Centre for Internet and Society

Don't Shoot the Messenger: Speech on Intermediary Liability at 22nd SCCR of WIPO

pranesh — 2012-06-01T15:01:08Z

This is a speech made by Pranesh Prakash at an side-event co-organized by the World Intellectual Property Organization and the Internet Society on intermediary liability, to coincide with the release of Prof. Lillian Edwards's WIPO-commissioned report on 'Role and Responsibility of the Internet Intermediaries in the Field of Copyright'.

Good afternoon. I've been asked to provide a user's perspective to the question of intermediary liability. "In what cases should an Internet intermediary—a messenger—be held liable for the doings of a third party?" is the broad question. I believe that in answering that question we can be guided by two simple principles: As long as intermediaries don't exercise direct editorial control, they should not be held liable; and as long as they don't instigate or encourage the illegal activity, they should not be held liable. In all other cases, attacking Internet intermediaries generally a sign of 'shooting the messenger'. General intermediary liability and intermediary liability for copyright infringement share a common philosophical foundation, and so I will talk about general intermediary liability first.

While going about holding intermediaries liable, we must remember that what is at stake here is the fact that intermediaries are a necessary component of ensuring freedom of speech and self-expression on the World Wide Web. In this regard, we must keep in mind the joint declaration issued by four freedom of expression rapporteurs under the aegis of the Organization of American States on June 1, 2011:

Intermediary Liability

a. No one who simply provides technical Internet services such as providing access, or searching for, or transmission or caching of information, should be liable for content generated by others, which is disseminated using those services, as long as they do not specifically intervene in that content or refuse to obey a court order to remove that content, where they have the capacity to do so (‘mere conduit principle’).

b. Consideration should be given to insulating fully other intermediaries, including those mentioned in the preamble, from liability for content generated by others under the same conditions as in paragraph 2(a). At a minimum, intermediaries should not be required to monitor user-generated content and should not be subject to extra-judicial content takedown rules which fail to provide sufficient protection for freedom of expression (which is the case with many of the ‘notice and takedown’ rules currently being applied).

It is useful to keep in mind what the kind of liability we affix on offline intermediaries: Would we hold a library responsible for unlawful material that a user has placed on its shelves without its encouragement?

Ensuring a balanced system of intermediary liability is also very important in preserving the forms of innovations we have seen online. Ensuring that intermediaries aren't always held liable for what third parties do is an essential component of encouraging new models of participation, such as Wikipedia. While Wikipedia has community-set standards with regard to copyright, obscenity, and other such issues, holding the Wikimedia Foundation (which has only around 30-40 people) itself responsible for what millions of users write on Wikipedia will hamper such new models of peer-production. This point, unfortunately, has not prevented the Wikimedia Foundation being sued a great number of times in India, a large percentage of which take the form of SLAPP ('strategic lawsuit against public participation') cases, since if the real intention had been to remove the offending content, editing Wikipedia is an easy enough way of achieving that.

While searching for these balanced solutions, we need to look beyond Europe, and look at how countries like Chile, Brazil, India and others are looking at these issues. Unfortunately, this being Geneva, most of the people I see represented in this room are from the developed world as are the examples we are discussing (France and Spain).

In India, for instance, the Internet Service Providers Association made it clear in 2006 (when there was an outcry over censorship of blogging platforms) that they do not want to be responsible for deciding whether something about which they have received a complaint is unlawful or not.

With respect to copyright and the Internet, while the Internet allows for copyright infringement to be conducted more easily, it also allows for copyright infringement to be spotted more easily. Earlier, if someone copied, it would be difficult to find out. Now that is not so. So, that balance is already ingrained, and while many in the industry focus on the fact of easier infringement and thus ask for increased legal protection, such increase in legal protection is not required since the same technological factors that enable increased infringement also enable increased ability to know about that infringement.

On the Internet, intermediaries sometimes engage in primary infringement due to the very nature of digital technology. In the digital sphere, everything is a copy. Thus, whenever you're working on a computer, copies of the copyrighted that show up on your screen are automatically copied to your computer's RAM. Whenever you download anything from the Internet, copies of it are created en route to your computer. (That is the main reason that exceptions in the copyright laws of most countries that allow you to re-sell a book you own don't apply to electronic books.) In such a case, intermediaries must be specially protected.

Additionally, online activities that we take for granted, for instance search technologies, violate the copyright law of most countries. For online search technology to be reasonably fast (instead of taking hours for each search), the searching has to be done on a copies (cache) of actual websites instead of the actual websites. For image searching, it would be unreasonable to expect search companies to take licences for all the images they allow you to search through. Yet, not doing so might violate the copyright laws of many countries. No one, or so one would think, would argue that search engines should be made illegal, but in some countries copyright law is being used to attack intermediaries.

As noted above, intermediaries are a necessary part of online free speech. Current methods of regulating copyright infringement by users via intermediaries online may well fall afoul of internationally accepted standards of human rights. Frank La Rue, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression in his recent report to the UN Human Rights Council stated:

While blocking and filtering measures deny access to certain content on the Internet, States have also taken measures to cut off access to the Internet entirely.

The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned by discussions regarding a centralized “on/off” control over Internet traffic. In addition, he is alarmed by proposals to disconnect users from Internet access if they violate intellectual property rights. This also includes legislation based on the concept of “graduated response”, which imposes a series of penalties on copyright infringers that could lead to suspension of Internet service, such as the so-called “three-strikes law” in France and the Digital Economy Act 2010 of the United Kingdom.

Beyond the national level, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has been proposed as a multilateral agreement to establish international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement. While the provisions to disconnect individuals from Internet access for violating the treaty have been removed from the final text of December 2010, the Special Rapporteur remains watchful about the treaty’s eventual implications for intermediary liability and the right to freedom of expression.

With respect to graduated response, there is very little that one can add to Prof. Edwards's presentation. I would like to add one further suggestion that Prof. Ed Felten originally put forward as a 'modest proposal': Corporations which make or facilitate three wrongful accusations should face the same penalty as the users who are accused thrice. The recent US strategy of seizing websites even before trial has been sufficiently criticised, so I shall not spend my time on it.

I still have not seen any good evidence as to why for other kinds of primary or secondary liability incurred by online intermediaries the procedure for offline copyright infringement should not apply, since they are usually crafted taking into account principles of natural justice.

The only 'international' and slightly troublesome issue that a resolution is needed to is that of problems relating to different jurisdiction’s laws applying on a single global network. However, this question is much larger one that of copyright and a copyright-specific solution cannot be found. Thus WIPO is not the right forum for the redress of that problem.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/intermediary-liability-wipo-speech

Does India need its own Bayh-Dole?

sachia — 2011-04-02T15:58:46Z

Article by Pranesh Prakash, Programme Manager at Centre for Internet and Society in the Indian Express, 24 April 2009

Across the world battlelines are being drawn in the normally quiet areas of academia and research. The opposing sides: those in favour of open and collaborative research and development as a means to promote innovation, and those in favour of perpetuating the profits of big pharma companies and academic publishers. Currently before a Select Parliamentary Committee is a controversial law that will deny basic healthcare to millions by making medicines much more expensive, lock up academic knowledge, and help privatise publicly-funded research. The law titled the Protection and Utilisation of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill 2008 (“PUPFIP Bill”, http://bit.ly/pupfip-bill) was tabled last December in the Rajya Sabha by the Minister for Science and Technology. It was created in utmost secrecy by the Department of Science and Technology, without so much as a draft version having been shared with the public for comments.

The PUPFIP Bill is an Indian version of a 1980 US legislation, the Bayh-Dole Act, and as per its statement of objects and reasons, it seeks to promote creativity and innovation to enable India “to compete globally and for the public good”. It aims to do so by ensuring the protection of all intellectual property (meaning copyright, patent, trade mark, design, plant variety, etc.) that is the outcome of government-funded research. The IP rights will be held by the grant recipient, or by the government if the recipient does not choose to protect the IP. This might seem like a good way to enable technology transfer from research institutes to the industry, but that would be a very myopic view, disregarding all evidence related to the failure of the Bayh-Dole Act. Last year Prof. Anthony So of Duke University co-authored an extensive analysis of the Bayh-Dole Act, and warned of the consequences of such legislation in developing countries.

First, such a law will shift the focus of research. Researchers will be inclined to to concentrate their efforts on issues of interest to industry, and which can have immediate benefit. This would force vital fundamental research into neglect since it cannot be commercialised with ease. Research by Saul Lach and Mark Schankerman shows that scientists are influenced by royalty rates, and will thus tend to work on industrial research rather than fundamental research. This creates, or at least exacerbates, what is popularly known as the “90/10 gap”: the fact that ninety per cent of medical research money goes into problems affecting ten per cent of the world’s population, since that ten per cent is richer.

Secondly, this law will have chilling effects on scholarly communications and promote secrecy. The Bill has requirements of non-disclosure by the grantee and the researcher to enable the commercialisation of the research, and requires researchers and institutions to inform the government before all publication of research. Such bureaucratisation of research publications will stultify intellectual pursuits. Such secrecy and permission-raj culture is anathema to intellectual and academic pursuits, where knowledge is sought to be freely disseminated, to be criticised and further revised by others. In South Africa, academics affected by the recent passage of a PUPFIP-type legislation there are questioning its constitutionality as it restrains freedom of speech.

Thirdly, this will lead to our pillars of learning and research becoming like businesses. US universities like Columbia and Duke have found themselves at the receiving end of criticism for their brazen commercialism, encouraged by the Bayh-Dole Act. Instead of promoting greater access to health for the poor, and spending money on research, the universities were spending money on patent litigation in court. The outcome of one of these cases was the rejection of Duke University’s research exemption defence (universities are generally not bound to observe patents when they wished to conduct research). The court held that the university had “business interests” which the research unmistakably furthered. This points at a fundamental divide between universities as places of learning and as places of profiteering. The Open Source Drug Discovery (OSSD) project that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) is currently pursuing is a good attempt at promoting a culture of openness and transparency and collaboration, and thus ensuring cheaper and more efficient drug discovery. Even the US government is currently seeking to clear the way for generic versions of biotech drugs. In such an environment, it is counter-intuitive to bring in a regressive law, and goes against innovative efforts such as the OSSD, and will harm the generics industry.

Fourthly, the Bill assumes — erroneously, as an ever-growing amount of research demonstrates (Boldrin & Levine, Bessen & Meurer, etc.) — that intellectual property is the best and only way to promote creativity and innovation. All forms of intellectual property are state-granted monopolistic rights. At a basic level, competition promotes innovations while monopoly retards it. Much of modern science developed without the privilege of patents. Surely, Darwin and Newton were not encouraged by patents. And even whole industries — like the software industry — flourish without patent protection in most of the world.

The commendable aim of ensuring knowledge transfer can be accomplished much better if we refrain from giving away to private corporations (whether pharmaceutical manufacturers or publishers) exclusive rights to the product of publicly-funded research. Scientists and researchers can be encouraged to be consultants to various industrial projects, thereby ensuring that their expertise is tapped. Importantly, open access publishing which helps to ensure wide distribution and dissemination of knowledge is surely more desirable. That is the trend being followed the world over currently. The US president recently signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Bill which makes permanent the National Institutes of Health’s open access policy. By doing so, he symbolically rejected calls (such as the much-criticised Conyers Bill) to privatise publicly funded research outputs. Thus, there are many ways by which the government can encourage innovation and creativity, and further public interest. The PUPFIP Bill, which will have deleterious unintended consequences if it is passed, is not one of them.

-----

To read the article at the Indian Express website, click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/does-india-need-its-own-bayh-dole

Do You Have the Right to Unlock Your Smart Phone?

puneeth — 2013-08-07T07:32:52Z

In this blog post Puneeth Nagaraj looks at the recent controversy over the expiration of the exemption granted by the US Library of Congress for unlocking phones and compares the Indian position as per a 2005 Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment.

Being a gadget freak in India is difficult. Smartphone companies take months to release their latest product in India (if they do at all) and even when they are released, they are overpriced. For instance, Google's offering in the entry level tablet market, the Nexus 7 was released in India only in April — a full 9 months after its US debut. It is priced at Rs. 16,000 (USD 300) while it costs only USD 200 in the US. Google’s other device Nexus 10 is yet to make its way to the Indian market.

For long, the Indian gadget freak has relied on friends or family travelling abroad to get his/her hands on the latest gadgets on offer. It was not uncommon in the days following the release of the earlier models of the iPhone for eager owners of foreign bought phones to unlock or “jailbreak” their phones so they could use it in India. But the practice of “jailbreaking” or “android rooting” (hereinafter referred to as unlocking [*] for convenience) phones serves a wider purpose. Unlocking smart phones allows users to overcome limitations imposed by hardware manufacturers or carriers. As a result, users can freely switch service providers. While some manufacturers (like Apple) strongly oppose unlocking- even threatening to cancel warranty in case of unlocked devices, others do not mind it and some (like Google and HTC) even encourage it.

US Library of Congress Exemption

The whole controversy surrounding the legality of unlocking phones started in the US last October when the Library of Congress decided against renewing a copyright exemption it granted in 2006. As a result, the exemption expired in January and caused a furore in the US. The DMCA (1201 of the USC), prohibits circumvention of technological measures that protect access to a copyrighted work. This sort of protection is necessary to protecting copyrighted works in a digital format. But the US Congress was informed of the restrictive effects of such a prohibition. Consequently, the Congress created statutory exemptions to allow circumvention of these technological measures and empowered the Library of Congress to grant or renew such exemptions.

Despite the exemption granted by the Library of Congress in 2006, many phone companies successfully sued hardware providers who enabled unlocking of phones. With the expiration of the exemption in January, the status of phone unlocking hangs in a balance. This is especially troublesome as it is a widespread and in some cases essential practice. Both the White House and the FCC have been petitioned to legalise unlocking. In response, four different proposals have been tabled in the US Congress just for this purpose (here is an analysis of each of the bills).

At the moment, the unlocking of phones to run unapproved software is still legal as a result of an exemption granted in 2012. But this is also up for review in 2015. There is a need for a more comprehensive solution to address both these issues and the proposals before the Congress fall short.

Indian Position

Syed Asifuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh
A case based on the unlocking of phones came before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2005. Certain Employees of TATA Indicom had facilitated the migration of customers contracted to Reliance for 3 years by unlocking their phones. Representatives of Reliance filed a criminal complaint against them alleging criminal breach of trust (IPC Section 409), cheating (IPC Section 420) and criminal conspiracy (IPC Section 120). They also claimed the violation of copyright and sought punishment under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, as well as Section 65 of the IT Act.

The court dismissed the criminal petitions under the IPC, IT Act and the Copyright Act. However, on the question of copyright infringement, the court held that if a person alters computer programme of another person or another computer company, the same would be infringement of copyright. The court also found that a cell phone would fall under the definition of a computer under Section 2(1) (i) of the Information Technology Act. Consequently, the court held that Section 65 of the IT Act, which deals with the tampering of computer source documents, would be applicable to the present case. The decision itself may not have precedent value on the issue as the High Court was merely ruling on the admissibility of the case on the basis of the above provisions and sent the matter back to the trial court to decide based on the evidence available. But the opinion of the court on copyright infringement and the IT Act is troubling.

Criticism

First, the court used the rather expansive definition of computers in the IT Act (Section 2(1) (i)) to include mobile phones as well. The definition under the above section reads as under:

any electronic, magnetic, optical or other high speed data processing device or system which performs logical, arithmetic and memory functions by manipulations of electronic, magnetic or optical impulses, and includes all input, output, processing, storage, computer software or communication facilities which are connected or related to the computer in a computer system or computer network.

It would not be unreasonable to see smartphones as being capable of “high speed data processing” or “input, output, processing, storage”. However, the phones in question here were basic Samsung N191 and LG-2030 phones (images of these phones can be seen here and here). Even if it might be conceivable that such basic phones can be put in the same bracket as desktop computers or laptops, the court had to examine the definition in the context of the substantial provision. In this case, the substantial provisions were Section 65 and 66 of the IT Act, which deal with tampering source documents and hacking computer systems respectively. So, by equating a basic mobile phone to a computer, the court equated unlocking a mobile phone to hacking a computer. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that Section 66 prescribes criminal punishment to hackers.

Second, the court also erred in its ruling on the Copyright Act. Once again, the court held a basic phone to mean a computer under Section 2(ffb). More worryingly, it was held that the Electronic Serial Number (ESN), a unique code given to every phone would qualify as a computer program under Section 2(ffc) and is thus subject to copyright under Section 14 of the Copyright Act. In doing so, the court has set the bar extremely low for copyrightablity of computer programs. Needless to say this judgment needs to be reconsidered if not watered down. While there is recognition that bootloader protection programmes barely meet the standard for copyright, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted protection to a randomly generated 11 digit number.

Fortunately, the case of Syed Asifuddin was not a final ruling on the issue as the court sent the matter back to the trial court. However, there is every chance that a future court can rely on the erroneous reasoning in this case. Further, fair use arguments can always be mad in the favour of an individual consumer who wishes to migrate to another service provider.

The larger problem is that by giving an expansive meaning to the provisions in the Copyright Act and the IT Act, it can be used to target businesses that facilitate unlocking devices that can be targeted (like in the US). Unlike in the US, phone unlocking is not a business in India and is usually done by small business owners who sell and repair mobiles. The consequences of suing such businesses can be worse in India as they can end up in jail for an act that falls in an undefined area of the law. It seems that the situation may be resolved in the US in the near future in favour of the consumer — although the issue of the business of unlocking phones must be resolved finally. The position in India is worrisome especially due to the threat of criminal persecution.

[*]. The term jailbreaking is used specifically in the case of iOS devices and android rooting, as the name suggests is used in the case of android devices. Technically speaking, they are very different given that most android devices do not restrict access to their “bootloaders”. Acknowledging the difference between the two, the discussion here is focused on overriding technological measures meant to protect underlying copyrighted works.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/do-you-have-right-to-unlock-your-smart-phone

DIPP RESPONSE TO CIS RTI - IMPROPER PAYMENT - FEBRUARY, 2015

nehaa — 2015-04-14T17:35:58Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-rti-improper-payment-february-2015

DIPP RESPONSE TO CIS (THIRD) RTI REQUEST - FEBRUARY, 2015

nehaa — 2015-04-14T18:16:52Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-third-rti-request-february-2015

DIPP RESPONSE TO CIS (SECOND) RTI REQUEST - FEBRUARY, 2015

nehaa — 2015-04-14T17:58:50Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-second-rti-request-february-2015

DIPP RESPONSE TO CIS (SECOND) RTI - FEBRUARY, 2015

nehaa — 2015-04-14T18:14:18Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-second-rti-february-2015

DIPP RESPONSE TO CIS (FIRST) RTI - FEBRUARY, 2015

nehaa — 2015-04-14T17:42:43Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-response-to-cis-first-rti-february-2015

Digital Wrongs

praskrishna — 2011-04-01T16:26:11Z

Protecting Intellectual Property Rights. This article by Rohin Dharmakumar was published in Forbes India on January 28, 2011.

Imagine you are in the mood for some fun and so you create a spoof video, the sort that you find on YouTube everyday. If the changes proposed under the Indian Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010 come through, you won’t be able to do that.

The bill explicitly recognises the technology protection measures that publishers wrap around their content, commonly known as digital rights management (DRM), but without placing any limitations on it.

So there’s a good chance a parody clip that uses video clips from a news show or of a baby dancing to the tune of ‘Sheila ki Jawani’ could be taken down by over eager copyright owners.

Pranesh Prakash, a program manager with Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, a non-profit civil society policy advocacy and research body, says such a scenario is perfectly possible under the proposed new law. “Providing legal backing to technological protection measures without imposing appropriate duties means that companies can effectively expand their rights to whatever technology can do. It’s a ridiculous situation,” he says.

Even worse, the law provides for criminal liability for breaking such DRM. Ask the Indian developers behind ‘PlayFair’, an open source software that allowed consumers to bypass Apple’s FairPlay DRM.

The developers were forced to stop their project even though Apple challenged them under the US DMCA law, which has no jurisdiction in India. They still folded because as individuals they didn't have the wherewithal to challenge Apple in a court.

“Our basic principle is that generally large corporations have the wherewithal to go to court and get orders, but individuals don’t. That balance must be maintained in the law, that everything isn’t presumptively violative of the law,” says Prakash.

Many fear of what might happen when digital rights management actually starts getting protection under Indian law. Raman Jit Singh Chima, a policy analyst with Google India’s legal team, says the present version of the amendment is unclear on intermediary liability and ‘fair dealing’. Simply put, if a user does something illegal, even the service provider or search site that was used may become liable for the offence.

“Unless the government or a court of law interprets it otherwise, this could mean users submitting their content for approval before uploading, with approvals taking months due to the volume of information on the Internet,” says Chima.

Read the original in Forbes India here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/digital-wrongs

Did Sibal just get arm-twisted by book publishers?

praskrishna — 2012-05-28T06:08:57Z

The publishing industry seems to have got the better of the Human Resources Development Minister Kapil Sibal. Pranesh Prakash's article on parallel importation of books is referred in this article published in FirstPost on May 25, 2012.

The move to open up the market for distribution of international books to competition has been successfully thwarted with the removal of an amendment allowing parallel imports from the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2012 that was passed by the Lok Sabha on 22 May.

This despite the Parliamentary Standing Committee supporting the amendment on the grounds that it will increase student access to books.

But it could well only be a temporary victory for the publishing giants with Sibal promising to restore the amendment if the National Council of Applied Economic Research – to which the matter has been referred – should in its report (expected in August) recommend parallel imports.

The draft bill (which included the amendment) had created a furore in publishing circles last year. Parallel imports, claimed leading publishing houses, would destroy the industry. Read Thomas Abraham’s Death of Books published last year in The Hindustan Times.

While that remains open for debate, there is no denying the larger common good of faster and cheaper availability of books to millions of students that parallel imports will make possible. Ordering books may no longer be a click away if Flipkart had to take permission from the Indian copyright owner every time you ordered an international title.

In an article titled Why Parallel Importation of Books should be Allowed published by The Centre for Internet and Society Pranesh Prakash makes a compelling case for ending the distribution monopoly.

Underlying the huge benefit to students, the author says “Currently a large percentage of educational books in India are imported, but with different companies having monopoly rights in importation of different books. If this was opened up to competition, the prices of books would drop, since one would not need to get an authorisation to import books—the licence raj that currently exists would be dismantled—and Indian students will benefit.

“This is especially important for students and for libraries because even when low-priced editions are available, they are often of older editions.”

The article also argues how the business model of hugely popular site such as Flipkart depends on parallel imports to deliver books to its customers at great bargains.

Allowing parallel imports, argues the author, will dismantle distribution monopoly rights and help book publishers, libraries, the print-disabled and consumers in general. He also makes the important distinction between the black market and parallel imports, which is legal.

Offering a point-by-point rebuttal of the publishing industry’s claims of the destructive impact of parallel imports, the author observes “It seems to us that the publishing industry – especially foreign publishers with distributorship in India – don’t want to open themselves up to competition in the distribution market and are opposing this most commendable move.”

He concludes that allowing parallel imports will, in fact, result in an expansion of the reading market.

“It is mainly foreign publishers’ monopoly rights over distribution which will be harmed by this amendment, while Indian publishers, Indian authors, and Indian readers, especially students, will stand to gain. Furthermore, in the long run, even foreign publishers will stand to gain due to market expansion. Any legitimate worries that publishers may have are better dealt with under other laws (such as the Customs Act) and not the Copyright Act.”

Read the original from FirstPost.India

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/did-sibal-just-get-arm-twisted-by-book-publishers

Dictionary words in software patent guidelines puzzle industry

praskrishna — 2013-09-04T06:20:24Z

Terms not defined in draft guidelines on patents for computer-related inventions leaves room for misinterpretation

The article by C.H.Unnikrishnan was published in Livemint on August 26, 2013. The Centre for Internet and Society's work on access to knowledge is mentioned.

Could the simple Latin phrase, per se, which translates as “in itself”, lead to confusion in verifying whether a computer-related invention deserves a patent or not? Some members of the $108 billion Indian information technology industry, intellectual property (IP) law firms and anti-patent lobby groups say it can.

The inclusion of some terms that are not defined by local laws in the government’s draft guidelines on patents for computer-related inventions (CRIs) leaves room for ambiguity and misinterpretation when examiners grant or reject such a patent, they say. The guidelines were released in early August.

The terms include ‘per se’, algorithm, hardware, firmware —and CRI itself.

CRI “has not been defined in any of the Indian statutes and is construed to mean, for the purpose of these guidelines, any invention which involves the use of computers, computer networks or other programmable apparatus and includes such inventions, one or more features of which are realized wholly or partially by means of a computer programme/programmes”, the Indian Patent Office (IPO) acknowledged in the draft guidelines, and called for feedback from industry stakeholders by 8 August.

	Patent examination is the most crucial function performed by a patent office. An examiner verifies the invention claims made by an applicant by relying on scientific parameters, industrial applicability and previously known technologies, among others, to decide whether the claims are genuine and deserve a patent. IPO’s draft guidelines are aimed at helping examiners in this task. However, with new technologies, the task of granting or rejecting patents has become tougher, as acknowledged by the patent office, in its draft guidelines. The confusion is only compounded with the inclusion of dictionary terms such as per se. The Indian Patent Law does not contain any specific provision regarding the protection of computer software that includes programs, musical and artistic works, studio and video recordings, databases and preparation material and associated documents such as manuals. India does not grant pure software patents (i.e., a patent over a “computer programme per se”).

Patent examination is the most crucial function performed by a patent office. An examiner verifies the invention claims made by an applicant by relying on scientific parameters, industrial applicability and previously known technologies, among others, to decide whether the claims are genuine and deserve a patent.

IPO’s draft guidelines are aimed at helping examiners in this task. However, with new technologies, the task of granting or rejecting patents has become tougher, as acknowledged by the patent office, in its draft guidelines. The confusion is only compounded with the inclusion of dictionary terms such as per se.

The Indian Patent Law does not contain any specific provision regarding the protection of computer software that includes programs, musical and artistic works, studio and video recordings, databases and preparation material and associated documents such as manuals. India does not grant pure software patents (i.e., a patent over a “computer programme per se”).

Software, instead, is protected by the Copyright Law, similar to literary and aesthetic works.

In the feedback, a copy which was reviewed by Mint, India’s largest software services exporter Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (TCS), said it “is happy to note that IPO is taking the right steps in the direction of protecting inventions...Moving from the notion of ‘Computer Implemented Invention’ to ‘Computer Related Invention’ itself is a positive shift...”

	“Primary objective of the CRI guidelines, as expected and understood by the stakeholders, is to deliberate on the meaning of “per se” in Section 3(k) for Software Inventions with example pertaining to Software Inventions and not interpret them to be the Hardware-led inventions,” said TCS in its feedback. It added that “while examining the technical character of a CRI, mere usage of the words such as enterprise, business, business rules, supply-chain, order, sales, transactions, commerce, payment, etc. in the (patent) claims should not lead to conclusion of the CRI being just a ‘Business Method’ without any technical character. These terminologies actually qualify the contextual utility and fitment of the inventions..”

“Primary objective of the CRI guidelines, as expected and understood by the stakeholders, is to deliberate on the meaning of “per se” in Section 3(k) for Software Inventions with example pertaining to Software Inventions and not interpret them to be the Hardware-led inventions,” said TCS in its feedback.

It added that “while examining the technical character of a CRI, mere usage of the words such as enterprise, business, business rules, supply-chain, order, sales, transactions, commerce, payment, etc. in the (patent) claims should not lead to conclusion of the CRI being just a ‘Business Method’ without any technical character. These terminologies actually qualify the contextual utility and fitment of the inventions..”

According to Rajiv Kumar Choudhari, a lawyer specializing in IT patent law, a computer program is software ‘per se’ because there may be no transformation of data/signal/input, or there is no tangible benefit to the device if this software is run on the device. “The benefit to the device may be in terms of efficiency, or increase/decrease in certain attributes,” he said in a blog in SpicyIP where he analyzed software patenting position in India earlier.

In such cases, if the applicant fails to define the exact benefit to the device in a tangible manner, the examiner may refuse to grant a patent. In January 2012, for instance, the Delhi patent office rejected a software patent application filed by Netomat Inc., on grounds that it did not fulfil the requirement of Section 3(k).

According to section 3(k) of the Indian Patent Act, “a mathematical or business method or computer programs per se or algorithms” are not inventions.

Between 2006 and 2011, the latest available data, 34,967 IT patent applications were filed with the Indian patent office. It granted about 5,594 patents during the same period.

“We hope that through this consultation (feedback) the prevailing evaluation methods for computer related inventions will become more efficient and encourage the Industry to file and protect their IP. However, we have some major concerns related to the draft guidelines,” said Nassom, the country’s software lobby body.

Overall, the guidelines appear to be “restrictive and may be a hindrance to grant of patents in India, even when such rights would be granted in other countries like Europe, Japan, etc,” said Nasscom, adding that “over a period of time”, it will discourage innovative activities from being carried out in India.

For instance, Nasscom pointed out that since the patent office has not defined ‘per se’, the phrase “computer program per se” should mean a set of instructions by itself or computer program by itself. “This meaning is generally accepted even in the UK and before the EPO (European Patent Office),” it added. The software lobby body has suggested that the scope of the “per se” limitation in Section 3(k) should be changed to cover hardware features, irrespective of whether the features are novel or not.

The guidelines, said Nasscom, seem to imply that for computer program-related claims to be allowed, the software needs to be “machine specific”, which “will unfortunately exclude patent protection for any computer-implemented invention designed to be interoperable across platforms, and not specific to a machine”.

In its feedback to the patent office, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), an organization that works on Internet privacy-related issues, underscored the complexity that new technologies could introduce by citing the example of CRIs in the field of data storage.

The first compact disc (CD) was invented in 1982, the digital video disc (DVD) in 1995 and the flash drive in 1999.

“While each of these inventions was far superior to their predecessor, the time between each incremental innovation has drastically reduced,” CIS noted in its feedback

“If an invention can become obsolete in as little as 2 years, it would make little sense to grant monopoly rights for 20 years. So even if a CRI passes the three tests of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability, it needs to be evaluated from the perspective of its possible obsolescence. In such a scenario, the examiner should look at the history of innovation in that particular field to ascertain that the invention does not become obsolete in a short time.”

Also consider for instance the term, “business methods”. It involves a whole gamut of activities in a commercial or industrial enterprise relating to transaction of goods or services but “the claims are at times drafted not directly as business methods but apparently with hitherto available technical features such as Internet, networks, satellites, tele-communications, etc”, the draft stated.

“The exclusions are carved out for all business methods and, therefore, if in substance the claims relate to business method even with the help of technology, they are not considered patentable,” the guidelines added.

The Japan intellectual Property Association, in its reaction to the India’s new CRI patenting guidelines, also noted that recent computers, including processors or memories, mostly do not rely on any specific programs.

“In addition, software-related inventions should be patentable originally for their functioning on the basis of novel computer programs in combination with general purpose devices. However, these computer-related inventions would be excluded from protection under the new standards for patentability,” it cautioned.

The draft guidelines “have interpreted and applied Section 3(k) of the Indian Patent Act 1970 in a more restrictive way to conclude as to what is patentable, which is a cause of concern to various stakeholders”, said Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries (FICCI) in its reaction.

Software patents remain an emotive issue.

Their proponents argue that patents promote investment in research and development, accelerate software development by making previously unknown and not obvious software inventions public and protect IP of software companies. They also encourage the creation of software companies and jobs and increase the valuation of small companies, the proponents add.

Critics counter that traditional copyright has provided sufficient protection to facilitate massive investment in software development and that most software patents cover either trivial inventions or inventions that would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.

Globally, patents in the IT and software sector are being revisited due to litigation and compensation claims over misuse of patents including the much-hyped patent battle of Apple Inc. with Samsung Electronics and Google Inc. with Microsoft Corp.

In June 2008, technology companies including Google, Intel Corp, Oracle Corp, Cisco and Hewlett-Packard Co. set up the ‘Allied Security Trust’ to address the risk of patent-infringement suits by buying those patents which they feel are most important to their businesses.

AST has 26 members from Europe, North America and Asia. It buys patents that its members have expressed interest from the patent holder, and the cost would be deducted from those companies’ Escrow accounts. AST argues that non-practicing entities, or NPEs, also known as patent trolls, produce no products or services of their own, and yet acquire patents—sometimes hundreds of them—with the sole intention of asserting their right and conduct patent litigation to extract settlements or licensing fees.

In 2008, AST estimated that it costs operating companies an average of $3.2 million through the end of discovery and $5.2 million through trial to defend cases in which there is more than $25 million at stake.

The costs of determining if a particular piece of software infringes any issued patents are too high and the results too are uncertain. A software patent costs, on average, around $20,000, it said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-august-26-2013-ch-unnikrishnan-dictionary-words-in-software-patent-guidelines-puzzle-industry

CUSAT Workshop: "Rethinking IPR: Fourth Annual National Workshop for Law Students"

praskrishna — 2017-03-29T10:59:29Z

The workshop was organized by the Inter University Centre for IPR Studies in association with Cochin University of Science and Technology from February 8 to 10, 2017 in Cochin. Pranesh Prakash was the resource person for a copyright workshop for LL.M. students.

Pranesh led and guided student discussion on:

P2P File Sharing - Based on analysis of the Copyright Act I haven't yet written about.
Technological Protection Measures: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tpm-copyright-amendment
Benefits of Piracy: http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/handle/10625/46491
Misrepresentations of copyright industry: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/fallacies-lies-and-video-pirates + http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/calling-out-the-bsa-on-bs + http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301
John Doe orders: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/john-doe-orders-isp-blocking-websites-copyright-1 (3-part series) + http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/delhi-high-court-orders-blocking-of-websites-after-sony-complains-infringement-of-2014-fifa-world-cup-telecast-rights

See the event brochure
See the programme agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/rethinking-ipr-fourth-annual-national-workshop-for-law-students

Copyrights Amendment Bill to Be Tabled in Indian Parliament – Parallel Import provisions have Been Removed

praskrishna — 2011-09-14T11:47:37Z

This week, the Indian government’s Rajya Sabha (the upper house of Parliament) will debate the Copyright Amendments Act.

The Centre for Internet and Society has raised a number of concerns – including the removal of parallel import provisions that would allowed universities and libraries to access foreign works more cheaply, the extension of copyright terms beyond those required by the TRIPS Agreement, and the introduction of technological protection measures (with stiff penalties for circumventing them).

CIS describes other provisions in the bill: Fair dealing exceptions have been extended “to all works except computer programs;” the “scope of compulsory licensing under sec 31 has been expanded from ‘any Indian work’ to ‘any work’;” and two provisions have been introduced to allow for the conversion, reproduction, and distribution of works for people with disabilities.

According to Prashant Reddy from the National University of Juridical Sciences in Kolkata, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on that reviewed the original legislation had strongly supported parallel imports of books. In a blog post on Spicy IP, he noted that “publishers routinely introduce old versions of books in India,” and that parallel imports would allow students to obtain newer copies at reasonable prices.

However, a news story in Live Mint reports that the publishing industry “had strongly opposed the amendments.”

This article by Mike Palmedo was published in infojustice.org on September 5, 2011. Read the original story here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/copyright-amendment-bill-in-indian-parliament

Copyright bill restricts Net access

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:21:40Z

Law to curb piracy may fetter creativity

The government introduced the copyright amendment bill in the Rajya Sabha on April 19. The bill gives independent rights to authors, film directors and musicians and makes it difficult for Internet users to access works protected by copyright.

G R Raghavender, registrar of copyrights, said the amendments are necessary as the Copyright Act of 1957 gives minimum protection to writers and artists against commercial exploitation of their works through the Internet.

Under lock without key

But the bill lacks clarity on some aspects. For instance, it introduces technological protection measures (tpms)—locks that restrict access to copyrighted material and help the copyright holder decide how his or her work should be used.

The bill allows users to bypass the lock if it is for a purpose not prohibited by the law, such as research. But for that the user should have the means to unlock the tpm. The bill assumes the users would know how to bypass the lock but that need not be the case, said Pranesh Prakash, of the non-profit Centre for Internet and Society.

The Spanish law, for instance, requires copyright holders to help legitimate users access their work.

Shamnad Basheer, who teaches intellectual property law at the National University of Juridical Sciences in Kolkata, said tpm is an added restriction and not required. “India is not obligated to import tpms into its copyright law as it is not a member of the World International Property Organization internet treaties (the amended bill conforms to these treaties). Raghavender said tpms are a must for curbing piracy.

The bill evoked mixed reactions in the film and music industry. Abhishek Chaubey, director of the recently released film Ishqiya, said the bill would put creative people in a stronger position. But Hiren Gada who runs the production house, Shemaroo Entertain-ment, is against directors getting copyrights. “It is against the fundamental principle of the film business; directors don’t share losses with producers if a film flops,” he pointed out. Dhruv Jagasia, manager of the music band Indian Ocean, said he was not sure if the bill would be implemented effectively as in the US where “cheques arrive by mail if one’s track is played on the radio”.

Print impaired get short shrift

Non-profits working for the physically challenged said the bill does not address certain handicaps. Rahul Cherian of www.inclusiveplanet.com, an online platform for print impaired, said the bill permits conversion of printed material only to special formats like Braille and sign language, not mainstream formats like audio tapes and text with large font size. “There are about 70 million print disabled persons in India. Those affected by cerebral palsy, dyslexia and visually impaired persons who do not know Braille, would need to access material in mainstream formats. The bill does not benefit them,” said Cherian. He added the bill allows only organizations working for disabled to seek licence to publish works in mainstream formats. Educational institutions, self-help groups and physically challenged individuals can’t obtain the licence.

While copyright amendment bill seeks to protect intellectual property, there are people who think it fetters creativity. “Copyright is a fairly recent phenomenon and should not be considered natural. Were that the case, the entire cultural history of humanity would not have occurred,” said Shuddhabrata Sen of the Centre for Study of Developing Societies. Swaraj Paul Barooah, researcher at the Nalsar university of law in Hyderabad, said, “In a developing country like India the emphasis should be on adapting and improvising on the works in the public domain.”

Given the circumstances, should the copyright on Mahatma Gandhi’s works be renewed. The copyright for his writings expired in 2009. Former governor of West Bengal and Mahatma Gandhi’s grandson Gopalkrishna Gandhi said there was nothing to lament. “The expiration of the copyright term should be the beginning of responsible access and use. It would be important in the computer age to use his manuscripts with great responsibility because no one can sue the user under the copyright law,” he said.

The bill has been referred to the standing committee of the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development for vetting.

Read the original in Down to Earth

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/copyright-bill-restricts-net-access

Copyright Amendment Bill in Parliament

nirmita — 2011-08-30T09:26:44Z

The Copyright Amendment Bill is expected to be presented in the Rajya Sabha by the Minister for Human Resource and Development, Kapil Sibal today afternoon. The much awaited Bill (since it has been in the offing since 2006) has undergone significant changes since its initial appearance.

Given below is a very quick first cut highlight of the Bill from a public interest perspective. A more detailed analysis will follow after the session discussions.

Parallel imports: The parallel imports clause which had been put in as sec 2(m) has now been dropped from the present draft. This is a big setback because educational institutions, libraries and archives, second hand book, etc., were looking to this provision to bring down the prices and hasten the availability of books. This also affects persons with disabilities since they will be unable to import books in accessible formats.
Persons with disabilities: There are two provisions relating to persons with disabilities which have been introduced. Section 52 (1) (zb) relates to the conversion, reproduction, issues of copies or communication to the public of any work in any accessible format, provided that these activities are meant to enable access to persons with disabilities and sufficient safeguards are taken to ensure that these materials do not enter the mainstream market. This section in a sense is broader and more encompassing than some provisions found in other countries, which relate exclusively to the blind or visually impaired. This section would adequately cover persons with other disabilities who cannot read print. A new section 31B also provides for compulsory licensing for profit entities wishing to convert and distribute works in accessible formats, provided that they are primarily working for persons with disabilities and are registered under sec 12A of the Income Tax Act or under chapter X of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
Many exceptions under 52 (1) (i) relating to fair dealing have been extended to all works except computer programmes. New sections 52 (1) (b) and (c) protect transient and incidental storage from being classified as infringing copies, which offers protection to entities such as online intermediaries.
The scope of compulsory licensing under sec 31 has been expanded from ‘any Indian work’ to ‘any work’. Three new sections 31 B, 31C and 31 D have been introduced. Section 31 B has already been described in the paragraph on persons with disabilities. Section 31 C lays down strict measures relating to statutory licensing in case of cover version, being a sound recording of a literary, dramatic or musical work. Section 31 D relates to statutory licenses for broadcasting organizations wishing to broadcast a literary or musical work or sound recording.
Non commercial public libraries can now store electronic copies of any non digital works they own (52(n)).
The new Bill introduces Technological protection measures (65A and 65B) and makes circumvention and distribution of works in which rights managements systems have been removed an offence which is punishable with imprisonment upto two years as well as fine. In addition the copyright owner can also avail of civil remedies. As such India is not really required to have these provisions in the copyright legislation since we are not yet a signatory to the WCT or the WPPT and such provisions will hamper consumer interests.
Terms of copyright have been increased significantly without reason, thus preventing works from falling into the public domain. For instance, the term of photographs has been increased from 60 years to life of the photographer plus 60 years. This is far in excess of the minimum term stipulated by international treaties.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/copyright-bill-parliament