inventions which include discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games, doing business, programmes for computers, and presentations for information. This will include or exclude patentability only to the extent to which the European patent application or patent related to such subject matter or activity.

The nature and language of such a regulation mandate the identification of a criterion delimiting excluded items from non-excluded ones. On the one hand, we have no definition of statutory subject matter apart from stipulation that inventions arise from all fields of technology. On the other hand we have a definition of a non-exhaustive list of exceptions, which are not patentable or have non-patentable subject matter. This regulation is, however, contrasting with respect to US regulations. In paragraph 101 in the US, the definitions of statutory subject matter can be found and the non-patentable subject matter is determined through findings of the Supreme Court, abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena.

Thus from a legal aspect, there are two hurdles for patent eligibility. The first is the patent eligibility of the subject matter. If this is in the affirmative, then the next hurdle is whether the elements of a patent are satisfied, namely, novelty, innovativeness, and industrial applicability.

According to European standards, an invention may not be innovative but may be patent eligible so long as the subject matter is patentable. The judicial issues that are to be addressed are the development of a coherent method of identifying the patentability of a subject matter and subsequently dealing with the grey areas in technicality by sifting through individual cases in order to arrive at certain guidelines for approaching individual cases of patent eligibility.

The finding of the case law upon the first issue is that an invention is such if the claimed subject matter has some technical matter. A subject matter is said to have technical character if it relates to a technical device, product or relates to technical means. "Technical means" has been liberally construed such that in a particular matter a method of storing information using paper and a pencil is patent eligible subject matter because the method employs technical means such as paper and pencil. However, the same would not be patented as the implementation of the same is trivial. The answer to the same question of patentability would be no if it is among the excluded subject matter or is similar to another invention. The barrier to patent eligibility will not disappear but the threshold is much lower. It is only when a subject matter is completely devoid of technical means can it be not called can invention. Barriers also come into play when the idea is abstract or even if there is a possibility of the use of technical means to some extent but claims for the same are not made.

Are computer-implemented innovations patent eligible under the EPC?

The answer would be yes, if explicitly tied to technical means.

When determining whether the invention has the required qualities of a patent, the answer would be in the affirmative if those of the technical features that contribute to the technical character are noble, inventive and industrially applicable. Thus only features of a technical character are taken into consideration while the others making no such contribution are ignored. For example, there have been a lot of patent applications for business methods from the United States, after the State's Street Bank Decision. These applications may have about forty pages of description of the business innovation with a disclaimer note at the end stating that the implementation of the same can be achieved through basic hardware that are already in use. Such applications lack an inventive step and can therefore cannot be patented. Thus, the basic test of patent eligibility with regard to the definition of an invention is the determination of whether there is a technical solution to a technical problem.

Some of the excluded subject matter may contribute towards technical character. Mathematical methods, for example, in the case of cryptography, wherein a mathematical algorithm may assist in the implementation of the same; then such a mathematical method may be patentable.

Further, "technical" should be understood to mean technological. But generally, it is difficult to define the term "technical", even through case laws. The meaning of the same in the core area is however undisputed while the semantics which lack definition are only at the fringes which may be identified in individual cases. We thus work with a dynamic concept of technology.

Ravi Bhola, Partner, KnS Partners

Patent Valuation and its Interplay with FRAND Terms

There are two broad methodologies for the valuation of patents. One is quantitative valuation by taking into consideration the income, the cost, and the market. However, the more relevant method is the qualitative analysis wherein one can look into the scope of the claims, geographical coverage, et cetera. Patent valuation is sometimes speculative. However, in an observation made by a court in the Federal Circuit, a judge directed a re-trial stating that in the study by the patentee, which was an SEP holder, the damages were predicted on speculation and unrealistic assertions. Thus one can ponder about whether there is a requirement to take into consideration a greater number of tools, software, or parameters for the valuation of intellectual property.

In order to strike a balance with society, SEP holders are obligated to licence their patents on FRAND terms to interested parties. The observed trend is that because SEPs are more important, they are valued higher than regular patents. Therefore, the question arises: Are SEPs are over- valued? For this purpose, reference must be made to four ongoing cases concerning SEPs.

Ericsson v. Micromax:

While the adjudication had commenced, it was observed that Ericsson has prior license agreements on FRAND terms of its 8 SEPs (under litigation in this case) with players in the West and other parts of the world. The court thus called forth these agreements for perusal.

Therefore, the first contentious concern is the manner or methodology adopted by the courts to arrive at the unrealistic rates of royalties. However, it is evident in this case that the court, by referring to prior agreements with the same set of SEPs, are trying to bring down the rates of royalty to more realistic values, even at the interim stage.

A similar situation has been observed in the case between Ericsson and Xiaomi, which is pending in the Delhi High Court. Here the court arrived at the amount of Rs. 100 as an interim arrangement, till the adjudication of the matter has been completed. It was again speculated here as to whether the amount was inflated.

The trend observed in the patent litigation at the Delhi High Court where most of such matters are adjudicated, is that unlike the pharmaceuticals sphere, there is a greater tendency in the telecommunication patent litigation to grant a temporary injunction, modify or even vacate the same while determining royalties payable, even at this stage.

How has the West handled these matters with regard to SEP valuation?

Motorola sued Microsoft in the US over the infringement of some of its SEPs. The former sought 2.25% royalty, but the court set a lower rate, such that the royalty amount fell from 4 million USD to about 1.8 million USD. The question which arises is with regard to the manner of determination of such royalties and whether sufficient parameters are in existence [to determine royalties].

Another example is of a European case wherein Apple was found to be infringing SEPS owned by Motorola Mobility. Apple's claim before the European Commission was that as an interested and willing licensee, it had made efforts to obtain a license for the said patents under FRAND terms which Motorola Mobility deterred vehemently. The European Commission upon investigation found that Motorola was exploiting its dominant position in the market and it intentionally sought to oust Apple from the usage of technology protected by means of the SEPs. Damages were accordingly awarded in this case.

Therefore, there is uniformity in the notion that there is an obligation on SEP holders to license their patents to interested licensees on FRAND terms.

What constitutes reasonableness?

The presumption with subjective issues such as these is that the courts will define the same through case laws. While FRAND terms have been dealt with by the courts and even the European Commission, it is pertinent to note whether there have been any anti-trust or competition matters pertaining to the ongoing litigation in telecommunication patent infringement. The Competition law comes into picture while determining the checks and balances to ensure that the SEP holder acts in a reasonable manner.

In Micromax v. Ericsson and Intex v. Ericsson placed before the Competition Commission of India (CCI), Micromax and Ericsson claimed that they had approached Ericsson as licensees but the immense royalty rates put forth by Ericsson deterred them. The CCI after investigation affirmed the claims of Micromax and Intex, with the finding that Ericsson has indeed abused its dominant position. However, the Delhi High Court has directed the CCI to abstain from passing the final order as long as the case is sub-judice.

Daniel R. Bereskin , Q.C. Founding Partner, Bereskin & Parr LLP

Patents as Catalysts to Economic Growth

The more I studied WIPO data and other sources, the more I came to the conclusion that patent numbers, whether in terms of filing or grants are a pretty poor indicator of the level of innovation in a country. Many commentators have taken the view that the patent system throughout the world is in crisis and there are many reasons for this. Far too many patents are granted for very trivial innovative steps, if they are even innovative at all. They are tiny sideways steps, even backwards steps.

When I started in 1965, in order to get a patent, you had to have an invention that was new, "unobvious" and useful. Now we see many thousands of patents granted annually for inventions that are of very dubious merit. Not only does this not encourage economic growth, it tends to retard economic growth. Think of small and medium-sized enterprises, for example. When they are confronted with many thousands of patents that are far too expensive for them to properly evaluate, covering very trivial or insignificant steps.

It is really up to the government to a large extent to encourage innovation and they do that in many countries in different ways such as through research and development tax incentives. The trouble is that if a government spends money in encouraging research and development, it tends to be invisible to the ordinary member of the public whereas building roads and doing other things that are much more concrete in nature are easier and better from the short-term political view. At the same time, if a country is to grow economically, and to prosper in the future, it is absolutely crucial that governments make an investment. I think a rough rule of thumb is for governments to devote up to about 2% of their GDP to encouraging R&D, and that money is significant, but it has to be spent wisely.

Now India has come up for criticism by the US Chamber of Commerce for not adequately protecting IP rights. The International Trade Commission is conducting a survey right now of US firms to understand how the policies of India discriminate against US exports and investment. Canada is also on the watch-list, although it is the US's greatest trading partner and is in close proximity to the US. I find these comments to be very ironic because the US has a history of discriminating against foreigners when it comes to protecting its own citizens. In fact Prof. Jane Ginsburg who is a prominent teacher and writer called the US in the 19th century a pirate nation, and the reason why she said that is because the US refused to grant copyright to works of foreign authors and that did not change till 1891. The reason for that was that Americans liked to read British authors in preference to the works of American authors. So the solution was to not give copyrights to British authors. When they finally, grudgingly, granted copyright protection, it was on the condition that the books of foreign authors had to be manufactured in the United States. This manufacturing clause was not repealed until fairly recently and that was done only because by then the US realized that the US had become a big exporter of books by authors. So we have to take with a grain of salt the comments we get about IP policies in every country. It is very important to take a realistic view of what is really going on.

China has grown steadily in the past eight years to the point where the growth is now over nine trillion dollars. The growth in filing patents in China is incredible. It is going up exponentially and shows no signs of abating. In 2012, WIPO showed that Chinese nationals were responsible for almost 150,000 granted Chinese patents and the number of issued patents to foreigners was roughly 75,000. The problem with China is that there is no way of knowing what the mix is between patents of invention and utility models. Given the enormous disparity between the number of applications filed by the Chinese people in China compared with those filed by them abroad, most of the inventions that are utility models, or patents that are of very dubious economic value. My feeling is that these huge numbers are due to government policy in dictating to Chinese companies that they have to file a lot of patent applications, because it is easy for a government to say, "Look at how impressive our filing statistics are". You have to dig deeper to try to find out what the value is of the innovations that are represented by these patents. My feeling is that since such a small number, roughly 4% of all applications filed by the Chinese in China were filed abroad, that is an indication that the vast majority of these huge Chinese filings are not of any great economic importance.

India's GDP is over 1.3 trillion dollars. Economists predict that in 15 years, the Indian economy is expected to rival that of the US. Of course, India has a population of over 1.3 billion. The US has, maybe, a quarter of that. So you cannot exactly compare them.

Patent applications in Indiai show a somewhat disturbing trend. Although there is some growth in the patent filings by resident applicants, non-residents' filings swamp [outnumber] those of the residents. The number of applications filed abroad by companies and individuals of Indian origin is less than 10,000, which is a very small number given the size of the Indian economy.

There has been a very sharp decline in the past four years in the number of patents that are actually granted to individuals or companies where the inventors are of Indian origin. In 2014, less than 600 patents were granted to Indian nationals [WIPO statistics]. The number of patents granted to foreign applications is likewise declining and it is surprising. It could mean that the Indian Patent Office is getting tougher on "unobviousness". Nevertheless, the numbers are still pretty low.

Korea is a real success story. Their GDP is not yet at the level of India or China, but it is at 1.3 trillion dollars, which is not insignificant. But take a look at their patent application filings. Korean inventors were responsible for almost 150,000 filings in 2012. Koreans filed more than 50,000 applications abroad in the same year. These grants are substantial compared with [erstwhile] figures for India and China.

The US GDP is close to 17 trillion dollars and the economy seems to be continuing to grow. Right now the US economy is about 27% of the worldwide GDP. It is reasonable to conclude that the US has a very strong and vested interest in trying to ensure that IP rights are protected outside of the US because their continued growth depends on the protection of their homegrown IP.

Questions-Answers

How do you compare and contrast recent litigation in pharma versus litigation in the high-tech space, especially Ericsson and Vringo?

Pravin Anand (Managing Partner, Anand & Anand): In the Francis Xavier case in New Delhi, a division bench of the Delhi High Court said that an ex-parte injunction must not be granted in patent cases. The law, however, changed subsequently. The first evidence is of a DCJI clearance required when an application was moved by a pharma company and the news reached the patent owner by means of a right-to-information (RTI) request and private investigation. The patent owner then approached the court in order to prevent to the marketing of the product. Thus, before the launch of the product, the patent holder obtained a status quo. The rules of the division bench did not apply because balance of convenience was observed in maintaining the status quo. But that order essentially acted as an ex-parte injunction in a patent matter. This was phase one. Phase two saw the grant of injunction as the number of status quo order had exceeded twenty five in litigation against well known companies such as Pfeizer and Bristol Meyers. These orders were converted to injunctions by the judges.

The third phase was brought on by the Ericsson, Vringo, and other electronics companies, which albeit through lesser litigations, were able to create quite a stir. Ex-parte injunctions were granted in these cases. However, the judges felt the need to arrive at interim arrangements in lieu of the injunctions. Earlier, pending trial, these arrangements involved the payment of money and royalty by the defendants through their sales, directly to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the present stance is that both status quo orders and temporary injunctions are in use in pharma litigation before the launch of the product. Subsequently, the grant of such orders is rare. The impediment after launch is that the price difference between the plaintiff's and the defendant's product are evident to the question. Prior to the launch, only the plaintiff's product exists in the market. Hence, the grant of such orders is said to be in favour of balance of convenience. The mobile phone patent litigation cases, however, are witnessing the grant of interim orders, rather, arrangements.

Why is it that the Courts cannot wait another day to hear both the parties before granting the ad interim injunction?

Abhay Pandey, Partner, LexOrbis: The main issue that is going to come up in electronic product litigation is the pleading which contains the product mapping. In the Ericsson cases, there is an indirect reference made to the infringements, i.e., the devices are following the standards and not the readings to the claims. Therefore, the issue of injunctions will arrive only once the product is broken down into the claims.

D.P. Vaidya (Lakshmikumaran Sreedharan)

Computer Related Inventions and Indian Patent Law

Section 2 of the Indian Patent Act defines “invention” as any new process or new product which has or which involves an inventive step and is capable of industrial applications. “Inventive step” as well as “capable of industrial application” are defined in the Act. Section 3 defines what are not inventions. With respect to computer related inventions (CRIs), section 3(k) is worded differently than the provision for CRIs in the European Patent Convention (EPC). In Indian law, mathematical methods, algorithms, and business methods are not considered “inventions”, irrespective of whether they are “as such”. Computer programs are qualified with the phrase “per se” instead. The only common thing between EPC and Indian patent law is that “computer programs per se” or “computer programs as such” are not inventions. So programs that do not quality “per se” or “as such” could be patentable.

What are CRIs?

CRIs can be classified as: CRIs related to general purpose computers and CRIs implemented by specific computers (and not special purpose computers). General purpose computers are inventions that work towards different types of solutions. The solutions could be purely mathematical calculations or technical problems.

The term “business method” is not precisely defined in law as much as the abstract idea is. Generally speaking, any commercial transaction will qualify as a “business method” going by my observations from various decisions in the US, UK, and Europe.

Example technical problem: What is the point of presence (PoP) for designing network topology or network architecture?

Based on rules and various parameters defined for the topology or architecture, a schematic is drawn up. It shows the locations where the PoPs should be placed to minimise the cost of operations and the investment. This is also an application that can be implemented over a general purpose computer.

Would it fall under the definition of an “algorithm”? The definition of “algorithm” in the guidelines is very broad. Whether or not it is implemented on a [general purpose] computer, it will be treated as a “computer” because there is no qualifier as “per se” or “as such”. If it is an algorithm, it is not patentable.

Then, what is not an “algorithm”? It could be argued that all methods will fall under the definition of “algorithm”. The IEEE definition of a “solution to a problem” is that it is a finite set of well-defined rules in a finite number of steps. For example, a complete specification for a sequence of arithmetic operations for evaluating the value of sin “x” for a given precision. When the aim is mainly to determine a certain value or function for optimisation or for arithmetic calculations, the method or process can be treated as an “algorithm”. From a legal point of view, methods are patentable, but paradoxically, algorithms are not considered inventions.

Then next level of general-purpose computer-implemented inventions (CII) are those that make changes in the operating systems [instead of sitting on top of the operating system]. By making changes in the operating system, the CII is changing the character of the computer. It is improving the computer, and therefore it is patentable. Also, a general purpose computer operating a machine or a technical process is patentable.

Embedded Computer-Implemented Inventions:

Wherever there is embedded software, the patent controllers generally do not have any issues related to patentability. They may have issues related to inventive step.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-global-intellectual-property-convention-2015