The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
Workshop on Competition Law and Policy
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/workshop-on-competition-law-and-policy
<b>National School of Law India University and the Delegation of European Union to India jointly organized a workshop at Competition Commission of India in New Delhi from October 19 - 21, 2016. Anubha Sinha and Rohini Lakshané participated and made presentations. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The workshop was organized under the broader EU-India project titled "Capacity Building Initiative in Competition Area under Trade Development Programme" sponsored jointly by European Union Delegation and National Law School of India University, Bengaluru.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Download</h3>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/workshop-brochure-cci.pdf" class="internal-link">Workshop brochure</a></li>
<li>Anubha Sinha's presentation on "<a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cci-presentation.pdf" class="internal-link">Investigation into the sub $100 Mobile Device Industry from IPR + Competition law lens</a>"</li>
<li>Rohini Lakshané's presentation on <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/cci-workshop-on-competition-law-and-policy.pdf" class="external-link">CCI Workshop on Competition Law and Policy Competition Policy and Internet</a></li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/workshop-on-competition-law-and-policy'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/workshop-on-competition-law-and-policy</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2016-10-23T01:51:25ZNews ItemUbiquity, Mobility, Globality: Charting Directions in Mobile Phone Studies
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/center-for-global-communication-studies-november-6-2014-ubiquity-mobility-globality-charting-directions-in-mobile-phone-studies
<b>Nehaa Chaudhari made a presentation at the Ubiquity, Mobility, Globality : Charting Directions in Mobile Phone Studies Conference. This was organized by the Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia on November 6 and 7, 2014. Nehaa was on a panel titled Mobile and its Effects on Global Markets and made a presentation on Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Workplace.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nehaa Chaudhari's presentation can be <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-a2k-workplace.pdf" class="external-link">downloaded here </a>(PDF, 518 KB). <a class="external-link" href="http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/app/uploads/2014/11/Program_final.pdf">Click here</a> for the full programme. Download the <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ubiquity-mobility-globality.pdf/view" class="external-link">agenda here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mobile phones are tools for activism and civic participation, surveillance and repression, market making and market disruption. In Ithiel de Sola Pool’s memorable phrase, there have been few “technologies of freedom” that match the consequences of these new instruments and the infrastructure that supports them. This conference examines dimensions of the social, political, and economic effects of the global ubiquity of mobile phones:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>What are the affordances and limitations of mobile phones in development?</li>
<li>What is the impact of mobile phones on socio-political change?</li>
<li>How do mobile phones continue to shape our civil liberties?</li>
<li>What are the geo-political consequences of these mobilities?</li>
<li>How does mobile phone adoption challenge and support market innovation?</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To tackle these questions, this conference brings together voices from the academy, civil society, and industry—all to examine the heterogeneous sources and consequences of mobility’s diffusion. The goal of this conference is to further interdisciplinary and comparative approaches to the understanding of the mobile phenomenon and to chart directions in mobile phone studies. The conference is funded by the Provost’s Global Engagement Fund, the Center for Global Communication Studies, and the Project for Advanced Research in Global Communication and the program reflects the input of several Schools at Penn, including the Annenberg School for Communication, Wharton, Law, and the School of Arts and Sciences.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/center-for-global-communication-studies-november-6-2014-ubiquity-mobility-globality-charting-directions-in-mobile-phone-studies'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/center-for-global-communication-studies-november-6-2014-ubiquity-mobility-globality-charting-directions-in-mobile-phone-studies</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2014-12-04T16:27:26ZNews ItemThe two-faced FRAND: Licensing and injunctive relief in ICTs
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/two-faced-frand-licensing-and-injunctive-relief-in-icts
<b>Important takeaways from the Indo-Europe Conference on Building a Sustainable IPR-ICT Ecosystem for Promoting Innovation, held in Bangalore in November 2015. Ericsson and the Indian Cellular Association presented an interesting set of views on FRAND licensing as well as injunctive relief, from seemingly opposite ends of the spectrum.</b>
<p>For the schedule, and more information, visit: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ict-ipr.in/sipeit/conference">http://www.ict-ipr.in/sipeit/conference</a></p>
<h2><span>Ericsson’s position on patenting </span></h2>
<p dir="ltr"><span>-- Companies file numerous patent applications every year but 95% of all granted patents are never commercialised. </span></p>
<p><span>-- Ericsson manages to commercialise less than 5 percent of its patents.</span></p>
<p><span>-- A patent application could be rejected because it is not inventive or novel enough. Sometimes, a competitor manages to file for or obtain a patent for the same or similar technology a few days before Ericsson. Hence, it becomes prior art and Ericsson is unable to apply for a patent. </span></p>
<p><span>-- Monetising patents is a challenge because the technology they pertain to may not be good enough to be implemented. Either that, or nobody in the market wants the technology. There is no business aspect to it.<strong> </strong></span><strong><span>Thus, patenting is expensive but but filing patents is a trial-and-error activity, which makes patenting financially cumbersome.</span></strong></p>
<p><span>-- Ericsson feels the need to file a lot of patents, so that some of those patents could be useful from a business perspective. The rest are not commercialised.</span></p>
<p><span>-- The number of patents filed are rising in certain countries, but the numbers are misleading. Some patents are of poor quality and/ or unusable for commercialisation.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>-- Ericsson gets approximately 5,000 inventions per year but files patent applications for only around 1,500 to 1,600, as the rest of the inventions do not have a business aspect to it. That is, Ericsson does not believe that the invention has good business potential or that there is little way for the market to adapt to it. </span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>-- When companies invest heavily on research and development, and when they try to get (what will later become a) standardised technology released into the market, they should get fair returns on investment.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>-- Indian companies need to invest in IPR. They need to do trial-and-error with respect to patenting. Only then, perhaps, some returns will accrue to them from owning patents.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>-- Monetisation is besides selling products. It's a side effect of investment in research and development.</span></p>
<h2><span>Ericsson’s position on FRAND licensing</span></h2>
<p dir="ltr"><span>-- No company apart from non-practising entities (NPEs) make all or most of its money from licensing. Ericsson makes most of its money from its products and not patents. </span></p>
<p><span>-- A large number of companies such as Ericsson have inventors based in India but the patents get registered abroad, [that is, the patents are not filed by the Indian subsidiary of Ericsson].</span></p>
<p><span>-- </span><strong><span>The percentage fee charged for a FRAND license is a low, single-digit number. </span></strong></p>
<p><span>-- It's a wrong conception that FRAND licensing is very expensive and will shut down Indian companies. If there were no FRAND agreements, no Indian company would be able to put out a phone in the market.</span></p>
<p><span>-- It’s a wrong notion that FRAND agreements are prohibiting any company from the market. Indian companies will not be thrown out of the market by FRAND companies or companies that possess a lot of patents. No Indian company would be able to make and sell a phone if FRAND terms didn’t exist.</span></p>
<p><span>-- <strong>Ericsson is called a patent troll because it doesn’t make mobile phones anymore, but Ericsson built the technology it patented [unlike other patent trolls who buy and gather patents].</strong></span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>-- Ericsson has entered into more than licensing 100 agreements worldwide. Many of its licensees are repeat licensees.</span></p>
<p id="docs-internal-guid-4f920544-b271-1bd0-cde5-919b2b7c321e" dir="ltr"><span>-- <strong>The average selling price (ASP) of China-made phones sold in India is USD 50. This money goes to China. The ASP of high-end phones elsewhere is USD 250. Thus, a royalty of USD 15, calculated on the sale price of the end product, is not high.</strong></span></p>
<h2><span>Ericsson’s position on SEP litigation in India and injunctions</span></h2>
<p dir="ltr"><span>-- Nobody starts litigation in order to render an injunction in the end. The idea is to get the other party to the table and negotiate reasonable terms.</span></p>
<p><span>-- </span><strong><span>Litigation without injunction is a toothless tiger.</span><span> The 'licensee' has the financial upper hand of not paying the licensor. So the former can keep prolonging negotiations.</span></strong></p>
<p><span>-- When hold-out happens during licensing negotiations, litigation is used as a last resort. Injunctions are one of the possible outcomes of litigation.</span></p>
<p><span>-- India should play the SEP game. 5G development starts in January 2016 and India should try to get a stake in the development. Indian companies should try to get high quality patents.</span></p>
<p><i><span>[<span id="docs-internal-guid-7d58a686-b1b1-3c63-f6ae-d317a187703b">This suggestion seems to be for homegrown Indian companies as Ericsson also stated during the conference that, “A large number of companies such as Ericsson have inventors based in India but the patents get registered abroad”, that is, the patents are not filed by the Indian subsidiary of Ericsson.]</span></span></i></p>
<p style="text-align: center; "><span>*****</span></p>
<h2><span>Indian Cellular Association on injunctive relief, SEPs and FRAND licensing rates<br /></span></h2>
<p dir="ltr"><span> -- When the standard setting process is collaborative, it is not logical to apply injunctive relief. It is against the ethos of the community.</span></p>
<p><span>--Telecommunication was the first industry to create monopolies, that is, standardisation in order to serve the customer better.</span></p>
<p><span>-- [With reference to SEP infringement litigation happening in India], the so-called infringer is not in league/ not competing with anything the patent holder is making and/ or selling.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>-- The Competition Act in India is a wide-ranging law. It is not a restrictive trade practices act or a monopolies act. Patents are out of the purview of competition.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>-- If a rights holder has acquired dominance as a part of the standard setting process, it is undoubtedly dominant. But if the rights holder's market practices are fair, then it is not violating any provisions of the Competition Act.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>-- India has a “demographic dividend”. Legacy patent holders should look at India differently, and consider our purchasing power. If technology has to proliferate, then consumers in India cannot be burdened with the same royalties as the developed world.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>-- We are trying to strengthen the TSDSI, India's indigenous standards development body [so that India can have a stake in international standards development].</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>-- The size of the global smartphone market today [2015] is USD 500 billion; India's mobile phone market is worth USD 16 billion. The mobile phone market share of China is pegged at USD 110 billion.<br /></span></p>
<p id="docs-internal-guid-7d58a686-b24c-352b-bfd3-d6b26ac7a9d8" dir="ltr"><span>-- The mobile phone market in India will be worth USD 100 billion as of the year 2022 or 2023. For SEP royalties that reward the innovation of all the SEP holders, what will be the amount of royalty outflow? If the outflow is USD 500 billion [in the year 2022 or 2023], then the FRAND percentage be 0.5, which is not a single-digit number, unlike what was stated by Ericsson's representative.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>-- In the projected figure of USD 100 billion, <span id="docs-internal-guid-7d58a686-b259-5f5a-3e52-9c4a2f5bf957">USD 30 billion accounts for display, USD 5 billion accounts for Lithium-ion battery, USD 5 billion for communication protocol, and the complete chipset stack for around USD 10 billion. If the FRAND rate were to be determined as a percentage of the price of the smallest practising component of the [finished]</span> device, then it would be, say, 2% of USD 10 billion. If the FRAND rate were to be determined as a percentage of the end product, it would be 0.5% of USD 100 billion. But, <strong>if the FRAND percentage were a single-digit number, which could also be 9, then all the manufacturers except the rights holders would be snuffed out. </strong>China's mobile market is at USD 110 billion now and is projected to be at USD 400 billion in 2022, will be paying around USD 1 billion in total royalty outflows.<span id="docs-internal-guid-7d58a686-b267-9e65-539f-9bacaa7b48df"> </span><span id="docs-internal-guid-7d58a686-b267-9e65-539f-9bacaa7b48df"> </span></span></p>
<p id="docs-internal-guid-4f920544-b2a5-a0f4-a732-f19269164fc5" dir="ltr"><span><span id="docs-internal-guid-7d58a686-b267-9e65-539f-9bacaa7b48df">-- We also need to evaluate macro costs of research and development globally. How many times, how much, and for how many years do we need to reward innovation? What is the right return amount for inventors? All this will come up for serious debate with the patent office, the Competition Commission of India, the companies, and with the ministries. To ensure equitable growth and a level playing field, all these entities need to get involved.</span></span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>-- There is deep distrust of rights holders due to opaqueness in their operations. For example, injunctive relief was sought against a small importer in an Indian court. The royalty rate demanded happened to be half of that demanded from another Indian importer in the same court against an interim injunction. The rights holder then claimed that the email sent to the former importer was a mistake and it revised the rates so that it was equal for both importers. </span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong><span><i>[This seems to be a reference to Ericsson suing Saral Communications for patent infringement in the Delhi High Court around the same time that Micromax complained to the Competition Commission of India alleging abuse of its dominant positon by Ericsson. The interim royalty rates quoted to Saral were half of the rates that Micromax was ordered to pay, rendering Ericsson's conduct discriminatory and in violation of FRAND. Ericsson subsequently claimed that the rates conveyed to Saral via email were a mistake and asked for the same interim royalty rates as it from Micromax. For more details refer to, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/03/court-document-reveals-discriminatory.html">Court document reveals discriminatory royalty demands by Ericsson for its wireless patents. </a></i></span></strong></p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong><span><i>This is also an indication that the market practices of certain rights holders are not consistent, which not only results in a trust deficit but prevents the implementation of a harmonised FRAND rate across the world.] <br /></i></span></strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: center; "><span><span>****</span></span></p>
<h2><span><span>Injunctive relief and FRAND licensing in Europe</span></span></h2>
<p><span>-- According to the German Patent Act, there is automatic injunction as a consequence of patent infringement. No injunctive relief is granted for SEPs anymore in Germany, if certain conditions are fulfilled by the willing licensee.</span></p>
<p><span>-- Long-standing provisions exist in Germany for calculating royalties when multiple patents and multiple patent holders exist. FRAND licensing for one patent is useless. There should be FRAND for the whole complex. </span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>-- As per the Huawei decision of the European Court of Justice, dated 16 July 2015, a willing licensee can make an offer for the price it wishes to pay to use a patent under the condition that it deposits an amount in the bank as a security for the licensor. Then the licensor cannot enforce the injunction anymore.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: center; "><span>****<br /></span></p>
<h2><span>Open data in patenting </span></h2>
<p><span>If the data available with patent offices across the world is made publicly accessible by the respective governments in a way that it is possible to search, understand, and visualise it, then there could be an explosion in innovation.</span></p>
<h2><span>The trade-off between access and innovation</span></h2>
<p dir="ltr"><span>Inexpensive phones of sub-standard quality break down or stop working sooner than good quality phones. This also destroys incentives for innovators who want to bring high quality phones into the market. So the inexpensive, low-quality phones is a trade-off between having access to mobile phones today and experiencing the fruits of innovation tomorrow. <strong>The Hatch Waxman Act in the US addresses this issue by allowing imitators to come into the economy through an authorised mechanism, which also restores some incentives for innovation.</strong></span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>The tradeoff is also addressed better by implementing an evidence-based approach instead of a one-size-fits-all solution. Some regions require an emphasis on access. In other places that do not lack access due to their geographical location and clusters of innovators, IPRs can be implemented more strictly. Such a segmented approach to regions and product-markets can be crafted into policy.</span></p>
<h2><span>The challenge of harmonisation</span></h2>
<p dir="ltr"><span>Denmark does not have a dedicated intellectual property office. Work on IP is integrated in the government offices for trade, growth, economy, and so on. IPR is strongly interlaced with competition law in the country. <strong>Similarly, the Department of Telecom, Department of Health, the Indian Patent Office and the Competition Commission of India should work in tandem to avoid conflict in the way they address cases and issues.</strong></span></p>
<h2 dir="ltr"><span> </span><span>Patenting for universities</span></h2>
<p><span>Indian university do not carry out patenting as much as their counterparts in other countries. The DieTY has schemes for supporting patent filing by universities and academic institutions. </span></p>
<p><span>Number of patents granted annually to:</span></p>
<p><span>Xingua University, China: 1,000</span></p>
<p><span>MIT, United States: 4,000</span></p>
<p><span>IIT and IISC, India: Between 100 and 200</span></p>
<h2><span>Technology areas and number of SEPs in Europe</span></h2>
<p id="docs-internal-guid-7d58a686-b1b4-a37d-f2ae-7182f21bda20" dir="ltr"><span>Telecom via public network: 4,284</span></p>
<p><span>IT and Internet: 534</span></p>
<p><span>Audio/ video systems, coding, et cetera.: 221</span></p>
<p><span>Security, cryptography, biometrics: 182</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><span>(Source: <span id="docs-internal-guid-7d58a686-b1b5-2260-14d7-cc444e9011c9">Competition Policy Brief, June 2014, Issue 8, Standard Essential Patents, European Commission)</span></span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: center; "><span><span>***</span></span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: left; "><span><span><i>All comments in square brackets and italics by the author.</i><br /></span></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/two-faced-frand-licensing-and-injunctive-relief-in-icts'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/two-faced-frand-licensing-and-injunctive-relief-in-icts</a>
</p>
No publisherrohiniPervasive Technologies2016-03-16T02:37:02ZBlog EntrySub$-100 Phones: Browser Compatibility Tests
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sub-100-phones-browser-compatibility-tests
<b>This post documents the results of browser compatibility tests conducted on six out of eight specimen mobile phones being studied under the Pervasive Technologies project. These phones are Internet-enabled and cost the equivalent of USD 100 or less in India. Rohini Lakshané and CIS volunteer Dhananjay Balan carried out the tests. Intern Shreshth Wadhwa provided assistance.</b>
<ul>
<li>Names and descriptions of mobile phones under study: <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/annexure-1-mobile-phones-to-study.pdf">Annexure 1</a></li>
<li>How the phones under study were chosen: <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patent-landscaping-in-the-indian-mobile-device-market">Section 3.2: Criteria for choosing the mobile phones</a></li>
</ul>
<hr />
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Research Question:</h3>
<p>What technical standards are browsers pre-installed in the eight test phones compatible with?</p>
<p>This question partially answers research question #2 in <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patent-landscaping-in-the-indian-mobile-device-market">Methodology: Patent Landscaping in the Indian Mobile Device Market</a>, that is, what patents pertain to [technical] capabilities commonly found in networked mobile devices sold in India for USD 100 or less?</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Method:</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We conducted tests on all browsers pre-installed, that is, installed by the manufacturer, on six mobile phones to understand their extent of compliance with technical standards for the web. All browsers were tuned to their default settings and no plugins or extensions were installed in them. The tests could not be run on two phones for reasons stated in "Limitations".<br /><br />For Android v4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) and higher versions, we set up a local host and automated all the tests by using a script. The local host was set up to expose sample HTTP endpoints. We tested all browsers through this server.<br /><br />A Shell script was used to acquire screenshots of the results of the tests:<br /><i>#!/bin/bash<br /><br />adb shell screencap -p $1<br />adb pull $1</i><br /><br />We collected screenshots of devices with Android versions below v4.0 by capturing the framebuffer since the shell command was introduced in v4.0.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Script:</b> Github - https://gist.github.com/dbalan/e58f51b713bfd6d711fd02061e27ca90 or <b><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/github" class="internal-link">Download as .zip</a></b>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Android version numbers, where applicable, can be found in the “User Agent” row of the test results. We took photos of the screens for the rest of the devices.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Standards and capabilities tested:</h3>
<p><b>Browser Network Support</b></p>
<ol>
<li>HTTP/1.1</li>
<li>HTTP/2</li>
<li>SSL</li>
<br /></ol>
<p><b>Acid Tests</b></p>
<p>Acid tests 1, 2, and 3 (http://www.acidtests.org) were run on all phones.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Acid 1 tests for compliance to the CSS 1.0 standard; Acid 2 for HTML 4, CSS 2.1, PNG, and data URLs. Acid 3 for SVG, HTML, SMIL, Unicode, DOM, ECMAScript (Javascript), and CSS 3, among other parameters. Here is the full list of specifications tested by Acid 3: http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid3/x</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Image Formats</b></p>
<ul>
<li>JPEG</li>
<li>GIF</li>
<li>PNG</li>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<h3></h3>
<h3></h3>
<h3>Results</h3>
<p>View as <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sub-100-mobile-phones-browser-compatibility-tests" class="internal-link">.ods</a>; View as <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sub-100-phones-browser-compatibility">.xls</a></p>
<h3></h3>
<h3></h3>
<h3>Reading the results:</h3>
<p>User-agent string</p>
<p><i>Example 1: Micromax Canvas Engage A091<br />User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.4.2; Micromax A091 Build/A091) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/34.0.1847.114 Mobile Safari/537.36</i></p>
<p style="text-align: left; "><b>Mozilla/5.0</b>: Mozilla Firefox browser, version number<br />This is a user-agent token.</p>
<p><b>Linux</b>: Linux kernel<b> </b></p>
<p><b>Android 4.4.2:</b> Operating system, version number<b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: left; "><b>Micromax</b> <b>A091</b>: Device ID</p>
<p style="text-align: left; "><b>Build/A091:</b> Build number.</p>
<p style="text-align: left; ">This is a customised Android build by Micromax. (Build numbers of stock Android 4.4.2 are KOT49H and KVT49L).<b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: left; "><b>AppleWebKit/537.36</b>: WebKit, version number. WebKit by Apple is a component of a layout engine that renders web pages in browsers. It is based on KHTML.KHTML: HTML layout engine developed by KDE. Licensed LGPL.</p>
<p style="text-align: left; "><b>like Gecko</b>: A browser that behaves like a Gecko browser<br /><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: left; "><b>Chrome/34.0.1847.114</b>: Chrome for Android browser, version number<br /><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: left; "><b>Mobile:</b> Either mobile browser or mobile device, or both <br /><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: left; "><b>Safari/537.36:</b> Apple Safari browser, version number</p>
<p><i>Example 2: Opal Cyher-Shot NX900<br />User-agent: Dorado WAP-Browser/1.0.0/powerplay/2</i></p>
<p><b>Dorado WAP-Browser/1.0.0:</b> User agent key, version</p>
<p>This is a WAP browser for mobile phones <a class="external-link" href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://thadafinser.github.io/UserAgentParserComparison/v4/user-agent-detail/d5/a6/d5a63f05-4b47-48b9-bcf6-9f1ff3d90867.html%23&sa=D&ust=1468082385035000&usg=AFQjCNEAjT9HLfuO9JJIzoAKXm095JixAA">based on a Java engine</a>. <i><br /></i></p>
<h3>Observations:</h3>
<p>Browsers pre-installed on phones of Indian brands comply with all technical standards and capabilities tested for. All of these phones -- Intex, Lava and Micromax -- also run on the Android operating system. In the case of failed tests, the results are the same or similar for most mobile phones. For example, Opera Mini 7.5 on Intex Aqua N15 and on Micromax Canvas Engage A091 scored 97/100 in the Acid3 test. This is in line with the <a class="external-link" href="http://d30ohmzj0cjdlk.cloudfront.net/en/Acid3">results released by Acid</a> for Opera Mini 7.5 and also by the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.browserscope.org/?category=acid3&v=top&ua=Opera%20Mini*&o=csv">Browserscope</a> project for profiling web browsers.</p>
<p>Awang, Yestel and Opal are brands from China or Hong Kong. The only pre-installed browser on Awang A808, an Android v2.3 (Gingerbread) phone, also cleared all tests but one. It scored 95/100 in the acid3 test, which is the case for the Firefox browser on most Gingerbread phones. The browsers on non-Android phones Yestel and Opal failed the tests for Acid1, Acid2, Acid3 and HTTP2, which indicates that while these phones are technically Internet-enabled, their users do not enjoy many of the benefits of the modern web.</p>
<h3>Screenshots or photos of results:</h3>
<p><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/photos-and-screenshots" class="internal-link">View photos and screenshots</a><br />The name of the file is in the format: <name of browser>_<name of format/ acid test with number>.<file extension><br />In the case of default browsers, <name of browser> appears as “android”.</p>
<h3>Limitations:</h3>
<p>Eight phones were under study. However, one of the phones (HiBro) did not contain a pre-installed browser. The only way to access the Internet on this phone was through pre-installed apps such as Facebook.</p>
<p>The operating system of Kechaoda K16, which was Java-based, did not yield to the script used for running the tests. It had one pre-installed WAP browser. Both these phones were excluded from the tests.<br /><br />Screenshots could not be obtained for the results of tests of two phones, Opal Cyher-Shot NX900 and Yestel Q5S+. We took photos of their screens instead.</p>
<ol> </ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sub-100-phones-browser-compatibility-tests'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/sub-100-phones-browser-compatibility-tests</a>
</p>
No publisherrohiniIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2017-02-16T16:47:02ZBlog EntryRTI request to Indian Patents Office for Form 27 (Statement of Working of patents), March 2016
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-request-to-indian-patents-office-for-form-27-statement-of-working-of-patents-march-2016
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society filed this request under the Right to Information Act in March 2016 as part of research for the paper: Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products: An Empirical Assessment of India's Form 27 Practice and Compliance (July 2017). We sought forms pertaining to 61 of the patents found in our patent landscaping study. These forms were not available on the online public databases, InPASS and IPAIRS, at the time of the filing the RTI request. Research assistance was provided by intern Shreshth Wadhwa.</b>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3004283">Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products: An Empirical Assessment of India's Form 27 Practice and Compliance</a> (July 2017)</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Patent landscaping study -- <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2756486">Patents and Mobile Devices in India: An Empirical Survey</a> (April 2016)</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">We filed our first application under the RTI Act with the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks in Mumbai in June 2015 for procuring Form 27 not available through their online databases, but received a generic response about how to download Form 27 from the online databases. The IPO also stated, “The desired information relates to about 1700 patents for all the years, to supply and trace out the information physical form requires huge humane resource and need to divert the office staff for some days which would hampers the day-todays- official work therefore, the information is proactively disclosed in the office website for the public”. (View the application and response <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-request-to-indian-patents-office-for-form-27-statement-of-working-of-patents-2015">here</a>)</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">In view of this response, we filed another RTI application with the same office in March 2016, and restricted the number of patents to 61. The patents represent a cross-section of owners in our landscaping study. (View <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/methodology-statements-of-working-form-27-of-indian-mobile-device-patents">methodology</a>). We also stated in the RTI request that we had already searched the online databases for the forms and did not find any. The IPO replied in April 2016 that it could provide CIS with forms for eleven of the requested patents. As for the rest of the forms, the IPO stated, “As thousand of Form-27 are filed in this office, it is very difficult to segregate Form-27 for the patent numbers enlisted in your RTI application as it needs diversion of huge official/ staff manpower and it will affect day to day work of this office.”</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">A few days after CIS received the reply from the IPO, Form 27 pertaining to patents in the landscape happened to start appearing on InPASS and IPAIRS E-register portal.</p>
<h3 class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Text of the application and the IPO’s response</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(View a scanned copy of the application <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-app-2016.pdf/at_download/file">here</a> and of the response <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-reply-2016.pdf/at_download/file">here</a>)</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">11 March 2016</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">To</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Central Public Information Officer</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Boudhik Sampada Bhawan</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Near Antop Hill Post Office, S.M. Road,</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Antop Hill, Mumbai - 400037</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Dear Sir/ Madam,</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; "><b>Subject: Request for information under section 6 of the Right To Information Act, 2005; regarding Form 27 submissions for patents</b></p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Full name of the applicant: Ajoy Kumar</li>
<li>Address of the applicant: 194, 2<sup>nd</sup> C Cross, Domlur 2<sup>nd</sup> stage, Bangalore 560071</li>
<li><b>Details of the information required</b>: Please consider this an application under Section 6 of the Right To Information Act, 2005. This is an application for three pieces of information.</li>
</ol>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i></p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Firstly, </i>you are requested to provide us with the Form 27 submissions for all the following patents for all the years for which they are available.</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Secondly</i>, we also request a record of all the years for which such Form 27 submissions have not been made for each of the patents listed here.</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">In the event that you do not possess these documents, please transfer this application to the concerned authority within five days of its receipt and inform us of the same; as mandated under Section 6(3) of the Act.</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; "><b>Patent Numbers</b>:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>264868</li>
<li>264414</li>
<li>218424</li>
<li>236178</li>
<li>250862</li>
<li>264266</li>
<li>263473</li>
<li>264878</li>
<li>264343</li>
<li>257411</li>
<li>263618</li>
<li>258568</li>
<li>264451</li>
<li>222947</li>
<li>263817</li>
<li>258983</li>
<li>196731</li>
<li>256864</li>
<li>262863</li>
<li>264764</li>
<li>259008</li>
<li>196474</li>
<li>264532</li>
<li>265027</li>
<li>258788</li>
<li>248749</li>
<li>259831</li>
<li>265788</li>
<li>214641</li>
<li>252360</li>
<li>250406</li>
<li>209397</li>
<li>226831</li>
<li>235014</li>
<li>229789</li>
<li>265069</li>
<li>220354</li>
<li>254083</li>
<li>264352</li>
<li>231642</li>
<li>258698</li>
<li>261503</li>
<li>241959</li>
<li>214988</li>
<li>237117</li>
<li>264824</li>
<li>263358</li>
<li>235688</li>
<li>251240</li>
<li>236556</li>
<li>203034</li>
<li>203036</li>
<li>234157</li>
<li>203686</li>
<li>213723</li>
<li>229632</li>
<li>240471</li>
<li>241747</li>
<li>223183</li>
<li>243980</li>
<li>200572</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">I submit that I have searched for copies of Form 27 filings of the above patents on the online portals of the Indian Patent Office, including the IPAIRS search engine and INPASS. As the search results did not yield the Form 27 documents, I am making this request under the Right To Information Act. Screenshots of three instances in which Form 27 was not found are attached in Annexure I. The respective patent numbers are mentioned along with the screenshots.</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">[Annexure I]</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">****************************************************************************************</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; "><b>Response from the IPO (reproduced verbatim)</b></p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Government of India</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Patent Office, Boudhik Sampada Bhavan</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">S.M. Road, Near Post Office,</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Antop Hill, Mumbai 400037, India</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Email: <a href="mailto:mumbai-patent@nic.in">mumbai-patent@nic.in</a></p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Website: <a href="http://www.ipindia.nic.in">www.ipindia.nic.in</a></p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Letter No: RTI/ 03</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">06/04/2016</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">To,</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Shri Ajoy Kumar,</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">194, 2<sup>nd</sup> C Cross,</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Domlur 2<sup>nd</sup> Stage</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Bangalore - 560071</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; "><b>Sub: Supply of information sought under RTI Act, 2005 - reg.</b></p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Sir,</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">With reference to your application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 16/03/2016 in this regard the detailed parawise information as follows.</p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>As thousand of Form-27 are filed in this office, it is very difficult to segregate Form-27 for the patent numbers enlisted in your RTI application as it needs diversion of huge official/ staff manpower and it will affect day to day work of this office.</li>
<li>It is difficult to create such a record for the Patent numbers; you have listed for the same reason given above.</li>
</ol>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">However, copies of Form 27 for Patent nos. 222947, 259008, 258788, 250406, 235014, 203034, 203036, 234157, 203686, 213723, 240471 could be made available to you on paying prescribed copying charges of Rs. 480/- (120 x 4 = 480/-)</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Yours faithfully,</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Dr. Ujjwala Haldankar</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Central Public Information Officer</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-request-to-indian-patents-office-for-form-27-statement-of-working-of-patents-march-2016'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-request-to-indian-patents-office-for-form-27-statement-of-working-of-patents-march-2016</a>
</p>
No publisherrohiniIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2017-10-13T04:35:46ZBlog EntryRTI request to Indian Patents Office for Form 27 (Statement of Working of patents), 2015
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-request-to-indian-patents-office-for-form-27-statement-of-working-of-patents-2015
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society filed this request under the Right to Information Act in 2015 as part of research for the paper: Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products: An Empirical Assessment of India's Form 27 Practice and Compliance (July 2017). We sought Form 27 (also known as Statements of Working) pertaining to randomly selected patents found in our patent landscaping study. These forms were not available on the online public databases, InPASS and IPAIRS, at the time of the filing the RTI request. Research assistance was provided by intern Nayana Dasgupta.</b>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3004283">Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products: An Empirical Assessment of India's Form 27 Practice and Compliance</a> (July 2017)</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Patent landscaping study -- <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2756486">Patents and Mobile Devices in India: An Empirical Survey</a> (April 2016)</li>
</ul>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">This was our first RTI request filed with the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks for the research on practices and compliance of patent holders to the Form 27 requirement. The response contained generic instructions about how to download Form 27 from the publicly-accessible online databases. The IPO also stated that, “The desired information relates to about 1700 patents for all the years, to supply and trace out the information physical form requires huge humane resource and need to divert the office staff for some days which would hampers the day-todays- official work therefore, the information is proactively disclosed in the office website for the public”.</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">We subsequently filed another RTI request with the Indian Patents Office while limiting the number of patents to 61. (View the application and response <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-request-to-indian-patents-office-for-form-27-statement-of-working-of-patents-march-2016">here</a>).</p>
<h3 class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Text of the application and IPO's response</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(View a scanned copy of the application <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-app-2015.pdf/at_download/file">here</a> and the response <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-reply-2015.pdf/at_download/file">here</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">10 June 2015</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To<br />Central Public Information Officer<br />Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks<br />Boudhik Sampada Bhawan<br />Near Antop Hill Post Office, S.M. Road,<br />Antop Hill, Mumbai - 400037<br /><br />Dear Sir/ Madam,</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; "><b>Subject: Request for information under section 6 of the Right To Information Act, 2005; regarding Form 27 submissions for patents</b></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Full name of the applicant: Ajoy Kumar</li>
<li>Address of the applicant: 194, 2<sup>nd</sup> C Cross, Domlur 2<sup>nd</sup> stage, Bangalore 560071</li>
<li><b>Details of the information required</b>: Please consider this an application under Section 6 of the Right To Information Act, 2005. This is an application for three pieces of information.</li>
</ol>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i></p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Firstly, </i>you are requested to provide us with the Form 27 submissions for all the following patents for all the years for which they are available.</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Secondly</i>, we also request a record of all the years for which such Form 27 submissions have not been made for each of the patents listed here.</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Thirdly, </i>we request a record of all the patents among those listed here which do not have a single Form 27 submission from the year of application/ grant.</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">In the event that you do not possess these documents, please transfer this application to the concerned authority within five days of its receipt and inform us of the same; as mandated under Section 6(3) of the Act.</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">[List of patent numbers]</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">*************************************************************</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; "><b>Response from the IPO (reproduced verbatim)</b></p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Government of India</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Patent Office, Boudhik Sampada Bhavan</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">S.M. Road, Near Post Office,</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Antop Hill, Mumbai 400037, India</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Email: <a href="mailto:mumbai-patent@nic.in">mumbai-patent@nic.in</a></p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Website: <a href="http://www.ipindia.nic.in">www.ipindia.nic.in</a></p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">No. RTI/Mum/38</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Date: 17/06/2015</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">To,</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Shri Ajoy Kumar,</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">194, 2<sup>nd</sup> C Cross,</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Domlur 2<sup>nd</sup> Stage</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Bangalore - 56007</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; "><b>Sub: Supply of information sought under RTI Act - reg.</b></p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Sir,</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">With reference to your application under RTI, dated 15.06.2015, wherein the information sought for form 27 details (commercial working of patent) for all the years for about 1700 patents application.</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Reply:</p>
<p class="normalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">a) The requested information can be had from the office website for the filing of form 27 <a href="http://www.ipindia.nic.in">www.ipindia.nic.in</a>,, go to http;//ipindiaservices.in/workingofpatents/</p>
<p class="normalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">b) Pelase see the print screen from where one can access the desired information</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">[Screenshot from ipindiaservices.gov.in/workingofpatents]</p>
<p class="normalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: justify; ">c) Or the desired information also can be obtained under section 153, Rule.27 of the patents Act and Rules, as the information can be inspected the physical records under the Act.</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">d) The desired information relates to about 1700 patents for all the years, to supply and trace out the information physical form requires huge humane resource and need to divert the office staff for some days which would hampers the day-todays- official work therefore, the information is proactively disclosed in the office website for the public.</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">[Screenshots from ipindiaservices.gov.in/workingofpatents]</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Thanking you,</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Yours faithfully</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">(N. Ramchander)</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">Astt. Controller of Patents & Designs</p>
<p class="normal" style="text-align: justify; ">& CPIO, Patent Office, Mumbai</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-request-to-indian-patents-office-for-form-27-statement-of-working-of-patents-2015'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-request-to-indian-patents-office-for-form-27-statement-of-working-of-patents-2015</a>
</p>
No publisherrohiniIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2017-10-13T04:37:13ZBlog EntryReview Meeting for the Pervasive Technologies Project
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/review-meeting-for-the-pervasive-technologies-project
<b>The Centre for Internet & Society in partnership with Beijing Normal University Institute for Internet Policy & Law organized a review meeting of the Pervasive Technologies project in Macau on February 20 - 21, 2017. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham, Anubha Sinha, Rohini Lakshane and Vidushi Marda were speakers. Sunil introduced the participants to the Pervasive Technologies project. Anubha Sinha spoke on Intellectual Property in Mobile App Development in India. Vidushi Marda gave a talk on Competition Law and Standard Essential Patents. Rohini Lakshane gave a talk on Patent Landscaping in the Indian Mobile Device Marketplace. The agenda can be <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/files/review-meeting-pt-project.pdf">accessed here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/review-meeting-for-the-pervasive-technologies-project'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/review-meeting-for-the-pervasive-technologies-project</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2017-03-22T14:25:50ZNews ItemReport: 5G Technologies Workshop by IEEE
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/5g-spectrum-ieee-workshop-bangalore
<b>A report on the 5G Technologies Workshop organised by the Bangalore Chapter of the IEEE Communication Society at Bangalore on May 22 -23, 2015.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://cis-india.org/telecom/news/5-g-workshop-schedule.pdf"><b>Workshop schedule [PDF]</b></a></p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Slide27RnS.png" alt="5G" class="image-inline" title="5G" /></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr />
<h3>Why is 5G needed?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The “Internet of Things” (IoT), increasing number of telephone connections, increasing use of data by mobile devices, and an exponential increase in the diversity of wireless applications, all require a backbone network in the form of 5G. At the same time, network operators need a sound business model. According to a white paper released by Cisco, the <a href="http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white_paper_c11-520862.pdf">Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update 2014 [PDF]</a>, the number of connected devices will go up from 7 billion in 2014 to 12 billion in 2020. These include smartphones, mobile phones that are not smartphones, laptops, tablets, wearables, devices that support machine to machine communication (telemetry, automotive, smart grid and transaction devices), and other portable devices. Mobile data traffic is projected to have a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 61% from 2013 to 2018, and the number of connected wearable devices are projected to increase with a CAGR of 52% in the same duration.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">5G is projected to completely roll out by the year 2020.</p>
<h3>What are the use cases of 5G?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Driverless automobiles, vehicle-to-vehicle communication for road safety, smart cameras in cities, virtual reality gaming, remotely operated robots, tactile internet applications, applications in the cloud, and networks of sensors placed in home, industry and office environments are some of the use cases of 5G.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">5G is expected to contribute to massive connectivity and ubiquitous coverage required for smart manufacturing, smart devices in the consumer electronics and personal electronics domains, smart healthcare, smart retail, smart transportation and so on.</p>
<h3>Is there a definition of 5G yet?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is consensus on the following new requirements for wireless communication systems. Most of these will mature beyond 2020.</p>
<ul>
<li>Speeds of up to 10 gigabytes per second: 100 times faster than 4G LTE and 10 times faster than LTE-Advanced.</li>
<li>Very low latency, which will support augmented reality and tactile Internet.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Very high mobility: Gigabit Ethernet is a form of LAN (local area network) technology that supports data transfer rates of approximately 1 gigabit per second. 5G would support Gigabit Ethernet (also known as Gigabit Everywhere). The user can experience high levels of mobility.</li>
<li>Low energy consumption in networked mobile devices compared with the current rates of energy consumption in order to make mobility sustainable.</li>
<li>Machine-to-machine (M2M) communication among a large number of devices to support the “Internet of Things”.</li>
</ul>
<h3>Challenges in implementing 5G in India/ Ways in which massive growth in the number of users, connected devices, and network traffic can be handled</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">5G is expected to provide numerous high quality services to millions of users and to provide connectivity to many heterogeneous networked devices, which may contain multiple multiband radios.</p>
<ul>
<li>While capacity and data throughput need to increase, the amount of radio spectrum available is limited. New spectrum bands could be released to deal with this additional demand. <i>(Refer “Emerging spectrum licensing options” below.)</i></li>
<li>Additional base transceiver stations will need be set up.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">5G will exist alongside multiple and heterogeneous networks (3G, 4G, WLAN, NFC, and beyond with macro/femto/pico cells) while supporting numerous services all the time, many of which will be data-intensive will severely reduce the battery life of mobile devices and hence devices with greater battery life and very efficient power management will be required.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Also, combining various technologies (LTE with WiFi and/or legacy infrastructure with WiFi) and implementing heterogeneous networks will cater to increased demands. <b>LTE will remain the baseline technology for wide area broadband in the 5G era.</b> Interoperability with 4G will be critical to the adoption of 5G.</li>
<li>The backhaul will need upgrading in order to maximise speed and bandwidth. The National Optical Fibre Backbone is an infrastructural project that could work towards meeting this need.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Spectral efficiency needs to be improved but currently spectral efficiency is as optimum as it can get. In light of this, the solution lies usability of currently available technologies, for instance, LTE Release 8 has not been deployed yet. The concept of Small Cell has been defined in LTE Release 12, which has been optimised as much as technologically possible for the current bands. A potential enhancement being discussed for Release 13 is to make LTE operable with unlicensed spectrum bands as well.</li>
<li>Some amount of traffic can be offloaded using free spectrum (WiFi offloading) as well as the existing cellular spectrum (device to device offloading). <i>[Refer: Licensed-assisted Access below]</i></li>
</ul>
<p>--- Offloading can happen via cellular-to-WiFi hotspots (LTE and Advanced LTE)</p>
<p>--- Via Cellular small cells and relays (LTE/Advanced LTE, 3G)</p>
<p>--- Via co-located cellular and WiFi (Advanced LTE)</p>
<p>--- Via proximity services and D2D communication (Advanced LTE)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A unified solution lies in the end user enjoying ubiquitous connectivity and consistent user experience, and the telecom operator being able to operate efficiently with the gradual rollout of 5G and with close integration between heterogeneous technologies, with the use of the cloud and software defined networking (SDN) as underlying principles.</p>
<h3>Emerging Spectrum Licensing Options</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Static assignments and exclusive licenses of spectrum paved the foundation for reliable services and innovation on technology evolution. Cellular systems have now gained the ability to operate on frequencies of up to 5 GHz and to operate over system bandwidths up to 100 MHz.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To deal with the increased demand for spectrum, new spectrum bands could be released. These bands are likely to be in the higher frequencies with a carrier bandwidth of up to 1 GHz. Initial research shows that such high frequency bands might require the development of a new radio waveform, a new radio technology. It is not known yet if and when the standardisation of the new radio technology will be undertaken. Spectrum is a costly investment, so telcos tend to be very picky about it.</p>
<h3>The prevalent scenario in India</h3>
<ul>
<li>India is not seen as an early adopter of new wireless communication technologies.</li>
<li>Indian telcos invest late in ‘new’ technologies, but they invest massive amounts of money and for periods of time comparatively much longer than in early adopter countries. Indian telcos are still starting and/ or expanding their 4G operations and these will stand for a long time to come.</li>
<li>Call tariffs are among the lowest in the world.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">New spectrum is unlikely to be released in the near future. World Radio Conference 2019 (WRC 2019) is likely to be the earliest possible time of release.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">5G system design is therefore likely to happen over two phrases: Evolution design (up to 5 GHz) by the year 2020 and Revolution design (in bands over 5 GHz) around 2023.</li>
</ul>
<h3>Licensed sharing/ Authorised sharing of spectrum</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One way of dealing with the spectrum crunch, could be spectrum sharing. When the holder of spectrum is known to be underutilising it, and there is little possibility of changing the policies governing the quantum of utilisation, spectrum sharing is a preferred solution.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">License-exempt use of spectrum with the implementation of policy guidelines could be practiced in cases such as apartment complexes and bus stations handling large amounts of traffic.</p>
<h3>Traffic offloading: LTE over unlicensed spectrum</h3>
<p><b>-- Licensed-Assisted Access (LAA)</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">LAA can be use to opportunistically boost data rate. It works by aggregating a primary cell, operating in licensed spectrum to deliver critical information and guaranteed Quality of Service, with a secondary cell operating in unlicensed spectrum. LAA can be implemented globally in the 5 GHz band. The secondary cell operating in unlicensed spectrum can be configured either as downlink-only cell or contain both uplink and downlink. This also facilitates some degree of co-existence between the operators of LTE and WiFi as well as among LTE operators.</p>
<h3>How do the availability of network services and cost efficiency affect network performance?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>– In general</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Availability of network service is inversely proportional to bit-rate.<br />Costs pertaining to terminals and networking are inversely proportional to latency.<br />The length of the battery life of terminals (i.e. mobile devices) is inversely proportional to spectral efficiency.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>– 2G</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">2G technology has an emphasis on voice and SMS with low bit-rate and low spectral efficiency. This leads to high mobility and high availability of the network service at the boundaries of the cell. (The cell boundaries are the furthest from the cell tower in terms of physical distance.)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>– 2.5G</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">2.5G (EDGE and GPRS) provided higher bit-rates and hence lower spectral efficiency and lower availability of the network service at the boundaries of the cell.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>– 3G</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Targets for 3G performance were not comprehensively defined by the ITU-R in the IMT 2000 set of standards. The target defined peak bit-rates for a single user. Hence, in its early stages 3G did not meet expectations for data transfer speeds.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>– 4G</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mobility continued to be low in 4G technology even as the ITU-R provided more comprehensive specifications by including spectral efficiency and latency targets. Like 3G, 4G focussed on single-user peak data rates.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>– 5G</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Attributes currently proposed for 5G:</p>
<ul>
<li>High connection density (approx 10^5 users per km^2)</li>
<li>Low latency (less than 10 ms)</li>
<li>High bit-rate (approx 10^8 bits per second)</li>
<li>High capacity density (approx 10^3 bits per second per Hertz per km^2)</li>
<li>High spectral efficiency (approx 3 bits per second per Hertz)</li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Which would result in:</p>
<ul>
<li>Very high terminal costs for the operator (between USD 100 and USD 1,000)</li>
<li>Low availability of network service</li>
<li>Low battery life of the user equipment,i.e., mobile devices and fixed devices utilised by the end user (less than 1 day)</li>
<li>Low energy efficiency (approx 10^-6 joules per bit)</li>
<li>Somewhat low mobility (less than 10 km per hour)</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, targets for the Internet-of-Things and for public safety conflict with the above attributes and their consequences, indicating the possible future emergence of more than one technical solution.</p>
<h3>Key technologies for 5G wireless communication networks</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>– Massive MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output)</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The number of receiver and transmitter elements as (also transceiver elements) are expected to increase to 100- 1000 low-power antennas per base transceiver station (BTS).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>- New antenna technologies</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Large scale antenna system (LSAS), 3D-MIMO, Steerable array antennas</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Transmitted radio significantly reduces as the number of antenna elements is increases. Hundreds of thousands of antennas could be used together to improve the energy efficiency of wireless communications. Steerable arrays of antennas could be used for dynamic beam-forming patterns.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">– Cloud technologies for flexible Radio Access Networks (RAN)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Cloud-based network architecture would include a centralised base station with numerous radio units distributed over the cell and ideally connected by optic fibre in order to reduce latency.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">– Advanced Interference Management</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">New air interfaces under consideration include:</p>
<ul>
<li>UFMC: Universal Filtered Multi-Carrier</li>
<li>FBMC: Filter-Bank Multi-Carrier</li>
<li>GFDM: Generalized Frequency Division Multiplexing</li>
<li>SCMA: Sparse Code Multiple Access</li>
<li>NOMA: Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>– Network Densification</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The proposed 5G requires new network architecture -- HetNet and Small Cell</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>– Millimetre wave band</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">New channels models will need to be developed to deal with different propagation conditions. 5G will work on higher frequencies, that is, in the millimetre wave band which has shorter wavelength (10GHz to 50GHz, 60 GHz, and possibly 70 GHz to 80 GHz) and wider bandwidths (500MHz to 3GHz). Millimetre wave (mmWave) MIMO requires dynamic beamforming at the transmitter and receiver.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">More technical assumptions:<br /> -- 5G will require significantly higher albeit low cost backhaul capacity (about 400 Gb/s).<br /> -- 5G will have very low round-trip latency requirements.<br /> – Higher frequencies and higher densities will dictate small cells.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Over-The-Top (OTT) Applications on Mobile User Equipment and IoT Devices</h3>
<p><i>Reproduced with permission from Rohde and Schwarz</i></p>
<h3>Green Communications Using 5G</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The joint optimisation of Energy efficiency and spectral efficiency is critical for 5G research. There is still a long way to go to develop a unified framework and a comprehensive understanding of the tradeoff between energy efficiency and spectral efficiency. The latter has been pursued for decades as the top design priority of all major wireless standards, ranging from cellular networks to local and personal area networks. The cellular data rate has been improved from kilobits per second in 2G to gigabits per second in 4G. Spectral efficiency-oriented designs, however, have overlooked the issues of infrastructural power consumption.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The total power consumption of India’s mobile telephony infrastructure was 11.16 billion KWh in 2010. About 15% cell sites in India are either not connected to the electricity grid or receive power for less than eight hours a day; only about 10% receive more than 20 hours of power (Source: Intelligent Energy Limited). Two billion liters of diesel is consumed per year to power these cell sites, contributing to CO2 emission levels and massively adding to the operational costs of telcos.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Indian Institute of Information Technology-Bangalore has proposed two power saving mechanisms.</p>
<ol>
<li>Power-Saving Semi-Persistent Scheduler (PS-SPS) for VoLTE traffic in LTE-Advanced: This is a new scheduling algorithm implemented for VoLTE traffic in the downlink of LTE-Advanced cells in order to reduce power consumption in the link level. This proposed solution submitted to the IEEE is claimed to save power without affecting the network’s ability to support a large of VoLTE calls.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Random Access strategies for IoT devices in LTE-Advanced network: This scheme reduced the number of what is called “retransmissions” by Internet-of-Things devices so that these devices may complete the data transmission procedure [Random Access Channel procedure] in a comparatively short time. This scheme does not need the use of additional spectrum or barring mechanisms for IoT devices.</li>
</ol>
<h3 align="center">Glossary</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Beamforming</b> or <b>spatial filtering</b> is a signal processing technique used in sensor arrays for directional signal transmission or reception. -- Van Veen, B.D.; Buckley, K.M. (1988). "Beamforming: A versatile approach to spatial filtering" (PDF). IEEE ASSP Magazine 5 (2): 4. doi:10.1109/53.665.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Latency</b> is a measure of the time delay that occurs when data packets travel from one networked point to another.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Multiple-input and multiple-output, </b>or<b> MIMO</b>, is a method for multiplying the capacity of a radio link using multiple transmit and receive antennas to exploit multipath propagation. -- Lipfert, Hermann (August 2007). MIMO OFDM Space Time Coding – Spatial Multiplexing, Increasing Performance and Spectral Efficiency in Wireless Systems, Part I Technical Basis (Technical report). Institut für Rundfunktechnik.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Spectral efficiency</b> is a measure of the performance of channel coding methods. It refers to the ability of a given channel encoding method to utilize bandwidth efficiently. It is defined as the average number of bits per unit of time (bit-rate) that can be transmitted per unit of bandwidth (bits per second per Hertz). – Taylor and Francis, Encyclopedia of Wireless and Mobile Communications, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1081/E-EWMC-120043448</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Throughput</b> is the amount of data transferred from one place to another or processed in a specified amount of time. Data transfer rates for disk drives and networks are measured in terms of throughput. Typically, throughputs are measured in kbps, Mbps and Gbps. – Webopedia, http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/T/throughput.html</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/5g-spectrum-ieee-workshop-bangalore'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/5g-spectrum-ieee-workshop-bangalore</a>
</p>
No publisherrohiniPervasive Technologies2015-09-27T11:45:57ZBlog EntryPreliminary Findings: Working Requirements for Complex Products under the Indian Patent System
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/2nd-international-conference-on-standardisation-patents-and-competition-issues
<b>Prof. Jorge L. Contreras gave a talk on a forthcoming paper "Preliminary Findings: Working Requirements for Complex Products under the Indian Patent System" at the "2nd International Conference on Standardisation, Patents and Competition Issues" held on June 10 and 11, 2017 in New Delhi. The conference was organized by O.P. Jindal Global University.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The paper contains findings a study by Rohini Lakshane of CIS and Prof Jorge Contreras, University of Utah on the Statements of Working (Form 27) of the patents they found for their previous paper "Patents and mobile devices in India: An empirical survey". <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/files/working-requirements-for-complex-products-under-the-indian-patent-system">View the slide deck</a>. See the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.jgu.edu.in/jirico/conference-new-1.php">event website</a>. To read the Research Methodology <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/methodology-statements-of-working-form-27-of-indian-mobile-device-patents">click here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/2nd-international-conference-on-standardisation-patents-and-competition-issues'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/2nd-international-conference-on-standardisation-patents-and-competition-issues</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2017-08-22T13:48:08ZNews ItemPervasive Technologies: Working Document Series – Updated Research Methodology – Applying the Actor Network Theory to Competition Law and Standard Essential Patent Litigation in India
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-working-document-series-2013-updated-research-methodology-2013-applying-the-actor-network-theory-to-competition-law-and-standard-essential-patent-litigation-in-india
<b>This document lays out the updated research methodology for the paper on competition law issues around standard essential patent litigation in India. </b>
<p>Read the earlier posts:</p>
<ul>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/methodology-sub-hundred-dollar-mobile-devices-and-competition-law">Pervasive Technologies Project Working Document Series: Document 1 - Research Methodology for a Paper on Competition Law + IPR + Access to < $100 Mobile Devices</a></li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-working-document-series-research-questions-and-a-literature-review-on-actor-network-theory">Pervasive Technologies: Working Document Series - Research Questions and a Literature Review on the Actor-Network Theory</a></li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>In New Delhi, as in Fascist Milan or Nazi Berlin, the individual is lost; the scale is not human but super human; not national, but super-national: it is, in a word, Imperial.</i><a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Twenty plus years later, written after he was awe-struck by the grandeur of the Rashtrapati Bhawan in New Delhi, Dalrymple’s delightful choice of words on the similarities between Lutyen’s Delhi and Speer’s Nuremberg<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> rather aptly describe today’s globalized narrative of intellectual property (“IP”) rights determination and ownership. The process of determination of standards applied in mobile devices, claims of IP ownership in these standards and the subsequent enforcement (globally) of these IP claims are all instances of this narrative.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The increasingly global nature of both – innovation and intellectual property has been well documented by researchers over the years and needs no further exploration in this article. This article will seek to examine how this narrative influences (either overtly or covertly) the application of competition law to the regulation of standard essential patents (SEPs) in India. More specifically, this article seeks to study the role of various human and non-human actors involved were competition law to be considered as a potential solution to the matter of SEP litigation in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This article examines four research questions. <i>First, </i>how does the globalized narrative of intellectual property influence the determination of standards around mobile devices, their IP protection, licensing and enforcement? <i>Second, </i>what are the important competition law issues in SEP litigation in the United States of America (“USA”) and the European Union (“EU”), and how have regulators (the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the European Commission (“EC”) respectively) and courts in these jurisdictions addressed these issues? <i>Third, </i>what are the critical issues in SEP litigation and competition law in India and how do they compare with similar questions in other jurisdictions? <i>Fourth, </i>could solutions and methodology from the FTC and the EC be applied to SEP competition law matters in India?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this effort, this article will employ Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network Theory<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a> (“ANT”) as the primary research methodology, supplemented where needed by others including comparative research and case studies. A detailed approach into discussing the (above) research questions has been discussed below.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Question one - how does the globalized narrative of intellectual property influence the determination of standards around mobile devices, their IP protection, licensing and enforcement?</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This question primarily seeks to explain the determination SEPs on standards through International Standard Setting Organizations (“SSOs”) and the subsequent obligation on members of the SSOs to licence these SEPs on a Fair, Reasonable and Non Discriminatory (“FRAND”) basis.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Applying the ANT, this question will identify both human and non-human actors and that play a role internationally, in the determination of SEPs and their licensing. Illustratively, these actors include the SSOs, multinational corporations that are members of the SSOs, the FRAND licences and the contracts/terms of reference between the SSOs and their member corporations. In order to address this question, the author will refer to academic writing and other literature explaining the role of various actors and the international nature of the standard setting process. Networks that these actors share with each other and the possible influences to the determination of international standards will be studied. This question will explore the international IP environment, and the power of various actors that have an influence on IP norm setting, and attempt to locate the power of these various actors in their network setting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Question two - what are the important competition law issues in SEP litigation in the USA and the EU, and how have regulators (the FTC and the EC respectively) and courts in these jurisdictions addressed these issues? </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This question will study the competition law issues arising from the international determination of standards and the cross-border assertion and enforcement of intellectual property rights discussed in the previous question. This question will also study how (first, whether) courts and regulators have attempted to address some of the competition law issues.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Also applying the ANT, this question will identify various actors involved in competition law litigation around SEPs before the FTC, EC and the courts in the USA and the EU. Illustratively, these include the parties to the litigation, the regulator (whether the FTC or the EC), the court and the legal principles employed. Further applying the ANT, this question will also study how the various actors relate to one another, as a result of their connections within this network, i.e., the litigation, and other connections in other networks (for instance, the position of the parties in certain markets).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Under this research question, select a case study method will be employed to select cases from each jurisdiction. The most important cases pertaining to competition law questions will be studied. These are yet to be identified.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Question three - what are the critical issues in SEP litigation and competition law in India and how do they compare with similar questions in other jurisdictions? </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This research question will seek to map the global context around SEP litigation (discussed above) to specific cases in India. In doing so, the author will study the two SEP disputes in India with competition law implications – the Ericsson and Micromax dispute and the Ericsson and Intex dispute; based on information available in the public domain. While there are other pending disputes around SEPs in India, they do not involve the Competition Commission of India (India’s market regulator), and hence are outside the scope of this article. Through a study of these cases, questions of competition law will be identified. Such questions may be either those as a result of the direct application of the Competition Act, 2000 or certain actions taken by the courts with competition law implications (for instance, granting <i>ex-parte </i>interim injunctions).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Having identified competition law issues in SEP litigation in India, the author will then employ the comparative research methodology to trace similar issues in international SEP litigation, discussed under the previous research question. What the author is most interested in locating is the position of the actors in domestic as well as international SEP litigation. Specifically, it is submitted that characters in the domestic litigation also trace back to the context of global IP norm setting; some of them more directly than others. For instance, multinational corporations are directly involved in IP norm setting and are a party to domestic disputes. Further, domestic regulators may seek to draw inferences or apply commonly understood international legal principles, thus invoking more international actors. This phase will attempt to distill the uniqueness of India in the narrative of global IP ownership around SEP litigation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Question four- what are the challenges for competition regulation of SEPs in India; do principles and methodology from the FTC/ EU and courts present solutions to these challenges?</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this question, the author deliberates the challenge of competition regulation for SEPs in India and whether the approach of international regulators and courts could serve as a roadmap to address these issues.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In answering this question, the author will trace India’s specific location in global competition. The tensions between differently situated actors and the networks that they form will be examined. Some comparisons will be made to illustrate how the relationship of international jurisdictions (mainly the USA and the EU) with international multinational corporations that are a party to litigation differs from that of India. Legal traditions and institutions in India will be used to understand what legal possibilities are available for using competition regulation to regulate SEPs. This includes specifically the levers in competition law such as abuse of dominance as well as the nature of the competition regulator and the role that it identifies for itself. One might also consider the relative ‘youth’ of the competition regulator as a factor in laying down legal principles, the constraints it imposes on itself as well as a tension between the market regulator and the courts. This phase will also attempt to make a case for IP regulation within India’s existing culture of engaging with the public interest in intellectual property regulation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Having examined global IP norm setting in SEPs, international and domestic issues around SEP litigation and the network of actors involved in these proceedings, in concluding this article, the author seeks to illustrate how actors and networks in the SEP-competition set-up derive power from each other; and how the location of an actor within a network is likely to influence law and regulation. Tracing this location will then in turn be useful in determining what solutions would best address the matter of competition regulation for SEPs in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a>William Dalrymple, The City of Djinns – A Year in Delhi (rep. 2014, Penguin, India) at 83.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a>Id at 82.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a>Bruno Latour, Networks, Societies, Spheres: Reflections of an Actor – Network Theorist, International Journal of Communication 5 (2011), 796- 810, http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewArticle/1094 (accessed 31 August, 2015).</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-working-document-series-2013-updated-research-methodology-2013-applying-the-actor-network-theory-to-competition-law-and-standard-essential-patent-litigation-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-working-document-series-2013-updated-research-methodology-2013-applying-the-actor-network-theory-to-competition-law-and-standard-essential-patent-litigation-in-india</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2015-10-04T04:20:13ZBlog EntryPervasive Technologies: Working Document Series - Research Questions and a Literature Review on the Actor-Network Theory
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-working-document-series-research-questions-and-a-literature-review-on-actor-network-theory
<b>This document is divided into two parts - the first part lays out a series of research questions, potentially seeking to apply actor-network theory as a research methodology. The second part seeks to map literature around the Actor-Network Theory ("ANT") as a research methodology. </b>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><b>Part 1: Research Questions </b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>The aim of this exercise is to delineate the contours of the paper, and provide some insight into the demarcation of the various sections.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The overall context to this paper will be determined by a globalized form of intellectual property ownership, and the various instances in which this narrative finds a place (either overtly or covertly) in the regulation of standard essential patents in India. In our paper, the globalized form of IP ownership is probably most clearly indicated in the standard setting process, where participants are International Standard Setting Organizations determining, in a manner of speaking - the rules of the game - that is - licensing on Fair Reasonable and Non Discriminatory Basis. The other important player to our understanding of global ownership would be multilateral organizations such as Ericsson, involved in many of the disputes before the Delhi High Court and the Competition Commission of India ("CCI"). Perhaps international actors/actants would also be international legal principles as well as international regulators such as the FTC or the ECC themselves. This phase of the paper will also trace India's specific location in global competition. In doing so, not only will the market positions of some of the players be examined, but also some comparisons will be made to illustrate how the relationship of international jurisdictions (mainly the USA and the EU) with international multinational corporations that are a party to litigation differs from that of India. This phase of the chapter will most likely apply the doctrinal method of research, study academic texts as sources as well as study some decisions by international regulators and courts to understand the tools and sites available for regulation as well as the nature of the regulatory process itself. <b><br /></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The second phase of this chapter will seek to map the overall context to specific cases - that is, pending legal processes in India. This includes both, ongoing litigation on patent infringement at the Delhi High Court as well as ongoing disputes before the CCI as well. The characters in this litigation also trace back to the broader context; some of them more directly than others. The multinational corporations are directly involved in both contexts, whereas the domestic regulators may seek to draw inferences or apply commonly understood international legal principles, thus invoking more international actants.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This phase of the chapter will study three key litigations in India - Ericsson and Micromax, Ericsson and Intex, and a third that is yet to be defined. Legal traditions and institutions in India will be used to understand what legal possibilities are available for using competition regulation to regulate SEPs. This includes specifically the levers in competition law such as abuse of dominance as well as the nature of the competition regulator and the role that it identifies for itself. One might also consider the relative 'youth' of the competition regulator as a factor in laying down legal principles, the constraints it imposes on itself as well as a tension between the market regulator and the courts. Perhaps this might also be an actant, in the context of the actor network theory. This phase of the chapter will most likely apply the doctrinal method of research, study academic texts as sources as well as study legal instruments and judicial decisions as sources.<b><br /></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The third phase of this chapter will now ask the question of standard essential patent (SEP) regulation, located within this broader matrix of intellectual property ownership and fluidity of actants. The specific question to be asked will be <i>what is the competition regulation challenge for SEPs in India?</i> This phase will attempt to distill the uniqueness of India in the narrative of global IP ownership around SEP litigation. It will be observed that the nature of the players in international litigation as well as in India is rather different. This phase will also attempt to make a case for IP regulation within India's existing culture of engaging with the public interest in intellectual property regulation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is in this phase that one must also examine the usefulness of the actor-network theory as a research methodology to study SEP regulation in India. It must be noted that while SEP regulation so used is used to refer to competition regulation specifically, and not to other levers, such as mechanisms within intellectual property law itself. The focus of this exercise will be competition regulation, with an engagement with other areas of the law and the judicial process only in as much as it informs our understanding of competition regulation of SEPs or impedes it. If one were to apply the actor network theory to this phase of the exercise, one would view courts, parties involved in the litigation, the CCI, international legal principles, international market regulators, international SSOs, competition law as well as issues raised in the litigation as 'actants', both human and non human, who are to be treated on par with each other, with a study of the networks that these actants create, or are a part of.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><b>Part 2: Literature Review on the Actor-Network Theory</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> The aim of this exercise is to first, understand the ANT as a research methodology; second, to study its components and third, to ascertain its suitability as a research method for exploring the challenge of regulating SEP litigation through completion law mechanisms in India. </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>What is the Actor-Network Theory?</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">David Banks, in a 2011 blog post, contextualized in trying to trace a relationship between our offline and online behavior presents an overview of the ANT.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> Banks describes ANT as an <i>ongoing project that seeks to radically transform how social scientists talk about society's relationship to technology and other non human actors</i> ; and identifies Bruno Latour, John Law and Michael Callon as the major authors in this space. (It is observed that there might have been additions or deletions to this core list of thinkers - not to self for further reading).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In his paper<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> reflecting on the ANT, Bruno Latour refers to himself as a 'fellow traveler' of the various network 'revolutions', and says that in the network, he has found a <i>powerful way of rephrasing basic issues of social theory, epistemology and philosophy. </i>Latour says that in its simplest and deepest sense, the notion of the network is of use whenever action has to be redistributed.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a> In a different paper, Latour argues that the purpose of the ANT is not to provide explanations for the behaviour and reasons of actors, but only to map procedures which enable actors to relate to each other and each others' world building capacity. My discomfort with this reading is trying to locate what these procedures would be in an SEP regulation environment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Identifying the components of the ANT</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Latour presents an actant - or an actor - as something that acts, or to which some sort of activity is assigned by others. <a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a> There is no special motivation of humans or human actors. "An actant," says Latour, "can literally be anything provided it is granted to be the source of the action."<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</a> The conception of an actant, Latour further articulates, should be not as fixed entities, but as fluid, circulating objects, whose stability and continuity depends on other actions. <a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6">[6]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> <i> So what is on its agenda? The attribution of human, unhuman, nonhuman, inhuman, characteristics; the distribution of properties among these entities; the connections established between them; the circulation entailed by these attributions, distributions and connections; the transformation of those attributions, distributions and connections, of the many elements that circulates and of the few ways through which they are sent.</i></b><a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7">[7]</a><b><i> </i> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Banks<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8">[8]</a> identifies <i>actants</i> to be of two types - human and non human, further explaining that 'actors' is typically used to refer to humans. These actants have equal amounts of agency within the actor-network. Banks proceeds to demonstrate this applicability of equal agency with an illustration of getting wi-fi connectivity in Albany. In his narrative <a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9">[9]</a> (and as he notes later himself), Banks uses the same language (read as according agency to the inanimate) to describe both, the human and non human actants. Says Banks, that the actants are merely nodes that <i>facilitate a larger functioning.</i> It is submitted that the 'larger functioning' being referred to is probably something that would be determined on a case to case basis - depending on what was being studied.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a 1999 paper <i>On</i> <i>Recalling ANT</i><a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10">[10]</a>, Latour articulates a problem with the usage of the word 'network' as a result of its usage having changed over time - from using it to refer to a series of transformations incapable of being captured by prevalent social theory at the time, to <i>an unmediated access to every piece of information</i> (to my understanding within the context of the World Wide Web). Latour explains that his new understanding is <i>exactly the opposite </i>of what they meant and that it ought not to be used to mean the transformations they were initially articulating.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Another of Latour's papers is helpful in arriving at an understanding of the 'network', where he argues that it would be fallacious to consider it in a technical sense, as one would a sewage, a train or a telephone network.<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11">[11]</a> Unlike a technical network, Latour argues, an actor-network may have no compulsory paths, no nodes and might be quite local in nature. Latour further argues that thinking in terms of a network helps us overcome the <i>tyranny of distance</i>, citing a range of examples including standing one metre away from somebody in a telephone booth and yet being more closely connected to his mother, thousands of miles away, among others<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12">[12]</a>. In each of his illustrations, however, Latour articulates closeness or distance in terms of geography or presence in a physical sense, which might not be entirely applicable to the research question we're seeking to study. What might be more useful perhaps, is the articulation of the network where he argues that instead of tracing an individual to the collective or the agency, one could only at the number of connections an element has and gauge the importance of the element in light of these connections <b> . The greater the number of connections, the more important an element and vice versa. </b><a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13">[13]</a><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>ANT Criticism and Applicability of the ANT to our research question?</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Before delving into specifics of the ANT that lend themselves to a critique, I submit a broader reservation with the application of the ANT to studying legal and regulatory processes. From my reading and understanding of the ANT so far, a cornerstone appears to be the exclusion normative ideologies, with a focus on studying processes and networks as is, without formulating a value-judgment on their larger place in the society being studied. In so far as defending this claim, Latour and other supporters of this theory have relied on scientific examples (for instance, the reference to the Colombia Shuttle - NASA and its complex organizational structure)<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14">[14]</a> or illustrations from the social sciences or social phenomena. I'm still attempting to locate a paper that utilizes the ANT to study law or regulation. <i>Prima</i> <i>facie</i>, the challenge being posed is to study inherently normative structures and processes with clear power structures.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Banks<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15">[15]</a> describes the efficacy of the ANT in describing the processes by which inventions and technological systems come into being, or fail to do so. Perhaps in studying the legal regulation of SEP litigation in India, the efficacy of the ANT would like in describing the processes by which legal regulation and legal systems in India (specifically to regulate SEPs) come into being, or fail to do so. By extension, for our research question, non human actants as identified by Banks<a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16">[16]</a> would probably be legal institutions and the parties to the litigation themselves. What is unclear at the moment is whether policy and legal instruments or levers themselves would be actors.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Banks, in his article also articulates criticisms<a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17">[17]</a> to the ANT propounded by Sandra Harding, David Bloor and Sal Restivo, on the grounds of being blind towards other social factors such as race or patriarchy. If one were to extend this to the research question at hand, an argument could be made that the ANT seeks to equate dissimilarly situated institutions. Corollaries to race and patriarchy might be found in the market power of parties (an Ericsson v. a Micromax), or even within regulatory set up itself, where, based on the facts so far, an argument could be made out that different regulators are situated differently, where the Delhi High Court could pass an order restraining another regulator - the Competition Commission of India, from passing its own order.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A reference to the 'agency' critique of the ANT is made by Latour himself, in his 1999 paper. Latour goes on to acknowledges the critiques of the ANT, but says that most have (mistakenly) centered either around the actor or around the network; and that the idea was to never occupy a position in the agency/structure debate.<a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18">[18]</a> Later in the paper, Latour further clarifies that actants are not to be perceived as playing the role of agency, and network is not to be seen as playing the role of the structure. Instead, says he, they represent two sides of the same phenomenon. Latour further explains that the ANT merely tried to learn from the actors (what was sought to be learnt was difficult to grasp), without attempting to be an explanation of societal pressures (and the reasons for such pressures) on actors. The difficulty in reading this paper for me was that it was rather dense in many respects, with various concepts - including, for instance, the idea of the 'social', which he refers to constantly, not being clearly articulated. Further, what is uncertain to me is how this question of agency will play out if applied to a legal or regulatory context. If, for instance, a legal principle was to be a non human actant, how would this have an agency independent of the human actor (the judge) that would be the one applying the legal principle in the first place? Can we truly exclude the question of agency from the ANT if the very exclusion of agency means a recognition of the existence of agency in the first place? How does one exclude the question of agency in seemingly unequally situated actors with an inherent power dynamic? Is the ANT, then even a useful research methodology? In his 1999 paper, Latour argues that the aim of the ANT is to study actors without the imposition of an <i>a priori definition of their world building capacities</i>.<a href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19">[19]</a> The question now arises for me, is how to divest regulators of their 'world building capacities'.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Explaining the rationale<a href="#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20">[20]</a> for the ANT (in social science research), Latour articulates a dissatisfaction that social scientists have with both, micro (local sites) and macro levels (more abstract ideas like culture, patriarchy etc.) of research. This dissatisfaction, he argues, results in a back and forth between these sites <i>ad infinitum.</i> The ANT, argues Latour, is a way of tracing these dissatisfactions, not for the purposes of finding a solution, but to <i>follow them elsewhere</i> and <i>explore the very conditions that make these two disappointments possible.</i> Latour further clarifies that one must not understand 'network' in ANT to mean a larger society that would help make sense of local interactions or as an anonymous <i>field of forces</i>. Instead, he says, it refers to summing up various interactions through <i>various devices, inscriptions, forms and formulae into a very local, very practical, very tiny locus.</i> My key takeaway from this articulation was that ANT could be used to study various interactions between various key stakeholders, with a very specific research question. Given that the locus could also be tiny, perhaps if the research question was narrowed further, the key stakeholders, or the 'network' and the 'actants' would reduce as well.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Latour has also argued that the ANT makes no assumptions about how an actor should behave and assumes infinite pliability and absolute freedom of actors. <a href="#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21">[21]</a> <b> <i> In itself AT is not a theory of action no more than cartography is a theory on the shape of coasts lines and deep sea ridges; it just qualify what the observer should suppose in order for the coast lines to be recorded in their fine fractal patterns. Any shape is possible provided it is obsessively coded as longitude and latitude. Similarly any association is possible provided it is obsessively coded as heterogeneous associations through translations. </i> </b> <b><i> </i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> <i> there is no difficulty in seeing that AT is not about traced networks by about a network-tracing activity. As I said above there is not a net and an actor laying down the net, but there is an actor whose definition of the world outlines, traces, delineate, limn, describe, shadow forth, inscroll, file, list, record, mark, or tag a trajectory that is called a network. No net exists independently of the very act of tracing it, and no tracing is done by an actor exterior to the net. A network is not a thing but the recorded movement of a thing. The questions AT addresses have now changed. It is not longer whether a net is representation or a thing, a part of society or a part of discourse or a part of nature, but what moves and how this movement is recorded. </i> </b> <b><i> </i></b> <a href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22">[22]</a> <b><i> </i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A useful articulation of the application of ANT emerges out of Jonathan Murdoch's 1997 paper.<a href="#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23">[23]</a>He submits that the human gaze is being increasingly considered as an unreliable source of knowledge, being in a constant state of flux. Citing the example of the environment/biosphere to demonstrate the futility of the separations we make between nature and society, Murdoch argues that any solution to the environmental crisis will involve <i>a profound re-thinking of how we link these two domains.</i><a href="#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24">[24]</a>Extending this argument to our research question, one might ponder for instance that any solution to the SEP litigation and regulation conundrum will involve a <i>profound re-thinking</i> of how we link the courts and the CCI. What is unclear is what method we will use to arrive at this re-thinking, or what the re-thought out version would look like.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Murdoch does, however, articulate concerns with the 'non dualistic' framework (which the ANT positions itself as) and argues, relying on others before him, that such an adoption could have far reaching consequences; that the very basis of the development of social science is such a binary division. Murdoch argues that the nature-society divide has enabled social scientists to break the hegemony of the natural scientists. Murdoch further submits his reading of Latour, where he states that the power of laboratories arises as a result of their ability to tie together actors that are beyond the lab into networks that are then used to disseminate scientific facts.<a href="#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25">[25]</a> Murdoch's paper largely focuses on blurring the distance between 'natural' and 'social' actors, and identifies the difficulties in attempting to compare the two. Murdoch questions if natural actors whose identity emerge from nature itself are malleable as social actors, who are by definition, a product of society. What is unclear, however, is how malleable are two dissimilarly situated social actors; and whether 'social actors' is broad enough to encompass all institutions born out of or with a human/societal interaction component. Specifically, for our paper, would courts and the CCI both qualify as social actors? Would legal principles? Would the decision making process by the courts itself? Latour's very example for proposing the ANT was that of pasteurization in France. Murdoch also questions whether it's possible to in fact treat various actants as each other. In order to address another critique of ANT, that where we exclude notions of power, Mudoch says Law's articulation - of focusing on 'victims' instead of 'heroes' might prove to be useful. This has not been discussed in detail, leaving the reader to make their own inferences.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> <i> In other words, can ANT, with its seamless webs, forever crisscrossing the human-nonhuman divide, provide a secure platform for critique, for the expression of a profound dissatisfaction with the activities of powerful social actors and the attribution of responsibility to those actors? Can it, in other words, ever do anything more than describe, in a prosaic fashion, the dangerous imbroglios that enmesh us? <br /> Does this emphasis on description necessarily represent "an insuperable obstacle to effective and convincing social criticism </i> </b> <b><i> </i></b></p>
<div style="text-align: justify; "><br clear="all" />
<hr />
<div id="ftn1">
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> David Banks, A Brief Summary of Actor Network Theory, available at <a href="http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2011/12/02/a-brief-summary-of-actor-network-theory/"> http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2011/12/02/a-brief-summary-of-actor-network-theory/ </a> (last accessed 29 August, 2015).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> Bruno Latour - Networks, Societies, Spheres : Reflections of an Actor - Network Theorist, International Journal of Communication 5 (2011), 796- 810, available at <a href="http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewArticle/1094">http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewArticle/1094</a> (last accessed 31 August, 2015).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> Id at 797.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a> Bruno Latour - complications paper - at internal page 7.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn5">
<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">[5]</a> Id.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn6">
<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6">[6]</a> Id at internal page 8.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn7">
<p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7">[7]</a> Id at internal page 7.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn8">
<p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8">[8]</a> Id.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn9">
<p><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9">[9]</a> Id.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn10">
<p><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10">[10]</a> Bruno Latour, On Recalling ANT, available at <a href="http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/P-77-RECALLING-ANT-GBpdf.pdf"> http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/P-77-RECALLING-ANT-GBpdf.pdf </a> (last accessed 28 August, 2015).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn11">
<p><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11">[11]</a> Bruno Latour, On actor-network theory. A few clarifications plus more than a few complications, available at <a href="http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/P-67%20ACTOR-NETWORK.pdf"> http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/P-67%20ACTOR-NETWORK.pdf </a> (last accessed 30 August, 2015) at internal page 2.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn12">
<p><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12">[12]</a> Id at internal page 4</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn13">
<p><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13">[13]</a> Id at internal page 6.i</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn14">
<p><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14">[14]</a> Latour, the networks, societies, spheres paper</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn15">
<p><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15">[15]</a> Id.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn16">
<p><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16">[16]</a> Id.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn17">
<p><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17">[17]</a> Id.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn18">
<p><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18">[18]</a> Latour, recalling the ANT paper.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn19">
<p><a href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19">[19]</a> Recalling ANT paper, page 20</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn20">
<p><a href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20">[20]</a> Bruno Latour, On Recalling ANT, available at <a href="http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/P-77-RECALLING-ANT-GBpdf.pdf"> http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/P-77-RECALLING-ANT-GBpdf.pdf </a> (last accessed 28 August, 2015).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn21">
<p><a href="#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21">[21]</a> Latour, the complications paper, page 9.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn22">
<p><a href="#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22">[22]</a> Id at 14.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn23">
<p><a href="#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23">[23]</a> Jonathan Murdoch, Inhuman/nonhuman/: actor-network theory and the prospects for a nondualistic and symmetrical perspective on nature and society, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 1997, Volume 15, 731-576</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn24">
<p><a href="#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24">[24]</a> Murdoch at page 732.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn25">
<p><a href="#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25">[25]</a> Murdoch at page 737.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-working-document-series-research-questions-and-a-literature-review-on-actor-network-theory'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-working-document-series-research-questions-and-a-literature-review-on-actor-network-theory</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2015-09-05T04:56:03ZBlog EntryPervasive Technologies: Patent Pools
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patent-pools
<b>In this research paper, Nehaa Chaudhari gives an analysis of patent pools. She discusses the working of a patent pool, study patent pool in other areas of technology, and patenting in telecom and related technology.</b>
<hr />
<p><b><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-patent-pools.pdf" class="internal-link">Click to download the full research paper here</a></b> (PDF, 475 Kb)</p>
<hr />
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The network landscape over the past few years has been characterized by several battles of supremacy between two or more rival technologies. <a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1]</a> These battles have included, <i>inter alia, </i>the constant efforts at besting rivals in the arena of patenting innovations in technology, often as a result characterised by the imposition of high royalties on rivals, for the use of one’s patents. However, having realised that such efforts at besting the other could prove detrimental for all parties concerned in the long run, and stall technological advancements which would in turn translate into lower business revenue, mechanisms were devised to ensure a relatively equitable utilization of patents in the market place. One such mechanism that has been developed is that of patent pools.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Patent pools have been developed around most areas of high end technology and research and development. Over the course of this paper, the author has confined herself to a study on patent pools in the area of telecommunications, and the issues to be addressed therein. Specifically, the author will be dealing with patent pools around 3G, 4G, LTE, TD-SCDMA and TD-LTE technologies. Within this framework, the author seeks to examine what are patent pools, whether and what kind of patent pools exist, their associated costs, their licensing arrangements and the structure of the payment of royalty, and the feasibility of these patent pools.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Understanding Patent Pools</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Patent pools are agreements among patent owners through which patent owners combine their patents, waiving their exclusive rights to the patent to enable others, or themselves, to obtain rights to license the pooled patents.<a href="#fn2" name="fr2">[2]</a> Therefore, such pools may be focussed either on cross licensing, that is companies mutually making their patents available to each other, or on out licensing, that is, a group of companies making a collection of patents available to companies that do not or might not have patents of their own to contribute to the pool.<a href="#fn3" name="fr3">[3]</a> Typically, modern patent pools combine patents of various companies and are around inventions that are required to implement an established industry standard, are licensed as a whole (on an <i>all or nothing basis) </i>and not as individual licenses for patents owned by various companies within that pool, and are available to any non member for licensing.<a href="#fn4" name="fr4">[4] </a>Such licensing is done under a standard agreement and royalty rates, on a non discriminatory basis. The exception to this rule is that if certain members have contributed patents to the pool, they may receive more favourable terms, in recognition of their cross licensing relationship to the pool.<a href="#fn5" name="fr5">[5] </a>When viewed from a law and economics perspective, patent pools are seen to be an efficient institutional solution to various problems that arise when companies have complementary intellectual property rights, and these rights are essential to new technologies being used and employed. <a href="#fn6" name="fr6">[6] </a>However, this perspective also warns about the antitrust risks that may arise when competitors or potential competitors are involved in the coordination of their intellectual property. For instance, such pools may be used to allocate markets or otherwise chill competition. <a href="#fn7" name="fr7">[7]</a></p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">The Working of a Patent Pool</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Generally, a patent pool may be administered in one of two ways- it may either have an administrative entity, or may also just be a system of cross licensing between two firms.<a href="#fn8" name="fr8">[8]</a> In case of the former, the licensing agency may be one of the patent holders, <a href="#fn9" name="fr9">[9]</a> or may be an independent licensing company (e.g. MPEG).<a href="#fn10" name="fr10">[10]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ownership of patents within the pool is retained by the owners, who then license them to the operator/administrator on a non exclusive basis, with sub licensing rights. This means that the owners are free to continue to license their patents on an individual basis, and the administrator also has the right to further license the patents to any party who is interested in licensing from the patent pool.<a href="#fn11" name="fr11">[11]</a> The responsibility of managing licensing and licenses is vested in the operator/administrator of the patent pool. Licensees are required to report sales and pay royalties to the pool administrator, who in turn would enforce the conditions of the license.<a href="#fn12" name="fr12">[12] </a>The distribution of royalties between the members of the pool is on the basis of a formula which may, or may not be transparent to non member licensees, with the pool operator retaining a management fee.<a href="#fn13" name="fr13">[13] </a>Typically, pool licenses are also structured in a manner so as to render difficult early termination by the licensee. The nature of the contract, once signed by a licensee, is typically binding in nature. Therefore, this would mean that the administrator of the patent pool could sue the licensee for non performance of the contract.<a href="#fn14" name="fr14">[14]</a> However, unless a pool operator is a member of the pool itself, it cannot sue for the infringement of patents. <a href="#fn15" name="fr15">[15]</a> Therefore, in the event that a patented technology were to be utilised without having taken a license, one or more of the individual patent owners would be required to take legal action. The involvement of the pool operator would be limited to being a part of any settlement discussions, if they were to occur, since one of the options for the alleged infringer could be to obtain a license for the patent pool.<a href="#fn16" name="fr16">[16]</a></p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Drawing Parallels with Other Patent Pools</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this section of the paper, the author seeks to study patent pools in other areas of technology in order to better understand the structure and pricing of patent pools.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>The ‘3C DVD’ Patent Pool </b><br />Established in 1998, the <i>3C DVD Patent Pool</i> was the brainchild of <i>Philips</i>, <i>Sony</i> and <i>Pioneer</i>, and <i>L.G.</i> was subsequently inducted as a member. <i>Philips</i> acts as a licensing administrator for patents held by all the companies, which are over two hundred in number. These patents include those for the manufacture of the DVD players, and for the manufacture of the DVD disks themselves. <a href="#fn17" name="fr17">[17]</a> The player license per unit royalty was set as 3.5% of the net selling price of each player sold. This was subject to a minimum fee of $7 per unit, which after January 1, 2000 became $5 per unit. The disc license royalty was set as $0.05 per disc sold.<a href="#fn18" name="fr18">[18]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>The ‘DVD- 6C’ Patent Pool</b><br />Established in June 1999, the members of this pool at the time of its inception were <i>Hitachi</i>, <i>Matsushita</i>, <i>Mitsubishi</i>, <i>Time</i> <i>Warner</i>, <i>Toshiba</i>, and <i>JVC</i>. This pool was also for the DVD-ROM and the DVD- Video formats, with <i>Toshiba </i>acting as the administrator. <a href="#fn19" name="fr19">[19] </a>The royalties were set at $.075 per DVD Disc and 4% of the net sales price of DVD players and DVD decoders, with a minimum royalty of $4.00 per player or decoder, which saw a substantial reduction in 2003.<a href="#fn20" name="fr20">[20]</a> Subsequently, there were various changes that were made to this group, including the inclusion of newer standards, the joining and subsequent departure of IBM and other organizations as a member etc. <i>Hitachi</i> and <i>Panasonic</i> also act as regional agents in certain regions of the world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>The MPEG LA pool<br /></b>The MPEG-2 is a standard for describing the coding of data <i>inter alia, </i>on DVD discs. For MPEG-2, a patent pool has been established, where the administrator is an independent, external organization known as the MPEG Licensing Authority, that set itself the aim to develop a patent pool for this standard.<b> </b> <a href="#fn21" name="fr21">[21]</a> The MPEG LA invited parties that thought they owned patents essential to this standard to join the program, which took off in 1997. At present, the pool has over a hundred patents and thousands of licensees.<a href="#fn22" name="fr22">[22]</a></p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Patenting in Telecom and Related Technology</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this section of the paper, the author examines the working of patenting and patent pools in the telecommunications sector and in areas of related technology.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Early Developments and the Emergence of GSM<br /></b>Patent pools are slowly developing into a key component of the telecommunications and the technological industry. The technology industry has been said to be an <i>ecosystem</i>, wherein there is a complex correlation between those who develop the technology and those who implement it in the creation and development of products.<a href="#fn23" name="fr23">[23]</a> In the telecommunications industry for instance, each handset manufacturer has declared only a small percentage of the various types of intellectual property assets that are necessary to implement a 3G compatible cellular phone. Therefore, the working in such a context is that various companies develop different technologies, and the same is shared by various manufacturers that seek to make use of this technology.<a href="#fn24" name="fr24">[24]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The revival of patenting in the sector of telecommunications, post a period of decline in the decades of the 19540s to the 1980s, is attributed to the advent of the GSM standard for mobile communications in Europe.<a href="#fn25" name="fr25">[25] </a>In 1988, the main European operators invited equipment suppliers and developed a procedure wherein manufacturers would have to give up their intellectual property rights and to provide free world wide licenses for essential patents.<a href="#fn26" name="fr26">[26]</a> After opposition from the manufacturers, the approach was modified to one wherein the operators required the suppliers to sign a declaration agreeing to serve all of the GSM community on fair, reasonable and non discriminatory conditions.<a href="#fn27" name="fr27">[27]</a> In the early 1990s, Motorola by refusing to grant non discriminatory licenses for its substantial portfolio of essential patents and only agreeing to enter into cross license agreements further intensified the debate over IPRs in telecommunications. The company only lifted these restrictions after various countries across the world expressed a preference for this standard. The experience in this standard has demonstrated that it would not be accurate to expect that all parties holding essential patents would be willing to license them to all interested parties.<a href="#fn28" name="fr28">[28]</a> Companies were only willing to relax their licensing conditions once revenue generating opportunities increased.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>The 3G3P and the UMTS<br /></b>In July 2000 the 3G Patent Platform Partnership (3G3P) and its 18 partners notified various agreements to the end of establishing a worldwide patent platform. The purpose behind this was disclosed to be that of providing a voluntary and cost effective mechanism to evaluate, verify and license patents that were essential for third generation (3G) mobile communication systems.<a href="#fn29" name="fr29">[29] </a>It was also claimed that the said agreements would have pro competitive effects and that the purpose behind this Platform was the facilitation of access to technology and consequent entry into the markets.<a href="#fn30" name="fr30">[30]</a> On the intellectual property front, the purpose was to reduce cost uncertainties and the delays that were accompaniments of licensing numerous essential patents for complex technologies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While it has often been considered to be a patent pool, this arrangement has been said to be only similar to a patent pool.<a href="#fn31" name="fr31">[31]</a> The 3G3P itself has argued that since it was a mere facilitator of transactions between patent holders and licensees, and that membership was open to both licensors and licensees as opposed to only licensors as in the case of patent pools, it would be fallacious to classify the Platform as a patent pool. Further, it has also been argued that licensing by members is not restricted to the Platform and that there was no bundling or real pooling of the patents <i>per</i> <i>se</i> and those licensees have the opportunity to pick and choose between patents with the licensing being carried out on a bilateral basis. Additionally, unlike in a patent pool, there is no single license between the patent holders as a collective and the licensee, and the parties have a choice between the Standard License of the Platform, and a negotiable individual license.<a href="#fn32" name="fr32">[32]</a> A Standard License provides for Standard Royalty Rate, a Maximum Cumulative Royalty Rate and a Cumulative Royalty Rate.<a href="#fn33" name="fr33">[33] </a>Bilateral transactions on the other hand, are negotiated between the parties where the consideration is to be determined on <i>fair and equitable</i> terms.<a href="#fn34" name="fr34">[34]</a> This Platform also provides for a price cap, which, instead of being absolute and set at a pre-determined royalty rate, is a <i>default five percent maximum (not minimum) cumulative royalty rate for potential licensees per product category.</i><a href="#fn35" name="fr35">[35]</a> The royalty rate for each individual patent will differ for each of the licensees and this depends on the patent portfolio under each product category that the licensee has chosen.<a href="#fn36" name="fr36">[36]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The concerns and challenges of the GSM experience were well perceived during the determination of the course of action for UMTS. European actors were especially wary of <i>Qualcomm</i> and expected the firm to demand high license fees, with some even fearing them to be in excess of 10%.<a href="#fn37" name="fr37">[37]</a> Subsequently, various attempts at developing licensing schemes failed, until 2004 and the establishment of the W-CDMA Patent Licensing Programme for UMTS FDD patents.<a href="#fn38" name="fr38">[38] </a>At the outset, seven licensors offered their patents as a bundle to prospective licensors, a number which decreased over time.<a href="#fn39" name="fr39">[39]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>The Development of LTE Patent Pools<br /></b>The next stage in the process of innovation in the realm of telecommunications was the development of the Long Term Evolution (LTE) Standard, which while being essential to 4G technology has also seen application in the realm of 3G. Consequently, patent pools or similar structures have been developed in these areas. LTE patents are being viewed as among the most valuable intellectual property resource in the mobile telecommunications industry, with most operators around the world building LTE networks.<a href="#fn40" name="fr40">[40]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As per in a study conducted in 2011, 23% of the patents about this technology were owned by <i>L.G. Electronics</i>, with <i>Qualcomm</i> coming in second with 21%. <i>Motorola Mobility, InterDigital, Nokia</i> and <i>Samsung</i> each owned 9%, China’s <i>ZTE</i> owned about 6%<a href="#fn41" name="fr41">[41]</a> and <i>Nortel</i> owned 4%, which were later sold to a consortium of <i>Apple, EMC, Ericsson, Microsoft, Research in Motion (RIM)</i> and <i>Sony</i>, after <i>Nortel</i> filed for bankruptcy in 2009.<a href="#fn42" name="fr42">[42]</a> <i>Ericsson</i> also independently owns 2% of the patent pool and <i>RIM</i> owns 1%.<a href="#fn43" name="fr43">[43]</a> However, another analysis<a href="#fn44" name="fr44">[44]</a> of IP databases conducted by <i>ZTE</i> in 2011 revealed differing results. As per this analysis, <i>InterDigital </i>was the leader, with its Patent Holdings arm controlling 13% and the Technology arm controlling 11% of LTE essential patents. <i>Qualcomm</i> controlled 13%, <i>Nokia</i> and <i>Samsung</i> 9% each, <i>Ericsson</i> controlled 8%, as did <i>Huawei</i>, <i>ZTE</i> controlled 7%, <i>L.G</i>. controlled 6% and <i>NTT</i> <i>DoCoMo</i> brought up the rear with 5%. The remaining 11% was held by various other firms.<a href="#fn45" name="fr45">[45]</a> It is to be realized that these studies have often come under criticism from different companies, with each of them eager to portray themselves as the market leader.<a href="#fn46" name="fr46">[46]</a> Setting aside criticism driven by corporate egos, the principle of it, that is, the difficulty in assessing and valuing patents cannot be disputed. Valuing patents is far from merely counting the number of patents owned by a company. The complications are especially evident when it comes to determining which of these patents are essential and which of them aren’t. Additionally, the worth of these patents varies depending on the existence or the absence of certain conditions, including transfer restrictions, cross licensing arrangements, ownership and market conditions.<a href="#fn47" name="fr47">[47]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The aforesaid discussion reveals the complexity and the fragmentation of the LTE environment, which further underscored the need to have patent pools in this field. Although the need for a patent pool was realized in 2009-2010, given that the WCDMA patent pool had been met with very limited success,<a href="#fn48" name="fr48">[48]</a> industry watchers were reluctant to be optimistic. This was in part fuelled by the understanding of the attitude of dominant players, wherein they continued to believe that they could derive more monetary, cross licensing and litigation defence value if they did not pool their patents.<a href="#fn49" name="fr49">[49]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The development of LTE patent pools can be traced back to 2009, and the response of <i>Via Licensing</i>¸<i> Sisvel</i> and <i>MPEG LA</i> to a Request for Information on forming such a patent pool by the <i>Next Generation Mobile Network Alliance (NGMN).</i><a href="#fn50" name="fr50">[50]</a> <i>Sisvel’s</i> proposal, which it subsequently made at a public conference in 2010 sought to demonstrate that patent pools could prevent excessive costs from royalty stacking.<a href="#fn51" name="fr51">[51] </a>Among various other examples, <i>Roberto Dini</i>, the founder of <i>Sisvel</i> suggested that if patents were to be licensed individually, for instance, 85 patents for MPEG video at 50 cents apiece would cost $42.50. As opposed to this, the patent pool charged $2.50.<a href="#fn52" name="fr52">[52]</a> In 2011, the <i>NGMN</i> reiterated its recommendation to all stakeholders in the mobile industry that were interested in developing patent pools to hasten their development process to avoid further delays in LTE licensing.<a href="#fn53" name="fr53">[53]</a> The <i>NGMN</i> also went on to state that it would be ideal if all the parties were to agree on a single patent pool that promoted reasonable royalties, offered certainty on the availability of the licenses for patents and created a framework for evaluation of their essentiality, where the value of the patents essential to the pool would be established by the industry.<a href="#fn54" name="fr54">[54]</a> These recommendations were not without their fair share of criticism, both, from industry watchers<a href="#fn55" name="fr55">[55]</a> and from vendors.<a href="#fn56" name="fr56">[56]</a> Notwithstanding these reservations, both, <i>Sisvel</i><a href="#fn57" name="fr57">[57]</a> and <i>Via</i> <i>Licensing</i> have gone on to issue calls for patents for the purposes of creating patent pools in the LTE marketplace.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <i>Sisvel </i>LTE Patent Pool materialized in late 2012, wherein licenses were offered under a portfolio of patents essential to LTE.<a href="#fn58" name="fr58">[58]</a> The pool includes patents owned by <i>Cassidian</i>, the <i>China Academy of Telecommunication Technology, the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute, France Telecom, TDF</i>, and <i>KPN</i>, in addition to some patents that had been originally filed by <i>Nokia </i>but were acquired by <i>Sisvel </i>in 2011.<a href="#fn59" name="fr59">[59]</a> The pool is also open to other organizations that have patents essential to LTE. At present, the current portfolio of these patents is available under standard terms and conditions. The running royalty rate is 0.99 Euros per device.<a href="#fn60" name="fr60">[60]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Having promised a launch within a few months in June, 2012<a href="#fn61" name="fr61">[61]</a> <i>Via Licensing </i>has also developed its own LTE Patent Pool, with the initial companies in this pool being <i>AT&T, </i><i>Clearwire Corporation, DTVG Licensing, HP, KDDI Corporation, MTT DoCoMo, SK Telecom, Telecom Italia, Telefónica</i> and <i>ZTE.</i><a href="#fn62" name="fr62">[62]</a> Like <i>Sisvel’s</i> Patent Pool, this pool is also open to other organizations that believe they possess essential LTE patents, and they are encouraged to submit the same for evaluation.<a href="#fn63" name="fr63">[63]</a> The patent pool floated by <i>Via</i> leans heavily towards service providers, but some of the big players in the industry including <i>Nokia, Ericsson, Huawei Technologies</i> and <i>Samsung</i> <i>Electronics</i> are conspicuous by their absence.<a href="#fn64" name="fr64">[64]</a> This absence is felt even in <i>Sisvel’s</i> patent pool, with the reasoning being proposed<a href="#fn65" name="fr65">[65]</a> that these key patent holders may prefer private licensing and subsequent litigation over pooled resources in patent pools.<a href="#fn66" name="fr66">[66]</a> Understandably, the launch of the LTE Patent Pools has been met with approval by the <i>NGMN</i><a href="#fn67" name="fr67">[67]</a> but given the nascent stages in which both of these pools find themselves, it would be premature to comment (without first observing for a few months) the likelihood of their success or failure and how they would play out against each other.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>The TD-SCDMA and the TD-LTE<br /></b>Reportedly, China has spent several billion dollars on the import of analog and GSM technology,<a href="#fn68" name="fr68">[68]</a> and the country’s mobile communications industry continues to be dominated by foreign players.<a href="#fn69" name="fr69">[69]</a> Therefore, in continuation of a purportedly <i>growing trend</i><a href="#fn70" name="fr70">[70]</a> in the area of telecommunications as well, domestically developed systems are being preferred and developed over standardized technologies that enjoy strong patent protection outside China.<a href="#fn71" name="fr71">[71]</a> Besides the avoidance of paying royalties to foreigners, the idea is also to use China’s strong market presence and have more participants in China’s home grown technology.<a href="#fn72" name="fr72">[72]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Time Divisional- Synchronous Code Division Multiple Access (TD-SCDMA), developed by the <i>China Academy of Telecommunications Technology (CATT)</i>, in collaboration with <i>Datang </i>and<i> Siemens</i><a href="#fn73" name="fr73">[73]</a> is a Chinese indigenously developed 3G technology standard developed by China to reduce its dependence on western standards.<a href="#fn74" name="fr74">[74]</a> Interestingly however, it has been reported that the Chinese hold core patent technology only about 7% whereas most of the rest of it is taken by other foreign organizations.<a href="#fn75" name="fr75">[75]</a> In 2000, an industry consortium, the TD-SCDMA forum was established. The participants were <i>China</i> <i>Mobile, China Telecom, China Unicom, Huawei, Motorola, Nortel, </i>and<i> Siemens</i>, with the objective of developing and supporting this technology. Government support was received in 2002, following which the <i>TD-SCDMA Industry Alliance </i>was founded by well known market players including <i>Datang</i>, <i>SOUTEC</i>, <i>Holley</i>, <i>Huawei</i>, <i>LENOVO, ZTE, CEC</i> and <i>China</i> <i>Putian</i>. There has also been the creation of various joint ventures with international giants such as <i>Alcatel</i>, <i>Ericsson</i>, <i>Nokia</i>, (erstwhile) <i>Nortel</i>, <i>Philips</i>, <i>Samsung</i> and <i>Siemens</i> have also been created.<a href="#fn76" name="fr76">[76]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Information about the existence of patent pools in this technology has been hard to come by. One of the few to write about patent pools in his 2008 paper,<a href="#fn77" name="fr77">[77]</a> <i>Dazheng Wang</i> proposes patent pools as a solution to the problem of commercialization of TD-SCDMA. He suggests that the framework of this patent pool should be on the industry principles of fair, reasonable and non discriminatory licensing terms for essential patents, with the end result being one of increased innovation and competition and an overall increase in market presence. Interestingly, a few articles<a href="#fn78" name="fr78">[78]</a> on blog posts on the internet speak about the existence of patent pools and their apparent misuse<a href="#fn79" name="fr79">[79]</a> as well.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is submitted that these inconsistencies regarding the division of patents between various patent holders, where the percentage of patents held by each company have been pegged differently,<a href="#fn80" name="fr80">[80]</a> and about the existence of a patent pool or not raise pressing concerns about the payment of royalties and how licensing works in such a situation. On a very basic level, in order to be able to pay royalties and enter into licensing agreements, the existence of an identified, non disputed patent holder would be the <i>sine qua non, </i>which seems to be missing in the case of patents for TD-SCDMA. This problem is only further compounded by the lack of clarity on the very existence of patent pools. Had there been specified patent pools, the issues of determination of essential patents and the setting of royalties and licensing fees would have been standardized, a situation that cannot be invoked, without dispute, in the present Chinese context.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is further submitted that despite China being the world’s largest market for mobile communications, and its progress from a mere importer to a developer of some parts of technology,<a href="#fn81" name="fr81">[81]</a> the Chinese experiment with TD-SCDMA seems to have met with limited success, in comparison to what was envisaged. For instance, while an agency had forecast that the number of TD-SCDMA subscribers in 2010 would be 34 million, by April, 2010 there were only 8 million or (even lower) subscribers.<a href="#fn82" name="fr82">[82]</a> One of the reasons for preferring other standards, for instance, the W-CDMA is the number of handsets compatible with the same and the consequent variety that is available to the consumer. To illustrate, one could look at the figures from June, 2010. At this point of time <i>China Unicom</i> had 94 models for W-CDMA from twenty four manufacturers including nine foreign ones, whereas <i>China Mobile</i> had only twenty eight models that were compatible with TD-SCDMA.<a href="#fn83" name="fr83">[83]</a> Interestingly, if one were to measure popularity in terms of sheer numbers, TD-SCDMA would emerge the winner over W-CDMA by a couple of million subscribers, but if the growth rate were to be considered, W-CDMA would come out on top. While TD-SCDMA grew only by 24%, W-CDMA has grown at 32% monthly since the start of its service is October, 2009.<a href="#fn84" name="fr84">[84]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">China’s experiments with creating its home grown telecommunication standards have not stopped with the development of the TD-SCDMA, with the country being on track in the development of the TD-LTE. Reports suggest that although the systems are in ‘trial’ mode officially, the 4G spectrum situation remains uncertain.<a href="#fn85" name="fr85">[85]</a> It is submitted that although this is in the nascent stages as compared to the TD-SCDMA, the concerns expressed earlier about TD-SCDMA and the suggestions made therein for the technology to realise its full potential would be equally applicable in this scenario as well.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Therefore, in light of this discussion it would not be fallacious to conclude that while the TD-SCDMA, and now more recently the TD-LTE standard might still be in its nascent stages, on a fundamental level it seems to have not fulfilled the objectives with which it was developed, especially given that a sizeable portion of its patents continue to be owned by foreign corporations. In addition to the challenges of attracting subscribers, it would also need to streamline its system of patents, royalties and licensing, if it wants to have a truly global or even national presence. To this end perhaps patent pools structured along the lines of those being developed or in place for other mobile communication technologies might provide a viable solution meriting consideration.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Concluding Observations</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One of the fundamental concerns that plague most downstream organizations in the mobile communications sector is the prevalence of high licensing fees that need to be paid on essential patents, the cost of which often trickles down to the customers. A study on the licensing arrangements prevalent at the moment<a href="#fn86" name="fr86">[86]</a> reveals that as of the moment, the result of royalty rate caps is that they save money for downstream manufacturers, but this is at the expense of upstream licensors. The most significant savers are the ones downstream with no IP to trade, and vertically integrated companies while losing some revenue, are able to save significantly more in reduced expenses.<a href="#fn87" name="fr87">[87]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Therefore, it comes as no surprise that efforts at limiting aggregate licensing fees have been at the forefront over the past couple of years. It is in this scenario that patent pools have developed, with operators such as <i>Via Licensing</i> and <i>Sisvel</i> even promoting themselves as being able to put together patent pools that would greatly limit licensing fees.<a href="#fn88" name="fr88">[88] </a>However, some owners of intellectual property continue to find bilateral licensing and cross licensing to be more profitable as opposed to patent pools.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One of the key concerns when it comes to fore when dealing with how patent pools are structured is about the distribution of income received from royalties within the members of the pool, which ties in with the bigger question of classifying patents as essential and non essential. More often than not, patent pools also have to grapple with the problem of members having conflicting interests. For instance, manufacturers have the incentive to cap aggregate royalties of certain essential patents that they would use in manufacturing, in order to reduce their licensing costs. However, these manufacturers could have also brought their own essential patents to the pool, perhaps of a new way of doing things, and would certainly be averse of having caps imposed on these royalties.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One of the key other considerations that patent pools need to take into account include the royalty rates affixed. In an interview some time ago, the founder of <i>Sisvel</i>, went on to state that while affixing these royalty rates, there could be no discrimination against licensees, since that would be a sure fire way of ensuring the collapse of the patent pool.<a href="#fn89" name="fr89">[89]</a> Additionally, patent pools also need to account for the difference in regulatory mechanism and their execution that exists across jurisdictions. For instance, customs officials in France pay a lot more attention to counterfeit goods than they would to patent infringing products, whereas those in Germany would have a keen eye on the latter.<a href="#fn90" name="fr90">[90]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Various other concerns have also been identified with regard to patent pools over time. One of these is that they could potentially eliminate competition that comes from outside of patent pools.<a href="#fn91" name="fr91">[91]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Additionally, patent pools are not all inclusive, since participation is entirely voluntary. Therefore, patent pools would not even be reasonably expected to cover all essential patents required to make a standardised product. This problem is rendered even more complex as a result of the presence of multiple patent pools around the same technology, as in the case of DVDs and more recently, LTE technology.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In sum, while portfolio cross licenses and patent pools can be helpful in resolving issues created by patent thickets by reducing transaction costs for licensees, while preserving to a definitive extent financial incentives for inventors to commercialize their existing inventions and undertake new research, the significant shortcomings of these pools also need to be taken into account before they can be heralded as the solution to problems presented by complex patent landscapes. While voluntary patent pools might have proved to be beneficial in some respects, the imposition of patent pools would be a fallacious approach to undertake.</p>
<hr />
<p>[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>]. Hui Yan, <i>The 3G Standard Setting Strategy and Indigenous Innovation Policy in China: Is TD-SCDMA a Flagship?, </i>DRUID Working Paper No 07-01, available at http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper.php?id=1454&cf=9 (last accessed 07 12 2012)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>]. Josh Lerner and Jean Tirole, <i>Efficient Patent Pools,</i> 4 Am. Econ. Rev. 691, 691 (2004)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr3" name="fn3">3</a>]. <i>Patent Pools- Some Not So Frequently Answered Questions, </i>available at <a href="http://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/11/patent-pools-some-not-so-frequently.html">http://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/11/patent-pools-some-not-so-frequently.html</a> (last accessed 10 December, 2012)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr4" name="fn4">4</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr5" name="fn5">5</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr6" name="fn6">6</a>]. Philip B. Nelson, <i>Patent Pools: An Economic Assessment of Current Law and Policy, </i>Rutgers Law Journal, Volume 38:539, 559 (2007)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr7" name="fn7">7</a>].</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr8" name="fn8">8</a>]. Roger B. Andewelt, Analysis of Patent Pools Under the Antitrust Laws, 53 ANTITRUST L.J. 611, 611 (1984).</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr9" name="fn9">9</a>]. Philips has been known to have been the licensing agency for patent pools where it was a member</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr10" name="fn10">10</a>]. <i>Supra </i>note 3</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr11" name="fn11">11</a>]. <i>Supra </i>note 3</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr12" name="fn12">12</a>]. <i>Supra </i>note 3</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr13" name="fn13">13</a>]. <i>Supra </i>note 3</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr14" name="fn14">14</a>]. <i>Supra </i>note 3</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr15" name="fn15">15</a>]. <i>Supra </i>note 3</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr16" name="fn16">16</a>]. <i>Supra </i>note 3</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr17" name="fn17">17</a>]. Rudi Bekkers et. al., <i>Patent Pools and Non Assertion Agreements: Coordination Mechanisms for Multi Party IPR Holders in Standardization</i>, available at <a href="http://www-i4.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Interest/EASST_Bekkers_Iversen_Blind.pdf">http://www-i4.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Interest/EASST_Bekkers_Iversen_Blind.pdf</a> 22 (last accessed 09 December, 2012)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr18" name="fn18">18</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr19" name="fn19">19</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr20" name="fn20">20</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr21" name="fn21">21</a>]. <i>Supra</i> note 17 at 23.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr22" name="fn22">22</a>]. <i>Supra</i> note 17 at 23.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr23" name="fn23">23</a>]. Keith Mallinson, <i>Fixing IP Prices with Royalty Rate Caps and Patent Pools, </i>available at <a href="http://ipfinance.blogspot.in/2011/07/fixing-ip-prices-with-royalty-rate-caps.html">http://ipfinance.blogspot.in/2011/07/fixing-ip-prices-with-royalty-rate-caps.html</a> (last accessed 10 December, 2012)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr24" name="fn24">24</a>]. <i>Id.</i> See Appendix 1 for a graphical representation of declared intellectual property assets in 2009.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr25" name="fn25">25</a>]. <i>Supra</i> note 17 at 25</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr26" name="fn26">26</a>]. <i>Supra</i> note 17 at 27</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr27" name="fn27">27</a>]. <i>Supra</i> note 17 at 27</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr28" name="fn28">28</a>]. <i>Supra</i> note 17 at 28</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr29" name="fn29">29</a>]. Dessy Choumelova, <i>Competition Law Analysis of Patent Licensing Agreements- the Particular Case of 3G3P, </i>available at <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/cpn/2003_1_41.pdf-">http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/cpn/2003_1_41.pdf-</a> 41 (last accessed 10 December, 2012)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr30" name="fn30">30</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr31" name="fn31">31</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr32" name="fn32">32</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr33" name="fn33">33</a>]. <i>Id </i>at 42.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr34" name="fn34">34</a>]. <i>Id </i>at 42.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr35" name="fn35">35</a>]. <i>Id </i>at 42-43.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr36" name="fn36">36</a>]. <i>Id</i> at 43.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr37" name="fn37">37</a>]. <i>Supra</i> note 17 at 29.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr38" name="fn38">38</a>]. <i>Supra</i> note 17 at 39.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr39" name="fn39">39</a>]. <i>Supra</i> note 17 at 39.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr40" name="fn40">40</a>]. Elizabeth Woyke,<i> Identifying the Tech Leaders in LTE Wireless Patents, </i>available at <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethwoyke/2011/09/21/identifying-the-tech-leaders-in-lte-wireless-patents/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethwoyke/2011/09/21/identifying-the-tech-leaders-in-lte-wireless-patents/</a> (last accessed 08 December, 2012)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr41" name="fn41">41</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr42" name="fn42">42</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr43" name="fn43">43</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr44" name="fn44">44</a>]. Caroline Gabriel, <i>ZTE Claims 7% of LTE Essential Patents, </i>available at <a href="http://www.rethink-wireless.com/2011/01/11/zte-claims-7-lte-essential-patents.htm">http://www.rethink-wireless.com/2011/01/11/zte-claims-7-lte-essential-patents.htm</a> (last accessed 09 December, 2012)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr45" name="fn45">45</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr46" name="fn46">46</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr47" name="fn47">47</a>]. <i>Supra</i> note 40.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr48" name="fn48">48</a>]. Keith Mallinson, <i>Mallinson: Uncertain Futures in LTE Patent Pool Licensing, </i>available at <a href="http://www.fiercewireless.com/europe/story/mallinson-uncertain-outlook-patent-pool-licensing/2010-08-25">http://www.fiercewireless.com/europe/story/mallinson-uncertain-outlook-patent-pool-licensing/2010-08-25</a> (last accessed 10 December, 2012)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr49" name="fn49">49</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr50" name="fn50">50</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr51" name="fn51">51</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr52" name="fn52">52</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p style="text-align: left; ">[<a href="#fr53" name="fn53">53</a>]. <i>NGMN Board Recommendation on LTE Patent Pool, </i>available at <a href="http://4g-portal.com/ngmn-board-recommendation-on-lte-patent-pool">http://4g-portal.com/ngmn-board-recommendation-on-lte-patent-pool</a> (last accessed 10 December, 2012)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr54" name="fn54">54</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr55" name="fn55">55</a>]. Caroline Gabriel, <i>NGMN’s Calls for an LTE Patent Pool Will be Futile in the Current IPR Climate</i>, available at <a href="http://www.4gtrends.com/articles/53511/ngmns-calls-for-an-lte-patent-pool-will-be-futile-/">http://www.4gtrends.com/articles/53511/ngmns-calls-for-an-lte-patent-pool-will-be-futile-/</a> (last accessed 11 December, 2012)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr56" name="fn56">56</a>]. Michelle Donegan, <i>Vendors Balk at LTE Patent Pool Proposal, </i>available at <a href="http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=212362">http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=212362</a> (last accessed 11 December, 2012).</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr57" name="fn57">57</a>]. <i>SISVEL: Patent Pool for 3G Long Term Evolution (LTE), </i>available at <a href="http://www.thefreelibrary.com/SISVEL%3A+Patent+Pool+for+3G+Long+Term+Evolution+(LTE).-a0199544458">http://www.thefreelibrary.com/SISVEL%3A+Patent+Pool+for+3G+Long+Term+Evolution+(LTE).-a0199544458</a> (last accessed 08 December, 2012)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr58" name="fn58">58</a>]. <i>LTE Patent Pool from Sisvel</i>, available at <a href="http://4g-portal.com/lte-patent-pool-from-sisvel">http://4g-portal.com/lte-patent-pool-from-sisvel</a> (last accessed 09 December, 2012)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr59" name="fn59">59</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr60" name="fn60">60</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr61" name="fn61">61</a>]. Mike Dano, <i>Via Promises LTE Patent Pool Launch Within Months, </i>available at <a href="http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/licensing-promises-lte-patent-pool-launch-within-months/2012-06-15">http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/licensing-promises-lte-patent-pool-launch-within-months/2012-06-15</a> (last accessed 07 December, 2012)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr62" name="fn62">62</a>]. <i>LTE Patent Pool Available Through Via’s Licensing Program, </i>available at <a href="http://4g-portal.com/lte-patent-pool-available-through-vias-licensing-program">http://4g-portal.com/lte-patent-pool-available-through-vias-licensing-program</a> (last accessed 10 December, 2012).</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr63" name="fn63">63</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr64" name="fn64">64</a>]. Stephen Lawson, <i>Lte Patent Pool Brings Together Technologies From At&T, Zte, Hp And Others, </i>available at <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9232043/LTE_patent_pool_brings_together_technologies_from_AT_amp_T_ZTE_HP_and_others">http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9232043/LTE_patent_pool_brings_together_technologies_from_AT_amp_T_ZTE_HP_and_others</a> (last accessed 09 December, 2012)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr65" name="fn65">65</a>]. Peter White, <i>Sisvel LTE Patent Pool Emerges After All- Majors Still Hold Back from Committing, </i>available at <a href="http://www.rethink-wireless.com/2012/11/05/sisvel-lte-patent-pool-emerges-all-majors-hold-committing.htm">http://www.rethink-wireless.com/2012/11/05/sisvel-lte-patent-pool-emerges-all-majors-hold-committing.htm</a> (last accessed 09 December, 2012)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr66" name="fn66">66</a>]. Shankar Pandiath, <i>Sisvel Launches Patent Pool for 3G Long Term Evolution (LTE), </i>available at <a href="http://next-generation-communications.tmcnet.com/topics/nextgen-voice/articles/314957-sisvel-launches-patent-pool-3g-long-term-evolution.htm">http://next-generation-communications.tmcnet.com/topics/nextgen-voice/articles/314957-sisvel-launches-patent-pool-3g-long-term-evolution.htm</a> (last accessed 09 December, 2012).</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr67" name="fn67">67</a>].<i>NGMN Board Welcomes Launch of LTE Patent Pool, </i>available at <a href="http://4g-portal.com/ngmn-board-welcomes-launch-of-lte-patent-pool">http://4g-portal.com/ngmn-board-welcomes-launch-of-lte-patent-pool</a> (last accessed 09 December, 2012).</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr68" name="fn68">68</a>]. ELSPETH THOMSON AND JON SIGURDSON (EDS.), CHINA’S SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SECTOR AND THE FORCES OF GLOBALIZATION 17 (2008, World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore).</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr69" name="fn69">69</a>]. Cong Cao, <i>Challenges for Technological Development in China’s Industry, </i>available at <a href="http://chinaperspectives.revues.org/924">http://chinaperspectives.revues.org/924</a> (last accessed 11 December, 2012)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr70" name="fn70">70</a>]. Peter Zura, <i>China Launches TD-SCDMA Telecom Standard</i>¸ available at <a href="http://271patent.blogspot.in/2006/01/china-launches-td-scdma-telecom.html">http://271patent.blogspot.in/2006/01/china-launches-td-scdma-telecom.html</a> (last accessed 10 December, 2012)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr71" name="fn71">71</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr72" name="fn72">72</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr73" name="fn73">73</a>]. <i>TD-SCDMA (time division synchronous code division multiple access)</i>, available at <a href="http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/definition/TD-SCDMA">http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/definition/TD-SCDMA</a> (last accessed 07 December, 2012).</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr74" name="fn74">74</a>]. SHAHD AKHTAR AND PATRICIA ARINTO (EDS.), DIGITAL REVIEW OF ASIA PACIFIC : 2009-2010 8 (2010, Sage Publications, New Delhi).</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr75" name="fn75">75</a>]. <i>Supra </i>note 1 at 2. See Appendix 2 for the breakup of patent holding. However, see details on <i>Infra</i> note 78 for a contradictory view, wherein China claims to own 30% of all TD-SCDMA patents.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr76" name="fn76">76</a>]. Pierre Vialle, <i>On the relevance of Indigenous Standard Setting Policy: the Case of TD-SCDMA in China, </i>2<sup>nd</sup> International Conference on Economics, Trade and Development, (2012) 36 IPEDR 184-185 (IACSIT Press, Singapore).</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr77" name="fn77">77</a>]. Dazheng Wang, Patent Pool: <i>A Solution to the Problem of TD-SCDMA’s Commercialization</i>, <a href="http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5076744&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F5076660%2F5076661%2F05076744.pdf%3Farnumber%3D5076744">http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5076744&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F5076660%2F5076661%2F05076744.pdf%3Farnumber%3D5076744</a> (last accessed 11 December, 2012).</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr78" name="fn78">78</a>]. <i>China Owns 30% of TD-SCDMA Related Patents, </i>available at <a href="http://www.cn-c114.net/582/a310685.html">http://www.cn-c114.net/582/a310685.html</a> (last accessed 11 December, 2012).</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr79" name="fn79">79</a>]. <i>The Legal Regulation on Patent Pool Misuse, </i>available at <a href="http://www.socpaper.com/the-legal-regulation-on-patent-pool-misuse.html">http://www.socpaper.com/the-legal-regulation-on-patent-pool-misuse.html</a> (last accessed 11 December, 2012).</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr80" name="fn80">80</a>]. <i>Supra </i>notes 75 and 78.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr81" name="fn81">81</a>]. Tomoo Marukawa, <i>Chinese Innovations in Mobile Telecommunications: Third Generation vs. “Guerrilla Handsets”, </i>Paper presented at the IGCC Conference: Chinese Approaches to National Innovation, La Jolla, California, June 28-29, 2010 at 1.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr82" name="fn82">82</a>]. <i>Id </i>at 8.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr83" name="fn83">83</a>]. <i>Id </i>at 9.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr84" name="fn84">84</a>]. <i>Id</i> at 9.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr85" name="fn85">85</a>]. <i>China to Speed Up TD-LTE Process, </i>available at <a href="http://www.tdscdma-forum.org/en/news/see.asp?id=11998&uptime=2012-11-29">http://www.tdscdma-forum.org/en/news/see.asp?id=11998&uptime=2012-11-29</a> (last accessed 08 December, 2012)</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr86" name="fn86">86</a>]. <i>Supra</i> note 23.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr87" name="fn87">87</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr88" name="fn88">88</a>]. <i>Supra</i> note 23.</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr89" name="fn89">89</a>]. <i>Sisvel’s Patent Strategy, </i>available at <a href="http://www.managingip.com/Article/2400452/Sisvels-patent-strategy.html">http://www.managingip.com/Article/2400452/Sisvels-patent-strategy.html</a> (last accessed 12 December, 2012).</p>
<p>[<a href="#fr90" name="fn90">90</a>]. <i>Id.</i></p>
<p>[<a href="#fr91" name="fn91">91</a>]. <i>Supra</i> note 23.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patent-pools'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patent-pools</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsPublicationsAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2013-07-03T06:57:59ZBlog EntryPervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Marketplace — CIS’s Upcoming A2K Research Initiative
https://cis-india.org/a2k/pervasive-technologies-access-to-knowledge-in-the-market-place
<b>Pervasive technologies have flooded the Indian market and are changing the ways in which the average Indian accesses knowledge but very little is understood about these technologies, particularly when it comes to their legality. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) plans to begin a research project that aims to understand how pervasive technologies interact with Intellectual Property laws and what can be done to protect these technologies from being labelled “illegal” and eradicated from the Asian market.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Between 2000 and 2012, mobile phone subscriptions in India increased from 3.578 million to 893.86 million — an increase of almost 250 per cent.<a href="#fn1" name="fr1">[1]</a> In fact, mobile device sales were expected to reach 231 million units in 2012, an 8.5 per cent increase from 2011<a href="#fn2" name="fr2">[2]</a> and an incredible leap from the 21 million units sold in India in 2004.<a href="#fn3" name="fr3">[3]</a> While mobile phone penetration has been rising steadily in India,<a href="#fn4" name="fr4">[4]</a> the cost of mobile phones has plummeted, meaning that the ability to purchase and use mobile phones in India is becoming more and more widespread, especially in the marginalized classes. Mobiles are not the only technology that has experienced this phenomenon; indeed, many different types of pervasive technologies (mass-market networked communication technologies) have become increasingly more accessible across the board in Indian society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">When I use the term <i>pervasive,</i> I am referring to those technologies that are the most accessible to and used by the typical Indian. These technologies are characterized by their ability to provide access to media without significant cost to the user through both their low cost and their features. Mobile phones, netbooks and media players, as well as hardware, software and associated content are all considered to be pervasive technologies. For research purposes, CIS will only consider those technologies that cost under USD 100 or about INR 5,400. Considering that in 2011 it was estimated that about 75 per cent of the mobile devices sold in India cost below USD 75,<a href="#fn5" name="fr5">[5]</a> this is not a restrictive figure.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Although these technologies have become near ubiquitous in India and similar developing markets, very little is actually understood about how they interact with Intellectual Property (IP) laws. The pervasive technology industry exists somewhere between formal and informal and legal and illegal (as Carolyn Nordstrom would put it, these technologies would be il slash legal, or il/legal),<a href="#fn6" name="fr6">[6]</a> and can shift in and out of the legal/formal and illegal/informal realm depending on the stage of production; this is why they are often referred to as “gray market” technologies (though in some cases, it may even be appropriate to call them extra-legal). This lack of compliance with IP laws have made technologies both quite cheap to purchase and a popular platform for software, hardware and content innovation. The result is that these technologies often contain the newest and most interesting features and they provide the most “bang-for-your-buck” for content and value-added services. Thus, a consumer can buy a grey market technology that will have a wide array of features and services for a much lower price than would be paid to one of the larger manufacturers for an equal or even lesser product.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is the low cost but highly sophisticated state of these pervasive technologies that is changing the way that people across the world access information and media, particularly those individuals and groups that routinely face barriers to mainstream structures of access. For those that were left on the wrong side of the infamous “digital divide”, pervasive technologies have been arguably the most effective means of providing real access to knowledge to the masses within India and across Asia, even more so than directed development initiatives. Indeed, pervasive technologies are not the future solution for access to knowledge; they are the current reality.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Although pervasive technologies are plausibly the most effective tools of access for knowledge in the marketplace in emerging economies like China, Indonesia and India, very little scholarly research has been done on pervasive technologies in the developing world, especially research that acknowledges the significant role that pervasive technologies have had in bridging the digital divide. This absence of appreciation for the significance of pervasive technologies in developing economies, coupled with a lack of understanding around their complex interaction with national and international IP regimes, may lead to a policy vacuum within which the existence of pervasive technologies could be jeopardized. Accordingly, CIS will begin a new access to knowledge research initiative that aims to understand the relationship between pervasive technologies and Intellectual Property. <i>Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Marketplace </i>will span over two-and-a-half calendar years (30 calendar months) and will recruit researchers from China, India, and other parts of Asia. Interaction will also be established with members of like-minded projects in Africa and Latin America. This research will begin as soon as it is approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The current project proposal is available for download as a <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/pervasive-technologies-research-proposal.pdf" class="internal-link">PDF document</a> (299 Kb).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The immediate aim of the research is to understand the legal environment, in which pervasive technologies exist, but simply generating comprehension is not enough; pervasive technologies must be allowed a more formal space in the Indian market. As part of the research project, CIS plans to carry out both an advocacy phase and dissemination phase in order to use the research outputs to create a more widespread understanding of the importance of pervasive technologies as access to knowledge tools. We hope that the research will encourage the formation of IP reforms and norms that recognize the role that pervasive technologies play in providing access to knowledge and enable their continued participation in the Indian market and society.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span class="visualHighlight">As the formal research project has yet to commence, I will be working on a small section of the <i>Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Marketplace</i> research on pervasive mobile phone technologies. CIS currently possesses 12 mobile phones that fall into the definition of pervasive technologies, though we will hopefully add to our collection as the research continues. The aim of this research is to document as much information about the life-cycles, hardware, software and content of each phone as possible in order to generate a better understanding of how these phones exist and interact with IP regimes and norms. The blog series on this research should begin in the next couple of weeks.</span></p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[<a href="#fr1" name="fn1">1</a>]. Data available on the International Telecommunications Union Data Explorer at <a href="http://bit.ly/MIfEYO">http://bit.ly/MIfEYO</a><br />[<a href="#fr2" name="fn2">2</a>].Gartner Inc. Gartner Says Indian Mobile Handset Sales to Reach 231 Million Units in 2012, <a href="http://bit.ly/tKe7nU">http://bit.ly/tKe7nU</a>(November 22, 2011).<br />[<a href="#fr3" name="fn3">3</a>].Gartner Inc., ‘Forecast: Mobile Terminals, Worldwide, 2000-2009<i> </i>report’ (July, 2005), but cited information can be retrieved from <a href="http://bit.ly/PTAOFC">http://bit.ly/PTAOFC</a><br />[<a href="#fr4" name="fn4">4</a>].International Telecommunications Union, 'The World in 2009: ICT Facts and Figures' available at <a href="http://bit.ly/qtwGU">http://bit.ly/qtwGU</a><br />[<a href="#fr5" name="fn35">5</a>].Gartner Inc. Gartner Says Indian Mobile Handset Sales to Reach 231 Million Units in 2012, <a href="http://bit.ly/qtwGU">http://bit.ly/qtwGU</a> (November 22, 2011).<br />[<a href="#fr6" name="fn6">6</a>].Nordstrom, C. <i>Global Outlaws: Crime, Money, and Power in the Contemporary World </i>(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 256.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/pervasive-technologies-access-to-knowledge-in-the-market-place'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/pervasive-technologies-access-to-knowledge-in-the-market-place</a>
</p>
No publisherJadine LannonAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2012-10-30T06:23:53ZBlog EntryPervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Market Place — A Presentation by Sunil Abraham
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/access-to-knowledge-in-market-place
<b>The 2012 Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest was organized in Rio de Janeiro from December 15 to 17, 2012. The Centre for Internet & Society partnered FGV, Washington College of Law, the American Embassy, African Information Research and Training and International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development in this event. Sunil Abraham made a presentation on Pervasive Technologies on the opening day, December 15, 2012.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham presented on 13 different smartphones from the Indian market such as: The Classroom in a Box, The Supercharger, The Networker, The Linguist, TV on the Go, The Spy, The Semi-Smartphone, The Trendy, The Boombox, 3D, The Mighty Mini, The Pianist, and the Indian Experience.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Most of the above devices are manufactured in China and imported into India through local companies for domestic consumption and made available for its 900 million mobile subscribers.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies.pdf" class="internal-link">Download the presentation</a> [PDF, 4.61 Mb]</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/access-to-knowledge-in-market-place'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/access-to-knowledge-in-market-place</a>
</p>
No publishersunilFeaturedAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2013-02-13T07:05:15ZBlog EntryPervasive Technologies Project Working Document Series: Literature Review on IPR in Mobile app development
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-working-document-series-literature-review-on-ipr-in-mobile-app-development
<b>This post is literature survey of material exploring and analysing the role of Application Platforms in the Mobile Applications Development ecosystem, albeit from an intellectual property perspective. The document is a work in progress. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>1. What are the decisions developers are making within their practice in terms of location of their enterprise and clients, scale of audience, funding, business models and mobile apps marketplace (app stores)? Who is the primary actor in the mobile applications development cycle in India?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong> 1.1. Is the mobile apps marketplace organically developing into a Bazaar model, or a Cathedral model?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong> 1.2. What are the contractual terms between the enterprise and the employee? What is the typical nature of agreements in the mobile apps development industry between enterprise- employee and enterprise- client?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The role of Mobile application developers (“developers”) is critical in the app market, especially when such markets are regarded as the key entry and dissemination point for mobile content. Developers are seen as innovation engines and the fastest route to innovation, so understanding factors that attract and retain third party mobile application developers is of importance to mobile platform providers in order to survive.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong> Who are the primary actors in the mobile applications development cycle in India?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This chapter of the Pervasive Technologies Project (“Project”) aims to study developers who are key contributors to the mobile applications space within India; and the problems, those being faced by them as they attempt to navigate an emerging and ambiguous ecosystem. The results of our qualitative research give us insight into the characteristics of this new tribe. A majority of the developers do not own the products they innovate and instead assign ownership of their IP over to their clients. Innovating for the purpose of creating and retaining ownership is a key motivation and is reflected in the tendency of developers to move away from the services sector to develop their own products.<a name="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">As one developer puts it, “unless you're a 1000 man enterprise, there's no economic benefit in services; as competition has driven pricing so low, everyone's struggling to deliver $12-14 per hour.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Every startup in mobile development, especially, is doing services to stay afloat and would like to move toward a product model.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Further, IAMAI conducted a survey<a name="_ftnref2" href="#_ftn2"><strong>[2]</strong></a> in 2013 and the report presents an analysis in four sections:</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>a) Who? The App Developer in India</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>b) What? The Preference of Users and Developers in India</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>c) Why? The Business of Apps in India</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>d) How? The Future of Apps in India</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>The Report states:</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>“The vast majority of app developers in India are male. In their survey of 454 developers, only 35 respondents were female reflecting the gender bias. On the demand side 80 percent of smartphone users in India are male reinforcing the male dominance. Geographically the respondents were all based in India except one developer of Indian origin residing in Malaysia. The well known and established IT cities in India are attractive for app developers because they provide with easy access to infrastructure, skill and a ready market for products. The survey shows the concentration of app developers in the cities of Bangalore, Mumbai, Delhi NCR, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad. A larger percentage of developers in such IT cities make apps on a full-time basis as compared to developers in other cities. The survey data also shows that Bangalore, Mumbai and NCR have the maximum number of companies (organized business operations) engaged in app development. Cities like Ahmedabad, Hyderabad and Chennai host many small teams of app developersas well as self-employed app professionals. In most of the other cities such as Bhubaneshwar, Cochin, Coimbatore, Gandhinagar and Kota, app development is done primarily on a part-time basis and is not the primary source of income. This could be the result of limited monetization options that make app development an unsustainable livelihood for many.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>The popularity of international apps was evident in the survey data. The average download of ‘Indian’ apps was very low. Only 14 of the 454 developers has crossed the hundred thousand download mark, of which only 5 surpassed the one million milestone. These numbers do not pertain to a single app, but to the cumulative number of downloads across all the apps created by each developer, supporting the thesis of low visibility of apps developed domestically.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>In their sample of 454 developers, entertainment apps including gaming and social networking are the dominant categories reflecting demand side preference. Utilities, health and education are the other important categories. The survey also below provided the number of apps developed under each category. The list does not include lifestyle and enterprise apps which are exceptions. One forceful result of their survey is the focus of app developers on foreign app demand in preference to producing locally-relevant content - as the latter is less profitable. Each respondent in their sample had developed an average of 38 apps. Of these 13 have developed 100 or more apps and these are the larger professional app companies. After excluding extreme values, the average number of apps developed by each respondent fell to 17.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Skewed revenue sharing models biased against content providers was one of the main reasons why Indian app developers focus on international app stores such as Apple App Store or Google PlayStore that offer a flat 70 percent of the total revenue to developers. This adversely affected development of India-specific apps and even popular apps such as Saavn and Zomato have expanded abroad because of this very reason.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Survey results indicated an Android dominated future for the app economy in India for two apparent reasons. One, Android devices are more affordable and two, the Android ecosystem is open allowing OEMs such as Samsung and HTC to manufacture mobile devices that use the Android OS. The drawback turns out to be the resulting fragmentation in screen sizes, resolution limits and hardware traits. Because of this, “developing apps that work across the whole range of Android devices can be extremely challenging and time-consuming.” Moreover, Indian app developers need to recognise the existence of an active market for used phones and thus the appeal of ‘backward compatibility’ i.e. an app that can work across old devices as well as new ones and also function across both old and new versions of operating systems will stand a better chance of success.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>On the whole, app development was not considered to be a remunerative business opportunity. 17 percent of respondents who answered the question on choice of revenue model indicated that they did not have a specific revenue generation plan. While some developers are engaged in contractual development, there are few developers who self finance their project and do not actively market or promote their app. The business of app development in India seems to be at a stage in which it could be characterised as one based on a ‘hit and trial’ philosophy. Self financing is common in the industry. Only 7 and 13 developers approached banks or venture capitalists for financing. Funding an app developer was not an investor’s primary choice. Recognising the market failure and the utility of apps, the Department of Electronics and IT and Department of Telecommunication have both instituted funds to encourage mobile technology ventures</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>and app development in India.<a name="_ftnref3" href="#_ftn3"><strong>[3]</strong></a> One can argue on the efficacy of the use of limited public resources for app development, but not the fact that app development in India needs a boost. The industry is still very young and ‘unorganized’ and is largely dependent on own and informal sources for financing. The study presents presents the source of financing for app developers.”</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Understanding of IP</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">There is a lack of understanding of IP amongst the developers. During the course of interviews, IP was often thought of as mere content or code. There was also confusion between the terms IP and IPR. The few developers who understood the nuances of IP better, voiced a need for the developer community to deepen their understanding of what parts of their work are IP. Samuel Mani, Founding Partner of <a href="http://www.mcmlaw.in/">Mani Chengappa & Mathur, </a>stressed that developers should recognize the value within not just the product or software itself, but the background business processes. According to Mani, the execution of the idea is the true source of innovation; how one accesses the market, and maybe who the market is as well.<a name="_ftnref4" href="#_ftn4">[4]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The IAMAI report<a name="_ftnref5" href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> had some observations on the impact of IP on the apps industry. According to the report, “<em>since the industry thrived on innovation, protection of intellectual property was important to developers. The balance between protection and sharing of innovation was part of a larger and often tendentious debate on open source versus proprietary software development.<a name="_ftnref6" href="#_ftn6"><strong>[6]</strong></a> The survey did not attempt to deconstruct that debate; merely reported that 70 percent of respondents were of the view that intellectual property protection was a concern for app developers. However, not all had taken steps to protect intellectual property. The lack of seriousness could be associated with poor revenue potential from apps. Among those who had, some obtained copyrights/patents, while others worked with individual checks on in-app piracy using code morphing, copy protection, server–based checks, or both etc (The study provides data on different IP protection measures).”</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Nature of their clients</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Out-sourced 'mobile app services' is marginal as a business model here in India.<a name="_ftnref7" href="#_ftn7">[7]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Ownership of their product/service:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Often, the lack in understanding can be traced to the developers working in isolation from the legalities involved in assigning the product to the client. Majority of those interviewed developed mobile app products for clients, and in turn assigned ownership of their products to their clients. As previously mentioned, they commonly shared an interest in leaving the services sector to create products of their own, with some of them already having made the transition within their business model.<a name="_ftnref8" href="#_ftn8">[8]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Contractual clauses most important to mobile app developers: </strong>Delving deeper into the aspect of assigning ownership to clients, the most common practice is for developers to enter into a work-for-hire agreement with the client. Typically, a work-for-hire agreement mandates that if a worker is paid to carry out a particular project, whatever is created within the project belongs to the client.<a name="_ftnref9" href="#_ftn9">[9]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">For startups where team players are small in number, it is likely that all will have access to any contract agreements entered into with clients. For larger corporate software developer firms, there may be a specialized department for legal-related matters. In such cases, the mobile app developers themselves would seldom lay eyes on the legalese of contracts, for the primary reason being that it doesn't concern them. Instead, the terms of agreement more familiar to them would be those that they obliged to upon working for their employer. The interviews revealed that the importance of contract agreements was actually underestimated in the country.<a name="_ftnref10" href="#_ftn10">[10]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Within a work-for-hire agreement, it is commonplace for developers to enter into restrictive agreements that obstruct the freedoms of what they can do with the code created for the client. Problematic areas proved to be those related to the time periods in which the developer was not allowed to take up future work for competing clients (i.e. the non-compete clause), or could not talk about their work for the client at all (the “quiet period”).<a name="_ftnref11" href="#_ftn11">[11]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Developers are unable to license their work to other interested clients when one client retains ownership. “Clients typically do not want a perpetual license, but complete ownership”, says a website developer. He further explains that, “this means they could make a derivative work or use it for another project. Depending on how bad we want the project, we'll work out some middle ground.” But it does not seem to be so easy for he and his SME to do so: “The thing about contracts is it’s all about a sort of differential bargaining power that the two parties have... you’ll have very little control about what happens once you’ve got paid.”<a name="_ftnref12" href="#_ftn12">[12]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">To have any sort of bargaining power within a work-for-hire arrangement requires a lot of time for negotiating, and the space for communication to begin with. In many cases, contracts may not even be introduced into a work agreement, leaving a lot of intricacies to the unknown.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The problems are further compounded by contract illiteracy, more so in second tier cities.<a name="_ftnref13" href="#_ftn13">[13]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>2. What is the nature of innovation emerging from the mobile app industry?</strong> <strong>What is the awareness of the "mobile applications developer and its enterprise on rules concerning code, content and design? How does re-use and sharing of code, content and design occur in the mobile application developer ecosystem ? What is the perceived impact of the Indian IPR regime on the aforementioned aspects? Finally, do the emerging trends in re-use and sharing of code run afoul of Indian IP law?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">There is a marked shift towards using open source software amongst developers. According to a Gartner study, most software makers will have some open source applications or code in their portfolio by 2016. The study also reaches the conclusion that 99% of Forbes’ Global 2000 companies will be using some form of open source software.<a name="_ftnref14" href="#_ftn14">[14]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Awareness</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The interviews revealed different personal understandings of the meaning of IP. The most common responses were the following<a name="_ftnref15" href="#_ftn15">[15]</a>:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>A :</strong> When questioned about IP to developers, they did not know what it meant, because it didn’t have anything to do with what they were doing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>B : </strong>Developers often did not know what part of their app was IP... there is was gap in understanding with respect to IP.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">For the most part, it seems, IP was considered to refer to content or code across interviews, and was even confused at one point with IPR (IP Rights) within a response referring to an SME's trademark and pending application.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">For those who appeared to be better versed in matters related to IP, they emphasised on the need for developers to be better acquainted with what parts of their work are IP. One interviewee stressed on the importance of developers to recognize the value of background business processes, apart from software and the product itself. <a name="_ftnref16" href="#_ftn16">[16]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In certain cases, it took $1 million in sales for a medium-sized software development enterprise to start paying attention to IP. The enterprise tried to obtain patent protection for their application, but the effort turned out to be futile.<a name="_ftnref17" href="#_ftn17">[17]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Protection of work (Speaks to awareness also)</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">When asked, those interviewed responded with a variance in answers. Some simply stated that their work is not protected, while a few mentioned that they acquired trademark or intend to apply for trademark protection. One interviewee had a patent pending in India and the US, as well. In many conversations, developers mentioned that their code for their apps is under open source licenses, and a couple others entailed sharing that the content is under creative commons licenses, “individual licenses,” or joint copyright. Additionally, within one interview, one mentioned the use of encryption tools as a technical means of protection for their work.<a name="_ftnref18" href="#_ftn18">[18]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">“<em>The concept of securing IP is relatively new within the Indian context... it becomes a question of priority between innovation and protection" — Aravind Krishnaswamy, Levitum.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Of the developers interviewed, many exhibited some sort of confusion or misunderstanding related to the protection of their works by means of intellectual property rights (IPR). Those interviewed seemed to either express an interest to acquire IPR in the future for their products in the forms of patent or trademark protection, or expressed their appreciation for openness source licensing—or both! Beneath these immediate responses, however, many repeated patterns, as well as contradictions, are revealed. Conversations that followed within these interviewed entailed the opportunity to hear from personal experiences and opinions on different areas within their practice intersecting IPR.<a name="_ftnref19" href="#_ftn19">[19]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Across interviews conducted, one particular observation entailed the tendency for developers to have worked in the past for corporate employers that have dealt with cases of infringement or have acquired IP protection. Almost half of those interviewed shared the fact that they worked for a corporate employer and became better familiar with different notions of intellectual property through that experience. It may not be too far-fetched to suggest, then, that for the developer the idea of acquiring IPR protection is one that may be reinforced from previous employers or other successful development companies with IPR of their own.<a name="_ftnref20" href="#_ftn20">[20]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Impact of law & reasons for IPR Protection</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">One would assume that if a startup was bootstrapped with minimal cash flow, then it would place a low priority on getting IP protection for its products. Aravind Krishnaswamy of startup, <a href="http://levitum.in/">Levitum</a>, also stated that <em>“the concept of securing IP was relatively new within the Indian context.” <a name="_ftnref21" href="#_ftn21"><strong>[21]</strong></a></em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Yet, many developers who were interviewed did express an interest in IPR. The main concerns developers believed IP protection would address, were proving ownership over their work or preventing problems in the future. One developer's commented on how the mobile app market is a “new and potentially volatile area for software development.” For this reason, it was imperative that he and his team attempted to avoid trouble in the future, and ensure that they going about mobile app development the right and moral way.<a name="_ftnref22" href="#_ftn22">[22]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Within another interview, developer, John Paul of mobile app SME, Plackal, explained his motives for seeking to acquire patent protection, the application for which back then was pending in India and the US: "<strong>For us, applying for a patent is primarily defensive.</strong> And if it does get infringed upon, it would give us a good opportunity to generate revenue from it." For the company's trademark, they sought to be able to enforce their ownership over their product's brand: “As a precautionary, we've trademarked the app so that should there be a situation where the app is pirated, we can claim ownership for that app.”<a name="_ftnref23" href="#_ftn23">[23]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Do the emerging trends run afoul of Indian law?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Yes. This was evident from the legal practices of mobile app developers and the resulting cases of infringement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Some instances of infringement (limited to Mobile app content (i.e. logos, pictures, etc.)) are<a name="_ftnref24" href="#_ftn24"><strong>[24]</strong></a>:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">• Pirated apps in app stores</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">• “Dummy apps” or imitations of another's app</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">• Breaching app stores user agreement</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">• Violation of License agreements of code created by another</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">• Violation of Open source licenses</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">• Breaching of terms of agreement for by commissioning clients</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">• Breaching of terms of agreement for by those hired</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Some of the developers indicated that they weren't a fish big enough to be pursued for infringement. “The big companies do not go after small developers; it depends on how much money they're making.” said a developer. He added,“Patent lawsuits can cost something like millions of dollars, so unless they're going to get more back, they wouldn't go through the trouble of doing so... but that is true even in the US.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Some added that others who may have been apparently copying you, may have been working on the same content independently. Corporate players are in non-compliance knowingly than not, whereas more SMEs infringe upon others without being aware that they are. Just as well, the degree to which infringement takes place may differ between the two types of industry players: “At the corporate level, where they know they are not in compliance, the degree of non-compliance might be very small or specific, but it still exists.” On the other hand, for startup developers, a substantial amount of their code may not comply with the licenses and agreements they are obliged to—something that could pose problems for them later down the road if left unfixed. <a name="_ftnref25" href="#_ftn25">[25]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>3. The apps marketplace is extremely important since they are the gatekeepers enabling access to apps. What is the nature of the apps marketplace? What are the limitations associated with it ? How do the existing regulatory models intersect with this relatively new marketplace? What is the enforcement carried out by these app stores in terms of IP?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">“<strong><em>The app platform is a gatekeeper which provides the consumer and developer a virtual space to buy and sell products (mobile apps). What is the nature of the app platform? What are the limitations associated with it?</em></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><em>An app dealing in pirated content or infringing intellectual property faces the risk of getting barred by the app platform. What is the enforcement carried out by app platforms to protect intellectual property?”</em></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Firstly, what is an app platform?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Iansteti and Levien<a name="_ftnref26" href="#_ftn26"><strong>[26]</strong></a></em> state that at the core of each innovation network is a focal organization known as <strong>platform owner</strong> (or keystone) that provides the platform to facilitate contribution by other members in the network.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Hagiu<a name="_ftnref27" href="#_ftn27">[27]</a> defines a platform as a product, service or technology that provides a foundation for other parties to develop complementary products.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Specifically<em>, I Kouris<a name="_ftnref28" href="#_ftn28"><strong>[28]</strong></a></em> defines an app platform as a special kind of electronic market which enable software developers to distribute their software applications(apps) among users of mobile devices like smartphones or tablets. An app platform owner dictates the entire infrastructure(like user interface, server space, etc.) and determines the rules for the interaction between the developers and users. They usually provide information about apps and developers and serve as a trusted third party by controlling app quality. <em>Fransman M<a name="_ftnref29" href="#_ftn29"><strong>[29]</strong></a></em> characterised the app platform as an 'innovation ecosystem incorporating app developers effectively.'</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Innovation can happen within the enterprise, or can take a more open route and benefit from external innovation. In order to gain the benefit of external innovation, platform owners must open their platforms up beyond their internal base of developers and provide resources to third party developers.<a name="_ftnref30" href="#_ftn30">[30]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>What is the platform concept in software?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Broadly, <em>Noori<a name="_ftnref31" href="#_ftn31"><strong>[31]</strong></a></em>, discusses the issues about the platform concept in software and attempts to address the subject of platform strategy. Tsai, Phal & Robert<a name="_ftnref32" href="#_ftn32">[32]</a> further the discussion by stating principles for an effective platform strategy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In mobile ecosystems <strong>building a developer community</strong> is one of the niches to attract the developers to join the ecosystem. However, health can mean differing things for different ecosystem members. In order to stimulate innovation<a name="_ftnref33" href="#_ftn33">[33]</a> the keystone company is often forced to relinquish much of their control over the platform to the development community. This involves a careful balancing act in relinquishing enough control to create a healthy environment for developers, and not stifling innovation while retaining a necessary and desired degree of control.<a name="_ftnref34" href="#_ftn34">[34]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Baskin<a name="_ftnref35" href="#_ftn35">[35]</a> examines the problems concerning software patent under the mobile applications platform environment. The scope of the analysis is limited to two mobile applications platforms: Apple's iOS and Google's Android. The analysis throws light on the problems of innovation in software systems like iOS and Android. The note also proposes several changes to both antitrust and patent laws that will make it more difficult for established market players to prevent new competitors from entering high tech markets, thereby promoting greater openness and innovation. The part on software patents discusses the effects of enforcement of patent rights on open and closed systems. The note observes that the US Federal Circuit's decisions (Fonar Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., io7 F.3d 1543, 1549 (Fed. Cir. 1997)) have severely curtailed both the enablement and best mode requirements for successful software patents., thereby limiting the disclosure and preventing many of the invention's useful elements from reaching the public domain. Patentability issues have affected open systems such as Android more than Apple, owing to a greater dependency on third parties to run android systems, leading to more patent infringement issues. It recommends, that, intellectual property law should promote open systems above patent protection in high tech fields, allow reverse engineering of software and introduce an 'independent invention' defence in the law for innovators.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">A certain paper addresses rejection of apps in the AppStore on three grounds: rejection on content grounds (including some competition-driven restrictions), rejection on development grounds, and the regulation of transactions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Apple's and Google's foray into building a mobile development platform</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Coming from the music and personal computer industry, Apple disrupted the mobile industry by making its mobile development platform available to third party developers and eliminating the barriers between those developers and customers. The main goal of Apple in the mobile world is to increase the cross-sales of its high-margin products by providing a continuous experience roaming (iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple TV) using complements such as mobile applications, content, services, and accessories.<a name="_ftnref36" href="#_ftn36">[36]</a> Google, on the other hand, is an online advertising company which provides an open source mobile operating system, in the shape of Android, on which mobile handset manufacturers can develop smartphones without paying software licensing fees. By commoditizing mobile device production under its unique governance structure and building a large developer community, Google secured a means of reducing the barriers to new users accessing their advertising through smartphones. Microsoft through its Windows Phone is the most recent addition to the leading mobile platform providers. Its motivations lie in trying to protect its core business of software licensing which has been disrupted by falling PC sales linked to the emergence of mobile technology and free cloud technology services provided by companies such as Google which have impacted respectively on its licensing fees for Windows OS and Microsoft Office<a name="_ftnref37" href="#_ftn37">[37]</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Luis H Hestres<a name="_ftnref38" href="#_ftn38">[38]</a> analyzes Apple’s guidelines and approval process on the App Store, discusses content-based rejections of apps, and outlines the consequences of this process for developers’ and consumers’ freedom of expression. It outlines a set of principles to ensure “app-neutrality” whilie ensuring device quality and safety. The article illustrates challenges faced by app developers working on the iOS platform. Criticisms have come forth about Apple's arbitrary and opaque review process. Apple has a rejection rate of 30% of the 26,000 apps submitted to the app store each week<a name="_ftnref39" href="#_ftn39">[39]</a>. Van Grove<a name="_ftnref40" href="#_ftn40">[40]</a> comments that the ambiguity, opaqueness, and susceptibility to outside pressures that seems to characterize Apple’s approval process do a disservice to a democratic online culture. With more than 400 million iOS devices sold worldwide since 2007<a name="_ftnref41" href="#_ftn41">[41]</a>, Apple’s devices and app store have become important online intermediaries for Internet users. The article proposes a few basic guidelines, anchored on widely accepted international laws and treaties, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Statistics</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">A Report<a name="_ftnref42" href="#_ftn42">[42]</a> presents us with some important insights into the growth of Google Play. Following are the highlights of the report: There are now well over 1 million apps available on Google Play App downloads and revenue from Google Play increased dramatically over the past year; Markets such as Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Turkey and Indonesia are driving growth in app downloads from Google Play; Google Play is experiencing rapid expansion of monetization in established markets such as Japan, the United States and South Korea; Games played a major role in the acceleration of Google Play revenue growth, but almost all app categories experienced expansion and accounted for almost 90% of revenue in Q1 2014; The freemium business model advanced its domination of Google Play app revenue, and represents a growing proportion of downloads; Asian markets lead the way in generating freemium revenue. Another report8 reiterates the explosion of gaming apps.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>4. How does Indian copyright law and patent law apply to the mobile applications development ecosystem, in respect of the various business models operating in the industry?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>4.1. The patent regime is grounded on a laboratory model of innovation. What does the niche mobile applications development industry (working on a micro-creativity model of innovation) require differently from the patent regime to foster growth?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>4.2. Similarly, copyright law has a distinct design for digital objects. Examine the design and its suitability to regulate a mobile application.</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>A.</strong> The interviews reveal a dichotomy existing in the mobile app developer space. While some developers argued for strong IPR protections, several of app developers opposed strict IPR protection (patents, especially) and advocated use of open source software.<a name="_ftnref43" href="#_ftn43">[43]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Open source for future protection (Applicable as literature to Research question 2)</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Sometimes developers license for community values primarily, however, the assumption is that dominant reason is to retain the ability to use their own work across clients. A designer from a services enterprise gave a different reason for doing so: to guarantee their ability to use their work again. “Since we use a bunch of templates and things like that, those we license using a non-exclusive license, because we reuse those elements on different bits of code in different projects,” he explains, “so there are bits of it which is used over multiple projects and there are stuff that is built exclusively for the client.”<a name="_ftnref44" href="#_ftn44">[44]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Here one can gather some insight, that perhaps developers do not necessarily license for community values primarily, but for the ability to use their own work across clients. That being said, we begin to wonder what the possibility that open source code may serve as a loophole for work-for-hire contracts, which require the developer to assign all written intellectual property to whoever is commissioning the project. If the code happened to “already be available by open source,” a developer may still be honouring any restrictive agreements with clients, and ensuring their ability to use their code in this future again.<a name="_ftnref45" href="#_ftn45">[45]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">As a developer suggests, that startups should first and foremost protect themselves by making wiser choices related to code in order to prevent being litigated against by others—such as using an open source equivalent to a piece of code that one does not have the rights to, or instead putting the extra time in to develop it from scratch.<a name="_ftnref46" href="#_ftn46">[46]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Of those who expressed an interest in the open source movement, not all had said that their products were to be open licensed as well. One developer explicitly stated: “I like the idea of open source, and building upon others' work...but our app is not open source, it's proprietary.” It may be a given, then, that all or most developers within our interview sample rely on open source code within their practice, but not all may contribute their resulting product's source code back.<a name="_ftnref47" href="#_ftn47">[47]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Vivek Durai, from Humble Paper said that despite the fact that “open source has really taken route... on the smaller levels, people will come to a point when philosophies begin to change the moment you start seeing commercial.”<a name="_ftnref48" href="#_ftn48">[48]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>B.</strong> A certain paper<a name="_ftnref49" href="#_ftn49">[49]</a> examines from various angles the complex relationship between intellectual-property rights and technological innovation. Following are the conclusions:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">1) Intellectual property rights are most likely to foster innovation when the following conditions converge in a particular industry: (a) high research-and-development costs; (b) a high degree of uncertainty concerning whether specific lines of research will prove fruitful; (c) the content of technological advances can be ascertained easily by competitors through “reverse engineering”; and (d) technological advances can be mimicked by competitors rapidly and inexpensively.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">2) The likelihood that intellectual-property rights will impede more than stimulate innovation increases as more and more of the following factors obtain in a particular field: (a) trade-secret protection or lead-time advantages reduce the ability of competitors to take advantage of technological advances; (b) innovation in the field tends to be highly cumulative; (c) researchers in the field are motivated primarily by non-monetary incentives; (d) the field is characterized by strong network externalities. The last three of these circumstances were all present during the development of the technical infrastructure of the Internet; it is thus not surprising that that development proceeded rapidly and effectively with little reliance upon intellectual-property systems.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">3) The following techniques may be employed to mitigate the economic side-effects of intellectual-property systems: (a) compulsory licenses; (b) facilitation of price discrimination; (c) strict enforcement of the “utility” requirement; (d) encouragement of appropriate cross-licensing agreements (provided that cartel behavior can be simultaneously discouraged); (e) narrow interpretations of “similarity”; (f) strict enforcement of “enablement” and “best-mode” requirements; and (g) the affirmative defenses of patent and copyright misuse.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">4) In contexts in which reliance upon these mitigating devices is not feasible, the following alternative ways of solving the public-goods problem may be superior to intellectual-property rights as ways of stimulating innovation:government research; government funding for private research; or post-hoc government rewards for private technological advances.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>C. </strong>In a paper<a name="_ftnref50" href="#_ftn50">[50]</a>, the authors study the determinants of patent quality and volume of patent applications when inventors care about perceived patent quality. They analyze the effects of various policy reforms, specifically, a proposal to establish a two‐tiered patent system. In the two‐tiered system, applicants can choose between a regular patent and a more costly, possibly more thoroughly examined, ‘gold‐plate’ patent. Introducing a second patent‐tier can reduce patent applications, reduce the incidence of bad patents, and sometimes increase social welfare. The gold‐plate tier attracts inventors with high ex‐ante probability of validity, but not necessarily applicants with innovations of high economic value.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>D. </strong>Copyrights related to apps are still being hashed out in the courts. Oracle, for example, sued Google<a name="_ftnref51" href="#_ftn51">[51]</a> for copyright infringement regarding the structure of Java APIs in its Android operating system<a name="_ftnref52" href="#_ftn52">[52]</a>, and the case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">E. Policy Levers in Patent Law<a name="_ftnref53" href="#_ftn53">[53]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The paper argues that some industries should be the subject of patent tailoring – which can make them illustrative of certain policy levers. Use of obviousness and disclosure doctrines to modulate the scope and frequency of patents, as might be necessary where anti-commons to patent thicket theories are applicable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Nature of software vis-a-vis biological/chemical inventions</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Software inventions tend to have a quick, cheap, and fairly straightforward post- invention development cycle. Most of the work in software development occurs in the initial coding, not in development or production. The lead time to market in the software industry tends to be short. Because innovation is less uncertain in software than in industries like biotechnology, Merges’ economic framework suggests that the non-obviousness bar should be rather high.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Implementing a rational software policy obviously requires some significant changes to existing case law. A number of policy levers might be brought to bear on this problem. First, obviousness doctrine needs to be reformed, preferably by way of a more informed application of the level of skill in the art or alternatively by application of new secondary considerations of non-obviousness.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Poor handling of software patents by the Federal Circuit</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The paper argued that broad software patents were indeed what the existing Federal Circuit jurisprudence will likely produce. By relaxing the enablement requirement and permitting software inventions defined in broad terms, supported by very little in the way of detailed disclosure, the Federal Circuit has encouraged software patents to be drafted broadly and to be applied to allegedly infringing devices that are far removed from the original patented invention.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">By implication, the Federal Circuit’s standard also seems to suggest that many narrower software patents on low- level incremental improvements will be invalid for obviousness in view of earlier, more general disclosures. They may also be invalidated under the on- sale bar, because the Supreme Court’s view that a software invention is “ready for patenting” when it is the subject of a commercial order and when the inventor has described its broad functions, even if it is not clear how the code will be written or that it will work for its intended purpose, means that any patentee who waits until the code is written to file a patent application risks being time-barred for not filing earlier. Unfortunately, the Federal Circuit’s current standard seems to be precisely backwards. Software is an industry characterized by at least to a limited extent by competition theory and to a greater extent by cumulative innovation. Cumulative innovation theory suggests that patent protection for incremental software inventions should be relatively easy to acquire in order to reward incremental improvements, implying a somewhat lower obviousness threshold. It also suggests that the resulting patents should be narrow and, in particular, that they should not generally extend across several product generations for fear of stifling subsequent incremental improvements. This suggests that software patents should be limited in scope.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Second, a higher disclosure requirement and restrictions on the doctrine of equivalents will help reduce patent scope. Additionally, the authors think software patents are the ideal candidate for a new policy lever: reverse engineering. Many commentators have explained the importance of permitting competitors to reverse engineer a product in order to see how it works and to figure out ways to design around it. In the case of copyright, courts have adapted the doctrine of fair use, together sometimes with copyright misuse, to allow competitors to engage in reverse engineering of computer software. Patent law includes no express provision allowing reverse engineering, nor is there any judicially developed exception akin to copyright’s fair use doctrine that might permit it. Indeed, patent law generally lacks provisions akin to fair use or other exceptions that might readily be pressed into the service of reverse engineering, although commentators have suggested that patent law may need such exceptions for precisely this reason.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This does not mean that reverse engineering a patented product is necessarily illegal patent law. Some inventions, such as the paper clip, are readily apparent once embodied in a product. Improvers do not need to reverse engineer the paper clip and figure out how it works in order to improve it; they just need to look at it. Additionally, in many cases, the patentee has done all the work necessary for reverse engineering patented inventions by virtue of disclosing how to make and use the claimed invention in the patent specification. <em>In theory, an express </em> <em>provision authorizing reverse engineering would be superfluous if the enabling disclosures </em> <em>required to secure a patent were sufficiently strong – someone who wanted to learn how a </em> <em>patented device worked would only need to read the patent specification.</em> Patentable inventions in software, however, generally do not have these characteristics. Software devices typically cannot be readily understood by casual inspection, and particularly not without access to human-readable source code or other documentation. Examination of the patent itself is unlikely to yield information equivalent to a reverse engineered inspection because the Federal Circuit does not require would-be patentees of software inventions to disclose the implementing source code or, for that matter, very much at all about their inventions. Accordingly, software patents present unique obstacles to consummation of the patent law’s traditional rights-for-disclosure bargain with the public. The specific reverse engineering techniques commonly used for software, in turn, may raise some infringement problems that are unique to software. The definition of infringement in the patent statute is extremely broad, encompassing anyone who “makes, uses, offers to sell, ... sells..., or imports” a patented product. Reverse engineering a patented computer program by decompiling it likely fits within this broad category of prohibited conduct, at least where the program itself is claimed as an apparatus. Reverse engineering clearly constitutes a “use” of the patented software, though owners of a particular copy of the program surely have the right to use it. More significantly, decompilation may also constitute “making” the patented program by generating a temporary yet functional copy of it in RAM memory and, in certain instances, a longer-term (though still “intermediate”) copy in more permanent memory. Those copies probably constitute patent infringement unless protected by some defense. The result of all of this is that the nominally neutral patent law rule – no defense for reverse engineering – affects software more than other industries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The need for a reverse engineering exception in patent law militates in favor of adapting the existing doctrines of exhaustion or experimental use to that end. Patent misuse might also be adapted, as it has been in the copyright arena, to prevent patent holders from deterring or prohibiting reverse engineering related to their inventions. The exception might even be created out of whole cloth by reinterpreting the infringement provisions of section 271(a). The resulting patent doctrine would constitute a macro policy lever. As Cohen and Lemley observe, in most industries there is either no need to reverse engineer an invention or reverse engineering can be done without infringing the patent.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The paper concludes by stating,<em> “Only in software is there a need for a particular doctrine to protect the right to reverse engineer —and therefore the ability of improvers to innovate. Thus, a judicially created reverse engineering defense would make sense across the board in software cases but not in other patent cases.”</em></p>
<hr style="text-align: justify;" />
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn1" href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a>Samantha Cassar, "<a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/app-developers-series-services-products-dichotomy-ip-2013-part-i">App Developers Series: Products-Services Dichotomy & IP (Part I)</a>”, last accessed July 21, 2015</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn2" href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a>IAMAI, “An inquiry into the impact of India's App economy”, 2015</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn3" href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a>DoT has set up a 1000 crore app development centre called Application Development Infrastructure and 700 crores under the National E-Governance Plan have been allocated for mobile technology ventures</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn4" href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a>Supra note 1</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn5" href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a>Supra note 2</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn6" href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a>Hippel, Eric von, and Georg von Krogh. "Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science." Organization science 14.2 (2003): 209-223.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn7" href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a>Supra note 1</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn8" href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn9" href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> Samantha Cassar, “<a name="parent-fieldname-title"></a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mobile-app-developer-series-terms-of-agreement-iv">Mobile App Developer Series: Terms of Agreement – Part IV</a>”, last accessed July 21</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn10" href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn11" href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn12" href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn13" href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn14" href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a>Gartner Data</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn15" href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a>Supra note 1</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn16" href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn17" href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a>Samantha Cassar, “<a name="parent-fieldname-title1"></a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-dis-regard-towards-ipr-vs-patent-hype-2013-part-ii">Interviews with App Developers: [dis]regard towards IPR vs. Patent Hype – Part II</a>”, last accesed July 21, 2015</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn18" href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn19" href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn20" href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn21" href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn22" href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn23" href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn24" href="#_ftnref24">[24]</a>Samantha Cassar, “<a name="parent-fieldname-title2"></a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-name-of-the-game-part-iv">Interviews with App Developers: Name of the Game (Part IV)</a>”, last accessed July 21, 2015</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn25" href="#_ftnref25">[25]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn26" href="#_ftnref26">[26]</a>"Strategy as Ecology," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82, No. 3, March 2004.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn27" href="#_ftnref27">[27]</a> Evans, D. S., A. Hagiu and R. Schmalensee, 2006, Invisible Engines: How Software Platforms</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Drive Innovation and Transform Industries, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn28" href="#_ftnref28">[28]</a>Kouris, Iana and Kleer, Rob, "BUSINESS MODELS IN TWO-SIDED MARKETS: AN ASSESSMENT OF STRATEGIES FOR APP PLATFORMS" (2012). <em>2012 International Conference on Mobile Business.</em> Paper 22.<br /> http://aisel.aisnet.org/icmb2012/22</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn29" href="#_ftnref29">[29]</a>Fransman, M. (2014) Models of Innovation in Global ICT Firms: The Emerging Global Innovation Ecosystems. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports –EUR 26774 EN. Seville: JRC-IPTS</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn30" href="#_ftnref30">[30]</a> Deniz and Kehoe, Factors that attract and retain third party developers in mobile ecosystems, June 2013</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn31" href="#_ftnref31">[31]</a>Nadea Saad Noori (2009) Managing External Innovation: The case of platform extension, available at <a href="http://www3.carleton.ca/tim/theses/2009/Noori2009.pdf">http://www3.carleton.ca/tim/theses/2009/Noori2009.pdf</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn32" href="#_ftnref32">[32]</a>Tsai, Phal & Robert, Industry Platform Construction and Development in a changing environment: Evidence from the ICT Industry, available at <a href="http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/acc_papers/6s5aqckmne7ggybu0vfxryrynuog.pdf">http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/acc_papers/6s5aqckmne7ggybu0vfxryrynuog.pdf</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn33" href="#_ftnref33">[33]</a> Supra note 9</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn34" href="#_ftnref34">[34]</a> Ibid.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn35" href="#_ftnref35">[35]</a>John Baskin, Competitive Regulation of Mobile Software Systems: Promoting Innovation Through Reform of Antitrust and Patent Laws (2013)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn36" href="#_ftnref36">[36]</a> Constantinou, 2012b</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn37" href="#_ftnref37">[37]</a>Ibid.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn38" href="#_ftnref38">[38]</a>Luis H Hestres (2013) App Neutrality: Apple’s App Store and Freedom of Expression Online , American University , International Journal of Communication 7 (2013), 1265–1280</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn39" href="#_ftnref39">[39]</a>Supra note 9</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn40" href="#_ftnref40">[40]</a>Ibid.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn41" href="#_ftnref41">[41]</a> Supra note 9</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn42" href="#_ftnref42">[42]</a>App Annie Data</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn43" href="#_ftnref43">[43]</a>Supra note 1</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn44" href="#_ftnref44">[44]</a>Samantha Cassar, “<a name="parent-fieldname-title3"></a><a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-open-source-community-and-contradictions-iii">Interviews with App Developers: Open Source, Community, and Contradictions – Part III”</a>, last accessed July 21</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn45" href="#_ftnref45">[45]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn46" href="#_ftnref46">[46]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn47" href="#_ftnref47">[47]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn48" href="#_ftnref48">[48]</a>Ibid</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn49" href="#_ftnref49">[49]</a> William Fisher, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INNOVATION: THEORETICAL, EMPIRICAL, AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn50" href="#_ftnref50">[50]</a><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2490195">Patent Quality and a Two‐Tiered Patent System</a> (Vidya Atal and Talia Brar, 2014)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn51" href="#_ftnref51">[51]</a><a href="http://copyrightalliance.org/2014/05/federal_circuit_releases_decision_oracle_v_google">http://copyrightalliance.org/2014/05/federal_circuit_releases_decision_oracle_v_google</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn52" href="#_ftnref52">[52]</a>http://copyrightalliance.org/2014/05/federal_circuit_releases_decision_oracle_v_google#.VYf0i9Z5MxB</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn53" href="#_ftnref53">[53]</a><a href="http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4qr081sg">http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4qr081sg</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-working-document-series-literature-review-on-ipr-in-mobile-app-development'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/pervasive-technologies-project-working-document-series-literature-review-on-ipr-in-mobile-app-development</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaHomepageAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2015-08-31T13:48:02ZBlog Entry