Centre for Internet and Society

'We Need to Proactively Ensure that People Can't File Patents Representative of the Creativity of a FOSS Community'

rohini — 2015-09-27T11:51:50Z

Rohini Lakshané attended “Open Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Our Digital Culture” in Bangalore on August 13, 2015. Major takeaways from the event are documented in this post.

Speakers: Prof. Eben Moglen, Keith Bergelt, and Mishi Choudhary; Panel discussion moderator: Venkatesh Hariharan. See the event page here. The organizers republished Rohini's report on their website.

Prof. Eben Moglen on FOSS and entrepreneurship

The culture of business in the 21^st century needs open source software or free software because there is one Internet governed by one set of rules, protocols and APIs that make it possible for us to interact with each another. The Internet made everybody interdependent on everybody else. Startup culture needs free and open source software (FOSS) because startups are an insurgency, a guerrilla activity in business. The incumbents in a capitalistic world dislikes competition and detests that existing resources, such as FOSS, enable insurgents to circumvent some of the steep curve that they had to climb in order to become incumbents.
Hardware is developing in ways that make the idea of proprietary development of software obsolete. There is no large producer of proprietary software that isn't also dependent on FOSS. Microsoft Cloud is based on deployments that do not use Windows but are based on FOSS. The era of Android as a semi-closed, semi-proprietary form of FOSS is over. Big and small companies around the world are exploiting the open source nature of Android.
Free software is a renewable resource not a commodity. Management is needed to avoid over-consumption or destruction of the FOSS ecosystem. Software is to the 21^st century economic life what coal, steel, and rare earth metals were at the end of the previous century.
FOSS turned out to be about developing human brains. It turned out to be about using human intelligence in software better. Earlier universities, engineering colleges and research institutions were the greatest manufacturers and users of FOSS. Now businesses of all sizes are.
When Richard Stallman and Prof. Eben Moglen set out to make GPL free, they initiated a large public discussion process, the primary goal of which was to ensure that individual developers have as much right to talk and to be heard as loudly as the largest firms in the world. At the end of the negotiation process, 35 or 36 of the largest patent holders in the IT industry accepted the basic agreement to be a part of the commons. --- Incumbents like people to pay for a seat at the table. Paying to have an opinion is a pretty serious part of the landscape of the patent system.

Prof. Eben Moglen on Digital India

Every e-governance project that the Indian government buys should use FOSS. The very nature of the way the citizens and governments interact can come to be mediated by software that people can read, understand, modify, and improve. An enormous ecosystem will come up -- a kind of public–private partnership (PPP) in the improvement of governance and government services, which is far more useful than most other forms of PPP conceptualised in the developed world in the 20^th century.
Everybody has a stake in the success of this policy. Several corporations are working against this policy as they once stated that they do not need FOSS.
The biggest market for both making and consuming software in the world is in India, because the science done here will dominate global software making, which in turn will define how the Internet works, which in turn will define society. One can't develop the largest society on earth by reinventing the wheel. The government is going to understand that only the sharing of knowledge and the sharing of forms of inventing would enable the largest society in the world to develop itself freely and take its place in the forefront of digital humanity.
If every state government's data centre across India is going to be turned into a cloud, one state might have VMWare, another might have AWS, and so on, it would be disastrous. To prevent this, all e-governance activities of every state government and federal agency in India could be conducted in one, big, homogeneous Indian cloud. This would enable utility computing across the country for all citizens, which would also make room for citizen computing to happen. When one moves towards architectures of omnipresent utility computing with large amounts of memory flatly available to everybody, one is going to be describing a national computing environment for a billion people. We can't even begin to model it until we start accomplishing it.
Prof. Eben Moglen's ambition is that there comes a time not very long from now when basic data science is taught in Indian secondary schools. The software is free and all the big data sets are public. A nation of a 100 million data scientists rules the world.

Keith Bergelt on the Open Invention Network

Over the past 10 years, Open Invention Network (OIN) has emerged as the largest patent non-aggression community in the history of technology. It has around 1,700 participants and is adding almost 2 participants every day. In the last quarter, OIN had approximately 200 licensees.
There is now a cultural transformation where companies are recognising that where OIN members collaborate, they shouldn't use patents to stop or slow down progress. Where members compete, they choose to invent while utilising defensive patents publications. What we are doing is a patent collaboration and a technical collaboration that exists in major projects around the world.
OIN has been making a major effort since January 2015 to spend more time in India and China to be able to ensure that the technological might and expertise represented in the two countries can be a part of the global community, and that global projects can start here. “We can expect to leverage the expertise of the community to be able to drive innovation from here [India and China]. It's not about IBM investing a billion dollars a year since 1999 and having some birthright to driving the open source initiatives around the world or about Google or Red Hat or anyone else. You have the ability to impact major changes and we want to be able to support you in the name of freedom of action as participants.”

Panel Discussion

Patent Wars and Innovation

In the past 5 to 7 years, patent wars in the handset segment of the information technology (IT) market have wasted tens of billions of dollars on litigation, and on raising the price of patent armaments. This patent litigation was purely an economic loss to the IT industry and it contributed nothing. If the patent system strangles invention, non-profit groups, non-commercial bodies, free software makers, and start-ups cannot invent freely.
Defensive patent publications, such as those made by IBM, lead to the gross underestimation of the inventive power and output of the company. People are struggling to find something to evaluate the productive output of an entity – startup, micro-industry or macro-industry. Patents are being used inappropriately and it's part of the corruption of the patent system. Any venture capitalist (VC) who believes that either the innovative capacities or the potential success factors of a start-up are tied to its patents should know that there are only a minuscule number of cases where patents are the differentiator. The differentiators required in order to sustain business are how smart the people are, how quickly they innovate, and how quickly they are able to adapt to complex situations. We see a trend in the US of not equating patents with innovation. The core-developer and hacker communities are largely anti-patent.
However, the flip side is that if the FOSS communities do not patent defensively, i.e., acquire and publish patents for their inventions in order to prevent others from getting patents in one jurisdiction or another, patent trolls will eventually encroach on the communities' inventive output. The only people making money out of this whole process are lawyers. It is slowing down the uptake of technology by creating fears and doubts in the system.
FOSS communities didn't qualify everything produced in the 23 years of (Linus') Linux, which would have let the service serve as stable prior art, preventing other people from filing patents. We can debate what is patentable subject matter in general or whether software should be patentable, but in the meantime if we can be proactive and file everything that we have in defensive publications and make it accessible to the patent and trademark offices here and around the world, we will have far fewer patents. We need to be activists in making sure that people can't file patents that are representative of the creativity of a community.
The Chinese government has instituted a programme designed to produce defensive publications in order to capture all the inventiveness across their industries, to be able to ensure that the quality of what ultimately gets patented is at least as high.
The US has a massive repository called ip.com, which is with every patent examiner of the USPTO.
India does not grant software patents as per section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, but that doesn't mean that no software patents are being granted. One of the empirical studies conducted by the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC) in India shows that 98.3% of the [telecom and computing technology] patents granted till 2013 went to multinational corporations. Almost none of the assignees are Indian.
In the context of the ongoing patent infringement law suits filed in the Delhi High Court by Ericsson [link]: The Delhi High Court has had a reputation of being very pro-intellectual property from the beginning.
Also, there is pressure from trade organisations. In August 2015, Ericsson along with ASSOCHAM invited the Director General of the Competition Commission of India to present a paper about why patents are good. It is essential to determine how the rules of conflict of interest apply here. This is exactly what the pharmaceutical industry would do. The only bodies who would object are Doctors Without Borders (MSF) or some local organisations who realise that high priced patented drugs is not what India needs and that we do not need to have the same IP policy as the US or Japan. We only need a different policy.
The Special 301 Report of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is a big sham, and it suggests that India doesn't have strict enforcement of IP law. India does, unlike China.
Accenture has been granted a software patent in India. The patent is about an expert present in a remote location transferring knowledge to somebody who is listening in another location. Universities offering MOOCs, BPOs, and many other services would fall under such a patent. SFLC spent four years trying to fight this patent. The first defence of Accenture's battery of lawyers was that they won't use the patent.
Patents of very low quality are being bought at very high prices. The tax system or the subsidy system for innovation regards all patents as equal. This is a pricing failure and that should be corrected by other forms of intervention. The pendulum has already begun to swing the other way. Alice Corp was the third consecutive and unanimous ruling by the US Supreme Court that abstract ideas are not patentable. Patent applications pertaining to business methods and algorithms are increasingly being rejected by the USPTO after the ruling.

Prof. Eben Moglen on Facebook:

Facebook is a badly designed technology because there is one Man in the Middle who keeps all the logs. The privacy problem with Facebook is not just about what people post. It's about surveillance and data mining of web reading behaviour. It is a social danger that ought not to exist. I have said since 2010 is that we can't forbid it; let's replace it. It means bringing the web back as a writeable medium for people in an easy way. What I see as next-generation architecture could just as well be described as Tim Burners Lee's previous generation architecture.

You have to be able to trust the Internet. If you can't, you are going to be living in the shadow of govt surveillance, corporate surveillance, the fear of identity theft, and so on. We need to be able to explain to people what kind of software they can trust and what kind they can't. Distributed social networking will happen; it's not that difficult a problem.

An example of federated networking is Freedombox, a cheap hardware doing router jobs using free software in ways that encourage privacy. The pilot project for Freedombox has been deployed in little villages in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. These routers don't deliver logs to a thug in a hoodie in Menlo Park.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/we-need-to-proactively-ensure-that-people-cant-file-representatives-of-the-creativity-of-a-foss-community

Comments and Suggestions to the Draft Patent Manual March 2019

Achal Prabhala, Feroz Ali, Ramya Sheshadri, Roshan John and Anubha Sinha — 2019-04-05T02:15:07Z

A coordinated civil society response to the consultation on the Patent Manual. CIS provided comments on patenting of computer related inventions.

On behalf of the accessibsa project (www.accessibsa.org), the Médecins Sans Frontières Access Campaign (https://msfaccess.org/) and the Centre for Internet and Society (www.cis-india.org) , as well as numerous endorsing organisations and individuals across Indian Civil Society, we are pleased to present our comments, feedback and suggestions on the draft Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure, Version 3, published on 1 March 2019, to which your office invited comment from all stakeholders.

The Indian Patent Office (IPO) on 1 March 2019, published a draft of the “Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure, Version 3.0” (hereafter, the “Manual”). This draft extends upon the previous Manual, Version 01.11, dated 22 March 2011, which is currently the Manual in force.

At the outset, we should note that the current draft Manual does not differ substantially from the version in force. Aside from a few updations (for instance, noting the Indian Supreme Court decision in the Novartis case of 2013, as regarding Section 3(d) of Indian patent law), the current Manual under consideration is similar in most aspects to the Manual in force. However, given that several provisions in the current Manual in force were insufficient to implement Indian patent law as it was intended even in 2011, as well as the fact that there have been numerous developments in law, scholarship and practice since the time the Manual was last updated in 2011, we urge the IPO to take this opportunity to reflect upon the developments in patent law and practice, as well as the extensive scholarship now available to us.

Preamble: Indian patent law was substantially amended in 2005, and we began the process of implementing this law a few years later. Today, in 2019, we have data and evidence from almost 14 years of practice, and we suggest that the IPO fully incorporate all learnings available to us, to bring the full force of Indian patent

law into effect, as originally intended. The Manual of the Patent Office has the potential to be a comprehensive handbook on implementing patent law for all stakeholders including patent agents, applicants and the courts. The current version, in the manner proposed, is not. Our suggestions, if adopted in entirety, would make this so: furthermore, our suggestions provide a much-needed opportunity to correct course, by understanding and correcting the failures of the system to implement the original and far-sighted provisions in the Indian patent law amendment of 2005.

Overarching themes: Several of our suggestions for the current Manual under consideration are systemic, and, as such, require broad and serious attention to completely overhaul.

Structure: The Manual under consideration is badly composed and incomplete. Tabular columns are an inappropriate format for a patent manual. Furthermore and separately, the IPO makes use of several instances of “Guidelines” when examining patents. The IPO currently consults, among others, Guidelines for pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and computer related inventions. These guidelines are randomly categorized, badly deployed, hard to locate and amended haphazardly, without notice or any attention. There is no excuse for the IPO Guidelines to not form a part of the Patent Office Manual, thus giving them stability, and subjecting them to a transparent and participative process, like the rest of the Manual. Lastly, the Guidelines should evolve to covering the examination of Biologics as a distinct category, as we should with other frontier technology, such as Artificial Intelligence and Synthetic Biology.

Coherence: We have three inter-locking layers in the patent system in India: the patents act, the patent rules and the patent manual (which should incorporate the patent examination guidelines). The IPO is currently soliciting suggestions for the draft Patent Office Manual, while it has an ongoing amendment to the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2018. We expect the final Rules to be published shortly; however, we are also being asked to provide suggestions on the Manual, without any knowledge of what the IPO’s final version of the Rules will look like. (For instance, the Patent Rules have suggested a procedural change in how pre-grant patent oppositions will be conducted in India; however, since the Rules are not final, it is unclear how they integrate with the Manual, and how we can comment on the process, since the status of the Patent Rules remains unclear). Furthermore, the Manual makes no reference to the Rules. As such, the IPO should decide and publish a final version of the Rules, and only then solicit feedback on the Manual (which it could do in the current time by extending the date of feedback on the Manual). Regardless, the IPO must achieve coherence and cohesion between its many layers, including the patents act, the patent rules, and the patent manual. This coherence, if achieved, would allow the Manual to serve as a handbook for all stakeholders involved in the patent system, including serving as a basis for open-book exams for patent agents.

Updation: Patent law and practice are fast evolving fields. The IPO necessarily needs to keep up with the pace of technology, as well as evolving interpretations of existing patent law provisions. For instance, the Indian Supreme judgment in the Novartis case was announced in 2013; however, it has taken over 6 years for this important judgment to formally reflect in the work of the Patent Office Manual, despite being Indian law for these 6 years. The IPO, therefore, needs to update the Manual and the examination guidelines, frequently – at least as frequently as major events in technology and the law require.

Transparency & Accountability: In the current time, stakeholders in the Indian patent system, be they multinational corporations or ordinary members of Indian society, are faced with considerable challenges when attempting to view patent information. Despite the IPO having made information

available online for some years, the information on Indian patents is needlessly limited, often inaccurate, often incomplete, and frequently unavailable. On occasion, this is due to insufficient disclosure on the part of the applicant, but overwhelmingly, it is because the IPO is not well organized and insufficiently invested in transparency or accountability. For instance, mandating pharmaceutical patent applicants to provide an INN (International non-proprietary name) on all applications where the information is available, would invaluably assist in extending the transparency and utility of the IPO’s functioning with the Indian public. Patent information in India is the right of every Indian citizen to have, and we have made several suggestions by which the IPO can move towards complying with our constitutional right to information.

Specific themes: Drawing from law, scholarship and practice over the last 14 years of Indian patent law, we strongly urge the IPO to consider these very specific suggestions on having their work comply with the spirit and letter of Indian patent law.

Focus on Biologics: Biologics are a relatively new category of therapy that have quickly become the world’s most expensive medicines emerging as critical therapies in areas like cancer. 7 out of 10 of the world’s best-selling medicines are biologics, and they will play only an increasingly important part in public health in India. Therefore, identifying, understanding and examining patent applications on biologics is of crucial importance to Indian citizens. The IPO would benefit from identifying biologics as a critical category; providing them their distinct field of invention; as well as developing guidelines and practices for evaluating biologics, along with other frontier technology that emerges.

Expedited examination: Since 2016, expedited examination of patents has been the law. More recently, there are reports that the IPO is considering PPH partnerships with some rich country economies such as Japan. This is unwise, especially since even in the extended examination currently underway, the IPO has faced several challenges. We strongly suggest that the IPO needs to evidence the ability to manage the ordinary processes in place with accuracy and compliance with Indian law, before attempting to expedite the said processes, especially since the non-functioning of the patents side of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has meant that India has not had a corrective mechanism for any incorrect grants that may have been made at the IPO since May 2016.

Check exceptions to patentability first: The law, as has evolved in the Novartis Case in the Supreme Court, and the Roche vs Cipla case before the Delhi High Court, clearly points towards applying all exceptions to patentability under Sections 3 & 4 of the Indian Patents Act, first, before applying the test of patentability under Section 2 (1)(j). Such a procedure would make the work of the IPO more efficient, as well as fair.

Making anti-evergreening provisions work: The Manual currently does not capture the guidelines explicitly laid out in the Indian Supreme Court’s judgment in the Novartis case. Specific principles relating to how to apply Section 3(d) were laid out in the judgment which have no reflection in the Manual. Like with Section 3(d), applicants also routinely circumvent other anti-evergreening provisions in Indian law, such as Section 3(e) and 3(i). Sometimes, these provisions are circumvented alone; other times, when combined, applicants take advantage of the confusion and adduce evidence on one ground, and then use that as a basis to circumvent the other grounds. To apply anti-evergreening provisions in Indian patent law efficiently and fairly, we suggest an anti-

evergreening checklist that will facilitate this process, and which we recommend be an official part of the examiner’s report, both within the process and as a reported output.

Computer related inventions: The Manual currently does not adequately regulate Computer Related Inventions (CRIs). We suggest the introduction of a 3-step test to comprehensively regulate the patentability of mathematical methods, business methods, computer programmes and algorithms as laid down in the Indian Patents Act. Furthermore, we suggest ways in which the law can be applied more carefully within the Manual to detect camouflaging of claims, with an intent to confuse the IPO and Indian patent examiners, especially when conjoined to computer technology, by noting that (1) mathematical methods may sometimes be claimed as “technological development”, (2) that business methods must be evaluated as such, regardless of their application through computers, computer programmes, computer networks or other programmable apparatus, and that (3) that the scope of algorithms needs to be extended to any invention where the function claimed to be performed can only be carried out by means of a computer programme.

Finally, while the nature of our comments and suggestions are deep and extensive, we are aware that we have also asked for the system to be evaluated in full, rather than in parts. As such, the Indian Patent ecosystem is large and complex, and the IPO has been engaged with setting the Patent Rules (under finalization), the Patent Office Manual (the subject of our commentary in this communication) as well as the Examining Guidelines (which we recommend move from being arbitrarily categorized and extended to becoming a formal part of the Patent Office Manual).

In order to comprehensively react to changes to the Indian Patent ecosystem, we require the opportunity to comment comprehensively on a range of inter-linked proposals.

In this spirit, we hope you will allow us – as civil society – to react, once more, to the Patent Rules (as connected to the Patent Office Manual) as well as each of the Examining Guidelines (old and new, i.e. including those intended such as for biologics), in the interests of fairness and transparency. We look forward to assisting you at every step of this process.

Thank you for your time. We trust that, as civil society researchers, activists and academics, who have devoted a considerable number of years towards the research of intellectual property, and the protection of public interests and human rights in India, our submission will be considered seriously and acted upon. We remain, of course, at your disposal, should you or your office have any questions – which we will gladly answer.

Sincerely,

Achal Prabhala, Feroz Ali, Ramya Sheshadri, Roshan John and Anubha Sinha

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-and-suggestions-to-the-draft-patent-manual-march-2019

Hacking, Modding & Making

praskrishna — 2012-04-09T09:51:41Z

Seeber's electronics laboratory is a room in a unit he shares with his mother. Every available space is taken up with teetering towers of electronic parts, writes Brendan Shanahan for GQ.

Like subprime lending or the line at the motor registry, patent and copyright laws control all our lives but no one really understands them. In the world of DIY Tech, however, it is not a subject that can be ignored.

" If they are infringing on patents then it's a question you have to ask within the individual jurisdiction," says Abraham. "In many jurisdictions design many not have protection. Whether it's legal or illegal is an open question."

At its heart Abraham's argument is pragmatic: the developing world, especially China, is too big to stop. Companies can fight patent wars in every world territory, hire private detectives, pressure governments and prosecute consumers who buy rip-off products, but, ultimately, they won't win. The genie is out of the bottle.

"If something has been made technologically possible, we cannot make it illegal and hope that everyone will now pretend that this is no longer technologically possible," says Abraham. "We can't have the government checking everyone's iPod and laptop. The better move is to change the model."

Abraham has many suggestions for making copyright law more flexible to benefit manufacturers and consumers. One thing is certain: in a world in which Amazon, not even five years after the launch of the Kindle, is now selling more e-books than all hard copy books combined, and technology such as 3D printing will soon be standard, it would be unwise to cling to old certainities. The music industry may come to be regarded as merely the canary in a digital coalmine of failed industries.

Read the full post here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/hacking-modding-making

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

Tweak the Make in India Recipe

rohini — 2016-06-04T04:02:01Z

As an erstwhile journalist covering electronics technologies and IT a few years ago, I was privy to a litany of manufacturers' woes and their causes: Tangled tax laws and regulations, red tape, corruption, licence raj, unreliable infrastructure such as power and roads, and lack of skilled labour.

The article was published by Business Today on June 3, 2016.

Unlike China, which raked in profits by keeping margins low and volumes high, every entity in the supply and distribution chain in India wanted a 30 per cent cut. India, they said, was no country for manufacturers. The only real electronics manufacturing was that of low-end or low-precision products. Where the products were of higher quality, they were merely assembled in India, often with the intent of circumventing taxes and of employing cheap labour.

Walking around the IT and Electronics pavilion at the Make in India Week in Mumbai early this year, I could see that not much has changed. As if symbolic of the scenario, there was one Indian company. The rest were MNCs based in Taiwan, China, Sweden, Japan, the US, and Germany. The push for indigenous manufacturing is nevertheless apparent from the flurry of proposed incentives, large infrastructural investments, and facilities made available to manufacturers and new entrepreneurs by the government. The Make in India mix, however, needs more than subsidies, tax waivers, reimbursement of duties, or monetary grants.

A pet peeve of brand owners and manufacturers with large patent portfolios operating in India is that research and development (R&D) in the country largely happens only in public research institutions and universities. Indian firms don't invest in R&D and subsequently fill patents. A patenting landscaping exercise conducted by us at the Centre for Internet and Society last year showed that all Indian patents, nearly 4,000 in number, pertaining to mobile technologies are owned by non-Indian companies. Out of approximately 19,500 patent applications, a meagre 18 were filed by Indian companies.

India's premier educational institutions also apply for far less patents within the country and abroad than their foreign counterparts. For example, the National Academy of Inventors has published a list of "Top 100 worldwide universities granted US utility patents in 2013" and another in 2014. One Indian school features on these lists - the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) - with 21 patents in 2013. Within India, the IITs and IISc file up to 200 applications every year; MIT files nearly 4,000 in the US. Several large MNCs run R&D facilities in India, hiring some of the best talent in the country. The patents for their work are first registered to these companies abroad, contributing to royalty outflows. One way to correct the famine of locally owned intellectual property is for the government to urge top Indian companies and academic institutions to push the envelope in terms of R&D and patenting. A promising development is that the Indian government has pledged start-up funds. So have companies such as Qualcomm, which has committed $150 million to a strategic venture fund in India.

Another gripe is that the manufacturing units in India are in reality assembly lines that only put together imported parts and components and generally make copied products. While the government has provided sops to encourage actual manufacturing to truly reduce dependence on 'screwdriver technologies', it needs to incentivise foreign corporations operating in India to transfer their technology to Indian entities, instead of only assembling here using automated or human labour. Moreover, India-manufactured products are infamously substandard. These products need to pass quality checks if India aspires for an export market and leverage in asking for transfer of technology.

To benefit from the transfer of technology, the workforce needs to learn to use it and assimilate it in its work life. Despite the intake of students in engineering schools in India being more than that in the US and China put together, a major chunk of newly graduated engineers in India is unemployable. The repairmen at Nehru Place's electronics market learn the ropes through an informal education system comprising their friends, peers and employers in small-time garage shops. Rookie engineers who secure the holy grail of college placement are trained from scratch by their employers, such as Infosys with its plush training campus located in Mysore. In either case, the employer is saddled with training new recruits. There is little in terms of professional excellence that institutions of formal education seem to impart. Prime Minister Modi believes that Indias human power would be among its largest exports by 2030, but monikers such as "coding coolies" only point to low valuation of its services. Unless quality vocational education produces professionals in different rungs of the manufacturing ecosystem - from technicians to production personnel to designers to ideators - manufacturing in the country will stay deprived of the benefits of the newest technologies.

Next would come developing indigenous technologies (governed by technical standards and otherwise) in order to reduce dependence on technologies owned by foreign rights holders. India's remote sensing capabilities are among the best in the world. Like GPS developed by the US and GLONASS by Russia, NAVIC is Indias own satellite navigation system. Where GPS in India becomes spotty or inaccurate, NAVIC is likely to be much more reliable and accurate. Mobile handsets sold in India are not equipped yet with the receivers needed to work with NAVIC. When they are, it will be a fillip for both manufacturing and location-based services in the country. There is also a need for diffusion of these technologies. India's public research organisations produce several potentially life-changing inventions, which unfortunately, almost never reach mass implementation.

With the emergence of new technologies comes a greater need for access to patenting. A patent is a monopoly granted to its owner for 20 years in return for publicly disclosing an invention. Without the ability to enforce it, such a monopoly is not of much use. Patenting is also expensive and time-consuming, especially for an individual innovator without the backing of an employer that has the wherewithal for it. Many opt for filing patents via large companies while retaining their names as the inventors. The company thus owns the patent. Small manufacturers without the resources to apply for a patent prefer to zealously guard their inventions. Instead of risking their unpatented inventions being stolen, they limit their use to their own establishments, and sometimes take the inventions with them to the grave.

Make in India was unveiled at a time when manufacturing worldwide was starting to experience the ongoing slump. China, so difficult to beat at its own game, has been facing the heat. There is a tiny window of opportunity for India, which may be akin to the guns made by Indian Ordnance Factories (IoF). These guns - exorbitantly priced and of low build quality - are notorious for backfiring. In the truly Indian spirit of jugaad, they are taken to gunsmiths by their buyers for big and small tweaks that would prevent unfortunate endings. Like the IoF guns, the Make in India recipe needs its own set of tweaks.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/business-today-rohini-lakshane-june-3-2016-tweak-the-make-in-india-recipe