Centre for Internet and Society

Delhi High Court’s Ruling Against Publishers is a Triumph For Knowledge

sinha — 2016-09-26T15:07:07Z

The court conclusively stated that the reproduction of any work by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction would not constitute infringement.

The article was published in the Wire on September 23, 2016.

In a landmark judgment, Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw of the Delhi high court has held that reproducing books and distributing copies thereof for the purpose of education is not copyright infringement. The ruling legitimises the practice of photocopying prevalent in universities and other spaces of learning. The question of whether such photocopying without the permission of the copyright holders was legal arose in 2013. A group of five prominent publishers had filed a suit against the University of Delhi and its photocopying service provider, alleging infringement of their copyrighted titles. Specifically, they argued that the infringement arose from widely used ‘course packs’ which were photocopies of collated passages and chapters from various titles and, sometimes included entire books as well. At the heart of the matter lay the interests of students and their rights and ability to access education, academics invested in the importance of readership and the free flow of knowledge and the publishers who claimed that photocopies hurt their sales and that they ought to benefit from this practice, monetarily. The publishers wanted the court to restrain the defendants from committing ‘institutionalised infringement’ and make them apply for bouquet licenses to carry on with the practice of photocopying.

The suit caused a huge furore. Soon, students and academics joined the fray to mount a stronger defence against the publishers. Notably, Amartya Sen wrote a letter urging the publishers to reconsider the action. Thirty three academics delivered a joint statement against the suit and intervened as the Society for Promoting Educational Access and Knowledge, or SPEAK, while students put forth their interests through the Association of Students for Equitable Access to Knowledge, or ASEAK.

Pending the adjudication of the matter, the court proceeded to temporarily injunct the preparation of such course packs.

The copyright law rests on a delicate balance between the interests of copyright owners (authors, publishers, creators, artists) and copyright users (those who use and enjoy the works). The law is designed to encourage the creation of works and simultaneously, to permit the users to enjoy the works and promote arts and knowledge.

In the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, section 52 lists a number of scenarios which do not constitute infringement, including a fair dealing provision. In other words, the section is the bulwark for public enjoyment of copyrighted work – it allows largely purposive acts, including fair dealing, tied to bona fide use and copying in research, educational institutions, libraries, review, reportage, criticism, incidental copying and a greater degree of use for the benefit of disabled people.

The act of photocopying, the court ruled, is reproduction of the work and constitutes infringement, unless it is listed under section 52. It found that the acts of photocopying, preparing course packs and their distribution fell within the ambit of section 52(1)(i), which states that “the reproduction of any work – by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction”, would not constitute infringement. Interpreting the clause in an expansive manner, the court deemed that the application of the clause is not limited to an individual teacher-student relationship, but is applicable to educational institutions and organisations such as DU and thus, the law must reflect the realities of our burgeoning educational system.

The publishers contended that use of the copyrighted material should occur only during the course of the instruction, that is, in classroom lectures. The court disagreed and held that the course of instruction “…include(s) reproduction of any work while the process of imparting instruction by the teacher and receiving instruction by the pupil continues during the entire academic session for which the pupil is under the tutelage of the teacher and that imparting and receiving of instruction is not limited to personal interface between teacher and pupil but is a process commencing from the teacher readying herself/himself for imparting instruction, setting syllabus, prescribing text books, readings and ensuring, whether by interface in classroom/tutorials or otherwise by holding tests from time to time or clarifying doubts of students, that the pupil stands instructed in what he/she has approached the teacher to learn.”

Whereas the court liberally interpreted the provision on educational institutions, it also rigidly laid out the contours of the copyright law, pivotal in enabling public enjoyment of works. It held that copyright is a statutory right and not a natural or a common law right. Thus, the nature of copyright is limited and is subject to limitations and exceptions set in the law. It further added that “Copyright, specially in literary works, is thus not an inevitable, divine, or natural right that confers on authors the absolute ownership of their creations. It is designed rather to stimulate activity and progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment of the public. Copyright is intended to increase and not to impede the harvest of knowledge. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors in order to benefit the public.”

On the issue of charging a nominal fee (40 paise per page), it was held that the said rates could not cumulatively amount to be competing with the sales price of the books. They were reasonable operational costs and only if the reproduction charges were similar to the books, could they have been said to be functioning commercially. Furthermore, the court observed that in an age of technological advancement, any act of copying for the purpose of education (within the ambit of section 52) – whether by pen and paper, or photocopying machines, or by students clicking pictures of textbooks on their cellphones should be permissible.

Justice Endlaw also pointed out that this flexing of user rights is in conformity with several international treaties. India is a signatory to the TRIPS Agreement and the Bern Convention, which allows India to decide “as to what extent utilisation of copyrighted works for teaching purpose is permitted..(provided) that the same is to the extent justified by the purpose” and does not “unreasonably prejudice the legitimate rights of the author.”

This fresh jurisprudence is a vindicates the freedom to exchange ideas and knowledge, which is crucial to fostering an excellent learning space. This will also ensure that eager students and teachers in developing countries freely share latest research and publications, without the slightest hesitation of operating in a grey area. Justice Endlaw’s judgment has aptly restored the public-serving face of copyright law, which is a huge triumph for access to knowledge.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-wire-anubha-sinha-september-23-2016-delhi-high-court-ruling-against-publishers-is-a-triumph-for-knowledge

33rd SCCR: CIS Statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations

sinha — 2016-11-16T13:37:41Z

Anubha Sinha, attending the 33rd Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 14 November, 2016 to 19 November, 2016, made this statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations on behalf of CIS on Day 3, 16 November, 2016.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Centre for Internet and Society is a civil society organisation from India. We would like to associate ourselves with the statements made by KEI and Karisma Foundation.

First, Mr. Chair, on SCCR/33/5 Note on the Draft Treaty to Protect Broadcasting Organizations which is a document presented by the delegations of Argentina, Colombia and Mexico – which was flagged off as relevant for SCCR/33/3. Mr. Chair, this document is problematic as it in essence, tries to extend the scope of the treaty to apply to internet-originated content, and thus by extension internet transmissions. This manifested in the push for protection of on-demand material and catch-up services as well in the discussions over the past two days.

Mr. Chair, I’d like to reeiterate that the mandate of the General Assembly was confined to broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense; the definition of broadcasting, protected by the scope of the Treaty, should as such be limited to the type of transmission exploited by traditional broadcasters – as stated by the delegation of Iran.

Further, Mr. Chair where as EU, China, Argentina, Colombia and Mexico continue to speak of technological advancements to justify expansion of rights under the treaty, there has still been no discussion on the inadequacy of existing international legal instruments to address these technological advancements, to justify the broadcasters’ ask of an additional layer.

Finally, reiterating the Asia-pacific group, the canvassing of this treaty should be balanced: it should take into account commercial interests in copyright and right holders, and equally important, it should also take into account other competing interests in copyright, including the public interest in scientific, cultural, social progress and promoting competition.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/33rd-sccr-cis-statement-on-the-proposed-treaty-for-the-protection-of-broadcasting-organizations

Analysing Alice Corporation Pty Ltd v CLS Bank International Et Al

sinha — 2014-08-01T19:09:05Z

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

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

Background

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

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

Facts of the case

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

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

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

Determination of patent-worthiness of the subject matter

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

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

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

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

Observations and Implications

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

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

This instruction has had twofold implications –

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

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

· Fundamental economic practices;

· Certain methods of organizing human activities;

· An idea of itself; and,

· Mathematical relationships / formulas.

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

· Improvements to another technology or technical fields;

· Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; and

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

What can you patent after Alice Corporation v CLS Bank?

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

Timeline of US Court decisions on software patents

2014

Alice Corporation v CLS Bank [13]

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

2012

Mayo Medical Laboratories v Prometheus Laboratories [16]

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

2010

Bilski v Kappos [17]

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

2008

In re Bilski [18]

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

1998

State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group [19]

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

1995

In Re Beauregard [21]

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

1980s

Diamond v. Diehr [22] (1981)

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

1970s

Parker v. Flook [23] (1978)

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

Gottschalk v. Benson [24] (1972)

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

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

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

[3] ibid.

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

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

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

[7] ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, release first draft of Open Access Policy

sinha — 2014-12-26T11:20:59Z

The Department of Biotechnology and the Department of Science, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, recently published a draft Open Access Policy in consultation with several open access experts, government officials and CIS. This post discusses open access and the exercise undertaken to draft this policy.

The Department of Biotechnology (“DBT”) and the Department of Science (“DST”), Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, released their draft Open Access Policy (“the Policy) on July 5, 2014 (the Policy may be accessed hereand comments may be sent to madhan@dbt.nic.in by July 25, 2014). This step by the Ministry of Science and Technology is laudable, especially from the view of increasing access to research undertaken at these institutions. DBT/DST’s endeavour to provide open access applies to scientific research directly (including ad-hoc) or indirectly funded by them. It also applies to scientific research which has received benefits, infrastructure or other support from the DBT/DST. Providing open access may also ensure percolation of cutting edge research at a rapid pace into higher education curriculum, thereby raising the standard of technical and scientific education.

The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (“CSIR”), Indian Council of Agricultural Research (“ICAR”) and Institute of Mathematical Sciences (“IMSc”) are the few Indian government institutions to have implemented open access policies applicable to the research undertaken at their respective institutions. While the CSIR and ICAR present outlines of their open access policies, the IMSc provides access to a digital repository containing digital theses/dissertations, matscience reports and other publications of institute members. CIS had sent comments to the ICAR upon release of ICAR’s draft policy.

Open Access in Scientific Research

Presently two models of scientific research publications exist, namely, the commercial model and the open access model. The scientific research ecosystem traditionally functioned on the commercial model, until open access was embraced by a part of the scientific community. It is reported that presently, there exist approximately 25,000 journals in the areas of science, technology and medicine. The conventional model of communicating research is by publishing it in printed journals. These journals are usually subscription based, and demand hefty amounts from interested authors for publication. Further, research was only accessible to that select group of persons willing to pay a high monetary sum for the same. These industry practices led to restrictions on access to scholarly research, including restrictions on sharing and building further on work already created. . Over the past few years, this trend has witnessed a change, with research being increasingly published in online, open access journals.

Open Access is free, immediate, permanent online access to the full text of research articles for anyone, web-wide, without severe restrictions on use commonly imposed by publisher copyright agreements. Open access was first defined in 2002 at the Budapest Initiative. The Bethesda Statement (2003) provided:

An Open Access Publication is one that meets the following two conditions:

The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship[2], as well as the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use.

A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, including a copy of the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard electronic format is deposited immediately upon initial publication in at least one online repository that is supported by an academic institution, scholarly society, government agency, or other well-established organization that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution, interoperability, and long-term archiving (for the biomedical sciences, PubMed Central is such a repository).

The Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities is another significant milestone of the Open Access movement. Globally, USA and Europe have been instrumental in adopting open access policies across a wide range of institutions. Illustratively, the US’ National Institute of Health open access policy is a comprehensive document detailing every aspect of the policy and its implications. Several premier academic institutions (Harvard) under experts (Peter Suber) have drafted documents containing guidelines on drafting a suitable open access policy.

The advantages of adopting an open access policy are manifold- free access to scientific research irrespective of subscription affiliation, decrease in publishing and research costs for industry and academia; It has also been argued that restricting access to government funded research is unethical, since scientific research conducted by government agencies is partly, if not entirely, funded by the taxpayers’ money. Further, adoption of open access alone could improve visibility and impact of Indian science,

Open Access and Intellectual Property

Intellectual property is the essential instrument used to effect principles of open access. The extent of rights under copyright which the owner chooses to exercise over scholarly publication in question determines whether a publication may be openly accessed or not. Traditionally, journal publishers ran an inequitable policy which required all publication and reproduction rights (copyright) to be exclusively transferred by the author or institution to the publishers in consideration of publication in reputed journals. This practice created artificial and expensive barriers to scholarly research. Contrast this with open access principles wherein to provide open access- Generally, the author or the institution (depending on the jurisdictional copyright laws) retain certain rights in the publication, whilst permitting zero-barrier access to their research. This requires careful balancing and distribution of rights between three stakeholders- author, institution and the publisher.

About the DST/DBT’s Open Access Policy

The Open Access Policy Document for DBT/ DST was drafted by the Open Access Policy Committee on a specific request from Dr. VijayRaghavan, Secretary, DBT. The Policy was drafted after multiple rounds of consultation with Ministry officials, eminent academics and experts on open access, government officials with prior experience of set-up of institutional repositories and CIS. Prof Subbiah Arunachalam led the discussions along with the Open Access Policy Committee and brought different perspectives to the fore. The Policy may be accessed here. The Policy will be applicable to publications in peer reviewed journals, and aims to maximise the distribution of these publications by providing free online access by depositing them in a gratis open access repository (deemed mandatory). Authors can make their publications open access by publishing in an open access journal, or if they choose to publish in a subscription journal, by posting the final accepted manuscript to an online repository. The Policy suggests a maximum embargo period placed on authors by journals to not exceed one year. It also addresses the methodology of depositing in a repository and provides for a proposed copyright addendum between the author and publisher.

CIS’ Contribution

CIS participated in discussions along with experts brought on board by Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam to develop and review an open access policy for the purposes of DST and DBT. CIS, inter alia, commented on the legality of clauses in the policy pertaining to Indian copyright law and supplied a note on utilisation of ‘public domain’ in open access policies. Legally, a work is said to have entered the public domain when it is free from copyright protection. The note recommended usage of the phrase “made available to public” as opposed to “public domain” since the said policy permitted the institution and/or author to retain rights in the scientific paper. You may access the note here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/department-of-biotechnology-and-department-of-science-ministry-of-science-and-technology-government-of-india-release-open-access-policy

CIS Comments to the Department of Biotechnology and Department of Science Open Access Policy

sinha — 2014-08-22T11:05:45Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/cis-comments-to-the-department-of-biotechnology-and-department-of-science-open-access-policy

Department of Science and Technology & Department of Biotechnology adopt Open Access Policy

sinha — 2014-12-29T10:17:52Z

This post discusses the newly adopted Open Access Policy of the Department of Science and Technology & the Department of Biotechnology.

The Ministry of Science and Technology and Earth Sciences approved the Policy on Open Access to Department of Biotechnology(“DBT”) and the Department of Science (“DST”) funded research last week. The DBT and DST Open Access Policy(“Policy”) is a laudable step towards implementing open access to publicly funded research and is also in sync with other open access initiatives by Government funded institutions such as the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research(“CSIR”), Indian Council of Agricultural Research(“ICAR”) and Institute of Mathematical Sciences(“IMSc”).

You may access the approved policy here.

CIS participated in developing the policy and made various submissions with the goal of formulating a stringent open access policy. The drafting committee comprised of members of the DST and DBT. The drafting began in June 2014 and subsequently underwent two rounds of public consultation. You may access and read about the first draft here. I blogged about CIS' comments and the resultant draft policy here and here.

While the CSIR and ICAR present outlines of their open access policies, the IMSc provides access to a digital repository containing digital theses/dissertations, matscience reports and other publications of institute members. CIS also sent comments to the ICAR upon release of ICAR’s draft policy.

Key insertions and amendments to the final draft of the Policy

The initial draft of the Policy did not mandate depositing literature in a repository. The approved Policy requires researchers to compulsorily archive their research and provides access to the same. Requests for embargoed papers deposited in a repository may be forwarded to the authors by use of a Request Button made available in the repository software. To ensure timely dissemination of research the embargo period has been further shortened and the Policy now recommends “.. the embargo should be no longer than 6 months for Science, Technology and Medicine (STM) disciplines and 12 months for Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences.” CIS strongly recommended an embargo period of one year, and making deposits in repositories mandatory, regardless of the open access routes ( Gold OA or Green OA) adopted by the researcher.

To encourage making publications open access, the Policy also states that extrinsic metrics such as Journal Impact Factors should not be the criteria to assess a researcher's work. Thus, the Policy seeks to create a level playing field for assessment of quality of publications by making the title of the journal irrelevant. However, to this end, some concerns remain. The Policy does not address the legal position of copyright vesting with the government and the latter retaining rights to reproduction of the work in order to issue free copies of the work to the public. The Policy apparently relinquishes the its rightful ownership of the Government in the research by stating that it does not intend to override the agreements between the researchers and publishers, however, it recommends the authors to bring to the notice of publishers their obligations under the Policy. This is a cause for grave concern because the bargaining power still rests in the hands of the publishers, who may impose unfair terms on researchers to make the publication open access. Furthermore, the Policy fails to establish a time period for compliance and setting up of required infrastructure, thereby leaving obligations and duties of various stakeholders undefined.

Nonetheless, the policy is a welcome step in the field of Indian scientific research. It stands to impact approximately 18,000 papers published since 2013 under the aegis of the DBT and DST. As pointed out earlier, in the recent past many scientific research institutions have implemented open access policies. It is hoped that the move shall be emulated across all disciplines, including arts, humanities and social sciences.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/department-of-science-and-technology-department-of-biotechnology-adopt-open-access-policy

FOSS for Public Use: Free and Open Source Software for Digital India

sinha — 2016-06-18T18:20:35Z

I attended a round-table meeting on May 29, 2015 at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. The meeting was organized by SFLC in collaboration with the International Centre for Free and Open Source Software, and the Centre for Internet & Society.

The meeting commenced with welcome address by Ms.Mishi Choudhary, Executive Director, SFLC.in. She elaborated on the idea of the round table conference and explained how sharing of knowledge and experience of the stakeholders will help and assist the people responsible for framing this policy. She then introduced the various dignitaries who participated in this endeavour.

The first session was on the topic, The Open Source Policy - Enabling Digital India, with Mishi Chaoudhary being the moderator. She explained about the “Policy on Adoption of Open Source Software for Government of India” that was launched in March 2015 by the Government of India.

The second session was opened by Satish Babu, who emphasized on the Policy’s stand that the ecosystem is more important than the code and stated that this ecosystem comprises of several stakeholders.

Delegates who spoke at the event included Dr. Nagarjuna G, Cmdr. L. R. Prakash, Dr. Andrew M Lynn, Prof. Arun Mehta, Vikram Vincent, Venkatesh Hariharan,Kishore Bhargava, Prabir Purkayastha, Ashok T. Ukrani, Ganapathy Narayanan, Anivar Aravind, Satish Babu, Srinivasan Ramakrishnan, Rahul De, Mishi Choudhary, and Anubha Sinha.

The meeting of the minutes can be downloaded here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/foss-for-public-use-free-and-open-source-software-for-digital-india

CIS' Submission to DIPP and CGPDTM at meeting with IP Stakeholders

sinha — 2017-12-13T14:31:54Z

The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks held a meeting with IP stakeholders on December 7, 2017, chaired by the Secretary, DIPP, to take suggestions on improving procedures and functioning of the Office. Anubha Sinha attended the meeting and requested the DIPP to improve compliance of uploading Form 27s by patentees and ensure proper enforcement of related provisions within the Indian Patent Act, 1970. Additionally, we sent a detailed submission to the Office, drawing from our recent research. Thanks to Rohini Lakshane and Aman Goyal for their inputs.

Submission to the Department of Industrial Planning and Promotion (DIPP) at Meeting with IP Stakeholders on 07 December, 2017

1. As the DIPP is aware, the Indian mobile device manufacturing industry is mired in issues related to licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs). Disputes have resulted in imposition of heavy interim royalty rates on Indian manufacturers, payable to foreign SEP holders. Section 146(2) of the Patent Act, 1970 mandates patentees to provide information on working of patents, which is crucial for willing licensees to access patent working information in a timely manner. This requirement, that the details of patent working be disclosed by patentees supports the goal of making unworked patents available for compulsory licensing in India, both to promote economic development and public access to patented products. Penalties for failing to furnish such information (via Form 27) are steep, potentially resulting in fines or imprisonment.

2. We note that in 2009, 2013 and 2015 the Controller issued public notices calling on patent owners to comply with their obligations to file statements of working on Form 27. Further, on February 12, 2013, the Indian Patent Office (IPO) announced plans to make Form 27 submissions for the year 2012 available to the public via the IPO website.

3. We commend the efforts of the IPO, however, our empirical research on ICT innovations[i] as well as by Prof. Shamnad Basheer (on ICT and pharmaceutical sector)[ii] reveals that there are serious lapses as far as compliance and enforcement of statutory provisions mandating filing of Form 27 are concerned.

4. In the past year, we studied data available from 2009- 2016 for the mobile device sector, and could only identify and access 4,916 valid Forms 27, corresponding to 3,126 mobile device patents, leaving 1,186 Indian patents for which a Form 27 could have been filed, but was not found.[iii] For a surprising number of Form 27s (3%) the working status of the relevant patent was not designated.

Even among the Form 27s that had been obtained, almost none contained useful information regarding the working of the subject patents or fully complying with the informational requirements of the Indian Patent Rules. Many patentees simply omitted required descriptive information from their forms without any explanation.[iv]

Via our research we also gathered complaints raised by patentees and industry observers regarding the structure of the Form 27 requirement itself. For example, patents covering complex, multi-component products that embody dozens of technical standards and thousands of patents may not necessarily be amenable to the individual-level data requested by Form 27.

5. Regardless, we submit that these technical difficulties should not hinder the critical statutory requirement placed on patent holders to diligently comply with Form 27 compliance. In the context of licensing of SEPs, several stakeholders recently suggested solutions as revealed from our study of the submissions made to the TRAI Consultation on Promoting Local Telecom Manufacturing[v]:

Two industry associations, namely Telecom Equipment Manufacturers Association of India (TEMA) and Telecom Equipment & Services Export Promotion Council (TEPC) and a telecommunication enabler Vihan Network Limited recommended that a modified and longer version of Form 27 (Form 27S) may be designed for SEP holders that should apply right at the filing stage. Section 159 of the Patent Act, 1970 empowers the central government to make such modifications to the form, as necessary.[vi]
Further, Prof. T Ramakrishna (MHRD Chair on Intellectual Property Rights) at NLSIU, specifically recommended that Form 27 may be amended to include a new column, which may require the patent holder to declare if their patent forms a part of any standard and in case of affirmative answer – the name of the Standard Setting Organisation and corresponding standard of which it is a part.

6. Further, we would like to draw attention to how our study was limited by the technical capabilities of the Indian Patent Office’s online Form 27 repository, such as[vii]:

IPAIRS returned either a 404 error or Connection Time Out ("site is taking too long to respond") http://ipindiaonline.gov.in/patentsearch/search/index.aspx. In our opinion, it could be redirected to InPASS as it uses the same search engine as InPASS. Further, http://ipindia.nic.in/patsea.htm returned a 404 error.
Some PDFs of the forms comprise scanned image files without OCR of the text. This makes them inaccessible to the visually impaired, and prevents search and discoverability of their content. This also makes them less usable by preventing copying and selection of text.
In some cases, it was difficult to identify which one in the list of documents associated with a patent is Form 27, because of obscure filenames.

For example, for Patent Number 262228, Form 27 was named 68.262228.pdf, as found on IPAIRS.
For Patent number 260603, the filename for Form 27 was "ipindiaonline.gov.in_epatentfiling_online_frmPreview.asp.pdf" on IPAIRS.

Inconsistency in search results found on IPAIRS. Searching for the peripheral documents of the patents, returned the results, "No PDF found" for one full week. The next week, the documents started showing. Some searches returned results for an entirely different patent number.
Sometimes, Form 27 found on InPASS was not found on IPAIRS and vice versa.
Runtime errors occur due to browser caching.

7. We are thankful to DIPP for the opportunity to make these submissions. It would be our pleasure and privilege to discuss these submissions and recommendations in details with the DIPP. We also offer our assistance on other matters aimed at developing a suitable policy framework for SEPs and FRAND in India, and, working towards sustained innovation, manufacture and availability of mobile technologies in India.

Annexure

Complete Data of CIS’ Study[i]

[i] See Contreras, Jorge L. and Lakshané, Rohini and Lewis, Paxton, Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products (October 1, 2017). NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law; Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3004283

[ii] See Shamnad Basheer, Making Patents Work: Of IP Duties and Deficient Disclosures, 7 QUEEN MARY J. INTELL. PROP. 3, 16-17 (2017).

[iii] Supra note 1.

[iv] Refer to Appendix for a breakdown of compliance of Form 27 by patent holders in the mobile device sector.

[v] See TRAI’s Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing dated 18.09.2017 and the responses, available here: http://trai.gov.in/consultation-paper-promoting-local-telecom-equipment-manufacturing?page=2

[vi] Section 159 of the Patent Act, 1970 empowers the central government to make rules. Accordingly, the Rule 131 of the Patents Rules, 2003 prescribes Form 27 as the manner in which section 146(2) of the Act is to be implemented.

[vii] An email by Rohini Lakshane (CIS) compiling these issues was sent to Dr. K.S. Kardam (Senior Joint Controller of Patents and Designs - ‎Indian Patent Office) on 09.09.2017.

[viii] See Contreras, Jorge L. and Lakshané, Rohini and Lewis, Paxton, Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products (October 1, 2017). NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law; Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3004283

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cis-submissions-to-dipp-and-cgptdm-at-meeting-with-ip-stakeholders

Data

sinha — 2017-12-13T10:25:12Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/Screenshot47.png

Comments on the Draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2019 concerning Statutory Licensing

sinha — 2019-07-11T07:04:35Z

The Centre for Internet & Society gave its comments on the proposed rules 29,30,31 of the Draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2019. The comments were made in response to Notification G.S.R 393(E) published in the Gazette of India on May 30, 2019.

Preliminary

1. This submission presents comments to the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (“DPIIT”), Ministry of Commerce and Industry pertaining to the notification G.S.R 393(E) containing the draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2019 issued on 30^th May 2019.

2. We commend DPIIT on the release of the draft Copyright (Amendment) Rules, 2019 (“Draft Rules”) and are thankful for the opportunity to put forth its views via this public consultation.

3. This submission is divided into three main parts. This part, ‘Preliminary’, introduces the document; the second part provides an overview of the organization and its research in the field of intellectual property rights; and the third part contains CIS’ comments on the Draft Rules 29, 30, 31.

4. The third part contains two sections. In the first section, we discuss the legal validity of the Draft Rules 29,30,31. In the second part we discuss the general implications of extending the legal regime of broadcasting rights under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (“Act”) to works on the Internet.

About The Centre for Internet and Society

5. The Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus in respect of intellectual property rights include research on domestic copyright and patent laws, international trade agreements and treaties pertaining to these subjects, promotion of creators’ and users’ rights with a view to furthering access to knowledge and openness in the public interest. CIS has also been participating at WIPO-SCCR negotiations in the capacity of an Observer since 2009.

6. CIS values the fundamental principles of justice, equality, freedom and economic development. This submission is consistent with CIS' commitment to these values including the safeguarding of general public interest. Accordingly, the comments in this submission aim to further these principles.

Comments

7. Draft Rules 29, 30 and 31 pertain to section 31D of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. The proposed change in Rule 29 seeks to expand the modes of broadcast for which notice for invoking statutory license under section 31D may be issued - which previously was restricted to only radio and TV modes of broadcasting; and the change in Rule 31 will permit the Appellate Board to determine royalties for all modes of broadcast.

8. In view of current state of technological advancement, it is safe to deduce that the new mode of broadcasting whose inclusion is being contemplated in relation to s. 31D via the changes is “internet broadcasting”. The changes will allow entities that operate over the Internet medium to apply for a statutory license under s. 31D of the Act. In the following part, we submit our specific comments in respect of Draft Rules 29,30,31.

a) Legal validity of the Rules: Vires vis á vis the Parent Act

As per s. 78(2)(cD), the power of the Central Government to make rules in respect of s. 31D expressly exists in respect of “the manner in which prior notice may be given by a broadcasting organisation under sub-section (2) of section 3ID.” Apart from this clause, a general rule-making power is conferred via s. 78(1) only for carrying out the purposes of the Act. We submit that this general power should be exercised within limits of rule-making in the nature of administrative and procedural detail, and should be in consonance with purposes of the Act. In respect of s. 31D especially, the purpose can be inferred from the legislative history of the provision. This was analysed by the Bombay High Court in Tips Industries v. Wynk Music,[1] where the court noted that the concerns raised before the Rajya Sabha Parliamentary Standing Committee (on the Copyright Amendment Bill (2010)) related to radio and television industries only, and in the court’s opinion those two modes specifically were contemplated while introducing s. 31D.[2] Primarily basis this rationale, the court concluded that “internet broadcasters” offering on demand streaming services cannot avail of s. 31D. Further, s.31D(3) expressly permits the Appellate Board to fix royalty rates only in respect of radio broadcasting and television broadcasting.

Hence, we submit that there is no power under s.78 or any other provision in the Act afforded to the Central Government to expand the scope of s.31D, directly or indirectly. In State of Karnataka v. Ganesh Kamath[3] the Supreme Court held that “it is a well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the conferment of rule-making power by an Act does not enable the rule-making authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent there with or repugnant thereto”.

Thus, the extent to which the Draft Rules 29,30,31 alter the intent and scope of s.31D clearly leaves them ultra vires the parent Act. Rules that are ultra vires the parent Act for exceeding the limits of subordinate executive power are void.[4] Hence, the proposed Draft Rules 29,30,31 are both ultra vires their parent Act and void.

b) Implications of extending legal regime of broadcasting rights to works on the public Internet

The release of the Draft Rules 29,30,31 is another attempt to extend the statutory licensing to “internet broadcasters”. The first attempt was when the Central Government released an Office Memorandum[5] (dated 5^th September 2016) to extend statutory licensing under s.31D to “internet broadcasting” companies. We submit that this was based on an incorrect statutory construction by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“DIPP”) and was arbitrary in nature. Noted academics and scholars have highlighted several constitutional infirmities in respect of this memorandum.[6] Unfortunately, the current Draft Rules (29,30,31) raise similar concerns.

Separately, in the context of introducing a broadcasting right for works shared over the Internet – we submit that if the line of argument taken by DIPP that s. 2(dd) read with s. 2(ff) supports the inclusion of “internet broadcasting” is taken to its logical conclusion, any person/ entity communicating to the general public via the public Internet can claim protection of their broadcasters’ reproduction right under our Copyright Act. This “broadcast” will happen via multiple platforms such as YouTube, Facebook Watch, live-streaming platforms, on-demand platforms, etc., and such entities will be entitled to enjoyment of this right. This will lead to a dangerous accumulation of undeserved property rights in Internet giants; unlike traditional broadcasters these companies never put up initial upfront economic investment to distribute works to the public. They were launched on the public internet, and currently thrive primarily off user-generated content. Even in respect of protecting content that is actually created with their investment, copyright law will suffice with its remedies for infringement. Hence, there is currently very little economic and legal basis for extending the legal regime of broadcasting rights for works on the Internet. Thus, we submit that in the domestic approach to modernising our copyright legislation, we must refrain from considering distribution of born-digital/ digitised works over the public Internet equivalent to the function of broadcasting works over cable/ satellite.

9. We are thankful to DPIIT and the Ministry of Commerce and Industry for the opportunity to make these submissions. It would be our pleasure and privilege to discuss these submissions and recommendations in detail with members of DPIIT if the opportunity presents itself.

[1] See Bom (HC) judgment in Case No. NMCD/72/2019

[2] See 227^th Report of the Rajya Sabha Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Copyright Amendment Bill (2010) available at http://164.100.47.5/newcommittee/reports/EnglishCommittees/Committee%20on%20HRD/227.pdf

[3] (1983) 2 SCC 40

[4] See Supreme Court Welfare Association (1989) 4 SCC 187 and State of Karnataka (1983) 2 SCC 402.

[5] See ‘Office Memorandum’ available at https://dipp.gov.in/sites/default/files/OM_CopyrightAct_05September2016.pdf

[6] See Letter to Government on Internet Broadcasts (2016) by Shamnad Basheer available at https://spicyip.com/2016/09/letter-to-government-on-internet-broadcasts.html ; and Licensing of Internet Broadcasts under the Copyright Act: Key Constitutional Issues (2019) available at https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2019/01/25/guest-post-licensing-of-internet-broadcasts-under-the-copyright-act-key-constitutional-issues/

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-draft-copyright-amendment-rules-2019-concerning-statutory-licensing

Submitted Comments on the 'Government Open Data Use License - India'

sinha — 2016-07-26T09:23:48Z

The public consultation process of the draft open data license to be used by Government of India has ended yesterday. Here we share the text of the submission by CIS. It was drafted by Anubha Sinha, Pranesh Prakash, and Sumandro Chattapadhyay.

The following comments on the 'Government Open Data Use License - India' was drafted by Anubha Sinha, Pranesh Prakash, and Sumandro Chattapadhyay, and submitted through the MyGov portal on July 25, 2016. The original submission can be found here.

I. Preliminary

This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) [1] on the draft Government Open Data Use License - India (“the draft licence”) [2] by the Department of Legal Affairs.
This submission is based on the draft licence released on the MyGov portal on June 27, 2016 [3].
CIS commends the Department of Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India for its efforts at seeking inputs from various stakeholders prior to finalising its open data licence. CIS is thankful for the opportunity to have been a part of the discussion during the framing of the licence; and to provide this submission, in furtherance of the feedback process continuing from the draft licence.

II. Overview

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-governmental organisation engaged in research and policy work in the areas of, inter alia, access to knowledge and openness. This clause-by-clause submission is consistent with CIS’ commitment to safeguarding general public interest, and the interests and rights of various stakeholders involved. Accordingly, the comments in this submission aim to further these principles and are limited to those clauses that most directly have an impact on them.

III. Comments and Recommendations

Name of the Licence: CIS recommends naming the licence “Open Data Licence - India” to reflect the nomenclature already established for similar licences in other nations like the UK and Canada. More importantly, the inclusion of the word ‘use’ in the original name “Government Open Data Use License” is misleading, since the licence permits use, sharing, modification and redistribution of open data.
Change Language on Permissible Use of Data: The draft licence uses the terms “Access, use, adapt, and redistribute,” which are used in UNESCO’s definition of open educational resources, whereas, under the Indian Copyright Act [4], it should cover “reproduction, issuing of copies,” etc. To resolve this difference, we suggest the following language be used: “Subject to the provisions of section 7, all users are provided a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive licence to all rights covered by copyright and allied rights, for the duration of existence of such copyright and allied rights over the data or information.”
Add Section on the Scope of Applicability of the Licence: It will be useful to inform the user of the licence on its applicability. The section may be drafted as: “This licence is meant for public use, and especially by all Ministries, Departments, Organizations, Agencies, and autonomous bodies of Government of India, when publicly disclosing, either proactively or reactively, data and information created, generated, collected, and managed using public funds provided by Government of India directly or through authorized agencies.”
Add Sub-Clause Specifying that the Licence is Agnostic of Mode of Access: As part of the section 4 of the draft licence, titled ‘Terms and Conditions of Use of Data,’ a sub-clause should be added that specifies that users may enjoy all the freedom granted under this licence irrespective of their preferred mode of access of the data concerned, say manually downloaded from the website, automatically accessed via an API, collected from a third party involved in re-sharing of this data, accessed in physical/printed form, etc.
Add Sub-Clause on Non-Repudiability and Integrity of the Published Data: To complement the sub-clause 6.e. that notes that data published under this licence should be published permanently and with appropriate versioning (in case of the published data being updated and/or modified), another sub-clause should be added that states that non-repudiability and integrity of published data must be ensured through application of real/digital signature, as applicable, and checksum, as applicable. This is to ensure that an user who has obtained the data, either in physical or digital form, can effectively identify and verify the the agency that has published the data, and if any parts of the data have been lost/modified in the process of distribution and/or transmission (through technological corruption of data, or otherwise).
Combine Section 6 on Exemptions and Section 7 on Termination: Given that the licence cannot reasonably proscribe access to data that has already been published online, it is suggested that it would be better to simply terminate the application of the licence to that data or information that ought not to have been published for grounds provided under section 8 of the RTI Act, or have been inadvertently published. It should also be noted that section 8 of the RTI Act cannot be “violated” (as stated in Section 6.g. of the draft licence), since it only provides permission for the public authority to withhold information, and does not impose an obligation on them (or anyone else) to do so. The combined clause can read: “Upon determination by the data provider that specific data or information should not have been publicly disclosed for the grounds provided under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the data provider may terminate the applicability of the licence for that data or information, and this termination will have the effect of revocation of all rights provided under Section 3 of this licence.”
It will be our pleasure to discuss these submissions with the Department of Legal Affairs in greater detail, supplement these with further submissions if necessary, and offer any other assistance towards the efforts at developing a national open data licence.

[1] See: http://cis-india.org/.

[2] See: https://www.mygov.in/sites/default/files/mygov_1466767582190667.pdf.

[3] See: https://www.mygov.in/group-issue/public-consultation-government-open-data-use-license-india/.

[4] See: http://www.copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/submitted-comments-on-the-government-open-data-use-license-india

Letter to MPs on Concerns on Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership

sinha — 2016-07-29T02:39:44Z

The Centre for Internet and Society sent a letter to Members of Parliament on July 27, 2016 to appeal to re-examine the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Minister / Member of Parliament

We are writing to you to draw your attention to the concerns related to India’s engagement in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a mega-regional trade agreement (MRTA), currently under negotiation. We write as part of a forum on free trade agreements (FTAs), which is a network of over 80 civil society organisations and concerned individuals from across India. It came together in 2008 to analyse the impacts of India’s FTAs on people’s lives & livelihoods.

As you may know, RCEP is a FTA consisting of 10 ASEAN Countries plus Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, China and India. It is a comprehensive FTA dealing with not only tariff cuts but also a range of other issues such as investment, intellectual property rights, e-commerce, services, competition, etc. RCEP has far reaching implications on India’s future economic and social development. India is currently facing huge trade deficit with ASEAN, South Korea, Japan and China. RCEP is expected to worsen the huge trade deficit and damage India’s manufacturing sector.

Similarly, concerns are expressed in the field of intellectual property (IP). Many proposals by Japan and South Korea in the area of IP go well beyond our current national IP legislation, especially the Indian Patents Act 1970. Whereas, the Indian act permits only a narrow scope for patenting of software, the RCEP texts reveal disastrous proposals to hugely widen the scope, which, if accepted could compromise access to technologies in many critical areas. Likewise, Japanese & Korean negotiators' proposals run contrary to existing Indian copyright legislation. They mandate that all RCEP member countries to increase the term of copyright protection to 70 years from the year of the death of the author. The leaked chapters also envisage strong technological protection measures, without any limitations or exceptions for fair dealing use; creating new rights for making copies for temporary storage and blanket prohibition on re-transmission over the internet. All these changes would be extremely damaging to increasing access to knowledge in a developing country like India.

Further, the proposals also urge RCEP members to become members of another IP agreement on seeds – the UPOV Convention. Firstly, this would be ‘TRIPS-plus’, taking us beyond what WTO requires us to do in the area of seed. Secondly, it will mean going against the ‘farmer’s rights’ provisions in our national law – Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Act (passed by Parliament in 2001 in compliance with WTO).

The leaked investment chapter shows that the proposals are going against India’s current position on investment treaties. India has developed a model BIPA text. India has also re-negotiating 57 of its 83 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) on the basis of its new model BIPA & to avoid one-sided approach to protecting investor’s interest. But demands being made in RCEP, may push us beyond our position on investments as well, for example, on the investor-state dispute mechanism.

The RCEP talks have picked up pace, hence the appeal to you to get involved.

Since 2013 RCEP negotiations have completed 13 rounds. The 14th round of negotiations is to take place in Vietnam on 15th of August. The Chief negotiators from each of the 16 countries are meeting 18-19th July in Jakarta, Indonesia. The upcoming RCEP Ministerial meeting on 5th August at Laos is expected set the new deadline for the conclusion of the negotiation.

However, there are no studies available in the public domain with regard to the implications of RCEP on India. In reply to an RTI query, Government denied existence of any cost and benefit analyses of RCEP. Similarly, there is no consultation with State governments with regard to RCEP and no texts are available in the public domain. Against this background we request you to take initiative:

to demand socio-economic assessment of RCEP on India’s development, especially on poor and marginalised populations, including implications for women & children

To ask for wider consultations on RCEP including consultations with state governments and ordinary people (such stakeholder consultations have already been held with industry bodies).
To make publicly available all the negotiating texts and institutionalise the process of making them open.
To ensure discussion on the cost and benefits of FTAs in general and RCEP in particular in both houses of the Parliament, including in the relevant Parliamentary Standing Committee.
To demand a while paper on India’s experience - costs and benefits, from FTAs with Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia and ASEAN.

Anticipating your kind attention on this urgent matter.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

Anubha Sinha
Centre for Internet & Society

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/letter-to-mps-on-concerns-on-regional-comprehensive-economic-partnership

USTR elaborates the Two Dozen Digital Rules of Club TPP

sinha — 2016-07-29T08:00:00Z

Members of the recently concluded Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are now scrounging the world to include more countries in its fold. The Digital 2 Dozen(D2D) is a bite-sized document which packs the TPP into 24 key tenets. The D2D, aggressively championed by the US as the path forward for the global digital economy poses some critical questions for India: first, how will India position itself against US pressure in the larger scheme of US-India foreign relations, and how much is it willing to concede its policies in the name of trade; second, how will reduced barriers and establishment of a level field for Indian and foreign IT and internet companies alike, hurt Indian consumers and businesses? This week, the Deputy US Trade Representative Ambassador Robert Holleyman discussed the Digital 2 Dozen document with Ambassador Shyam Saran (Chairman, RIS). The exchange was moderated by Samir Saran (Observer Research Foundation). I attended the discussion and this post is a summary of the key points.

For a background on the data protection and privacy aspects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and Digital 2 Dozen principles, please read CIS' piece here.

Ambassador Robert Holleyman

Ambassador Holleyman opened with stating that trade agreements are created to build a foundation for national policies. He added that the D2D is not merely a tech D2D, rather it is based on the premise that our economies have digitised to a large extent, and hence, the TPP contains provisions on agriculture as well. The TPP tries to combat barriers to the growth of digital economy, and the D2D provides the most modern and the highest standard of such provisions. The D2D tenets can be divided into three categories:

1. Provisions to ensure the internet is open and safe, and an effective channel for trade and services.

2. Provisions to combat protectionist and restrictive provisions of member nations. The D2D talks about eliminating rules that seek to make foreign companies localise their data by building expensive data centers in every market they seek to serve. Further, TPP also seeks to prevent countries from 'forcing' foreign companies from transferring their technologies and production processes as a pre-condition for doing business there.

3. Provisions on IPRs to 'build a level playing field' in order to 'protect' innovators and creators in the digital space.

“ ...The TPP rules on enforcement of IPRs are strong and balanced and embody the TRIPs standards. For instance, countries are required to to impose criminal penalties on trade-secret violations such as cyberhacking.”

He added:

“We believe these rules are the foundation for next 20 years of the digital economy. To make sure that India does not fall behind we want to work with India (for the adoption of these rules). We're encouraged by the new government's programmes and the PM's engagement with US and silicon valley leaders.

We encourage India to level the playing field. To that end the USTR is working with the Indian Ministries of Communications and IT, and Commerce and Industry to exchange practices for building open markets. We want to work together in eliminating localisation policies given that how a lot of IT companies have established investment heavy R&D centers in India, and they rely heavily on the free flow of cross border data. Imposition of localisation of data would be detrimental in this age of cloud-computing. We're aware that the Indian government is reviewing its policies on cloud-computing and encryption, and we encourage the government to consider the implications of the such policies carefully, for India is also a leader in global IT and would be a potential framework setter at that.”

The D2D also endorses elimination of custom duties on ICT products, and the Ambassador added that the US was very pleased to see India deposit their instrument of accession on the Trade Facilitation Agreement with the WTO. The US has been pleased to see India's ratcheting up its norms for IPR protection. He mentioned that the two countries held a successful copyright workshop earlier this year, and later this year they plan to conduct a workshop on trade secret protection. The D2D also says that conformity assessment procedures are excessive and should be eliminated. This emerges from US' IT industries concerns on the compulsory registration of ICT products that required re-testing in Indian labs.

He made a case for opening up Indian markets by quoting a study which revealed that the Indian market for ICT products is worth 65bn dollars, while the global market stands at 2 trillion dollars. So while India could leverage its exports to meet the demand, the question remains if we want to foster a market based on openness. In his opinion, openness has enabled the IT sector in India to access other markets. However, he observed that countries were erecting barriers to this openness by restricting the cross-border free-flow of data, particularly and this is where the TPP assumes importance. The real challenge now is for the US and India to prepare their own version the the D2D.

On the route of D2D, the Ambassador was largely optimistic:

“The TPP has Obama's backing and the US Congress should ratify the deal before the elections. Other TPP members have already initiated steps to ratify the deal in their countries. For phase II, 13 non-member countries have already approached the US to be a part of TPP since the deal was concluded.”

Ambassador Shyam Saran

He began by stating that the India-US engagement on digital economy would become an area of close cooperation for US-India relationship. A few years ago the US pharma was unhappy with Indian generics, and this tussle left a bad taste between the countries, and also spilled over into the political side. Disagreements on several issues such as IPR, WTO subjects, etc still persist, despite some developments reflecting mutual trust and confidence (for instance the counter-terrorism initiative).

He welcomed potential cooperation in the digital field, because that would dispel the negativity and prevailing perception of India and US not being on the same page. The one area that has been a shaky pillar is the trade and economic relationship. In his frank opinion, the Indian establishment perceives USTR's outlook on trade issues as quite adversarial. He was mindful of a developing India's unique needs and priorities:

“In regard to the differences between India and US on trade and economic issues, it is not surprising because we must also be mindful of the reality- we are a developing country, wheras the US is highly developed and technologically advances - thus, we need different lenses for each. This is something we need to address, (remember how we acknowledged and fixed this in our defence relationship re the nuclear deal). The lesson that I draw is that here is an area critical to both countries' growth, and we need to address this differential aspect...”

According to him, right now India has an ambiguous position on the TPP. Holleyman had mentioned that the deal was based on an open platform, and Shyam pointed out that it was in fact conceived through closed door negotiations. It is common knowledge that rules at TPP were arrived at through complex negotiations between 13 countries, which surely was a process of complex give and takes. At this stage, it was not possible for India to look at one chapter and agree to meet the “gold standards” set in it.

According to him, D2D was important to the US solely in terms of trade benefits for its own businesses. He said that to convince the Indian government, the USTR will have to first convince the Indian IT industry the D2D benefits- which he was skeptical of. The reason was that this 'opportunity' comes across as a clear case of double-standards when the US talks about lowering barriers in India, and on the other hand is increasing barriers on its own shores (several pending bills in the US Congress indicate this). Similarly, immigration troubles for the Indian talent pool have only gone up. The other aspect he raised was on localisation and IPRs. He said that while stands on these issues were being formulated, it should also be expected that the government will take into account concerns of privacy and security. In the US itself, the US treasury has said in regard to banking and financial transactions localisation may be necessary.

He closed by offering an alternative route to the US – one of working with India as a partner in the Digital Economy instead of fixating on barriers and/or nitpicking on Indian legislations. This would be a more sustainable way to capitalise on India's growth potential and align with its digital future.

Samir Saran

Samir responded to the discussants by offering his thoughts (and questions) on D2D and the digital economy, broadly:

“...Can the digital space be a new space for a partnership? Three stories are important in the context of a trade document:
First is dominated by access – India is seeing 6 million new internet users every month and most of them are on low-cost mobile devices. Can a trading normative process allow to continue this phenomenon as it is?
Second is opportunity – India is already responding to investment flows. In terms of privacy and security – if India believes that it can become the digital infrastructure hub, it will need to develop world-class encryption tools. Similarly in terms of free-flow of information, when Obama and PM met they endorsed the same. So it is a step back from localisation, anyway. So you see India changing positions to make the atmosphere more business conducive.
Third is security – How can you make free-flow of data uni-directional? Why is it that you want data to flow unfettered when it creates value, but you are creating barriers for giving data for security purposes?...

...Further, in a phase when the mood worldwide is in favour of de-globalisation, will hyperglobalisation through FTAs work?...”

Finally, Holleyman acknowledged that historically India and US have had differences, but with the digital economy perhaps they can forge some approaches. He accepted that some of the points were written squarely for the US tech sector, but he hoped that the other 11 partners of the TPP will come out with what the D2D means to them.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ustr-elaborates-the-two-dozen-digital-rules-of-club-tpp

US Copyright law faces constitutional challenge

sinha — 2016-08-11T13:28:13Z

In a major international development, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has filed a lawsuit to strike down the provisions on Digital Rights Management(DRM) in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In this post, I discuss DRMs, the EFF lawsuit, and then draw upon the differences between the US and Indian copyright regime on DRM protection.

Originally published by Spicy IP on August 5, 2016. You may read EFF’s lawsuit here.

Decoding DRM

If you own a Netflix account and travel a lot, you may have been denied access to some TV shows depending on the country you logged in from. While that restriction can perhaps be gotten around by using VPNs, there exist other technological measures that prevent you from fixing your own automobile to sharing/making copies of an e-book that you supposedly bought. Such technological protection measures are commonly known as Digital Rights Management (DRM). These go back twenty years, and it was in 1996 when the first DRM appeared in the form of geo-access restrictions on DVD play.

Soon thereafter, it became de rigeur for businesses dealing in IP to apply all kinds of DRMs to their products. It was largely an embarrassing and a pointless saga of implementing software embedded restrictions to stem piracy (remember the Sony BMG rootkit fiasco?), given how blatantly they were discovered and circumvented. And now since technology is beginning to dwell even in our shoes, DRMs have been slapped onto these as well. So if you discover a bug causing a miscalculation in your step count, you are not only prohibited under law from probing the code and fixing it yourself, but you also may get jailed for doing so. Imagine such how such prohibition impacts and limits our daily lives and the work of professional researchers.

Clearly, DRM is not just a mere trifle to be brushed aside via smarter code– its ramifications go much farther. DRMs come with the problem of masking vulnerabilities, compromised security of the device and us er-privacy, and trampled consumer rights, fair use and free speech. Further, the poor design of DRMs makes them unable to distinguish between illegal use and fair-use. Progressive cutting down of users’ rights to store, reproduce, distribute media has become especially problematic for developing countries because of our greater dependence on free-er terms for sale, lending and donation. On the other hand, DRMs continue to become more ubiquitous(could be incorporated in the HTML 5 standard soon).

However, in an exciting development, the first major legal battle to kill DRM has begun!

Because finally in an unprecedented move, a constitutional challenge has been lodged in the US against DRM provisions, on the grounds that they restrict free speech and fair-use of copyright materials (the fair-use doctrine allows copyright law to co-exist with the first amendment). The complaint has been filed by EFF on behalf of Matthew Green (a security researcher) and Andrew “bunnie” Huang (a technologist)

The rejection that prompted a legal challenge..

Sections 1201-1205 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) lay down provisions relating to circumvention of DRM. Uniquely, the DMCA vests power in the Librarian of Congress to periodically enact rules granting exemption from the anti-circumvention provisions to legitimate non-infringing use of works (known as DMCA Rulemaking). It was under this particular instance of rulemaking in 2015, wherein the Librarian failed to grant an exemption for “…speech using clips of motion pictures, for the shifting of lawfully-acquired media to different formats and devices, and for certain forms of security research.” The rejection triggered the challenge against ‘Rulemaking’, ‘anti-circumvention’ and ‘anti-trafficking’ provisions of the DMCA, namely sections 1201(a), 1203, and 1204 . (This exemption was applied for by EFF, which has been seeking (and been granted) exemptions since 2003.)

In fact, universally, DRM provisions pose questions of free speech, consumer rights, privacy and copyright law. In the following section I will examine and compare the US and Indian copyright regime on DRM protection.

WCT and DMCA were used to push DRM protection into Indian Copyright Act

The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 provisions on DRM are based in sections 2(xa), 65A and 65B, which were introduced through the Copyright Amendment Act, 2012. The sections define ‘Rights Management Information’, provide for ‘Protection of technological measures’ and ‘Protection of Rights Management Information’, respectively. It must be noted that the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) was the first instrument to conceive rules on DRM protection (Articles 11, 12). US was the first country to import WCT provisions into its copyright law via DMCA, which even went above the WCT standards. Soon, Hollywood-backed USTR wanted India to follow suit, and the provisions were queued up for an amendment to India’s copyright law. Please note that India is NOT a party to the WCT, and was under no obligation to enact laws on DRMs. Nevertheless, the Indian provisions with some changes and added limitations were loosely lifted from the equivalent WCT articles.

It is worth noting that the Indian DRM provisions have better safeguards than the DMCA provisions:

1) The Indian provisions (s. 65A+ 65B) do not make building and distribution of circumvention tools illegal. Only the act of circumvention attracts criminal liability. However, there is a duty on the person facilitating circumvention for another person to maintain a record of the same, including the purpose for which the facilitation occurred. The purpose should not be expressly prohibited under the Copyright Act, 1957.

Regardless, being criminally liable for circumventing DRM is a major threat to small businesses and developers. In one instance, when some Indian developers had built an open source software “PlayFair” to bypass Apple’s FairPlay DRM, they were threatened with legal action under the US’ DMCA. Despite the DMCA having no jurisdiction in India, the developers shut shop.

2) Clauses 65A(1) and 65A(2)(a) confine violation of technological protection measures to rights enumerated in the act, only. This means that the section does not restrict circumventions which attempt to get access to the underlying work.

While India has not seen major challenges to this provision, in 2013 the Delhi High Court injuncted persons from jailbreaking into Sony Playstations. Amlan analysed the order and questioned it in terms of the Court finding the act of ‘modifying the playstation without Sony’s consent’ illegal. Because, if you read section 65A (emphasis supplied is mine):

65A. Protection of Technological Measures

(1) Any person who circumvents an effective technological measure applied for the purpose of protecting any of the rights conferred by this Act, with the intention of infringing such rights, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from:

(a) doing anything referred to therein for a purpose not expressly prohibited by this Act:

Provided that any person facilitating circumvention by another person of a technological measure for such a purpose shall maintain a complete record of such other person including his name, address and all relevant particulars necessary to identify him and the purpose for which he has been facilitated; or

(b) doing anything necessary to conduct encryption research using a lawfully obtained encrypted copy; or

(c) conducting any lawful investigation; or

(d) doing anything necessary for the purpose of testing the security of a computer system or a computer network with the authorisation of its owner; or

(e) operator; or [sic]

(f) doing anything necessary to circumvent technological measures intended for identification or surveillance of a user; or

(g) taking measures necessary in the interest of national security.

Clause (1) clearly states that the law is only applicable to such technological protection measures applied to protect any of the rights conferred by the copyright act. Which raises the questions of which rights are affected when OS of the playstation is modified, and how does the modification amount to copyright infringement? One may perhaps draw that the Court in this order placed the ‘consent’ of Sony above the law.

3) S. 65A(2) safeguards certain acts which also exist as exceptions granted in the Copyright Act. These enumerated acts may be performed without attracting liability: for instance, circumventions for purposes of encryption research, security testing, lawful investigation, evading surveillance by DRM are kosher. Note that s. 65A(2)(g) permits circumvention in the interest of national security.

(For a detailed exegesis of these provisions, please read this piece.)

A look at the draconian DMCA provisions

As I mentioned earlier, the DMCA provisions on DRMs are much stricter compared to the Indian copyright act. Both circumvention(s. 1201(a)(1)), and building and distribution of circumvention tools(s. 1201(a)(2)) are illegal and punishable. The DMCA also meticulously defines circumvention, in terms of “circumventing a technological measure” and “circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure.”

More alarmingly, these provisions envisage access controls as well as use controls. So a person decrypting a DVD to gain access to the work would be held liable for infringement (unlike in India where only the act of copying or modifying the work would trigger infringement). It is also worth noting that there is no clause stating that circumvention (and tools) of only those DRMs is illegal when the DRMs protect rights conferred under the DMCA.

While s. 1201(c) states that the section shall not affect “…rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair-use…” Further, there do exist exemptions to clauses(a)(1) and (2):

Exemption for nonprofit libraries, archives and educational institutions; and
Exemption for the purposes of law enforcement, intelligence and other government activities, reverse engineering (solely for the purposes of achieving interoperability), restricting internet access to minors, protecting personally identifiable information, security testing, encryption research, etc.

While the list seems to permit circumvention for a wide range of purposes and fair-use, the vague and narrow language has failed the implementation of these exemptions. EFF lists a bunch of these instances where the DRM provisions have been not necessarily used against pirates, but also scientists, consumers and legit competitors.

Further, the DMCA left it entirely to the US copyright agencies to carve exemptions for non-infringing uses of works on a triennial basis. This rulemaking procedure has received heavy criticism, and as a result of the 2015 rejection the Library of the Congress finds itself in a legal soup.

Finally, the EFF lawsuit also illustrates the violations of the plaintiffs rights to free speech and fair-use, as a direct result of the provisions and the Rulemaking process. Armed with a strong case, and as Cory Doctorow puts it, we may witness the eradication of DRM in our lifetime. And I will be following the developments closely and keep our readers updated.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/us-copyright-law-faces-constitutional-challenge

Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015

sinha — 2015-06-24T16:45:21Z

We are pleased to announce that the Centre for Internet and Society will be hosting the fourth edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest at New Delhi, India, tentatively in the first two weeks of December, 2015. This post seeks your participation and invites your queries and suggestions for the event.

The theme for this year’s Congress will be “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting applications to participate in the Congress, including session participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for panels and workshops.

The application form is available now at [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress.

Deadlines

August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form).

November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper submissions will close on November 1st.

Application Information

For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in the form.

For applications to attend sessions: Applications to attend sessions as discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or any other relevant information provided by the applicant.

Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing countries.

Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes

The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property policy can best serve the public interest.

The fourth edition of the Global Congress brings research, civil society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes. The 4^th edition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity.

The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices; second, the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda; and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects of IP policy and practice.

Participation Opportunities

Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions, cross-track sessions and the room of scholars.

The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development. Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual interest.

The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress.

Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the aforementioned sessions.

The application form for participation is available now at http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or questions, you may contact global-congress@cis-india.org.

Organisation

The 4^th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and Public Interest, is being organised in cooperation with National Law University, Delhi, by the American Assembly at Columbia University, the Centre for Internet and Society, Open A.I.R., and the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at American University Washington College of Law.

For any clarifications or queries, please contact:

Global Congress organising team: global-congress@cis-india.org

Swaraj Paul Barooah: swaraj.barooah@gmail.com
Shruthi Chandrasekaran: shruthi.chandrasekaran@gmail.com

The planning team also includes:

Anubha Sinha: anubha@cis-india.org
M.P. Nagaraj: nagaraj@cis-india.org
Maggie Huang: maggie@cis-india.org
Pranesh Prakash: pranesh@cis-india.org
Rohini Lakshane: rohini@cis-india.org
Sunil Abraham: sunil@cis-india.org
Nehaa Chaudhari: nehaa@cis-india.org

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/2015-global-congress-on-intellectual-property-and-the-public-interest