The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 21 to 35.
MHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from IIM, Ahmedabad
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-iim-ahmedabad
<b>This post provides a factual description about the operation of Ministry of Human Resource Development IPR Chair’s Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach (IPERPO) scheme in IIM, Ahmedabad. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The author has analysed all the data received through which, the author seeks to trace the presence of unjustified underutilisation of funds by the aforementioned university as provided by the MHRD during the period of 2003-2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad on 24/11/2014 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to RTI application was received on 09/12/2014. Following this, a second RTI application was filed by the Centre of Internet and Society on 09/02/21015. The reply to the same was received on 23/02/2015.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These are the documents received by CIS from IIM, Ahmedabad:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>For response to first RTI application, <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/iim-a-response-1" class="external-link">click here</a></li>
<li>For response to second RTI application, <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/iim-a-response-2" class="external-link">click here</a></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Hereinafter, in order to receive any information about IIM Ahmedabad’s RTI reply, kindly refer to the above mentioned links. Following are the queries mentioned in the RTI application along with their replies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<div id="_mcePaste" style="text-align: justify; ">
<ul>
<li><span>Reports on the implementation of the IPERPO scheme of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the implementation of the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the scheme at IIM Ahmedabad.<br /></span><span>Reply: IIM Ahmedabad responded that there has not been any institution of the post of IPR Chair at the University.</span></li>
<li><span>Documents detailing the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO Scheme<br /></span><span>Reply: The University has provided no documents on the subject.</span></li>
<li><span>Documents relating to receipts of utilisation certificates and audited expenditure statements and matters related to all financial sanctions with regard to funds granted to the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO scheme at IIM Ahmedabad.<br /></span><span>Reply: The University has provided no documents on the subject.</span></li>
<li><span>Details of the IPR Chair’s salary under the IPERPO Scheme indicating whether this amount is paid over and above the professional’s usual salary<br /></span><span>Reply: The University has provided no documents on the subject.</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Comparative Analysis between University Response and the guidelines of MHRD Scheme Document<br /></b>The Scheme Document of MHRD (http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf) is a comprehensive document which consists of guidelines regarding Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach. It talks about a list of objectives, purposes, conditions and eligibility criteria for a University to ensure in order to implement IPERPO in a truest sense. This document provides the procedural as well as qualifying conditions for an Institute to ensure or fulfil before applying for the MHRD grant. Some of these conditions include maintenance of utilization certificates, audit reports, expenditure statements and event information which would be open to access on demand by MDHR or Comptroller and Auditor General of India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A. Objectives</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The University has not provided any documents detailing any activities undertaken to further the objectives of the IPERPO scheme.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">B. Eligibility</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">IIM, Ahmedabad is recognized by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, it fulfils the eligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme document.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Financial Analysis</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The University has not provided any documents on this subject.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-iim-ahmedabad'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-iim-ahmedabad</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2016-05-17T02:31:38ZBlog EntryMHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from NUJS
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-nujs
<b>This post provides a factual description about the operation of Ministry of Human Resource Development IPR Chair’s Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach (IPERPO) scheme in the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The author has analysed all the data received under various heads such as income, grants from MHRD, planned and non-planned expenditure, nature and frequency of programmes organised and the allocation of funds for the same. Throughout the course of observation and presentation of the analysed data, the author seeks to trace the presence of unjustified underutilisation of funds by the aforementioned university as provided by the MHRD during the period of 2013-2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to NUJS on 09/02/2015 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to RTI application was received on 24/02/2015.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These are the documents received by CIS from NUJS:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">For the RTI application filed by the CIS, <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/NUJS%20-%20RTI%20application-%20DD%20to%20registrar-%20RTI%20not%20entertained.pdf/" class="external-link">click here</a></div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">For the reply to the RTI application, <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/NUJS%20-%20RTI%20not%20entertained%20-%2024.2.15.pdf/" class="external-link">click here</a></div>
</li>
</ul>
<p>NUJS did not entertain the RTI and furnished no documents for perusal.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-nujs'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-nujs</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2016-05-15T07:51:55ZBlog EntryMHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from NALSAR
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-nalsar
<b>This post provides a factual description about the operation of Ministry of Human Resource Development IPR Chair’s Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach (IPERPO) scheme in NALSAR.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The author has analysed all the data received under various heads such as income, grants from MHRD, planned and non-planned expenditure, nature and frequency of programmesorganised and the allocation of funds for the same. Throughout the course of observation and presentation of the analysed data, the author seeks to trace the presence of unjustified underutilisation of funds by the aforementioned university as provided by the MHRD during the period of 2013-2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to the NALSAR University of Law on 09/02/2015 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to RTI application was received on 12/03/2015.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These are the documents received by CIS from NALSAR:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">For the response to the RTI application <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/NALSAR%20ii.pdf" class="external-link">click here</a></div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">For complete supporting documents <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/NALSAR.pdf/" class="external-link">click here</a></div>
</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Hereinafter, in order to receive any information about NALSAR’s RTI reply, kindly refer to the above mentioned links. Following are the queries mentioned in the RTI application along with their replies.</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Reports on the implementation of the IPERPO scheme of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the implementation of the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the scheme at NALSAR<br />Reply: NALSAR has submitted the documents required under this track.</li>
<li>Documents detailing the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO Scheme<br />Reply: Documents pertaining to the financial year 2013-14 have been submitted by the University.</li>
<li>Documents relating to receipts of utilisation certificates and audited expenditure statements and matters related to all financial sanctions with regard to funds granted to the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO scheme at NALSAR.<br />Reply: The University has provided utilisation certificatefor the financial year of 2013-14.</li>
<li>Details of the IPR Chair’s salary under the IPERPO Scheme indicating whether this amount is paid over and above the professional’s usual salary<br />Reply: The University has submitted all the documents pertaining to the aforementioned query.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Comparative Analysis between University Response and the guidelines of MHRD Scheme Document<br /></strong>The Scheme Document of MHRD (http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf) is a comprehensive document which consists of guidelines regarding Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach. It talks about a list of objectives, purposes, conditions and eligibility criteria for a University to ensure in order to implement IPERPO in a truest sense. This document provides the procedural as well as qualifying conditions for an Institute to ensure or fulfil before applying for the MHRD grant. Some of these conditions include maintenance of utilization certificates, audit reports, expenditure statements and event information which would be open to access on demand by MDHR or Comptroller and Auditor General of India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A. Objectives <br />In order to fulfil the objectives mentioned in the scheme document, NALSAR undertook following activities:<br />a. Faculty attendance at WIPO sessions.<br />b. Publication of IPR Journal<br />c. Expansion of the IPR section in the loibrary<br />B. Eligibility <br />NALSAR is recognized by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, it fulfils the eligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme document.<br />Financial Analysis<br />The University has provided the utilization certificates for the financial year of 2013-14.<br />A. Financial year 2013-14</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Utilization.png/@@images/cc9c0f85-3dbc-47d4-a3b0-507bde5424ee.png" alt="Utilization" class="image-inline" title="Utilization" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The University received a grant of Rs. 40,00,000 from the Ministry of Human Resource and Development. Further, the unutilized balance of the financial year 2013-13, Rs. 10,02,540 carried over in addition to an interest of Rs. 91,129. The total funds at the University’s disposal amounted to Rs. 50,93,669. The University incurred an expense of Rs. 37,88,349 leaving Rs. 13,05,320 as unspent balance.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">B. Expenditure Analysis</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Expenditure.png/@@images/0402e66b-61cf-4c57-a3b2-02b4d57b18a3.jpeg" alt="Expenditure" class="image-inline" title="Expenditure" /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-nalsar'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-nalsar</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2016-05-15T07:43:20ZBlog EntryMHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from IIT, Kharagpur
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-iit-kharagpur
<b>This post provides a factual description about the operation of Ministry of Human Resource Development IPR Chair’s Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach (IPERPO) scheme in the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The author has analysed all the data received through which, the author seeks to trace the presence of unjustified underutilisation of funds by the aforementioned university as provided by the MHRD during the period of 2013-2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to IIT, Kharagpur on 25/11/2014 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to the same was received on 17/12/2014. Following this, a second application was filed on the 10/03/2015 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to RTI application was received on 17/04/2015.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These are the documents received by CIS from IIT, Kharagpur:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">For the reply to the first RTI application <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/IIT%20KGP%20-%20Response%20-%2017.12.14%20-1.pdf/" class="external-link">click here</a></div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">For the reply to the second RTI application <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/IIT%20Kharagpur0001.pdf/" class="external-link">click here</a></div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">For the documents detailing the proposal for the setting up of IPR chair in IIT, Kharagpur, <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/IIT%20KGP%20-%20Proposal%20for%20operationalization%20of%20IPR%20Chairs.pdf/" class="external-link">click here</a></div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">For the documents detailing the minutes of the meeting regarding the setting up of the IPR chair in IIT, Kharagpur, <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/IIT%20KGP%20-%20Minutes%20of%20meeting%20in%202006.pdf" class="external-link">click here</a></div>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Hereinafter, in order to receive any information about IIT, Kharagpur’s RTI reply, kindly refer to the above mentioned links. Following are the queries mentioned in the RTI application along with their replies.</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Reports on the implementation of the IPERPO scheme of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the implementation of the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the scheme at IIT, Kharagpur<br />Reply: IIT, Kharagpur has submitted the documents required under this track.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Documents detailing the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO Scheme<br />Reply: Documents pertaining to the year <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/IIT%20KGP%20-%20Release%20of%20grant%20in%20aid%20-%2011.5.06.pdf/" class="external-link">2006</a> and <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/IIT%20KGP%20-%20Release%20of%20grant%20in%20aid%20-%2027.12.13%20-1.pdf/" class="external-link">2013</a> have been submitted by the University.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Documents relating to receipts of utilisation certificates and audited expenditure statements and matters related to all financial sanctions with regard to funds granted to the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO scheme at IIT, Kharagpur.<br />Reply: The University replied that it has not received any confirmation from the MHRD regarding the mentioned documents.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Comparative Analysis between University Response and the guidelines of MHRD Scheme Document<br /></b><a class="external-link" href="http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf">The Scheme document of MHRD</a> is comprehensive document which consists of guidelines regarding Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach. It talks about a list of objectives, purposes, conditions and eligibility criteria for a University to ensure in order to implement IPERPO in a truest sense. This document provides the procedural as well as qualifying conditions for an Institute to ensure or fulfil before applying for the MHRD grant. Some of these conditions include maintenance of utilization certificates, audit reports, expenditure statements and event information which would be open to access on demand by MDHR or Comptroller and Auditor General of India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A. Objectives <br />In order to fulfil the objectives mentioned in the scheme document, IIT, Kharagpur undertook following activities:<br />a. Conducting multiple workshops over the years to further the training of teachers as well as at a student level<br />b. Hosting numerous conclaves on the subject of IPR and their relation to business <br />c. Providing short term course on training of teachers in the field of IPR<br />d. Held various symposiums, seminars and conferences for the furtherance of IPR<br />e. Hosted various interactive platforms regarding IPR<br />f. Undertook research collaborations in IPR<br />B. Eligibility <br />IIT, Kharagpur is recognized by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, it fulfils the eligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme document.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Financial Analysis<br /></b>The University has not provided documents regarding any financial analysis.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-iit-kharagpur'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-iit-kharagpur</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2016-05-15T06:19:57ZBlog EntryMHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from JNU
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-jnu
<b>This post provides a factual description about the operation of Ministry of Human Resource Development IPR Chair’s Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach (IPERPO) scheme in the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi.</b>
<p>The author has analysed all the data received through which, the author seeks to trace the presence of unjustified underutilisation of funds by the aforementioned university as provided by the MHRD during the period of 2013-2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi on 18/12/2014 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to RTI application was received on 24/02/2015. Subsequently, a second RTI application was filed by the Centre for Internet and Society on 09/02/2015. The University replied to the same on 26/03/2015.</p>
<p>These are the documents received by CIS from JNU:</p>
<ul>
<li>For the response to the first RTI application <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/JNU%20-%20Receipt%20of%20RTI-%20request%20for%20payment%20-%2026.3.15.pdf" class="external-link">click here</a></li>
<li>For the response to the second RTI application <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/JNU%20-%20Replies%20to%20RTI%20-%2024.2.15.pdf" class="external-link">click here</a></li>
<li>For the report submitted by the University <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/JNU%20-%20Reply%20and%20report%20-%2010.3.15.pdf" class="external-link">click here</a></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Hereinafter, in order to receive any information about Jawaharlal University’s RTI reply, kindly refer to the above mentioned links. Following are the queries mentioned in the RTI application along with their replies.</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Reports on the implementation of the IPERPO scheme of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the implementation of the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the scheme at JNU.<br />Reply: The University submitted that there has been a release of Rs. 10,00,000 as a sanctioned amount by the MHRD under the IPERPO scheme. However, the same has not been utilized in any manner to further the objectives of the scheme. The reason is that the University believes this amount to be inadequate and has requested additional funds from the MHRD.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Documents on the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO scheme at JNU for the year 2013-14. <br />Reply: The University clubbed the answer to this with the aforementioned query.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Documents relating to receipts of utilization certificates and audited expenditure statements and matters related to all financial sanctions with regard to funds granted to the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO Scheme for the year 2013-14 at JNU. <br />Reply: The University has not provided any such documents in relation to the grant received.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Documents regarding all matters related to finance and budget related to the MHRD IPR Chair under the IPERPO scheme 2013-14 established at JNU. <br />Reply: The University did not submit any documents in this regard and replied that this information may be sought from the concerned Centre/School.</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Comparative Analysis between University Response and the guidelines of MHRD Scheme Document</strong><strong><br /> </strong>The Scheme Document of MHRD (http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf) is a comprehensive document which consists of guidelines regarding Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach. It talks about a list of objectives, purposes, conditions and eligibility criteria for a University to ensure in order to implement IPERPO in a truest sense. This document provides the procedural as well as qualifying conditions for an Institute to ensure or fulfil before applying for the MHRD grant. Some of these conditions include maintenance of utilization certificates, audit reports, expenditure statements and event information which would be open to access on demand by MDHR or <strong>Comptroller and Auditor General of India.</strong></p>
<p>A. Objectives <br /> The University has submitted that there have been no activities undertaken to further the objectives of the IPERPO scheme.</p>
<p>B. Eligibility <br /> Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi is recognized by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, it fulfils the eligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme document.</p>
<p><strong>Financial Analysis<br /></strong>The University has not provided any documents on this subject.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-jnu'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-jnu</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsRTIRTI ApplicationAccess to Knowledge2016-05-15T03:43:30ZBlog EntryIndian Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Discussion Paper on Standard Essential Patents
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/indian-department-of-industrial-policy-and-promotion-discussion-paper-on-standard-essential-patents
<b>India’s Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“DIPP”) released in March, earlier this year, a discussion paper on standard essential patents and their availability on fair, reasonable and non discriminatory terms.</b>
<p>Available here – <a href="http://dipp.nic.in/english/Discuss_paper/Feedback.aspx"><span>http://dipp.nic.in/english/Discuss_paper/Feedback.aspx</span></a></p>
<p>DIPP should also be publishing all of the feedback that it receives on the above link. The deadline was submission of comments was (extended to) 29 April, 2016. CIS’ comments are <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-department-of-industrial-policy-and-promotion-discussion-paper-on-standard-essential-patents-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms"><span>here</span></a> and a summary is <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/summary-of-cis-comments-to-dipp2019s-discussion-paper-on-seps-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms"><span>here.</span></a></p>
<p>We’re also collecting and uploading other submissions to the DIPP on this issue. Some are <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/responses-to-the-dipps-discussion-paper-on-seps-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms"><span>here</span></a>.</p>
<hr />
<p>This post was published by infojustice.org on May 4, 2016. It can be <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/archives/35979">read here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/indian-department-of-industrial-policy-and-promotion-discussion-paper-on-standard-essential-patents'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/indian-department-of-industrial-policy-and-promotion-discussion-paper-on-standard-essential-patents</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaDIPPIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2016-05-10T15:23:21ZBlog EntryShape of IPRs and Agriculture post the WTO Nairobi Ministerial
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/shape-of-ip-and-agriculture-post-the-wto-nairobi-ministerial
<b>CIS is running a series of meetups focused on intellectual property to bring folks interested in IP law to discuss developments in access to knowledge, climate change, health, trade, etc.
At the first meet-up in February, Prof. Biswajit Dhar delivered a short talk on intellectual property rights and agriculture in a post-Nairobi Ministerial world. This post is a summary of his talk.</b>
<h2 align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Extension
of abeyance of Non- violation complaints</strong></h2>
<p align="JUSTIFY">At
the Nairobi Ministerial, members agreed to extend the
non-applicability of non-violation complaints for two years. There
are two kinds of disputes which
can be initiated at the WTO -<em>first</em>,
when the partner country does not fulfill a commitment and such a
non-implementation is injures the member country, leading to either
nullification or impairment. <em>Second</em>,
a country may deem itself to be injured even though the partner
country has fulfilled its obligations. For instance, despite India's
compulsory license grants complying with TRIPS, the US initiated a
dispute against India.</p>
<h2 align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Need
for greater negotiating muscle and coalition building at multilateral
fora</strong></h2>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The
Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) came into force in 1993,
followed by the TRIPS agreement in 1995. India became a member of the
CBD and gained sovereign rights over its diversity. Before CBD,
inventions related to diversity were protected by private rights. The
turmeric case, and increasing bio-piracy led to introduction of
requirement of disclosing the source. India proposed that along with
other details, the source
of the biological material should be mandatorily disclosed, including
any associated traditional knowledge. Subsequent benefits arising out
of use of biological resources had to be shared with the country- it
was important to acknowledge that the community had nurtured these
resources. The coalition in favour of the disclosure requirement was
an interesting one because it was between India, Brazil, sometimes
South Africa, Andean countries and Pakistan. This was pushed for in
WIPO where the need for a treaty was advocated. The
consensus around the disclosure requirement was an example of
developing countries forming coalitions to make their interests more
pronounced.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Further,
greater the evidence, better is a country’s case in negotiations.
After the Turmeric case, India realised that it needs written and not
oral evidence to produce in the US Courts. That realisation led to
the creation of a documentation project for traditional
knowledge(Traditional Knowledge Library Database). Since the last
decade, India has been sharing this database with patent officers.
Since 2009, TKDL has also contested patents in various jurisdictions.
At the EPO, India contested 94 patents, while in Canada the number is
25. Although there has been some success in US but major success has
been in EU only. However, there is a shortage of manpower to work on
the challenges, and as a consequence the efforts have largely failed
to push the process of the law. Mounting these challenges also proves
to be be exorbitantly expensive. There are indeed very few countries
which have effectively done this without succumbing to international
political pressure- India is one of them. It is possible to use this
democratic space wisely to push back the dominant powers.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Trade
is imminent and there will be trade. However, if we do not deal with
trade effectively, it will spell doom for us. The
Transpacific Partnership(TPP) and Nairobi ministerial should serve as
a warning for us. The
prevalent fear has been that countries in favour of TPP will be
multilateralised.
India's steps indicate a roll back of its role at the WTO. Once it
moves out of the WTO framework and the Doha agenda fails, TPP
signatories will begin to exert pressure on WTO. Granted
that there is very little window to move forward, nevertheless, India
should try using its influence to fight at the WTO with all resources
available. WTO has limitations but such organizations are the only
bet we have against multilateral organizations.
Currently, India is allowing these organizations to be shaped in an
undesirable manner. We<strong>
</strong>have
not used the WTO truly well enough, and neither have we been able to
influence ongoing negotiations. There is, therefore, a need to
rethink our strategy. It is time to step up and engage with
lawmakers instead of only engaging with bureaucrats.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Negotiating
teams at these multilateral fora are of utmost importance, because of
their unique position to influence the law making process at the
top-down level. In the long term, they are also a cost saving measure
(compared to mounting opposition to patents, etc). Unfortunately,
India has kept silent as it watches US and its allies taking over
ASEAN. Through TPP, rules are changing and the US-led alliance is
taking over countries beyond Pacific Rim, by moving into ASEAN. India
is in an isolated position right now and needs a group of its own to
collaborate and work as a formidable force against US.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">India
should have seized the opportunity to group with African nations in
the India-Africa forum to consolidate its position. Similarly, Latin
countries may also be pursued. These regions are important since
India's support at the WTO has been on a sharp decline.</p>
<h2 align="JUSTIFY"><strong>Agriculture
</strong></h2>
<p align="JUSTIFY">India
is also under pressure to remove agricultural subsidies. The subsidy
regime was crafted by the EU and US to enable them to exempt their
subsidies in an exempt list (green box). Further, US cleverly
protected its own export credits so that its own subsidies became
exempt. In this manner, even subsidies pertaining to export
competition are not totally eliminated. However, other countries like
India have raised an issue that in these countries, export subsidy is
but one part of total subsidies. The latter has come down and this is
problematic because countries like India simply must have potential
to safeguard against hunger. The public distribution system is
essential for this.
India has a system of Minimum Support Price(MSP) and input subsidy.
On the other hand, US provides direct income support, arguing that
markets should be as close to their pristine form as possible. And
input subsidy and MSP do not reconcile with this. According to them,
income transfers are better because that does not manipulate prices.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">In
US and EU, the irony is that, they have farm policies. US has had a
farm bill every 4 years since 1933, and EU has a common agricultural
policy. India does not have any such policy. The US and EU inform
their producers their about expected subsidies for the next 4 years,
enabling the producers to plan in advance. In this case, income
transfer can work. Therefore, the farmers can take higher risks and
can manipulate prices. Their farm rate price is well below the
economic cost and international price since they have protection
because of the income transfer. The international price is supposed
to be efficient (in almost 3 decades, international prices have been
same). Since their prices are below international prices, they can
dump in the international market. On the other hand, nobody else can
enter the US market. Ironically, this income support, which affects
international trade so unfairly, is kept out of the scope of WTO
deliberations - no questions asked. Further, while the US Farm Bill
expenditure has gone up, in contrast, India has a limit on subsidy.
Food subsidy is counted in the 10% limit prescribed by the WTO.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">The
situation is can be summarised as, thus: US's activities eventually
escape the WTO, while Indian programmes fall within the scope, more
than the usual. Before the Food Security Act, the below poverty line
population were the only beneficiaries. And now, the Act benefits
two-thirds of the population. As a result, quantum of subsidized food
has gone up. If the government decides to give income transfers
(instead of subsidies), in order for it to be successful, the tiller
has to be the owner of the land, which is problematic in India.
Although people want to follow direct benefit transfer for
agriculture as well, the question remains that how many workers will
<em>actually</em>
benefit from it.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">It
is evident that agriculture is suffering- Mint recently reported on
how India is becoming an agro importer. Sugar output has suffered.
India might import sugar next year along with pulses, wheat.
Productivity is going down. This is will make way for support for
genetically modified crops-- which is again what the US wants. If
the WTO gets populated by TPP signatories, India cannot continue with
providing subsidies because TPP
eliminates agricultural subsidies. The only relevant factors
are market entry and tariff. This could be agriculture’s deathbed.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Negotiations
on agricultural issues have not been effective because of divisions
within it. Fragmentations have caused a lack of unity - even a bare
common minimum position does not exist. Further, US and allies have
used diversionary tactics such as repeatedly asking for evidence, not
bringing anything concrete to the table, etc. When the process is
frustrated frequently, activist movements also die down.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Loss
of bargaining power has led to fatigue within various activist groups
in the country. On the other hand, corporations continue prospering.
India had put up a strong fight for TRIPS flexibilities, but today
elements like TPP are destroying balanced regimes across the world.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><em>Thanks to our intern Aniruddha Majumdar for his assistance on this post.</em></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/shape-of-ip-and-agriculture-post-the-wto-nairobi-ministerial'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/shape-of-ip-and-agriculture-post-the-wto-nairobi-ministerial</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaIP MeetupIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgeWTO2016-05-05T07:11:16ZBlog EntryCCI allowed to probe Ericsson: FAQs on Ericsson’s disputes with Micromax and Intex
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-quint-nehaa-chaudhari-april-30-2016-cci-allowed-to-probe-ericsson
<b>The blog post is an analysis of the recent decision of the Delhi High Court, clarifying that the Competition Commission of India could investigate Ericsson for a violation of competition law. A shorter version of this blog post was published in the Quint on April 30, 2016.</b>
<div>Read the original article published by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thequint.com/technology/2016/04/29/all-you-want-to-know-about-the-ericsson-micromax-patent-dispute-intex-intellectual-property-rights-make-in-india">Quint</a> on April 30 here.</div>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The mobile phone is the <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/Standard-Essential-Patents-on-Low-Cost-Mobile-Phones-in-India-A-Case-to-Strengthen-Competition-Regulation.pdf"><span>sole access point to the internet</span></a> for about half of India’s population. It has an important role to play in India’s development story, one that is amplified given the central government’s <a href="http://www.digitalindia.gov.in/content/information-all"><span>focus</span></a> on <a href="http://www.digitalindia.gov.in/content/e-governance-%E2%80%93-reforming-government-through-technology"><span>leveraging the internet</span></a> for better <a href="http://www.digitalindia.gov.in/content/ekranti-electronic-delivery-services"><span>governance</span></a>. The government has recognized this importance, evidenced through <a href="http://www.digitalindia.gov.in/content/electronics-manufacturing"><span>electronics manufacturing incentives</span></a> and, a stated commitment to ensure ‘<a href="http://www.digitalindia.gov.in/content/universal-access-mobile-connectivity"><span>universal access to mobile connectivity’</span></a>. Homegrown brands, including Micromax and Intex, with their affordable, low-cost mobile phones, play an important role in this development story.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In March, 2013, the Swedish multinational, Ericsson, sued Micromax for patent infringement, setting in motion a <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/compilation-of-mobile-phone-patent-litigation-cases-in-india"><span>series of events</span></a>, with the potential to disturb India’s mobile phone dream. Then, last month, the Delhi High Court (the Court) <a href="http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIB/judgement/30-03-2016/VIB30032016CW4642014.pdf"><span>recognized</span></a> the authority of the market regulator - the Competition Commission of India (CCI) - to probe Ericsson for its allegedly anticompetitive conduct.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Why did Ericsson sue Micromax?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ericsson claims that Micromax’s mobile phones infringe its standard essential patents (SEPs) on mobile phone technologies, including 3G and EDGE.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>How are some patents identified as SEPs?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">International Standard Setting Organizations (SSOs) – such as <a href="http://www.etsi.org/"><span>ETSI</span></a> or <a href="https://www.ieee.org/index.html"><span>IEEE</span></a> - recognize international standards. 3G and Wi-Fi are examples of such internationally recognized standards.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to the <a href="http://www.etsi.org/standards/how-does-etsi-make-standards"><span>SSOs</span></a>, the determination of standards depends on consensus, driven by their <a href="http://www.etsi.org/membership"><span>members</span></a>. After a standard is determined, SEP owners (including Ericsson) <strong><span>voluntarily disclose</span></strong> which of their patents are <strong><i>essential</i></strong> to the determined standard, and, undertake to license these on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, to any willing licensee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Does this give rise to legal issues?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This process results in a variety of (<a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/well-documented"><span>well-documented</span></a>) legal questions, many of which have been raised in India’s SEP litigation, and have been alluded to by the Court in the present judgment. The Court has recognized the potential for SEPs to create dominant positions for their owners, noting that “any technology accepted as a standard would have to be <strong><span>mandatorily</span></strong> <strong><span>followed </span></strong>[emphasis, mine] by all enterprises in the particular industry.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some other legal issues around SEPs include the enforceability of FRAND commitments; determining what would constitute ‘fair’, ‘reasonable’ and, ‘non-discriminatory’; the possibility of non/incomplete disclosure by patent owners; and, a refusal by licensees to negotiate FRAND terms in good faith. A related issue that has received comparatively less attention is the essentiality of peripheral or, non standard but essential patents, where there is no obligation to license on FRAND terms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Have there been other SEP infringement suits filed in India?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yes. Besides Micromax, Ericsson has also <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/compilation-of-mobile-phone-patent-litigation-cases-in-india"><span>sued other</span></a> low-cost mobile phone sellers/manufacturers, homegrown and otherwise, for patent infringement. These include Intex, Lava, Gionee, Xia and iBall. In addition, Vringo has also sued ZTE and Asus, separately. [In this article, we will limit ourselves to a discussion on Ericsson’s suits against Micromax and Intex.]</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>What did Micromax and Intex do after being sued by Ericsson?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ericsson’s suits were followed by deliberations between the parties (Ericsson and Micromax, and, Ericsson and Intex, independently) and some interim orders by the Court. This litigation is ongoing, and final orders are awaited.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Meanwhile, both Micromax and Intex have pursued a series of other remedies. Intex has filed applications for the revocation of Ericsson’s patents. In addition, Micromax and Intex have each filed separate complaints under India’s Competition Act, 2002 before the CCI, alleging that Ericsson had abused its dominant position. This is a punishable offence under Indian competition law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Micromax and Intex have both claimed that Ericsson’s royalty rates were excessive. In addition, Micromax has objected to Ericsson’s use of the threat of injunctions and custom seizures, and, has also claimed that Ericsson’s conduct results in a denial of market access for Indian handset manufacturers. Intex has alleged, <i>inter alia, </i>that it was forced into signing an onerous non disclosure agreement by Ericsson; and, that it was forced to negotiate licences without a complete disclosure of its patents by Ericsson.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The CCI, finding there to be a <i>prima facie</i> case in each of the above complaints, ordered the Director General to undertake an investigation into the allegations made by both – Micromax and Intex. These orders were challenged by Ericsson in the Court.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>On what grounds did Ericsson challenge the CCI’s orders?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Briefly, Ericsson argued-</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(a) that the issue was one of patent law, which barred the applicability of competition law;</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(b) that it was not an ‘enterprise’ under the Competition Act, 2002, and, that the CCI was empowered to check anticompetitive conduct only of ‘enterprises’;</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(c) that its conduct was not anticompetitive since it was only exercising its rights to enforce its patents;</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(d) that since the disputes between the parties were already being heard in other proceedings before the Court, the CCI could not adjudicate them; and,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(e) that Intex and Micromax were barred from making such allegations. Ericsson opined that since they had challenged its ownership of the SEPs, through revocation of petition applications (filed by Intex), and a denial of infringement claims (by Micromax), they could not now present a complaint premised on it being the owner of those same SEPs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>What did the Court hold?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Rejecting Ericsson’s arguments, the Court held that the CCI <strong><span>did</span></strong> [emphasis, mine] have the jurisdiction to examine if Ericsson’s conduct was anticompetitive, finding it to be an ‘enterprise’ under the Competition Act, 2002. However, the Court was clear that the CCI’s actions could be subject to judicial review by the High Court. It also found that the mere applicability of the Patents Act, 1970, did not bar the applicability of competition law, since the legislations covered distinct fields and served different purposes. Further, it opined that Micromax and Intex were free to explore alternative remedies; neither this pursuit, nor, the pendency of disputes on similar issues before the Court, was a bar to the CCI’s jurisdiction.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Interestingly, while not adjudicating the issue of Ericsson’s abuse of dominance in this particular case, Justice Bakhru, citing its conduct as presented by the other parties said that in some cases, “such conduct, if it is found, was directed in pressuring an implementer to accept non-FRAND terms, would amount to an abuse of dominance.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>What does the judgment mean for India’s homegrown brands?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The judgment is a boost for India’s home grown manufacturers in their battle against global patent holders. However, while it certainly validates the role and powers of India’s young market regulator, it will no doubt be appealed. One also expects multiple appeals over the CCI’s findings in the present and, future similar cases.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is impossible to predict the outcome of legal proceedings in SEP litigation. Accordingly, Micromax, Intex (and others) would do well to augment their own patent portfolios (either by filing their own patents, or, by acquiring those of other companies). This may create a more level playing field, opening up alternate channels of negotiation, including, cross-licensing. They may also seek access to Ericsson’s SEPs under the compulsory licensing mechanism in India’s patent law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>What does the government have to say?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion has recently released a <a href="http://dipp.nic.in/english/Discuss_paper/standardEssentialPaper_01March2016.pdf"><span>discussion paper</span></a> on these issues, inviting <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/summary-of-cis-comments-to-dipp2019s-discussion-paper-on-seps-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms"><span>comments</span></a> from <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/responses-to-the-dipps-discussion-paper-on-seps-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms"><span>stakeholders</span></a>. It would be unsurprising if the government intends to regulate this space, given the strong implications for not just its flagship Make in India and Digital India programs, but also its foreign policy narrative on protecting IPRs and fostering innovation. Immediate welcome steps from the government would be a final word on the <a href="http://dipp.nic.in/English/Schemes/Intellectual_Property_Rights/IPR_Policy_24December2014.pdf"><span>National IPR Policy</span></a>, and, the adoption of the<a href="http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/pdf/Revised_Draft_National_Competition_Policy_2011_17nov2011.pdf"><span> National Competition Policy</span></a>, awaited since 2014 and 2011, respectively.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-quint-nehaa-chaudhari-april-30-2016-cci-allowed-to-probe-ericsson'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-quint-nehaa-chaudhari-april-30-2016-cci-allowed-to-probe-ericsson</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaAccess to KnowledgePervasive TechnologiesIntellectual Property RightsCompetition LawPatents2016-05-01T13:46:52ZBlog EntryMHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from Tezpur University
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-tezpur-university
<b>This post provides a factual description about the operation of Ministry of Human Resource Development IPR Chair’s Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach (IPERPO) scheme in Tezpur University. The author has analysed all the data received under various heads such as income, grants from MHRD, planned and non planned expenditure, nature and frequency of programmes organised and the allocation of funds for the same.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Throughout the course of observation and presentation of the analysed data, the author seeks to trace the presence of unjustified underutilisation of funds by the aforementioned university as provided by the MHRD during the period 2013-2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to the Tezpur University on 16/01/2015 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to RTI application was received on 05/02/2015. These are the documents received by CIS from Tezpur University:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For RTI Response <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tezpur-receipt-of-rti" class="internal-link">click here</a> (Tezpur Receipt of RTI). Also see <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tezpur-forwarded-response-1" class="internal-link">Tezpur Forwarded Response</a> <br />For complete supporting documents see (<a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tezpur-annual-report" class="internal-link">Tezpur- Annual Report</a>, <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/tezpur-financial-statement" class="internal-link">Financial Statement</a>, <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-on-ipr-cell" class="internal-link">Report on IPR Cell</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Hereinafter, in order to receive any information about Tezpur University’s RTI reply, kindly refer to the above mentioned links. Following are the queries mentioned in the RTI application along with their replies.</p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; "> </ol>
<div style="text-align: justify; "><strong>1. </strong><strong>Reports on the implementation of the IPERPO scheme of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the implementation of the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the scheme at Tezpur University from 2003-2014</strong></div>
<ol style="text-align: justify; "> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reply: Tezpur University has submitted detailed documents for the period 2013-2014 in order to highlight various activities undertaken by the University to implement the IPERPO scheme. This information is sent to CIS through summary documents, notices and newsletters.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>2. </strong><strong>Documents detailing the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO Scheme</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reply: The University received a grant of Rs.25,00,000 from MHRD under the IPERPO scheme for the period 2013-2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>3. </strong><strong>Documents relating to receipts of utilisation certificates and audited expenditure statements and matters related to all financial sanctions with regard to funds granted to the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO scheme at Tezpur University</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reply: The University has submitted the utilisation certificate for the period 2013-2014 along with the expenditure statement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>4. </strong><strong>Documents regarding all matters pertaining to finance and budget related the MHRD IPR Chair under the IPERPOs scheme established at Tezpur University</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reply: As per the documents submitted to CIS, the proposed budget for the period 2013-2014 is not submitted by the University. However, the budget for the period 2014-2015 is submitted and the sum of Rs. 49,79,231 is proposed by the University.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">2.0 Comparative Analysis between University Response and the guidelines of MHRD Scheme Document</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Scheme Document of MHRD (<a href="http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf"><span>http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf</span></a>) is a comprehensive document which consists of guidelines regarding Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach. It talks about a list of objectives, purposes, conditions and eligibility criteria for a University to ensure in order to implement IPERPO in a truest sense. This document provides the procedural as well as qualifying conditions for an Institute to ensure or fulfil before applying for the MHRD grant. Some of these conditions include maintenance of utilization certificates, audit reports, expenditure statements and event information which would be open to access on demand by MDHR or Comptroller and Auditor General of India.</p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; "> </ol>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">Objectives</div>
<ol style="text-align: justify; "> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In order to fulfil the objectives mentioned in the scheme document, Tezpur University undertook following activities:</p>
<ol style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Conducted courses in the mainstream undergraduate, post graduate and PhD programmes </li>
<li>Facilitated assessment and IPR filings of university innovations </li>
<li>Field work on Geographical Indication: Muga Silk of Assam</li>
<li>Training of IPR Officers</li>
<li>Outreach programmes at Dilbrugarh University and Silchar</li>
<li>Colloquium on Contemporary Physics and the Role of IPR</li>
<li>Training programmes on traditional knowledge and communication with stakeholders </li>
</ol> <ol style="text-align: justify; "> </ol>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">Eligibility</div>
<ol style="text-align: justify; "> </ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Tezpur University is recognized by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, it fulfils the eligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme document.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3.0 Financial Analysis</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Tezpur University received grants in two instalments for the same financial year (2013-2014). The first instalment was sanctioned on 19<sup>th</sup> August 2013 and the second instalment was sanctioned on 26<sup>th</sup> March 2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Financial Year 2013-2014</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy9_of_Utilization.jpg" alt="Utilization" class="image-inline" title="Utilization" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this financial year a total grant of Rs. 33,00,000 was sanctioned to the University in two instalments of Rs. 25,00,000 and Rs. 8,00,000. Out of this, a total sum of Rs. 35,24,446 was utilised by the University.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Expenditure.jpg" alt="Expenditure" class="image-inline" title="Expenditure" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is clear from the above drawn chart that the maximum amount of money was spent on the salaries of Chair Professor and his staff.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-tezpur-university'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-tezpur-university</a>
</p>
No publisherKaran TripathiIntellectual Property RightsRTIAccess to Knowledge2016-04-26T16:27:55ZBlog EntrySummary of CIS Comments to DIPP’s Discussion Paper on SEPs and their availability on FRAND terms
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/summary-of-cis-comments-to-dipp2019s-discussion-paper-on-seps-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms
<b>This blog post summarises CIS’ responses to DIPP’s Discussion Paper on SEPs and their availability on FRAND terms. The response made specific recommendations regarding adequacy of Indian law to determine SEP litigation, remedies for FRAND assured SEPs, FRAND royalty rates, SSO’s policies, parties’ non-disclosure agreements and transparency, and essentiality of SEPs and their declassification. </b>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-667bbb2d-526e-1e2f-19c3-bceb0be39562"></span></p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong>On April 22nd, 2016, CIS filed a comment with the <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/dipp-comments.pdf">Department for Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), regarding Standard Essential Patents(SEPs) in India and their availability on FRAND terms.</a> A TL;DR version of the comment follows. </strong></p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Whether IPR and antitrust legislations should be amended </h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">CIS submitted that no amendments to either the Patents Act, 1970 or the Competition Act, 2005 may be preferred. The changes that need to be brought forth are the adoption of a balanced National IPR Policy, and a National Competition Policy - both of which have been in the works for a while. Further, we urge the government to not enter into FTAs like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.</p>
<h2><span style="text-align: justify;">IPR Policies of SSOs, and prescribing Guidelines for their functioning</span></h2>
<p dir="ltr"><span style="text-align: justify;">CIS recommended that, first, Indian SSOs adopt an IPR Policy factoring in “India specific requirements”; second, on TSDSI’s IPR Policy (and DOSTI, GIFSI), certain changes be made to the policy to a) require the members to refrain from seeking injunctive relief b) delete the condition where FRAND negotiations may be subject to a condition of reciprocity; (c) to identify in detail the procedure to be followed in case of patent ‘holdups’ and patent ‘holdouts’; (d) to identify in detail the procedure to be followed in case of refusal to license by TSDSI members, and, nonmembers, both; and, (e) to include a detailed process on the declassification of a standard or technical specification. Further, SSOs may consider recommending the use of royalty-free licenses, in tune with the W3C and Open Mobile Alliance.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">The government should prescribe Model Guidelines that may be adopted by Indian SSOs (incorporating the suggestions above), in view of increasing complexity of SEP litigation, and potential abuse of FRAND process. The Model Guidelines may additionally cover (a) the composition of the SSO; (b) the process of admitting members; (c) the process of the determination of a standard or technical specification; (d) the process of declassification of a standard or technical specification; (e) the IPR Policy; (f) resolution of disputes; (g) applicable law.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Royalty Rates </h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">The government should also intervene in the setting of royalties and FRAND terms, in light of severe inadequacies in the SSOs’ IPR policies. CIS suggested that the government should initiate the formation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and apply a compulsory license with a five per cent royalty. Also, payment of royalties on SEPs should be capped by fixing a limit by the DIPP. </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">Further, royalty rates for SEPs should be based on the smallest saleable patent practising component. </p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Non-Disclosure Agreements and Transparency </h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">On the use of Non-Disclosure Agreements in SEP/FRAND litigation, CIS submitted that . pending a final determination by the CCI (and subsequent appeals) it would be premature to make an absolute claim on whether the use of NDAs results in an abuse of dominant position in all instances.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">On making the practices of cross-licensing and patent pooling transparent, CIS strongly urged the DIPP to strictly enforce the compliance of Form 27s by patentees. Availability of Form 27s will critically enable willing licensees to access patent working information in a timely manner. The Form 27 template may be modified to include more details, including patent pool licenses, with an explicit declaration of the names of the licensees and not just the number.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">Further, guidelines may be drawn up on whether it was discriminatory to charge no royalties (whether on the SSPPU or on the whole device) for a patent holder in a cross licensing arrangement with another, when it charges royalty on the selling price of the device from a non cross-licensor.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Remedies for FRAND- assured SEPs </h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">CIS recommended that courts adopt a more cautious stance towards granting injunctions in the field of SEP litigation, because a) injunctions may deter willing licensees from agreeing to the FRAND commitment, and also harm them b) accurately proving irreparable damage is difficult to establish in the Indian context for smartphone manufacturers c) there exists ambiguity in Indian jurisprudence to determine the conduct of an unwilling licensee, inter alia.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><span style="text-align: justify;">In CIS’ opinion, there is no need for an independent expert body to determine FRAND terms for SEPs and devising the methodology for such a purpose. The existing legal and regulatory framework is reasonably equipped to determine FRAND terms. Analytical frameworks may be studied in American jurisprudence to determine reasonable royalty rates, and patent damages.</span></p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Essentiality of SEPs and their declassification </h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">To determine whether a patent declared as SEP is actually an Essential Patent, CIS submits that various methodologies have been used by studies to analyse the same. Goodman and Myers led a study on the subject in 2005; and additionally, laboratory tests and expert opinions can be taken into account to determine the essentiality. </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">Lastly, CIS suggested that Indian SSOs maintain a publicly accessible database of SEPs found to be invalid or non-essential in India. Such a record will assist the process of declassifying SEPs timely.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/summary-of-cis-comments-to-dipp2019s-discussion-paper-on-seps-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/summary-of-cis-comments-to-dipp2019s-discussion-paper-on-seps-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaDIPPIntellectual Property RightsFRANDAccess to Knowledge2016-04-26T12:07:30ZBlog EntryPatents and Mobile Devices in India: An Empirical Survey
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patents-and-mobile-devices-in-india-an-empirical-survey
<b>Though India has the second-largest wireless subscriber base in the world, with more than 150 mobile device vendors, it has, until recently, remained relatively unaffected by the global smartphone wars. Over the past three years, however, a growing number of patent enforcement actions have been brought by multinational firms against domestic Indian producers. These actions, which have largely resulted in judgments favoring foreign patent holders, have given rise to a variety of proposals for addressing this situation.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In order to assess the potential impact of patents on the mobile device market in India, and to assist policy makers in formulating and implementing regulations affecting this market, we have conducted a comprehensive patent landscape analysis of the mobile device sector in India using public data relating to Indian patent ownership by technology type, nationality, and industry classification. Our results illuminate a number of important features of the Indian mobile device market, including the overwhelming prevalence of foreign patent holders, the rate at which foreign and domestic firms are obtaining patents, and how these patent holdings are likely to shape industrial dynamics in the Indian market for mobile devices, as well as the availability of low-cost mobile devices that can significantly enhance public health, agriculture, safety and economic development throughout India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/SSRN-id2756486.pdf/view" class="external-link">Download the full paper here</a></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i>This paper was <a class="external-link" href="https://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/2017/02/patents-and-mobile-devices-in-india-an-empirical-survey/">published by the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law </a>on February 9, 2017.</i><br /></b></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patents-and-mobile-devices-in-india-an-empirical-survey'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patents-and-mobile-devices-in-india-an-empirical-survey</a>
</p>
No publisherrohiniIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2017-03-29T04:03:03ZBlog EntryReport of the 30th Session of the WIPO SCCR by the Centre for Internet & Society
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-of-the-30th-session-of-the-wipo-sccr-by-the-centre-for-internet-society
<b>This report was edited by Nehaa Chaudhari, Programme Officer; compiled with assistance from Nisha S.K., Administrator, and, Aarushi Bansal, Amulya P., and Saahil Dama, interns.</b>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>I. Broadcast Treaty Negotiations</strong></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong><strong>Day 1: June 29, 2015</strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong><strong>Opening Statements from Regional Coordinators</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Japan, speaking for Group B, said that the Group continued to attach importance to the negotiation of the Broadcast Treaty. It emphasized the importance of the information session by technical experts to strengthen the understanding of technical issues. A better understanding of the legal aspects and language of the Treaty text would prove advantageous during Treaty negotiation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It acknowledged that the presentation by Professor Kenneth Crews indicated that the Member States required an informative reference to adopt the limitations and exceptions. It recommended that the reference be made more user-friendly and accessible. Additionally, it proposed for an exchange of national experiences and a background check on the collection of outcomes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Germany spoke next, on behalf of the Central European and Baltic States (CEBS). It supported a "forward-looking approach that would take into account the technical progress achieved in broadcasting systems so far". It argued for the inclusion of new media platforms used by broadcasting organizations into the Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It appreciated Kenneth Crews' study on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. <br /> Germany believed that progress on these issues would be facilitated if the committee agreed on common objectives. It wanted to exchange best practices on both - limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, on behalf of the African group, wanted equal time to be given to both the issues on the agenda - the Broadcast Treaty and limitations and exceptions. The African Group supported a balanced Treaty on protection of broadcasting organizations as per the mandate of the 2007 General Assembly. It welcomed Kenneth Crews' study on copyright trends. It also suggested a discussion on copyright exceptions for museums.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Argentina, speaking on behalf of GRULAC (Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries), asked for equal time be given to all the issues on the agenda. This view was also supported by Mexico.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On behalf of the Asia Pacific group, Pakistan supported a balanced Treaty which followed the signal-based approach, for protecting broadcasting organizations as per the mandate of the 2007 General Assembly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Belarus, representing the Central Eastern and Caucasian Countries, wanted a Diplomatic Conference for the conclusion of the Treaty soon.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Union (EU) stated that in building consensus on the Broadcast Treaty, the broad aim should be to make a meaningful Treaty that would be relevant to technological realities and needs of broadcasting organizations in the 21<sup>st</sup> century.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Information Session on Broadcasting</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Preceded by opening statements by regional groups and countries, the main event on Day 1 was an information session on broadcasting. The panel consisted of George Twumasi, Deputy Chairman and CEO of ABN Holdings Ltd.; Daniel Knapp, Director, Advertising Research; Shida Bolai, CEO of Caribbean Communications Network Ltd.; Anelise Rebello de Sa, Legal Manager of International Business and Contracts Compliance, TV Globo; Avnindra Mohan, President, Zee Network; and Tejveer Bhatia, Singh and Singh Associates, New Delhi.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Daniel Knapp started the information session by providing an outlook on broadcasting from a technical and revenue perspective. He highlighted that traditional broadcasting was different in different countries. In Greece, for example, there was little or no cable other than at the national level, while in the Middle East and Africa, a large proportion of access came from free satellite prescribers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Knapp stated that despite digitization paid TV homes were growing at a 6% annual rate which was expected to slow down to 3.4% by 2018. While the growth was being led by India and China, pay TV homes in the US were declining as people were moving to over-the-top services. He added that users of connected devices such as smart-phones, broadband players and smart TVs were predicted to surge to more than 8 billion by 2017. This would result in the decline of TV-usage as audiences would move to online open source resources such as Facebook, YouTube, AOL and premium services such as Amazon and Netflix.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Kanpp voiced concerns about development in technology leading to piracy. He warned that traditional threats such as smart cards on set-top boxes and new methods of piracy such as online file-sharing needed to be checked.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">John Simpson of the British Broadcasting Corporation ("BBC") outlined how broadcasting had changed through the years due to advancement of technology. He stated that the world was moving from analog TVs to digital services. Digital technologies had enabled broadcasters to offer more channels and programs, providing users with more choice and control. The definitional boundaries between broadcasting and digital video libraries were becoming increasingly blurred.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He argued that broadcasting was an important tool for social cohesion, economic development and ensuring public access to information. He believed that new content delivery mechanisms, such as computer networks or smart-phones, could bridge the knowledge-gap in developing countries. In Africa, for instance, the recent transition from analog television to digital television has the potential to improve both the quantity and the quality of content on television.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, Simpson noted that the Treaty-text had no mention of the quality and accuracy of the information being broadcasted. It failed to discuss the need for televisions and videos to produce programs which did not just represent the beliefs of the government, but had a genuine observational truth to them. Simpson stressed upon maintaining quality and developing new ways in which things are broadcasted to people.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Shida Bolai of Caribbean Communications Network Limited spoke about challenges broadcasters faced during transition to digital technologies and migration of viewers and advertisers from traditional to new platforms. She noted that while most of the Caribbean was still grappling with standards and infrastructure to go digital, Bahamas and Surinam had already made the change. Legal protection offered to broadcasters in the Caribbean was inadequate and piracy in the form of CDs or fraudulent satellite use and internet were issues yet to be tackled.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Piracy was the result of the costly distribution of content on the internet leading to the broadcasters obtaining expensive licenses. Hence cable-operators pirated signals and free broadcasters had to look for new content. This showed that broadcasters were given inadequate protection. Bolai also indicated that it was difficult to invest in high-cost sports programmes due to financial losses arising out of piracy. She highlighted the need for the indigenous community to find primary channels of production and distribution.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">George Twumasi from ABN Holdings LTD said that the central challenge for broadcasting in Africa was the creation of commercially viable content by Africans for Africans. If such content increased, the broadcast industry would grow to become a $75 billion industry over the next 15 years. With respect to piracy, he stated that Africans did not like foreign content and that it was not a pressing concern for them. He argued that the best way to stop piracy was through invasive technologies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Twumasi wanted to create a lobby group to facilitate the growth of broadcasting. Given Africa's history, he emphasized on its need to define its role as a broadcaster and to entertain the world through its powerful mythology and culture.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yaw Owusu from University of Ghana stated that copyright could be protected to the extent of monetizing what existed in the marketplace. He explained that the business strategy would operate by broadcasters driving the digital content and revenue system. Intellectual property and ownership would be protected through encryption software. Since English content had also been pirated in Africa, expert enhancement of existing content was required.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Anelise Rebello de Sa from International Business and Contracts Compliance, TV Globo said that the most important challenge to Latin American broadcasters were not other broadcasters, but Google, Facebook, Twitter and piracy. Audiences for the Brazilian advertising market had grown from 10 million in 2000 to 33 billion in 2014. Traditional TV had 72% of the advertisement market. Piracy was a problem since Brazilian signals would be picked up and used by broadcasters in other countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">She also said that online piracy and set-top boxes were major causes for concerns. She explained the functioning of piracy using the example of Globo in Japan. Pirated content on Globo could not be removed since it did not originate in Japan. Hence the protection was inadequate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Fingerprint technology would be useful against piracy since it automatically removes instead of comparing videos with one another. She concluded by stating that television also needed an updated legal framework and dependant businesses and investments to continue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Avnindra Mohan from Zee Telefilms stated that by end of 2016, all of India would be on digital TV. The TV industry was set to increase its revenue from 7.8 billion USD to 12.1 billion USD in the future. However, piracy through DTH box cloning, IPTV, cable TV, inter-country smuggling and over the internet was a major concern. With regards to web-initiated transmissions, he argued that as long as the signal was hacked by someone, broadcasters should have the right to prevent that piracy or illegal transmission from happening.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 2: June 30, 2015</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Day 2 began with the Chair calling for statements from Member States and regional groups on general principles and key objectives of the proposed Broadcast Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Regional Group Statements on General Principles</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Japan, on behalf of Group B, reiterated that after the session it hoped to move forward with the discussion in line with the 2007 General Assembly mandate and to convene the diplomatic conference at the earliest opportunity.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Speaking on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that it supported the development of an international treaty based on the mandate of the 22 <sup>nd</sup> SCCR which was reiterated in 2012. It sought an agreement based on traditional broadcasting and cable casting; a balanced text that prioritized the interests of all the stakeholders. Pakistan said that the original mandate without new layers of protection would achieve this balance.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, representing the African Group, stated that it wanted a pragmatic and effective outcome in conformity with the 2007 mandate, and looked forward to moving towards a Diplomatic Conference soon. Noting the efforts made at the 29<sup>th</sup> SCCR, it welcomed the discussion on broadcasting protection. Nigeria concluded by reaffirming its commitment for constructive development in order to protect broadcasting rights within the directives of the 2007 General Assembly mandate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Romania supported a Treaty that would provide adequate protection in line with modern technological developments. It sought a broad consensus on the signal-based approach. It also stated that it hoped to recommend the convening of a Diplomatic Conference to the General Assembly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU considered the Broadcast Treaty to be a high priority. It wanted a treaty that would be meaningful in view of the technological realities and the needs of broadcasting organizations in the 21<sup>st</sup> century. It argued that both - traditional broadcasting and broadcasting over the internet- - required international protection against piracy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran supported the statements made by Pakistan and the Asia Pacific group. It wanted the Treaty to follow the signal-based approach decided in the 2007 General Assembly. Iran only wanted protection for traditional broadcasters. It argued that expanding protection to transmissions over the internet raised concerns of rising transaction costs and reducing access to broadcast in developing countries. It sought an assessment of the impact of the Treaty on the public domain, access to knowledge, freedom of expression, users, performers and authors.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Korea believed that after the introduction of the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organization ("Rome Convention"), the protection of broadcasting organizations had not been updated to reflect advances in technology. Therefore, it wanted the Treaty to respond to changes in technology.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>National Statements on General Principles</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Japan wanted the SCCR to end with a recommendation for convening a Diplomatic Conference to adopt the Treaty. It hoped to discuss objectives of protection and rights to be granted. It wanted to move to textual work in the near future and have more elaborate discussions to expand the scope of common understanding.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US wanted to continue discussions to obtain a general consensus on a meaningful and targeted text. In its opinion, a right that protected broadcasters against signal piracy on any platform without an extra layer of protection could attract such a consensus.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Russia wanted to adopt a new document on the protection of broadcasting organizations. It wished to confine the Treaty to traditional broadcasting, but also lay a basis for content for future protection. It suggested that new forms of broadcasting should be identified and new directions for future protection should be introduced. Russia conveyed its support to all collective decisions to be taken while discussing the text of the future Treaty, as well as a speedy adoption of a common approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Belarus, on behalf of the Central Asia and Eastern Europe group, hoped that the new Treaty would reflect specificities of different regions and possibilities of adaptation to changes in broadcasting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indonesia supported the statements delivered by Pakistan. It wanted the Treaty to be based on the 2007 General Assembly mandate and use a signal-based approach with broadcasting and cablecasting defined traditionally. It opposed the introduction of any new layers of protection and wanted to strike a balance between rights and responsibilities of broadcasting organizations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India supported a Treaty with the 2007 General Assembly mandate and also sought the prevention of unauthorized live transmission over computer networks. It opposed expanding the mandate to include elements of webcasting, simulcasting and retransmission over computer networks or other platforms, as these were not a part of broadcasting as defined in a traditional sense. India wanted the Treaty to provide exceptions to private use, use by experts in connection with reporting of current events, use solely for the purpose of education and research and the fixation of a broadcast by means of its own facilities.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Objectives of Treaty, Scope of Protection and Object of Protections</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>The EU argued that there was a need to ensure that the Treaty was up to date and in line with technological advancements. It wanted protection to extend to broadcasters who used new technologies and urged for the inclusion of a broad retransmission right that would involve simultaneous retransmission and deferred retransmissions. It believed that the objective of the Treaty was to stop piracy whether it was in the form of simultaneous transmissions or organized by websites. It also expressed eagerness to go to text-based work as opposed to working on clarifications.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Speaking next, the US supported a Treaty that would respond to advancements in digital technology and address piracy concerns by eliminating loopholes that pirates could exploit. It said that piracy was a significant concern but not necessarily the suitable object for the Treaty in question. It was not a major part of broadcasters' protection, which could be resolved by enforcing only signal protection.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Romania, speaking next on behalf of the CBES group, stated that it believed in a Treaty that would protect broadcasters against piracy regardless of the platform. It wanted to protect cablecasting and simulcasting in addition to traditional broadcasting. It re-iterated the stand taken by US in saying that a broad retransmission right would be the way forward.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan believed that there was a need for separating traditional broadcasting from internet originated initial transmission. Since newer broadcasting organizations dealt with internet broadcasting, it wanted Member States to discuss methods of dealing with such a transmission.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Argentina supported a Treaty that would include broadcasters and cablecasters but would exclude internet originated transmissions except in the context of near simultaneous transmissions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU noted that India, Iran, CEBS, South Africa, Argentina and Kenya seemed to agree that live signals transmitted over any platforms would be the object of protection of the Broadcast Treaty. It stated that it would support a Treaty that protected cablecasting in addition to traditional broadcasting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Italy endorsed the stance of the EU. It explained that the broadcasting rights to fixation, reproduction of fixations and retransmissions of such fixations and protection of signals sent over the internet could find a background in Article 14 of the TRIPS. It further argued that even the idea of exclusive rights to broadcasters could find precedence in Article 14 of TRIPS and in the Rome Convention.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">China argued that the Treaty should account for technological developments. While it fully supported a Treaty that only covered traditional broadcasting including cablecasting, it wanted to include simulcasting, on demand casting and near simulcasting within the Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> India, in response to the EU and Italy, sought to emphasize the difference between a right to authorize and a right to prohibit broadcasting. It stated that the Broadcast Treaty should not provide for a positive right to authorize. It argued that internet companies often broadcast events based on a contract with the content creators, and such a right should not conflict with rights that may be given to broadcasters by virtue of the Treaty. India emphasized the need to stick to the signal-based approach as it balanced the interests of broadcasters and content creators. It pointed out that in cases where broadcasters doubled up as content creators, copyright law would be enough to prevent piracy. </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil, along with the US and South Africa, wanted to take into account the concerns of content owners in other platforms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US stated that the common ground would be the protection of live signals. If the signal is transmitted by any means, it should be protected. Since many broadcasters used the internet to transmit signals, it would be important to ensure that the signals thus transmitted were protected from piracy as well. It wanted a technologically neutral definition of broadcasting and argued that this would still be limited to a signal-based approach because there were no rights over the content <em>per se</em>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India clarified its stance and stated that while it did believe that unauthorized retransmissions over the internet should be prohibited by the Treaty, providing broadcasters with a sole right to transmission over the internet would be beyond the signal-based approach. Internet transmissions could rarely be said to be signal theft in the traditional sense.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran, responding to the EU, stated that it supported a Treaty that covered traditional broadcasting, cablecasting and even live retransmissions on the internet. It expressed concerns with the Treaty granting exclusive rights to broadcasters, and stated that it would support a Treaty against signal theft as long as the signals belonged to traditional broadcasters.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Chile argued that only broadcasts open to the public should be protected by the Treaty and broadcasts requiring decryption without a cable should be excluded.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU restated that it supported a Treaty with technologically neutral terminology. It expressed concerns with the Treaty benefitting all kinds of broadcasters since technological developments had enabled everyone to become a broadcaster. Italy supported this caveat and stated that a workable definition of a "broadcast organization" would be an organization that transmits a broadcast signal. A "broadcast signal" would be a signal that includes only broadcasts or cablecasts; and broadcasting does not include the transmission over computer networks. It believed that such a definition would differentiate between broadcasts, cablecasts and webcasts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan stated that broadcasting organizations would have to be defined as broadcasters in the traditional sense since the idea of a broadcasting organizations had not changed despite technological advancement. It wanted to start with the definition of broadcasting as it was laid out in the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty ("WPPT") and the Beijing Treaty on Audio-Visual Performances, 2012 ("Beijing Treaty").</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria stated that broadcasting should be clearly defined before broadcasting organizations since the two were inevitably linked.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Russia believed that the discussion was becoming overly complicated. It argued that a simple method of understanding broadcasting would suffice to define broadcasting and broadcasting organizations. The means used by broadcasters were of little concern to Russia.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US stated that along with being forward-looking, the definitions also needed to be consistent with treaties passed by the WIPO in the past, including the WPPT and Beijing Treaty. Broadcasting organizations should be defined as entities that would assemble and schedule programmes carried by the signal keeping in mind the distinction between a signal and a program.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As per the EU, the definitions in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_27/sccr_27_2_rev.pdf">Document SCCR 27/2</a> needed to be discussed as they covered important elements of broadcasting such as broadcasting by wireless means including satellite for public reception. The EU also stated that while the definition of broadcasting organizations should not include transmissions over computer networks, transmissions over computer networks could be included as a part of the object of protection.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the end of the evening, Ann Lear, of the WIPO, intervened to stress that definitions must be adopted keeping keep in mind that many broadcasters today viewed the internet as the main platform for distribution of their broadcast in the near future and were using streaming and downloading over the internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 3: July 1, 2015</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Day 3 of the negotiations began with the Chair noting the general consensus emerging in the matter of protecting live signals over any platform, and, allowing broadcasters to prohibit unauthorized access regardless of the platform from which the signal was transmitted. The Chair opened the floor for debate on whether there was a need for defining 'broadcasting organizations' or whether defining 'broadcasting' as an activity would suffice, and on whether the definitions must reflect those existing in other international treaties.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Defining 'broadcasting organizations'</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU spoke first, stating that the definition laid out in Alternative B to Article 5 in Document SCCR 27/2 was similar to what it wanted. It believed that defining broadcasting and cablecasting was crucial to defining the beneficiaries of the Treaty. But this did not mean that it was unimportant to outline who the beneficiaries of the Treaty were.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Australia argued that the Rome Convention operated well without having defined broadcasting organizations and the same would hold true for the Broadcast Treaty as well. It further argued that the definition of broadcasting should be based on the definitions that already existed in the Beijing Treaty and the WPPT.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Serbia stated that the definition of a broadcasting organization had to conform by the definition of broadcasting. Additionally, it felt the need to define the responsibility of broadcasting organizations for collecting information and editorial functions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Russia argued that defining broadcasting organizations would be a misstep since different countries would have different definitions of broadcasters in their national legislations. Russia relied on the fact that the Rome Convention was operating well without having defined broadcasting organizations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil stated that while it wanted clarity on who would be the beneficiaries of the Treaty it was still debating whether broadcasting organizations had to be defined in the Treaty. It supported a technologically neutral definition of broadcasting as it would encompass different countries with different regulatory regimes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Kenya stressed that it needed clarity on what broadcasting entailed as their national laws dealt with broadcasting in a particular manner. It required a clear definition to move things forward.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Africa, agreeing with Kenya, spoke of its domestic legislation which defined broadcasting in several ways, and included both wired and wireless technology. It suggested accommodating different definitions of countries like Brazil and China which regulated broadcasting differently. It added that following a text-based definition would be difficult as discussions involving fundamental questions of broadcasting were constantly being raised.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Canada felt the need to examine national treatment with respect to defining or not defining broadcasting organizations. It said that a basic definition of the activity with a chance to accommodate differences in national legislations would be the best way to move forward.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US proposed that text-based work would be more constructive in gaining clarity on these questions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU commented that the definition of 'signal' could be based on the Beijing Treaty that makes a reference to <em>public reception of sounds or images or images and sounds or representation thereof</em>. Alternative A for Article 5 in Document SCCR 27/2 most closely reflected the definitions that already exist in other existing treaties as well. It stated that it would be sufficient to define broadcasting, cablecasting, broadcasting organizations and signal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Romania endorsed the statement made by the EU. It stressed on the importance of defining the beneficiaries of the Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU intervened again to state that it was necessary to define broadcasting organizations, but that it could start with defining broadcasting based on existing treaties.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Romania intervened on behalf of the CEBS group to state that it was important to move to a text-based discussion to continue making progress. It emphasized on the need for updating the international legal framework to accord adequate protection to broadcasting organizations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Russia supported the same proposal and stated that it was important to consolidate a text to eventually recommend convening a Diplomatic Conference.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Serbia aligned itself with the Romanian position. It further stated that it was important to identify the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries under the Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran intervened to urge the commencement of text-based negotiations on the draft Treaty as there was no consensus on important concepts such as objectives, scope or objects of protection of the Treaty. It supported the proposal made by Romania on behalf of CEBS. Iran also stated that deciding on convening the Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium before resolving divergent views and arriving at a consensus would be premature.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US argued that text-based work would be the way forward. Though consensus was beginning to appear, a number of countries had not committed to anything. Hence the draft should leave options so that there is still room for negotiations. It further said that if an acceptable text was found over the next two meetings, then a Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium could have a successful outcome.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU stated that while there was progress on understanding different positions, a consensus was yet to emerge. Further discussions were needed on important issues such as the term of protection and technological protection measures. It aligned itself with the proposal of the CEBS group and hoped that the work would lead to a Diplomatic Conference in the next biennium.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India, South Africa, Japan, Nigeria, Senegal and Kenya also supported the CEBS proposal to move to text-based work.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Chair's Conclusions</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>At the end of the session on broadcasting, the Chair noted that there had been an exchange of views on the objectives of the Treaty, the scope of protection and the object of protection. While no consensus had been reached, there was greater clarity on different positions. The Chair stated that text-based work seemed to be the way forward and agreed to prepare the draft document. Further, with the exception of one delegation, there was a consensus on the protection being granted to broadcasting organizations to prohibit unauthorized use of broadcast signals in the course of a transmission over any technological platform. The Chair lastly said that the proposed timeframe for this would be to work towards the biennium when the proposed Diplomatic Conference could take place.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">II. Report on Negotiations on International Instrument for Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 1: June 29, 2015</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Opening Statements by Regional Coordinators</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Japan spoke on behalf of Group B and stated that the presentation by Prof. Kenneth Crews (hereafter, Crews) had provided for a way forward by showing that Member States needed an informative session on this topic. This informative session should be in an accessible and user friendly environment where exchange of national experiences could take place. It believed that the SCCR should give further consideration to the objectives and principles proposed by the US in this regard.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, on behalf of the Africa Group, wanted to establish legal instruments on this issue and on limitations on educational and research institutions for persons with disabilities. It wanted equal time to be given to all the instruments being discussed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Representing the GRULAC, Argentina stated that the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was of particular importance to it. Argentina hoped that it would be dealt with in a balanced way. It attached importance to the work that had been done until then and to the report prepared by Crews. It supported an open and frank discussion on the issue and was interested in the proposal made by Brazil, Ecuador, Uruguay, the African Group and India. Mexico endorsed this statement as well.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan expressed disappointment since all the issues had not received equal commitment from all Member States, particularly the issue of exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. It stated that while there were different priorities due to different economic realities in the various Member States, inclusiveness as an ideal meant that these priorities would be accommodated.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan believed that the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was of critical importance for individual and collective development of societies. Libraries and archives play an important role in the right to education, which remains a challenge in many developing countries due to lack of access to relevant educational and research material. While sharing national experiences and best practices was informative and useful, it was important to understand that the lack of development with regard to exceptions and limitations resulted in no decision at the 2014 General Assembly. Therefore it wanted to move to text-based work on the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU stated that the discussion could not be furthered without clarity on direction and objectives. It sought a surer understanding of what the outcome of the discussion could be to avoid wasting time and resources. It noted that the 2014 General Assembly had not provided the SCCR with a new mandate on libraries and archives. Even on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with disabilities, the acceptable way forward would be to encourage best practices in the broad and flexible boundaries of the current international copyright framework and not within the realm of further legally binding instruments.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 3: July 1, 2015</strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Regional Statements on General Principles</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Work on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives resumed in the afternoon session of the third day of the meeting.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil, on behalf of GRULAC, believed that Crews' report documented the important role played by libraries and archives and emphasized the need for library lending services. It supported an open and frank discussion without prejudging its outcome. It was interested in the proposal made by itself, Ecuador, Uruguay, the African Group and India on the same. It also underscored the importance of ratification with respect to any Treaty relating to limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On behalf of the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that limitations and exceptions were essential requisites for all norm setting exercises. People in all countries would benefit from exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives since it would allow for materials to be accessible by all of humankind instead of being restricted to individual countries. Pakistan believed that any agreement on this would require harmonization of domestic laws and policies. It considered sharing national experiences of Member States to be beneficial in this regard. In a report to the 28<sup>th</sup> session of the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur for Cultural Rights also supported the harmonization of exceptions and limitations in copyright for libraries in education.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Representing the African Group, Nigeria underscored the fundamental role of libraries and archives in facilitating access to knowledge for human and societal development. The principle of exceptions and limitations meeting specific objectives is an essential part of international instruments. As evidence, Nigeria pointed out legal precedents that contained specific limitations protecting educational institutions and facilitating access to learning. It sought a text-based discussion on the text prepared by the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay and the Chair's informal document streamlining various proposals.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Romania stated on behalf of the CEBS group that it welcomed the updated version of the study on copyright exceptions prepared by Crews. Romania recognized the important role that exceptions and limitations would play in facilitating library services and serving the social objectives of copyright law. It stated that the three-step test provided for by existing treaties offered a framework that was wide enough for states to establish their own exceptions and limitations but conceded that it may need more guidance on best practices. It considered an approach based on exchange of best practices to be superior to a normative approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan, on behalf of Group B, relied on Crews' study to show that many countries had already introduced exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives in their domestic legal systems. It wanted further work at the SCCR to be based on the recommendations of the Chair at the previous SCCR and the presentation by Kenneth Crews. It sought for a substantive discussion at an objective and principle level as proposed by the US.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">China intervened and pointed out that there already existed a Chinese legislation regarding exceptions and limitations for libraries and museums and orphan works.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU stated that the study conducted by Kenneth Crews was illustrative of the fact that exceptions and limitations in domestic legal systems and other instruments were adequate. It considered this to be the basis for understanding effective ways to implement exceptions and limitations in different legal systems. It believed that an approach based on exchange of best practices and mutual learning would stimulate substantive discussions. It further stated that in the absence of a mandate by the 2014 General Assembly, there was a need for further clarity on the expected outcome of these discussions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil spoke next in its national capacity and aligned itself with the statements produced by GRULAC, the Asian Group and the African Group. It considered the discussion on exceptions and limitations to copyright law to be a subject of utmost importance. It pointed out that for libraries, the activities that could be linked to copyright exceptions were preservation of copies, making orphan works, public library lending and so on.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mexico aligned itself with GRULAC. It reiterated that its government attached importance to exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives that were aimed at facilitating copying, preservation, archiving and the dissemination of works, and, encouraging the spread of knowledge for the common good.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India intervened and pointed out that access to knowledge was lacking in many jurisdictions despite increasing trends of digitization of information. In this context, libraries and archives act as balancing forces for increased access and it was important to strengthen this balance between ownership and access. Citing Crews' study, India argued that the diverse approaches in national laws, including that of absence of limitations and exceptions in many jurisdictions, necessitated work on an international instrument for limitations and exceptions. It stated that the work of the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay to get more countries aligned to a document on the eleven issues for an equitable balance relating to limitations and exceptions needed to be built upon for consensus among members. The best way forward would be to draft a legal instrument, as exchange of practices did not bring the necessary urgency to the subject.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran aligned itself with statements made by the Asia Pacific Group and the African Group. It stated that the rights to science, library and culture were basic human rights. It believed that limitations and exceptions played a key role in creating a balance of interests in the international copyright system and empowered creativity by increasing educational opportunities and promoting access to cultural works and inclusion. It further argued that since the existing international copyright system did not address technological developments, it needed rectification. It cited the UNHRC Special Rapporteur's recommendation to the WIPO to set a core list of minimum required exceptions and limitations. Iran strongly supported work towards a legally binding international instrument for limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and research and educational institutions. It sought to start text-based negotiations in this regard and suggested that the proposal by the African Group, India, Brazil and Ecuador would be a good base for preparing a consolidated text.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indonesia agreed with the statement made by the Asia Pacific Group and sought to move on to text based negotiations. It highlighted the importance of developing a legal framework to enable libraries and archives to reproduce content without the authorization of copyright holders for the purpose of education, research and inter-library loans.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Russian Federation pointed out that it had already partially solved the problem in its domestic legislation. It sought to strike a balance between the interests of the author and that of the society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ecuador endorsed the statement made by GRULAC. It had a Bill in its domestic legislature to address this issue. It wanted to proceed to text-based negotiations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Africa aligned itself with GRULAC, the African Group and the Asia Pacific Group and emphasized the critical role of libraries archives and educational institutions in the dissemination and preservation of their cultural heritage. It also called for progress on text based work and to send a clear message to the General Assembly and the international community that the issue was important.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US believed in the development of non-binding principles and objectives relating to national copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives, and educational institutions. It noted that statements of such principles and objectives introduced by them in earlier sessions of the SCCR had been received positively. The US further stated that it supported work through symposia or seminars to examine different approaches to national implementation of these principles. It also went on to state that libraries and archives, being central to knowledge systems, provided valuable insights to people. She referred to a document formulated by the United States which discussed the importance of enabling libraries to function properly, along with the goals the US attempted to achieve. The approach would be for the Member States to tailor the exceptions to suit their needs within the constraints of international obligations to make libraries and archives available to the world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan agreed with the statements made by the Asia Pacific Group, the African Group and GRULAC. It was concerned with the lack of uniformity and occasional absence of exceptions and limitations for libraries, archives and educational and research institutions in some countries, which restricted a large number of people from accessing information. Pakistan argued that reformation and harmonization of the current system was essential, and that mere incorporation into domestic laws was insufficient. There was a need to engage in text-based negotiations and work towards an appropriate international legal instrument.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Cameroon also aligned itself with the position of the African Group, GRULAC and the Asia Pacific Group. It emphasized the crucial role played by libraries and the importance of providing adequate exceptions and limitations for them. Cameroon said that it was also reviewing its own national legislation on the issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Armenia pointed out that it was drafting a new domestic law on the issue of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It also emphasized the importance of minimum international standards for countries to adopt. Armenia wanted countries to implement these limitations in their national legislations and supported a legally binding instrument for limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sudan supported the proposal put forward by the African Group, the Asian Group, Brazil Ecuador, Uruguay and India. Citing Crews' study, it stated that with advent of the digital age, all the memory and knowledge in the world could be easily converted into accessible formats and made available on databases for researchers and educational institutions. Therefore it was necessary for the SCCR to enable students and researchers to have access to this knowledge. The EU Directives passed in 2001 and 2012, and the work undertaken by the US and UNESCO were positive steps in this regard. It wanted to work towards an appropriate international instrument such as the Marrakesh Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Aligning with the African Group, Nigeria argued that since information sharing transcended national boundaries in the digital age, national solutions would be ineffective. There was a need to balance the interests of the creators and the larger public interest. It welcomed the report by Crews and the document prepared by the Chair to stimulate discussion along with the text-based proposal of the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan supported Group B's statements and said that libraries and archives played a pivotal role in collecting and preserving materials and providing them to the public. It cited Crews' study to argue that international differences in conditions for application of limitations and exceptions would cause problems with the increasing digitizing of materials. Principles evolved from these discussions should serve as guidelines for establishing the legal framework for libraries and archives in each Member State. Japan considered the objectives and principles document released by the US to be a good basis for discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Malawi wanted discussions to be guided by Crews' report.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Uruguay supported the statements made by GRULAC, the African Group and the Asia Pacific Group. It wanted to sponsor Document SCCR 29/4 submitted by Brazil, Ecuador, India and the African Group. It believed that libraries and archives were important for culture, leisure activities and welfare of the needy sections of society. Since archivists and librarians had approached the SCCR in every session to ask for an international solution, Uruguay urged the SCCR to continue with the discussion without prejudging the result.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Malaysia considered Crews' study to be useful for deliberation. It supported limitations and exceptions that contributed to the attainment of education for all. It wanted to appoint a facilitator or a friend of the Chair to further discussion and create concrete solutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Algeria valued the study submitted by Crews and recognized that copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives would enable the spread of cultural and scientific awareness. Algeria aligned itself with the statement made by the African group.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Congo believed that libraries and archival services had inherent rights to share knowledge and education. This would enrich cultural diversity and break the digital divide between the Global North and South. It argued that Crews' study demonstrated that domestic solutions would not solve this problem and an international instrument was necessary.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Zambia supported the statement made by the African Group. It remarked that libraries and archives played an essential role in disseminating information and provided a pool of historical knowledge which served as a base for our future. It believed that any solution should balance the interests of rights holders and that of the public.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nepal aligned itself with the Asia Pacific Group. It stated that libraries and archives played an important role in education as they were often the only sources of materials for students and academics in countries like Nepal. An international legal instrument on exceptions and limitations would balance different interests. Nepal supported appointing a facilitator or a friend of the Chair to develop a working text on limitations and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Australia supported the proposal given by the United States as a sound basis for developing principles and objectives of the suggested clusters. It wanted simple and immediate solutions within the existing legal framework to close the gap between ideals and the reality.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US, agreeing with Australia, showed interest in developing principles and objectives in terms of how different countries arrived at the principles and objectives. It also agreed to filling gaps between these and find consensus on the approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 4: July 2, 2015</strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Approach Forward</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>The Chair asked the Secretariat to provide an overview of the situation on this topic. The Secretariat stated that there were two studies on the issue - the first compiled by Kenneth Crews which had updated previous studies conducted in 2008 and 2014 and another study on limitations and exceptions for museums, SCCR/30/2.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There was also a working document adopted in 2014, SCCR/26/2, that compiled the reference to eleven topics and identified them as priority topics on this issue. Two proposals had also been adopted - one which refers to objectives and principles presented by USA (SCCR/26/8) and another by the African Group, Brazil, Ecuador, India and Uruguay (SCCR/29/4). The SCCR pointed out that a chart/non-paper had been submitted by the Chair in December 2014 and that delegations were to consider this non-paper in this session.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair clarified that the purpose of preparing the chart/non-paper was not to push the discussion in a particular way or to side with an issue. It was to help guide discussion in an organized fashion while remaining respectful of all views. The Chair opened the floor for comments on the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Speaking first, Australia was willing to work on the Chair's proposal. It believed that this should be done in a three-step process. Firstly, principles and objects as proposed by the US had to be clarified; secondly, reasons had to be identified for why those principles and objectives were not already in effect; and finally, solutions for implementing the principles and objectives had to be discussed. It believed that simple and immediate solutions should be preferred to complex solutions which would take longer to come into effect.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil stated that it was ready to contribute to discussions on the non-paper drafted by the Chair as a framework for the discussion. It argued that following the framework proposed by the Chair would not exclude discussion on principles and objectives. It suggested that the discussion on principles and objectives be subsumed within the framework proposed by the Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan questioned whether the list of issues compiled or the way discussions were structured would have had an impact on the direction taken by the SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair answered that the list was not fixed and that the flexible structure of the framework allowed for discussion on other related issues also. The Chair also asked if there was consensus on moving forward on the structure outlined by him or if there were suggestions on improvements.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US agreed with the Australian delegate on the importance of developing principles and objectives. The Chair pointed out that this discussion could be included as part of the approach within the chart/non-paper prepared by him.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU questioned the difference between the chart and Document SCCR 26/3. It also asked how the discussion on each issue was envisaged and whether it would be limited to a principled discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair responded to the first question by stating that while Document SCCR 26/3 was the source, it would be better to use the chart as a tool than to refer to a document even though it had been approved by the SCCR. To the second question, the Chair stated that while he could not predict the way in which the discussion would unfold, he foresaw a discussion which would first test whether the topic had consensus with regard to its inclusion in the topic and then try to set a principle that would be agreed upon. If solutions existed, an exchange of views based on the Australian approach of contrasting the principle with the findings in the Crews' study would take place, followed by methods of resolving the issue through exchange of best practices or an international instrument.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 4: July 2, 2015</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Day 4 commenced from the previous day's discussion on the approach forward on libraries and archives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil spoke on behalf of GRULAC and supported the approach recommended by the Chair in the non-paper submitted to the SCCR. It believed that this allowed for flexibilities. It invited comments for improvements.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This was repeated by Pakistan on behalf of the Asia Pacific Group and Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Iran, Malaysia, Senegal, Mexico, Tanzania, Guatemala and Zimbabwe.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On behalf of the Asia Pacific group, Pakistan appreciated the proposal on the non-paper by the Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan, speaking for Group B, required further clarifications on the approach proposed by the non-paper and reiterated its support to a discussion based on principles and objectives as proposed by the US. The Chair expressed his willingness to offer clarifications on questions from any of the delegations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria supported the proposal on behalf of the Africa Group.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran supported Pakistan and the interventions made by Brazil and Nigeria. It saw these discussions as beneficial for developing a legally binding instrument. Since discussion on substantive issues was being delayed because of procedural matters, Iran asked Member States who believed that their positions would be hindered by the non-paper to express their concerns and suggest changes in the non-paper.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Uruguay speaking on behalf of their group stated that it supported the Chair's proposal and regretted that the discussion on substantive issues was being delayed due to procedural issues which, it believed, were settled in the 27<sup>th</sup> SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU welcomed the proposal but raised concerns about clarity on the expected outcome of the approach suggested by the Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Africa supported the non-paper as a basis to proceed on the discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil, speaking for GRULAC, believed that it had a mandate on an international legal instrument in whatever form and asked whether all Member States agreed with the approach suggested by the Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU stated that it did not find a mandate as described by Brazil in the general assembly 2014 records. It believed that the issue of the mandate would be controversial and would lead to unproductive and repetitive discussions. It asked the Chair to clarify the situation with respect to the mandate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair stated that before changing the topic to the mandate, he wanted to get more views on the proposal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Venezuela supported the structure laid out by the Chair. Venezuela expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that even though it was supportive towards the Broadcast Treaty negotiations, which was not a priority for them, the same courtesy was not extended to them when it came to issues that were important to developing countries such as limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. It was unhappy at substantive discussions on the latter being delayed due to procedural quarrels. It argued that if this was an indication of the way forward, it would first want to discuss exceptions and limitations at the next SCCR so that developing countries did not have to waste their time. Venezuela pointed out that even developed countries needed solutions on the issue of limitations and exceptions. It agreed with Brazil's interpretation with regard to the mandate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria supported the statements made by the African Group, the Asia Pacific Group and GRULAC. It stated that procedural issues should not cloud discussions over substantive issues and that the approach put forward by the Chair allowed for sufficient flexibility.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Switzerland supported the Chair's proposal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Australia believed that discussing procedures and concerns from Member States was important to ensure clarity on the way forward.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Canada supported the statements made by Switzerland and Australia.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US supported the Chair's proposal. While it wanted a discussion on principles and objectives, it believed that the approach suggested by the Chair would help Member States. The US did not presuppose an outcome.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair welcomed this statement and assured that the principles and objectives document submitted by the US would also be used as a tool to provide clarity on issues.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ecuador supported the chart prepared by the Chair and agreed to using that chart as a starting point to guide discussions which would include principles and objectives as proposed by the US</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Tanzania, on behalf of the African Group, supported the tool prepared as a means to reach a common understanding from the point of view of the different statuses of the countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan, in its national capacity, supported the statements made by Switzerland, Canada, Australia and the US.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Guatemala also showed great interest in the working of this tool for the purpose of the discussion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Singapore realigned itself with the Asia Pacific Group's position and supported the Chair's proposal which it felt would be helpful in guiding the substantive discussions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Zimbabwe appreciated the proposal made by Nigeria and showed its support for a constructive engagement without prejudice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair suggested that statements by NGOs should be taken only at the stage of discussing substantive issues. The Chair also welcomed questions seeking clarifications on the intention behind the preparation of the chart. The Chair agreed to write an introduction to the chart stating that the intention was not to prejudge any outcome. He encouraged Member States to discuss the substantive issue of preservation if all concerns were adequately addressed by an introductory text.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">China expressed support for the Chair's proposal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU sought clarifications on whether the Chair would write an introductory text and whether he would want discussions to proceed simultaneously. After receiving affirmations on both questions, the EU asked for bilateral discussions with the Chair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After the coffee break the Chair announced that he had written an introductory text to the chart which would be circulated and sought to start discussion on the substantive issue of preservation and invited comments on the same from experts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Preservation</strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Non-Governmental Organizations</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Speaking first, the International Federation of Libraries and Archives (IFLA) stated that preservation was one of the most critical, frequently exercised and widely approved activities of libraries and archives and that preservation standards varied according to the medium - whether paper, film or digital. It pointed out that preservation was required only to preserve and not to create additional copies. Libraries and archives needed to collaborate across borders to preserve cultural heritage which may exist in libraries of different countries. Hence it was important to take international action.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (IFRRO) stated that preservation included reproduction, digitization and other forms of electronic reproduction, for the sole purpose of preserving and archiving information. It noted that many Member States did not include exceptions for this in their domestic laws. IFRRO wanted such exceptions to conform to the Berne three-step test and not be used for commercial purposes. It argued that while works that were commercially available did not need preservation, works that were no longer commercially available required an exception so as to be preserved appropriately. It believed that libraries had an important role to play in preserving and providing access to knowledge and cultural heritage and appropriate licensing agreements needed to ensure that they can perform this role adequately.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Council on Archives (ICA) said that without archives, countries such as South Africa would lose their past and cultural roots. The Council argued that while preservation could be thought of as a purely national issue with the only possible solution being to encourage countries to introduce preservation standards in domestic legislations, this would ignore important international dimensions involved in the question. Materials such as diplomatic reports and reports of ambassadors sent to other countries were essential to the history of a country. Such cases required stable, harmonious legislations. Also, since preservation of modern materials involved the use of technology that was not available in all countries, preservation standards would ensure that electronic materials could be frequently migrated and copied could be stored anywhere in the world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Federation of International Journalists (FIJ) strongly supported its work being archived as long as parallel publication was avoided. FIJ stated that exceptions should be accompanied by fair remuneration to authors and performers since the world would be deprived of cultural works if authors in poorer countries could not make a living. Authors were in an equally vulnerable state to libraries in less wealthy countries due to contracts with publishing houses. Given the imbalance in power, the WIPO needed to address this with an international instrument.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Authors Forum (IAF) agreed with the technical comments made by IFFRO and FIJ and supported preservation and digitization. It pointed out that while authors around the world were vulnerable due to having low incomes, it still wanted their works to be preserved.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to (SDM), while the publishing industry depended on copyright protection to innovate, some limitations and exceptions needed to be carefully crafted. It wanted these limitations and exceptions to comply with the Berne three-step test, taking into account the increased risk of misappropriation and misuse in the digital environment. It wanted to ensure that uses under this exception were limited to preservation and replacement and did not allow the creation of additional copies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Civil Society Coalition (CSC) called for harmonized, broad and compulsory exceptions to the right of reproduction to allow libraries to fulfill their traditional functions and to provide access to knowledge and culture on non-commercial terms. It pointed out that the world wide web of the 1990s was not preserved and would be lost without immediate preservation thereby creating a memory hole for the 21<sup>st</sup> century.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) supported preservation and wanted copyright and trade negotiators to sort out context-specific access related issues. It believed that preservation should be a minimum standard and that domestic laws must be harmonized in this regard. It also pointed out that preservation included exceptions to Technological Protection Measures, exceptions to related rights, etc. Citing Wikileaks as an example, KEI stated since knowledge about one country could reside in another, there was a need for an international treaty that harmonized minimum standards on preservation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Union internationale des éditeurs (UIE) stated that though International Publishers Association (IPA) considered topics related to libraries and archives as unrelated to the agenda, their preservation was important nonetheless. It articulated the publishers' wish to have their publications as part of the nation's heritage. It envisioned for the libraries authorized to preserve these to be technically, financially and legally enabled to do so. UIE emphasized on the need for differentiating between copyrighted, unpublished and commercially available works and achieving a consensus between stakeholders. It mentioned the following reasons for collaboration between right holders and libraries - firstly, publish may publish works in different formats, or hold information in different databases; secondly, updated data can be preserved only with collaboration; and thirdly, agreement on the mode of providing digital files to preserve libraries was also essential.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The IPA wanted a substantive debate on preservation. It wanted distinctions drawn between unpublished works, commercially available works and works in the public domain as there were different interests and different levels of consensus amongst stakeholders for these categories. The IPA also pointed out that digital preservation of digital work required co-ordination between libraries and right-holders in understanding which copies had to be preserved, the format it had to be preserved in, and how the digital files should be provided to libraries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The (SCR) stated that there was a need for a preservation exception in copyright law since fires and other natural disasters had often led to knowledge and cultural materials being lost. SCR considered digitization to be a reliable answer. It believed that preservation could not be done simply through licensing when exceptions for archivists were unavailable. It believed that an international treaty would also prove useful where collaborative cross-border digital preservation initiatives were taking shape.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) considered preservation of a common past as a public good. It stated that current international copyrights law made it nearly impossible for librarians and archivists to engage in cross-border operations because uncertainty and possible litigation costs prevented them from engaging in preservation. It went on to state that even consumers in developed countries wanted these exceptions and limitations so that libraries could engage in cross-border preservation initiatives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Society of American Archivists (SAA) cited Crews' study to state that national measures and exchange of national best practices were both inadequate and instead an international instrument on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives was necessary. It said that archivists could not preserve knowledge and serve global users without consistent and predictable laws. It also stated that 45% of WIPO's Member States provided for no exceptions on preservation and those who did were so varied in their approaches that librarians and archivists needed an international instrument to do their job. Further, according to SAA, three steps were involved in preservation - copying, updating the copies, and making the copies available when the original copy becomes damaged, obsolete, or is lost. As preservationists, it said, it needed the right to reproduce copies, migrate them either digitally or otherwise, and make them available.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The International Society for Development of Intellectual Property (the Society) pointed out that protection of IP strengthened creativity and innovation and contributed to building of a strong knowledge economy provided that it was balanced with public interest. To be successful, it said, any solution sought by the SCCR should balance different interests. It was of the opinion that this could be done either through limitations and exceptions or exchange of best practices. The Society pointed out that practical solutions were easily achievable and more likely to produce results than long term international measures.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Canadian Library Association (CLA) explained that preservation included reproduction in digital and physical forms for the purpose of preserving and archiving a copyrighted work. It did not believe this could be adequately done with simple licensing contracts. It also pointed out that format shifting was important to ensure works remained preserved where the original mediums became obsolete or too fragile. It ended with emphasizing the importance of cross-border initiatives toward preservation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The German Library Association stated that digital long-term preservation necessitated technical instruments. It opined that storing archives on CDs was not enough as the CDs might become unusable after a decade. It argued that multiple copies in newer formats were required to adequately preserve works. It further stated that publishers often refused to license works for this purpose and this necessitated an international instrument that harmonized laws across countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The European Bureau of Library Information and Documentation Associations (EBLIDA) considered libraries' role in preserving a nation's history to be a public good. It pointed out that licenses expired according to terms of subscription. It also said that libraries could not obtain back-up files for preservation and could only access them from the producer's website which provided no guarantee of preservation. Further, it stated that even in the EU, several Member States had not put in place clear comprehensive policies to ensure preservation; and, that an international solution which provided for a minimum standard for preservation regardless of the format of publication was necessary.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Member States</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Brazil spoke first and underlined the importance of preservation. It proposed using technology-neutral and format-neutral terms in an exception for preservations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, pointed out that there was an overwhelming consensus amongst NGOs on the need to have an international instrument for preservation. It felt that contracts and licensing agreements could not do the job. Crews' study was credible evidence to show the need for an international instrument.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US pointed out that the objective of their document on principles and objectives was to enable libraries and archives to do their job. Limitations and exceptions would enable libraries and archives to preserve copyrighted works in a variety of media and formats, including migration of content from obsolete formats. Though the US appreciated Crews' study, it wished to understand why different Member States had decided differently on this issue, what works required preservation, and how preservation was affected by TPMs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Algeria stated that exceptions in its domestic laws allowed libraries to preserve one copy of a copyrighted work. It believed that an international instrument was required to harmonize these exceptions throughout the world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">UK said that its copyright law was amended in June 2014, to enable libraries and archives to make copies of copyrighted work in any format to preserve cultural heritage. It considered the current international framework and the three-step test adequate to provide for this exception.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Chile stated that its domestic law authorized libraries and archives to reproduce works that were no longer commercially available. A maximum of twelve copies could be made for non-profit uses.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mexico also mentioned that exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives were present in its national laws. The exceptions allowed creation of copies for preservation, especially when the original had been taken out of the catalogue, had disappeared or was in a fragile state.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ecuador said that some of the issues it wanted to consider and discuss were the subject, the number of reproductions, the format of reproductions and the circumstances in which these reproductions could be made.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India stated its Public Internet Access Programme and Information for All depended on preservation. It considered preservation important for economic development and believed it to be the foundation for intergenerational equity. Therefore, the exceptions should be wide and public interest should be the overriding factor.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Belgium stated that as in their domestic legislation, a limit on the number of copies allowed should be put in place if the purpose is preservation. Also, all exceptions should conform to the Berne three-step test. Belgium's national law did not consider works that were exhausted or out of commerce.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair stated that he had prepared the introductory paragraph to the chart which mentioned that it was merely a tool to guide discussion and not a negotiating paper or a basis for the drafting exercise. The introduction encouraged evidence-based discussion without prejudging outcomes. He opened the floor for clarifications and discussions on the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">EU thanked the Chair and stated that it wanted an agreement on what the expected outcome was before engaging in discussion. It expressed reluctance on engaging in any normative work. It stressed that there was no consensus on an international instrument. It preferred an exchange of best practices. The EU said that while a discussion on objectives and principles as proposed by the US was important, a more important exercise would be to exchange best practices and understand the rationale behind these best practices. It called for a reworking of the study by Kenneth Crews which made data more easily accessible and regrouped discussions of national studies by topic. It suggested that the WIPO Lex search database and search engine could provide for national studies even on library exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Secretariat stated that work on the last issue was in progress and suggested that it be discussed in detail in the next session. The Secretariat also stated that it intended to organize regional seminars to provide technical assistance in this area for those who did not have exceptions yet or wanted to upgrade their laws.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan argued that the discussion was meant to include the possibility of all outcomes and not confined to any conditionality in light of the statement by EU. The Chair confirmed the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, stated that while it was not prejudging an outcome from the discussions, it hoped that the exchange of best practices would seen as means to enhance the discussion and not as en end in itself.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Representing the Asia Pacific Group, Pakistan stated that it also did not want to prejudge outcomes but wanted to ensure that all the factual experiences were used and analyzed in a result-oriented manner. South Africa and Nigeria aligned themselves with Pakistan's position.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">EU clarified that its acceptance of the chart as a tool did not mean that any outcome was acceptable or possible.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran aligned itself with Pakistan and South Africa.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The session on libraries and archives ended with no agreement on an international instrument.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Day 1: July 3, 2015</strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Agenda item 8 - Limitations and Exceptions for teaching, research, educational institutions and persons with other disabilities</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>Nigeria spoke first and said that the Committee should advance work on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities. It reiterated that it wanted to discuss all three issues in the future sessions of SCCR.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Central European and Baltic states group expressed interest in sharing experiences and practices regarding copyright limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On behalf of the GRULAC countries, Brazil welcomed the discussion on limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities. It stated that there was no study on persons with other disabilities <br /> and their relationship with limitations and exceptions and their right to culture.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU welcomed discussions on how copyright could support educational and research institutions and people with other disabilities in the analogue world. It stated that these exceptions could be adopted since the existing international copyright framework had adequate legal space and flexibility. It suggested that the Committee work on adopting exceptions and limitations such that national and international frameworks concur.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">China, discussing its legal provisions regarding topics on the agenda, welcomed equal education and fair regulations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Georgia, speaking on the importance of balancing the interests of copyright holders and the society, suggested that a strong and sustainable copyright system could be established through limitation and exceptions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US spoke about the need for exceptions and limitations for educational purposes to be consistent with international obligations. It considered collaborations with copyright industries to be essential to its education system. Firstly, it emphasized encouraging members to adopt exceptions and limitations which allowed using copyrighted works for educational purposes while ensuring a balance between rights of authors and public interest. Secondly, it encouraged the promotion of access to educational content through innovative licensing models. Thirdly, it wanted to adopt limitations and exceptions through technological learning. Finally, it included general ideals like monetary grants for non-profit education, ensuring access of copyrighted works. Owing to technological advancements and changes in the educational environment, the US welcomed the plans of WIPO to update the study on other disabilities for discussions in the Committee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mexico believed that education and scientific research could be encouraged by facilitating access to protected works. It also discussed executive strategies to allow the promotion of enterprises and the development of education to encourage technological innovation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Trinidad and Tobago supported Brazil's views. It opined that the issues of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, and educational and research institutes are in tandem with each other.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Supporting this view, Russia stated that these issues did not have to be divided, and a single common approach could be used to resolve this conflict. It opined that it was a way of respecting the interests of authors and copyright holders, and also providing access for promoting development of science, culture and providing opportunities to citizens.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Algeria stated that the Berne Convention had established the stages for the exceptions and limitations for research and education. It argued that the exceptions and limitations should not only fulfill the needs of developing countries but other stakeholders as well. Algeria supported exceptions for research and teaching institutes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Africa supported a study on the challenges faced by education and research institutions and people with other disabilities, especially in the digital environment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sudan supported the statements of the African Group, Asia Pacific Group and GRULAC. It spoke on the need to make balanced efforts on all the issues on the Agenda to reach a consensus. In its opinion, the Marrakesh Treaty indicated that the study on exceptions and limitations and people with disabilities was required. It supported updating the study using previous studies of the International Bureau. In conclusion, it stated that libraries and archives should benefit from limitations and exceptions and should be accessible to all.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan supported the statements issued by the Asia Pacific Group, the African Group and GRULAC. It wanted time to be allocated for all three issues in future SCCR sessions. It also supported the study proposal of the African Group.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ecuador also supported the statement of GRULAC and wished to dedicate more time to these issues in the session. It believed that all these elements, on better understanding, could help the proceedings of the committee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria supported the intervention made by the Africa Group and the statements of Pakistan and Brazil. It considered exceptions and limitations for educational and teaching institutions, and persons with other disabilities to be important for advancement of knowledge. It highlighted the need for adjusting the international copyright system to facilitate access and usage of digital content by all.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Guatemala aligned itself with Brazil's statement. It attached importance to limitations and exceptions since it considered access to be a human right. It wanted a legal instrument covering limitations and exceptions in the digital area which considering the three-step test.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Secretariat recalled that at SCCR 26, it had been asked to identify whether resources could be found to update the existing studies on exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions. There were five regional studies conducted about five years ago on this topic. It reported to the Committee that it would identify the resources and start work the same year. It also sought funds in the work plan to work on it in the next bi-annum, assuming it was approved by the Member States. The Secretariat clarified that it had also been asked to look if there were resources to conduct a scoping study on the intersection of persons with other disabilities and the copyright system to understand the areas which needed to be addressed. There was an event on hearing impairment and captioning and how that intersected with this topic. There had also been a discussion on conducting additional studies and whether there would be resources for the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sudan, speaking on persons with disabilities, pointed out that the same organizations which had previously tackled the subject should conduct the study since these organizations had more experience on limitations and exceptions. Sudan suggested holding seminars for direct interaction with them.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, sought clarifications on whether this pertained strictly to the topics that the Secretariat had outlined - marking and scoping for persons with impaired hearing. It also wanted to know whether the captioning was for exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Africa supported the intervention made by Nigeria.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil sought further information from the Secretariat on whether it would be more efficient to have a compilation and a consolidation of the studies in one global study on the situation of exceptions and limitations under agenda item 8 than having a series of regional studies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Japan, with regard to artists' resale rights, said that the related provision existed in the Berne Convention. However, the flexibility provided by the Berne Convention meant that the protection of resale right was left to the declaration of national laws. Japan wanted the Committee to stick with the agenda and did not support the proposal of including artists' resale rights as a new agenda item of the committee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US fully supported enriching the agenda, and encouraged all delegates to engage in discussions to develop it.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Chair's Summary</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong> </strong>The Chair's draft summary was given to the regional coordinators for their inputs.. Members were free to present and reflect upon the document. But since it was the Chair's summary, he refused to enter into approval procedure for this. He suggested a set of recommendations for the Committee to discuss. The Chair advised the committee to discuss their recommendations and not the summary.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran raised an issue on the legal status of the summary. It pointed out that the summary had not been discussed, negotiated and approved by the Committee which went against WIPO practice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU reserved the right to make comments on points of substance. These related to paragraphs that mentioned what the Committee decided, or those that mentioned individual positions taken by groups of states. It agreed with everything that was said by Japan on behalf of Group B. It also favoured the general point raised by Iran in relation to the paper carrying a disclaimer on the fact that it did not commit to the Committee in any way.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Romania, on behalf of the CEBS, expressed support for the remarks made by the Group B coordinator.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria commented on the Chair's summary as a tool for providing balance on all the concerns raised by the different regional groups. It added that even the African Group's concerns had not been reflected in the summary. However, it reiterated its confidence in the summary for the purpose of moving forward.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair stated that there were fifty pages which did not appear in summary shape but did on the record shape. However a record containing different views and specific positions had been made. The Chair's view was reflected here and because it was not approved or subjected to approval by the Committee, it did not take decision on that. The Chair sought to avoid starting an exercise on common drafting of each paragraph. It invited Members to consider the approach adopted by Nigeria and some delegates from the CEBS countries without taking that as a decision of the Committee. The Chair urged members to move to the next stage of recommendations. It invited oppositions from those against this view.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair distributed a separate paper to all the delegates, and a discussion was commenced to arrive at a common view for the three items on the agenda. The Chair highlighted that regarding the third topic, which was related to exceptions and limitations for educational and research institutions and persons with other disabilities, there was a mandate to deliver the Committee's recommendation to the 2015 General Assembly.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, asked the Chair to have a disclaimer in the summary and set the desired precedent. It was concerned that it could lead to the Committee being extended.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan said that the Asia-Pacific Group supported text-based negotiation on agreed topics and discussions on those requiring clarification. Pakistan considered it premature to talk about the exact timing of a Diplomatic Conference which could be decided in due course after evaluating progress.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria recommended that the 2015 WIPO General Assembly direct the Committee to expedite its work towards an international legal instrument in whatever form on the topic of limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives. For agenda item 8, it recommended repetition of the same language.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Brazil, on behalf of the GRULAC group, supported the statement made by Nigeria. It supported working towards an international legal instrument in whatever form as an objective for the future work on proposed recommendation on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pakistan, on behalf of a majority of the Asia-Pacific Group, showed support to the proposal made by Nigeria.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Iran supported the statement made by Pakistan on behalf of Asia. It pointed out that the text-based negotiations on the Treaty had not been conducted. There was also no common understanding on key issues and Articles. Iran recommended that the Committee continue its work on text-based negotiations, finding solutions for key issues and achieving consensus on key provisions in the draft Treaty. Depending on the progress of the text-based negotiations, the Committee could decide on the date for convening a Diplomatic Conference. It supported the statement made by Nigeria and Brazil, and seconded by Pakistan regarding items 7 and 8.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India supported the views expressed by Nigeria, Brazil, Pakistan and Iran on both agenda items dealing with limitations and exceptions. It suggested that the mandate of the General Assembly should reflect in the language, which was presently not the case. It sought to know the basis on which it had been decided that the Diplomatic Conference would be held in 2017 since there was no consensus of opinions yet. It suggested that the reference be left open, depending upon the two future SCCR meetings.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair clarified that a recommendation without consensus could not be accepted. On observing that no Delegate requested the floor, he welcomed concluding remarks and called for closing the session.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The EU expressed disappointment on the failure to formulate a roadmap on the Treaty in 2017 and reaching a conclusion on the exception items.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Nigeria, in line with the comment made by South Africa, recommended that more effort could be made towards finalizing a language that achieves consensus.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair, showing interest in the suggestion of Nigeria, expressed the desire to see whether the other delegates were keen on receiving suggestions and welcomed different views regarding this.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">South Africa requested the floor and supported the statement made by Nigeria. It felt that the Committee had something on the paper and if the regional coordinators met, a consensus could be achieved.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Chair proceeded to listening to closing remarks. The meeting closed with closing remarks by delegates.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-of-the-30th-session-of-the-wipo-sccr-by-the-centre-for-internet-society'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/report-of-the-30th-session-of-the-wipo-sccr-by-the-centre-for-internet-society</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2016-04-04T14:39:05ZBlog EntryIP Meetup #02: Prabir Purkayastha on the CRI Guidelines and software patenting in India
https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/ip-meetup-02-prabir-purkayastha-on-the-cri-guidelines-and-software-patenting-in-india
<b></b>
<h3>Prabir Purkayastha will deliver a short talk on what the Guidelines on Computer Related Inventions mean for software patenting, and the way forward, on Sunday, March 20th, 2016 at the CIS Delhi office, at 4 p.m. <br /></h3>
<div id="parent-fieldname-text-90eeae1895bf44d29641567f7fcf5d44">
<p style="text-align: justify;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">We would like to invite you to the second session of a series of IP focused meetups. The meetups are
aimed at bringing folks together working within or interested in IP law,
to discuss recent developments with reference to access to knowledge,
climate change, health, trade, etc.</p>
<p>The talk will be followed by a round of discussion, after which the
floor will be thrown open for other pressing/relevant IP developments.</p>
<p>Please join us for tea and refreshments at 3.30 pm.</p>
<p>Please RSVP by dropping a line at <a class="mail-link" href="mailto:anubha@cis-india.org">anubha@cis-india.org</a>.</p>
<p><strong>CIS Delhi's location on Google Maps: <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/nPKkoQFhRSt">https://goo.gl/maps/nPKkoQFhRSt</a></strong></p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/ip-meetup-02-prabir-purkayastha-on-the-cri-guidelines-and-software-patenting-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/ip-meetup-02-prabir-purkayastha-on-the-cri-guidelines-and-software-patenting-in-india</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaOpen SourceAccess to KnowledgeSoftware PatentsIntellectual Property RightsFOSS2016-03-29T17:06:13ZEventFueling the Affordable Smartphone Revolution in India
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/digital-asia-hub-the-good-life-in-asias-21-st-century-anubha-sinha-fueling-the-affordable-smartphone-revolution-in-india
<b>Smartphones have emerged as the exemplar of mankind's quest for shrinking technologies. They embody the realization of a simple premise – that computing devices would do more and cost less. This realization has been responsible for modern society's profound transformations in communication, governance, and knowledge distribution.</b>
<p>The essay was published as part of the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.digitalasiahub.org/thegoodlife/">The Good Life in Asia's Digital 21st Century essay collection</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The launch of the iPhone in 2007 is often credited with ushering in an era of smartphones. Ever since, the world's best tech R&D has focused on increasing the capabilities of these devices. And as a result, less than a decade later, we have sub-hundred dollar smartphones. The low-cost smartphone has found an enthusiastic and insatiable market in developing countries, especially Asia. India is no exception to the Asian narrative – Micromax, Spice, and Lava (low cost smartphone manufacturers) are household names in the Indian smartphone market, which accounted for 65% of internet traffic in 2014 (Meeker, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Indian Prime Minister, carrying the twin aspirations of catalyzing the growth of indigenous manufacturing and bridging the digital divide, launched the “Digital India” and “Make in India” campaigns last year. During his US visit, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook extended their support to the campaigns' vision (Guynn, 2011). The campaigns outline the government's elaborate initiatives to, inter alia, bridge the digital divide and build indigenous manufacturing capacity. While all these developments bode well for the indigenous smartphone, there remain some serious concerns affecting the growth of the industry – for instance, patent infringement litigations and the absence of clear legal and regulatory solutions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">From the state of the industry and its implications, it can be concluded that: first, growing access to smartphones has been influenced by their phenomenal affordability; second, smartphones are an excellent example of technology for development (UNDP, 2001) and a facilitator of access to knowledge; and third, domestic smartphone production has occurred in an imprecise legal and regulatory environment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This essay attempts to build an appreciation for the role that smartphones are playing in development, specifically, by fostering Access to Knowledge. Conversations around development by public-interest groups and emerging industries often espouse Access to Knowledge to address concerns in international development, communications, technology, education, and intellectual property policy. Whereas the principle can be regarded as in-theworks, two theories inform us about the role of mobile phones in fostering Access to Knowledge. Lea Sheaver's theory classifies mobile as an Access-toKnowledge good. Lea enumerates the five key components of a robust Access to Knowledge framework, viz., education for information literacy, access to the global knowledge commons, access to knowledge goods, an enabling legal framework, and effective innovation systems (Sheaver, 2007). According to her, affordability of the good is the ultimate indicator of its efficacy as an access to knowledge good. Furthermore, inventions in microchip technology, electronics manufacturing, and software need to be supported by enabling legal and policy frameworks coupled with effective innovation systems.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yochai Benkler's framework classifies mobile-devices as both informationembedded goods and information-embedded tools (Benkler, 2006). He says, “Information-embedded goods are those goods which are ‘better, more plentiful or cheaper because of some technological advance embedded in them or associated with their production,’ such as medicines, movies, and improved crop seed. Information-embedded tools, in turn, are those technologies necessary for research, innovation, and communication of knowledge” (Benkler, 2006). A smartphone qualifies as both because it can be used to obtain knowledge, and it depends on discoveries in microchip technology, electronics manufacturing, and software to function.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To date, there has been no formal, theoretical or evidentiary investigation on the emergence of smartphones as an Access-to-Knowledge good. In the following sections, I will attempt to explain the smartphone’s dependence on an enabling legal framework and effective innovation systems (Lea's components). It must be borne in mind that globally, discussions affecting access to knowledge have aimed at creating balanced and inclusive systems related to intellectual property (Kapczynski & Krikorian, 2010). Therefore, the essay will focus on: first, the relationship between constituent mobile technologies and intellectual property as a function of production/deployment of smartphones in India; and second, the relationship between innovation and access.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Creating an Enabling Legal Framework to Foster Access to Knowledge</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The adage “the only lesson you can learn from history is that it repeats itself” is worth bearing in our narrative. The emergence of the smartphones industry in Asia has commonalities with the flourishing Asian piracy trade – which remains an essential access solution for low-income societies constantly barraged by expensive western media goods. The prohibitive cost of acquiring brand-name devices (e.g. Apple, HTC, Samsung, Sony) drove local production to imitate and innovate cheaper substitutes (WIPO, 2010). This occurred within the lenient and flexible intellectual property regimes prevalent in Asian countries, which continue to be constantly criticized for their failure to enact stricter intellectual property law. The hubs of smartphone production – China, Taiwan, and India – have flexible intellectual property protection law and lax enforcement measures (Centre for Internet and Society, 2012).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Concerns of intellectual property center around patent and copyright legislation, which have yet to be fully developed to address intellectual property in high-tech industries (since trademark issues remain unchanged, they will not be discussed in the essay.) As a result, constituent smartphone technologies have been shaped and governed by a blend of formal and informal rules and legal and illegal practices. This is why they are often referred to as “gray market” technologies. A smartphone in terms of constituent intellectual property can be broadly divided into hardware and software technologies. This piece will first deal with hardware, followed by software technologies.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Hardware Technologies and Their Relationship with IP Law</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Presently, most Indian manufacturers import hardware from China and Taiwan, and assemble the phones in India. A few key Indian domestic players are Maxx Mobile, Intex, Spice, and Lava, whose dominance have not gone unnoticed by foreign manufacturers. A couple of these domestic manufacturers are now embroiled in patent litigation threats or infringement suits. And as litigation piles up in Indian courts, the judiciary is slowly waking up to mobile patent litigation, but is yet to rule comprehensively. To make matters worse, the jurisdiction of the Indian antitrust regulator remains unclear, and to a certain extent overlaps with the judiciary, adding to the ambiguity. For instance, when an appellate court ruled in favor of the Swedish tech-giant Ericsson, it ordered Micromax to pay a flat 1.25 – 2% of its devices' selling price to Ericsson (Lakshane, 2015). The ruling was devoid of a more rational and reasoned approach developed by courts of other jurisdictions in similar matters, which prescribed that the infringers pay damages based on the price of the patented components only, and not the retail price of the phones. This decision risks causing a significant increase in the price of phones and potentially threatens local innovation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Indian government's Make in India and Digital India campaigns aim to fulfill the vision of a digitally empowered India, and the 2015 Indian Union budget also targets boosting the electronics manufacturing industry. Despite these broad initiatives, there needs to be a more focused policy in place to ensure domestic companies do not get weighed down by patent related concerns. The root cause of litigation is the vesting of a majority of critical mobile patents (Standard Essential Patents, or SEPs) by a handful tech-giants. For instance, Qualcomm owns 5700 patents around CDMA technology (qualcomm.com). In another instance, the DVD format constitutes 311 SEPs for DVD players and 272 SEPs for DVD recorders (CIS, 2012). Such a dense concentration of patents around SEPs creates a patent thicket and thereby compels Smartphone manufacturers to acquire multiple licenses, and to pay high transaction costs and huge royalties to the owner. To reduce conflict and protect domestic players from being arm-twisted into paying high royalties, the government can potentially identify critical technologies and initiate the formation of a patent pool of such technologies. The concept of a patent pool mandates that the patent holders issue licenses on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis to interested parties. However, a nuanced and cautious approach to setting up such pools is necessary (Shapiro, 2001).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are interesting lessons in China's steps to encourage local innovation of Smartphone hardware as well, specifically in the form of standardized technologies. The Chinese government has actively supported the development of indigenous standards to shield domestic manufacturers from royalty exposure. In fact, the China Blue High-definition Disc (CBHD) standard was built as an alternative to the Blu-ray disc and was duly adopted by the Chinese government, which reportedly caused the royalty rates for the Blu-ray format to dip. Much later, Warner Bros, Paramount, and other motion picture producers adopted the CBHD standard as well for distribution in China.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Software Technologies and Their Relationship with IP Law</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Unlike hardware technology, where India is struggling to build manufacturing capacity, the success of the Indian software industry has already been realized. The software-as-a-service (SaAS) industry is led by Infosys, TCS, and Wipro in software exports. The prevailing trend in the industry since the 1980s was to assign ownership of their products to offshore clients. However, in the past decade, there has been a conscious shift by the Indian software development workforce to build products for Smartphone platforms. This is in response to the shift in local populations to accessing content and services online. Reports indicate that India has the second largest population of mobile applications developers (approx. 3 million) in the world, second only to the US (Livemint, 2015). The Indian government has recognized the potential of mobile application-based ventures and created funds to encourage app development in India (IAMAI, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Intellectual property protection around software is fairly ambiguous. A piece of code is potentially capable of gaining both patent and copyright protection. In the area of mobile application development, preliminary research findings indicate that coding occurs with an agnostic attitude towards intellectual property laws (Cassar, 2014). One of the reasons is ambiguity on a multitude of issues around the protection of software because Indian legislation on patent and copyright is frustratingly insufficient. There is a growing discontentment about long-term patent protection over software code, which could be detrimental to innovation – particularly, to the start-up segment of software industry. In more technologically advanced economies, software patenting has emerged as a scourge – last year, the US Supreme Court in Alice Corporation Pty Ltd v. CLS Bank International Et Al narrowed the eligibility of software inventions to gain patent protection. The activist discourse has shifted in favor of eliminating software patenting because of the incremental and obsolescent nature of a software invention, inter alia (Lapowsky, 2015). However, in a recent disappointing move, the Indian patent office widened the scope of patent-eligible subject matter for software-related inventions – a move that was decried by free software activists and industry alike. This widening of scope can only benefit tech-giants in building bigger patent portfolios, which is unnecessary and unhealthy for innovation by small and mid-tier entities (Sinha, 2015).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Effective Innovation Systems</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Innovation ensures fresh creation of knowledge. A society cannot premise itself on the mere importation of knowledge; it must also strive to use the knowledge to meet its own local needs and environment. Innovation depends on a variety of factors – there is no singular path or factor to build an innovative and enterprising society. The patent system is often incorrectly credited with “promoting” innovation. The discourse around innovation was extremely patent-centric until studies disproved the assumptive correlation between high patenting activity and innovation. Continuing in the same vein, Lea states, “From the A2K perspective, however, relying on patents – which represent the right to exclude others from access to the innovation – is particularly problematic. Patents likely represent the segment of innovation of least value for expanding access to knowledge: improvements in the knowledge stock whose application is limited by exclusive property rights” (Shaver, 2007).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this framework, it is also important to shed light on the growing movement of openness. Openness as a movement has been captured by various fields - Big data, software, education, media, etc. Free and Open Source Software has emerged as a key agent in information technology policy-making in India, with the Indian government adopting an open standards policy and an open software policy for its own purposes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the context of smartphone technologies, preliminary findings also support the shift towards openness (Huang, 2014). Industry participants have observed that openness will lead to greater benefits in private production of hardware technologies. Similarly, mobile applications developers have also voiced support of open source software (Cassar, 2014).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Conclusion</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The discussion above identified a limited set of legal and regulatory concerns affecting the state of production/deployment of smartphones in India. These issues and findings are backed by preliminary research, and purport to sustain the emergence of the smartphone as an enabler of access to knowledge. The proposed solutions direct industry and the government alike to take immediate steps to fix problems impeding pervasive access to this knowledge good.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The experience of the smartphone industry with an imprecise legal and regulatory environment, akin to piracy, has thus far been a success story of affordability, quality substitution, and innovation. However, this narrative is now threatened by messy litigation, jurisdictional uncertainties between the anti-trust regulator and judicial system, SEP licensing issues, rise of software patents, inter alia. Despite these issues, the industry continues to grow. The future of access to knowledge is therefore bright, provided that stakeholders make efforts to meet the needs of this emerging industry and the public, including development and consumer interests.</p>
<hr />
<p><strong> References / Links / Resources</strong></p>
<ol>
<li>Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth Of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets And Freedom. Retrieved from http://www.benkler.org/wealth_of_networks/index.php?title=Chapter_9%2C_section_3.</li>
<li>Cassar, S. (2014). Interviews with App Developers: Open Source, Community, and Contradictions – Part III. Retrieved from: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/interviews-with-app-developers-open-sourcecommunity-and-contradictions-iii</li>
<li>Cassar, S. (2014) Ambiguity in the App Store: Understanding India’s emerging IT sector in light of IP. Retrieved from http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ambiguity-in-the-app-store</li>
<li>Centre for Internet and Society, Pervasive Technologies: Access to Knowledge in the Marketplace(2012, September). Retrieved from http://cis-india.org/a2k/pervasive-technologies-research-proposal.pdf/view</li>
<li>Guynn, J. (2015, September 28). Facebook, Silicon Valley like Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/09/27/narendra-modi-india-facebook-markzuckerberg-google-sundar-pichai-silicon-valley/72936544/</li>
<li>Huang, M. (2014). [Open] Innovation and Expertise > Patent Protection & Trolls in a Broken Patent Regime (Interviews with Semiconductor Industry - Part 3). Retrieved from: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ interviews-with-semi-conductor-industry-part-3</li>
<li>IAMAI (2015). An inquiry into India's app economy.</li>
<li>Kapczynski, A., Krikorian, G., (2010). Access to Knowledge in the Age of Intellectual Property. Retrieved from: https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/free_download/9781890951962_Access_to_ Knowledge_in_the_Age_of_Intellectual_Property.pdf</li>
<li>Lakshane, R. (2015, September). FAQ: CIS Proposal for Compulsory Licensing of Critical Mobile Technologies. Retrieved from: http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/faq-cis-proposal-for-compulsory-licensing-ofcritical-mobile-technologies</li>
<li>Lakshane, R. (2015, February). Open Letter to Prime Minister Modi. Retrieved from: http://cis-india.org/ a2k/blogs/open-letter-to-prime-minister-modi</li>
<li>Lapowsky, I. (2015, February). If You Want to Fix Software Patents, Eliminate Software Patents. Retrieved from https://www.eff.org/mention/follow-wired-twitter-facebook-rss-eff-if-you-want-fix-software-patentseliminate-software</li>
<li>Meeker, M. (2015). 2015 Internet Trends. Retrieved from http://www.kpcb.com/partner/mary-meeker</li>
<li>PTI (2015). Google aims to make India a hub for app development. Livemint. Retrieved from: http:// www.livemint.com/Industry/rwWUfp30YezONe0WnM1TIO/Google-aims-to-make-India-a-hub-for-appdevelopment.html</li>
<li>Qualcomm Enters Into CDMA Modem Card License Agreement with Seiko Instruments Incorporated. (n.d.). Retrieved November 13, 2015, from https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2000/06/20/ qualcomm-enters-cdma-modem-card-license-agreement-seiko-instruments</li>
<li>Shapiro, C. (2001). Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 1, 119-150. Retrieved from: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10778.pdf</li>
<li>Shaver, L. (2007). Defining and Measuring Access to Knowledge: Towards an A2K Index. Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 22. retrieved from: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/22</li>
<li>Sinha, A. (2015). Comments on the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs). Retrieved from http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-computerrelated-inventions-cris</li>
<li>United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2001: Making New Technologies Work for Human Development (2001). Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2001/en/</li>
<li>World Intellectual Property Organisation. (2010, Dec 1-2). Media Piracy in Emerging Economies: Price, Market Structure and Consumer Behavior. Retrieved from the WIPO website: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/ mdocs/enforcement/en/wipo_ace_6/wipo_ace_6_5.pdf</li>
</ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/digital-asia-hub-the-good-life-in-asias-21-st-century-anubha-sinha-fueling-the-affordable-smartphone-revolution-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/digital-asia-hub-the-good-life-in-asias-21-st-century-anubha-sinha-fueling-the-affordable-smartphone-revolution-in-india</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaFeaturedIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2016-03-16T15:23:43ZBlog EntryIP Meetup #01: Prof. Biswajit Dhar on 'Intellectual Property issues: The Way Forward post Nairobi WTO Ministerial'
https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/ip-meetup-01-prof-biswajit-dhar-on-intellectual-property-issues-the-way-forward-post-nairobi-wto-ministerial
<b>Prof. Biswajit Dhar will deliver a short talk on what the WTO Nairobi Ministerial means for intellectual property issues, and the way forward, on Sunday, February 7, 2016 at the Centre for Internet & Society's Delhi office, at 4 p.m. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We would like to invite you to the inaugural session of a series of IP focused meetups. The meetups are aimed at bringing folks together working within or interested in IP law, to discuss recent developments with reference to access to knowledge, climate change, health, trade, etc.</p>
<p>The talk will be followed by a round of discussion, after which the floor will be thrown open for other pressing/relevant IP developments.</p>
<p>Please join us for tea and refreshments at 3.30 pm.</p>
<p>Please RSVP by dropping a line at <a class="mail-link" href="mailto:anubha@cis-india.org">anubha@cis-india.org</a>.</p>
<p><b>CIS Delhi's location on Google Maps: <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/nPKkoQFhRSt">https://goo.gl/maps/nPKkoQFhRSt</a></b></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/ip-meetup-01-prof-biswajit-dhar-on-intellectual-property-issues-the-way-forward-post-nairobi-wto-ministerial'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/events/ip-meetup-01-prof-biswajit-dhar-on-intellectual-property-issues-the-way-forward-post-nairobi-wto-ministerial</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaIntellectual Property RightsEventAccess to KnowledgeLearning2016-02-04T13:25:34ZEvent