The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 11 to 17.
A Guide to Key IPR Provisions of the Proposed India-European Union Free Trade Agreement
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-guide-to-the-proposed-india-european-union-free-trade-agreement
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society presents a guide for policymakers and other stakeholders to the latest draft of the India-European Union Free Trade Agreement, which likely will be concluded by the end of the year and may hold serious ramifications for Indian businesses and consumers. </b>
<div class="visualClear">In its ongoing negotiation for a FTA with the EU, a process that began in 2007 and is expected to end sometime this year, India has won several signicant IP-related concessions. But there remain several IP issues critical to the maintenance of its developing economy, including its robust entrepreneurial environment, that India should contest further before ratifying the treaty. This guide covers the FTA's IP provisions that are within the scope of CIS' policy agenda and on which India has negotiated favorable language, as well as those provisions that it should re-negotiate or oppose.</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">Download the guide <a title="A Guide to the Proposed India-European Union FTA" class="internal-link" href="http://www.cis-india.org/a2k/publications/CIS%20Open%20Data%20Case%20Studies%20Proposal.pdf">here</a>, and please feel free to comment below.</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">You may also download a <a title="India-EU FTA TRIPS Comparison Chart" class="internal-link" href="http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/ipr/upload/India-EU_FTA_Chart.odt">chart</a> comparing the language proposed by India and the EU respectively with that included in the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">Following is a summary of CIS' findings:</div>
<div class="visualClear"> </div>
<div class="visualClear">
<div class="visualClear">
<ul><li>India has become a de facto leader of developing countries at the WTO, and an India-EU FTA seems likely to provide a model for FTAs between developed and developing states well into the future.</li><li>The EU has proposed articles on reproduction, communication, and broadcasting rights which could seriously undermine India's authority to regulate the use of works under copyright as currently provided for in the Berne Convention, as well as narrowing exceptions and limitations to rights under copyright.</li><li>The EU asserts that copyright includes "copyright in computer programs and in databases," without indicating whether such copyright exceeds that provided for in the Berne Convention. Moreover, by asserting that copyright "includes copyright in computer programs and in databases," the EU has left open the door for the extension of copyright to non-original databases.</li><li>India should explicitly obligate the EU to promote and encourage technology transfer -- an obligation compatible with and derived from TRIPS -- as well as propose a clear definition of technology transfer.</li><li>The EU has demanded India's accession to the WIPO Internet Treaties, the merits of which are currently under debate as India moves towards amending its Copyright Act, as well as several other international treaties that India either does not explicitly enforce or to which it is not a contracting party.</li><li>In general, the EU's provisions would extend terms of protection for material under copyright, within certain constraints, further endangering India's consumer-friendly copyright regime.</li><li>An agreement to establish arrangements between national organizations charged with collecting and distributing royalty payments may obligate such organizations in India collect royalty payments for EU rights holders on the same basis as they do for Indian rights holders, and vice versa in the EU, but more heavily burden India.</li><li>The EU has proposed a series of radical provisions on the enforcement of IPRs that are tailored almost exclusively to serve the interests of rights holders, at the expense of providing safety mechanisms for those accused of infringing or enabling infringers. </li><li>The EU has proposed, under cover of protecting intermediate service providers from liability for infringement by their users, to increase and/or place the burden on such providers of policing user activity.</li></ul>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-guide-to-the-proposed-india-european-union-free-trade-agreement'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/a-guide-to-the-proposed-india-european-union-free-trade-agreement</a>
</p>
No publishergloverDevelopmentConsumer RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgeDiscussionEconomicsAnalysisTechnological Protection MeasuresIntermediary LiabilityinnovationIntellectual Property RightsPatentsPublications2011-08-30T13:06:03ZBlog EntryThe 2010 Special 301 Report Is More of the Same, Slightly Less Shrill
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301
<b>Pranesh Prakash examines the numerous flaws in the Special 301 from the Indian perspective, to come to the conclusion that the Indian government should openly refuse to acknowledge such a flawed report. He notes that the Consumers International survey, to which CIS contributed the India report, serves as an effective counter to the Special 301 report.</b>
<h1>Special 301 Report: Unbalanced Hypocrisy</h1>
<p>The United States Trade Representative has put yet another edition of the Special 301 report which details the copyright law and policy wrongdoings of the US's trading partners. Jeremy Malcolm of Consumers International notes that the report this year claims to be "well-balanced assessment of intellectual property protection and enforcement ... taking into account diverse factors", but:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[I]n fact, the report largely continues to be very one-sided. As in previous editions, it lambasts developing countries for failing to meet unrealistically stringent standards of IP protection that exceed their obligations under international law.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>More the report changes, <a href="http://cis-india.org/advocacy/ipr/blog/consumers-international-ip-watch-list-2009">the more it stays the same</a>. <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4684/195/">Despite having wider consultations</a> than just the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA, consisting of US-based IP-maximalist lobbyists like the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America, National Music Publishers Association, Association of American Publishers, and Business Software Alliance) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA, consisting of US-based pharma multinationals), things haven't really changed much in terms of the shoddiness of the Special 301 report.</p>
<h1>India and the 2010 Special 301 Report</h1>
<p>The Special 301 report for 2010 contains the following assessment of India:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>India will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2010. India continues to make gradual progress on efforts to improve its legislative, administrative, and enforcement infrastructure for IPR. India has made incremental improvements on enforcement, and its IP offices continued to pursue promising modernization efforts. Among other steps, the United States is encouraged by the Indian government’s consideration of possible trademark law amendments that would facilitate India’s accession to the Madrid Protocol. The United States encourages the continuation of efforts to reduce patent application backlogs and streamline patent opposition proceedings. Some industries report improved engagement and commitment from enforcement officials on key enforcement challenges such as optical disc and book piracy. However, concerns remain over India’s inadequate legal framework and ineffective enforcement. Piracy and counterfeiting, including the counterfeiting of medicines, remains widespread and India’s enforcement regime remains ineffective at addressing this problem. Amendments are needed to bring India’s copyright law in line with international standards, including by implementing the provisions of the WIPO Internet Treaties. Additionally, a law designed to address the unauthorized manufacture and distribution of optical discs remains in draft form and should be enacted in the near term. The United States continues to urge India to improve its IPR regime by providing stronger protection for patents. One concern in this regard is a provision in India’s Patent Law that prohibits patents on certain chemical forms absent a showing of increased efficacy. While the full import of this provision remains unclear, it appears to limit the patentability of potentially beneficial innovations, such as temperature-stable forms of a drug or new means of drug delivery. The United States also encourages India to provide protection against unfair commercial use, as well as unauthorized disclosure, of undisclosed test or other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products. The United States encourages India to improve its criminal enforcement regime by providing for expeditious judicial disposition of IPR infringement cases as well as deterrent sentences, and to change the perception that IPR offenses are low priority crimes. The United States urges India to strengthen its IPR regime and will continue to work with India on these issues in the coming year. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This short dismissal of the Indian IPR regime, and subsequent classification of India as a "Priority Watch List" country reveals the great many problems with the Special 301.</p>
<h2>On Copyrights</h2>
<ol>
<li>
<p>The report notes that there are "concerns over India's inadequate legal framework and ineffective enforcement". However, nowhere does it bother to point out precisely <em>how</em> India's legal framework is inadequate, and how this is negatively affecting authors and creators, consumers, or even the industry groups (MPAA, RIAA, BSA, etc.) that give input to the USTR via the IPAA. Nor does it acknowledge the well-publicised fact that the statistics put out by these bodies have time and again <a href="http://www.cis-india.org/a2k/blog/fallacies-lies-and-video-pirates">proven to be wrong</a>:</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Apart from this bald allegation which has not backing, there is a bald statement about India needing to bring its copyright law "in line with international standards" including "the WIPO Internet Treaties". The WIPO Internet Treaties given that more than half the countries of the world are not signatories to either of the WIPO Internet Treaties (namely the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty), calling them 'international standards' is suspect. That apart, both those treaties are TRIPS-plus treaties (requiring protections greater than the already-high standards of the TRIPS Agreement). India has not signed either of them. It should not be obligated to do so. Indeed, Ruth Okediji, a noted copyright scholar, <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1433848">states</a>:</p>
</li>
</ol>
<blockquote>
<p>Consistent with their predecessors, the WIPO Internet Treaties marginalize collaborative forms of creative engagement with which citizens in the global South have long identified and continue in the tradition of assuming that copyright’s most enduring cannons are culturally neutral. [...] The Treaties do not provide a meaningful basis for a harmonized approach to encourage new creative forms in much the same way the Berne Convention fell short of embracing diversity in patterns and modes of authorial expression.</p>
</blockquote>
<ol>
<li>
<p>Some of the of the 'problems' noted in the report are actually seen as being beneficial by many researchers and scholars such as Lawrence Liang, Achal Prabhala, Perihan Abou Zeid <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/iipenforcement/bibliography">and others</a>, who argue that <a href="http://www.altlawforum.org/intellectual-property/publications/articles-on-the-social-life-of-media-piracy/reconsidering-the-pirate-nation">lax enforcement has enabled access to knowledge and promotion of innovation</a>. In a panel on 'Access to Knowledge' at the Internet Governance Forum, <a href="http://a2knetwork.org/access-knowledge-internet-governance-forum">Lea Shaver, Jeremy Malcolm and others</a> who have been involved in that Access to Knowledge movement noted that lack of strict enforcement played a positive role in many developing countries. However, they also noted, with a fair bit of trepidation, that this was sought to be changed at the international level through treaties such as the Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty Agreement (ACTA).</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The scope of an optical disc law are quite different from copyright law. The report condemns "unauthorized manufacture and distribution of optical discs", however it does not make it clear that what it is talking about is not just unlicensed copying of films (which is already prohibited under the Copyright Act) but the manufacture and distribution of blank CDs and DVDs as well. The need for such a law is assumed, but never demonstrated. It is onerous for CD and DVD manufacturers (such as the Indian company Moserbaer), and is an overbearing means of attacking piracy.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The report calls for "improve[ment] [of India's] criminal enforcement regime" and for "deterrent" sentences and expeditious judicial disposition of IPR infringement cases. While we agree with the last suggestion, the first two are most unacceptable. Increased criminal enforcement of a what is essentially a private monopoly right is undesirable. Copyright infringment on non-commercial scales should not be criminal offences at all. What would deter people from infringing copyright laws are not "deterrent sentences" but more convenient and affordable access to the copyright work being infringed.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<h2>On Patents</h2>
<p>Thankfully, this year the Special 301 report does not criticise the Indian Patent Act for providing for post-grant opposition to patent filings, as it has in previous years. However, it still criticises section 3(d) of the Patent Act which ensures that 'evergreening' of drug patents is not allowed by requiring for new forms of known substances to be patented only if "the enhancement of the known efficacy of [the known] substance" is shown. Thus, the US wishes India to change its domestic law to enable large pharma companies to patent new forms of known substances that aren't even better ("enhancement of the known efficacy"). For instance, "new means of drug delivery" will not, contrary to the assertions of the Special 301 report and the worries of PhRMA, be deemed unpatentable.</p>
<p>The United States has been going through much turmoil over its patent system. Reform of the patent system is currently underway in the US through administrative means, judicial means, as well as legislative means. One of the main reasons for this crumbling of the patent system has been the low bar for patentability (most notably the 'obviousness' test) in the United States and the subsequent over-patenting. An <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/447/303/case.html">American judgment</a> even noted that "anything under the sun that is made by man" is patentable subject matter. It is well-nigh impossible to take American concerns regarding our high patent standards seriously, given this context.</p>
<h2>Miscellanea</h2>
<p>The harms of counterfeit medicine, as <a href="http://www.cis-india.org/a2k/blog/fallacies-lies-and-video-pirates">we have noted earlier</a>, are separate issues that are best dealt under health safety regulations and consumer laws, rather than trademark law.</p>
<p>Data exclusivity has been noted to be harmful to the progress of generics, and seeks to extend proprietary rights over government-mandated test data. It is [clear from the TRIPS Agreement][de-trips] that data exclusivity is not mandatory. There are clear rationale against it, and the Indian pharmaceutical industry [is dead-set against it][de-india]. Still, the United States Trade Representative persists in acting as a corporate shill, calling on countries such as India to implement such detrimental laws.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Michael Geist, professor at University of Ottowa <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4997/125">astutely notes</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Looking beyond just Canada, the list [of countries condemned by the Special 301 report] is so large, that it is rendered meaningless. According to the report, approximately 4.3 billion people live in countries without effective intellectual property protection. Since the report does not include any African countries outside of North Africa, the U.S. is effectively saying that only a small percentage of the world meet its standard for IP protection. Canada is not outlier, it's in good company with the fastest growing economies in the world (the BRIC countries are there) and European countries like Norway, Italy, and Spain.
In other words, the embarrassment is not Canadian law. Rather, the embarrassment falls on the U.S. for promoting this bullying exercise and on the Canadian copyright lobby groups who seemingly welcome the chance to criticize their own country. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>His comments apply equally well for India as well.</p>
<h1>IIPA's Recommendation for the Special 301 Report</h1>
<p>Thankfully, this year <a href="http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2010/2010SPEC301INDIA.pdf">IIPA's recommendations</a> have not been directly copied into the Special 301 report. (They couldn't be incorporated, as seen below.) For instance, the IIPA report notes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The industry is also concerned about moves by the government to consider mandating the use of open source software and software of only domestic origin. Though such policies have not yet been implemented, IIPA and BSA urge that this area be carefully monitored.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Breaking that into two bit:</p>
<h2>Open Source</h2>
<p>Firstly, it is curious to see industry object to legal non-pirated software. Secondly, many of BSA's members (if not most) use open source software, and a great many of them also produce open source software. <a href="http://hp.sourceforge.net/">HP</a> and <a href="http://www-03.ibm.com/linux/ossstds/">IBM</a> have been huge supporters of open source software. Even <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/">Microsoft has an open source software division</a>. [Intel][intel], <a href="http://www.sap.com/usa/about/newsroom/press.epx?pressid=11410">SAP</a>, <a href="http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/open_source/index.html">Cisco</a>, <a href="http://linux.dell.com/projects.shtml">Dell</a>, <a href="http://www.sybase.com/developer/opensource">Sybase</a>, <a href="http://www.entrust.com/news/index.php?s=43&item=702">Entrust</a>, <a href="http://about.intuit.com/about_intuit/press_room/press_release/articles/2009/IntuitPartnerPlatformAddsOpenSourceCommunity.html">Intuit</a>, <a href="http://www.synopsys.com/community/interoperability/pages/libertylibmodel.aspx">Synopsys</a>, <a href="http://www.apple.com/opensource/">Apple</a>, <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/22/jbuilder_eclipse/">Borland</a>, <a href="http://w2.cadence.com/webforms/squeak/">Cadence</a>, <a href="http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=6153839">Autodesk</a>, and <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9967593-16.html">Siemens</a> are all members of BSA which support open source software / produce at least some open source software. And <em>all</em> BSA members rely on open source software (as part of their core products, their web-server, their content management system, etc.) to a lesser or greater extent. BSA's left hand doesn't seem to know what its right hand -- its members -- are doing. Indeed, the IIPA does not seem to realise that the United States' government itself uses [open source software], and has been urged to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7841486.stm">look at FOSS very seriously</a> and is doing so, especially under CIO Vivek Kundra. And that may well be the reason why the USTR could not include this cautionary message in the Special 301 report.</p>
<h2>Domestic Software</h2>
<p>As <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/indias-copyright-proposals-are-un-american-and-thats-bad.ars">this insightful article by Nate Anderson in Ars Technica</a> notes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Open source is bad enough, but a "buy Indian" law? That would be <a href="http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/sell2usgov-vendreaugouvusa/procurement-marches/buyamerica.aspx?lang=eng">an outrage</a> and surely something the US government would not itself engage in <a href="http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/sell2usgov-vendreaugouvusa/procurement-marches/ARRA.aspx?lang=eng">as recently as last year</a>. Err, right?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Furthermore, the IIPA submission do not provide any reference for their claim that "domestic origin" software is being thought of being made a mandatory requirement in governmental software procurement.<br />
</p>
<h2>WCT, WPPT, Camcording, and Statutory Damages</h2>
<p>The IIPA submission also wish that India would:</p>
<ol>
<li>Adopt a system of statutory damages in civil cases; allow compensation to be awarded in criminal cases;</li>
<li>Adopt an optical disc law;</li>
<li>Enact Copyright Law amendments consistent with the WCT and WPPT;</li>
<li>Adopt an anti-camcording criminal provision.</li>
</ol>
<p>Quick counters:</p>
<ol>
<li>Statutory damages (that is, an amount based on statute rather than actual loss) would result in ridiculousness such as the $1.92 million damages that the jury (based on the statutory damages) slapped on Jammie Thomas. The judge in that case <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/judge-slashes-monstrous-jammie-thomas-p2p-award-by-35x.ars">called the damage award</a> "monstrous and shocking" and said that veered into "the realm of gross injustice."</li>
<li>The reasons against an optical disc law are given above. Quick recap: it is a) unnecessary and b) harmful.</li>
<li>India has not signed the WCT and the WPPT. Indian law satisfies all our international obligations. Thus enacting amendments consistent with the WCT and the WPPT is not required.</li>
<li>Camcording of a film is in any case a violation of the Copyright Act, 1957, and one would be hard-pressed to find a single theatre that allows for / does not prohibit camcorders. Given this, the reason for an additional law is, quite frankly, puzzling. At any rate, IIPA in its submission does not go into such nuances.</li>
</ol>
<h2>Further conclusions</h2>
<p><a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2010/05/us-special-301-report-and-not-so.html">Shamnad Basheer</a>, an IP professor at NUJS, offer the following as a response:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Dear USA,</p>
<p>India encourages you to mind your own business. We respect your sovereignty to frame IP laws according to your national priorities and suggest that you show us the same courtesy. If your grouse is that we haven't complied with TRIPS, please feel free to take us to the WTO dispute panel. Our guess is that panel members familiar with the English language will ultimately inform you that section 3(d) is perfectly compatible with TRIPS. And that Article 39.3 does not mandate pharmaceutical data exclusivity, as you suggest!
More importantly, at that point, we might even think of hauling you up before the very same body for rampant violations, including your refusal to grant TRIPS mandated copyright protection to our record companies, despite a WTO ruling (Irish music case) against you.</p>
<p>Yours sincerely,</p>
<p>India."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Basheer's suggestion seems to be in line with that Michael Geist who believes that other countries should join Canada and Israel in openly refusing to acknowledge the validity of the Special 301 Reports because they lack ['reliable and objective analysis'][geist-reliable]. And that thought serves as a good coda.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/2010-special-301</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshDevelopmentConsumer RightsAccess to KnowledgeCopyrightPiracyAccess to MedicineIntellectual Property RightsData ProtectionFLOSSTechnological Protection MeasuresPublications2011-10-03T05:37:27ZBlog EntryOpen Standards Workshop at IGF '09
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-workshop-09
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society co-organized a workshop on 'Open Standards: A Rights-Based Framework' at the fourth Internet Governance Forum, at Sharm el-Sheikh. The panel was chaired by Aslam Raffee of Sun Microsystems and the panellists were Sir Tim Berners-Lee of W3C, Renu Budhiraja of India's DIT, Sunil Abraham of CIS, Steve Mutkoski of Microsoft, and Rishab Ghosh of UNU-MERIT.</b>
<p>Sir Tim Berners-Lee started the session with an address on various rights. Rights, he noted can range from being things like the rights to air and water to the right not to have the data carrier you use determine which movie you watch. Then, there are tensions between rights: the right to anonymity can clash with the right to know who posted information on making a bomb. Berners-Lee stated that for 2009, he has chosen to pursue one particular right: the right to government-held data. This data can include everything from where schools are to emergency services such as locations of hospitals. Today, we are talking about standards. </p>
<p>The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is a fifteen-year old body in which all kinds of people come together for purposes of setting standards around the World Wide Web. Thus, everything from HTML, which is used to write Web pages to WCAG, which are guidelines to enable people with disabilities access websites through assistive technologies. W3C conducts its discussions openly: anybody who has a good idea has a right to participate in its discussions -- it does not matter who one works for, who one represents -- what does matter are the ideas one brings to the table. The kinds of standards that W3C deals with are of interest to an immensely wide-ranging group of people. Even ten-year olds have actually expressed their opinions about standards like HTML. All this openness of participation must be guaranteed while ensuring that the processes move forward.</p>
<p>Next spoke Renu Budhiraja of the Department of Information and Technology, which is a part of the Indian government. She started off by hoping that this workshop would be not only a platform to share knowledge, but also to reach consensus on a few matters. Next, she laid out why open standards are extremely important for the Indian government. What citizens want in their interactions with the government are ease of interaction and efficiency. For them it is immaterial whether a certain service is provided by Department A or Department B. Thus we need to move towards a single-window government service for citizens, enabling them to interact easily with the government's various departments. While such an initiative must be centralized for it to be effective, it is crucial that its implementation be decentralized and suited to each district or localities' needs.</p>
<p>There is, understandably, a huge institutional mechanism behind ensuring that these systems are based on open standards. We have expert committees, consisting of academics and knowledgeable bureaucrats, and working groups, which include industry groups. Through these, we have evolved a National Policy on Open Standards, which is currently in a draft stage, but shall be notified soon. This policy outlines the principles based on which particular standards required for governmental functioning are to be chosen or evolved. This document will ensure long-term accessibility to public documents and information, and seamless interoperability of various governmental services and departments. It will also reduce the risk of vendor lock-in and reduce costs, and thus ensure long-term, sustainable, scalable and cost-effective solutions.</p>
<p>Ms. Budhiraja noted that there are a few aspects of the policy that bear discussion in a forum such as the IGF. First is the issue of whether royalty-free is the only choice for innovation. All other things equal, between royalty-free and reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) standards, of course royalty-free is to be preferred. But what if a superior technology (JPEG200 vs. JPEG) is RAND? What should the government's position be in such a case? Further, what should the government's position be when in a particular domain a RAND standard is the only option? </p>
<p>Next is the issue of single vs. multiple open standards. When interoperability is what we are aiming at, can multiple standards be recommended as some in the industry are asking us to do? And then is the issue of market maturity. The government sometimes finds itself in a situation where a standard is available, but well-developed products around that standard aren't and there aren't sufficient vendors using that standard. All these issues are of great practical importance when a government works on a policy document on standards.</p>
<p>Next up was Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society. His presentation was on open standards as citizens' and consumers' rights. He started off by citing the example of the Smart Card Operating System for Transport Application (SCOSTA) standard, and the implications that the SCOSTA story has on large-scale projects such as the National Unique ID project currently under way in India. SCOSTA, an open standard, was being written off as unimplementable by all the MNC smart card vendors who wished to push RAND standards. IIT Kanpur helped the government develop a working implementation. Within twenty days, the card manufacturers submitted modified cards for compliance testing by NIC. Because of SCOSTA being an open standard, local companies also joined the tender. The cost went down from Rs. 600 per card to Rs. 30 per card. This shows the benefits of open standards as a means of curbing oligopolistic pricing, and working for the benefit of consumers.</p>
<p>From a rights-based perspective, access to the state machinery is a primary right. Citizens should not be required to pirate or purchase software to interact with the state. If e-governance solutions are based on proprietary standards, not all citizens would be equal. The South African example or requiring a particular browser to access the election commission's website shows that in a rather drastic fashion. When intellectual property interferes with governmental needs, governments have not been shy of issuing compulsory licences. This was seen when during the Great War the United States government pooled various flight-related patents and compulsorily licensed them, as well as what we are currently seeing with many Aids-related drugs being compulsorily licensed in developing countries. Thus, there are precedents for such licensing, and governments should explore them in the realm of e-governance. Many countries now have statutes that guarantee the right to government-held information. Government Interoperability Frameworks should take these into account, and mandate all government-to-citizen (G2C) information be transacted via open standards. This must be backed up by a strong accessibility policy to ensure that the governments don't discriminate between their citizens.</p>
<p>Proprietary standards act like pseudo-intellectual property rights, just as DRMs do. They add a layer on top of rights such as copyright, and can prevent the exercise of fair use and fair dealing rights because of an inability to legally negotiate the standards in which the content is encoded in a cost-free manner. In guaranteeing this balance between copyrights and fair dealing rights, free software and alternative IP models play a crucial role. Because of software patents being recognized in a few countries, development of free software which allows citizens to exercise their fair use rights is harmed in all countries.</p>
<p>Steve Mutkoski of Microsoft spoke next and placed the standards debate in a large context. He noted that standards are a technicality that are only a small part of the large issue which is interoperability in e-governance and delivery to citizens. The real challenges are organizational and semantic interoperability. Frequently interoperability is not harmed by technical issues, but by legal and organizational issues. Governments used to work on paper; during the shift to electronic data, they didn't engage in any organizational changes. Thus they continue to function with electronic data the same way that they did with paper-based data. Governments often lack strong privacy policies regarding the data that each of their departments holds. This harms governmental functioning. Additionally, legacy hardware and software have to be catered to by the standards we are talking about: sometimes an open standard just will not work. </p>
<p>Standards don't guarantee interoperability, and there is significant work done on this by noted academics ("Why Standards Are Not Enough To Guarantee End-to-End Interoperability" Lewis et al.; "Difficulties Implementing Standards" Egyedi & Dahanayake; "Standards Compliant, But Incompatible?" Egyedi et al.). Mandated standards lists will not help address interoperability issues between different implementations of the same standard. What would help? Transparency of implementations; collaboration with community; active participation in maintenance of standards, etc., would help. There is a need for continued public sector reform, with a focus on citizen-centric e-governance, and a need to engage with the question of whether government-mandated standards lists lead the market or follow the market.</p>
<p>Rishab Aiyer Ghosh, a senior researcher at UN University, Maastricht, spoke next. He started by noting that technical standards are left to technical experts. That needs to change, which is why discussing open standards at the IGF is important. He next set off a hypothetical: imagine you go to the city council office in Sharm el Sheik, and at the parking lot there it says that your car has to be a Ford if you are to park there; or if the Dutch government insists that you have a Philips TV if you are to receive the national broadcaster's signal. While these might seem absurd, situations like this arise all the time when it comes to the realm of software. Thus, the social effects of open standards are of utmost importance, and not just their technical qualities. Analysing the social effects of open standards takes us back to the economics of technology and technological standards. Technological standards exhibit network externalities: their inherent value is less than the value of others using them. Being the only person in the world with a telephone won't be very useful. Technological standards also exhibit path dependence: once you go with one technological format, it is difficult to change over to another even if that other format is superior to the first. Thus, clearly, standards benefit when there is a 'natural monopoly'. The challenge really arises when faced with the question of how to ensure a monopoly in a technology without the supplier of that technology exhibiting monopolistic tendencies. This can only be done when the technology is open and developed openly, of which the web standards and the W3C are excellent examples. If the technology or the process are semi-open, then because of the few intellectual property rights attached to the technology, some would be better off than others. Just as governments cannot insist on driving a particular make of cars as a prerequisite for access to them, they cannot insist on using a particular proprietary standard as a means of accessing them.</p>
<p>Many interesting questions arose when the floor was thrown open to the audience. "Should governments only mandate a particular standard when it is certain that market maturity exists?" Not really, since governmental decisions also give signals to the market and help direct attention to those standards. It would be best if roadmaps were provided, with particular under-mature standards being designated as "preferred standards", thus helping push industry in a particular direction. Examples where this strategy has borne fruit abound. This is also the strategy found in the Australian GIF. On the issue of multiplicity of standards, Sir Tim was very clear that they have to be avoided at all costs. He gave the example of XSLT and CSS, which are both stylesheet formats. He noted that their domain of operation was very different (with one being for servers and the other for clients), so having two standards with similar functions but different domains of operation does not make them multiple standards. Multiple standards defeat the purpose of the standardization process.</p>
<p>It was noted that governmental choices are of practical importance to citizens. During the Hurricane Katrina emergency, the federal emergency website only worked properly if Internet Explorer was used. How do we move forward? We must move forward by having policies that strike a balance between allowing for the natural evolution of standards and stability. The Government Interoperability Frameworks must be dynamic documents, allowing for categorization between standards and having clear roadmaps to enable industry to provide solutions to the government in a timely fashion. Governments must be strong in order to push industry towards openness, for the sake of its citizens, and not let industry dictate proprietary standards as the solution. Some opined that since there are dozens of domains that governments function in, maintaining lists of standards is a time-consuming process that is not justified, but others rebutted that by noting that for enterprise architectures to work, governments have to maintain such lists internally. Opening up that list to citizens and service providers would not entail greater overheads.</p>
<p><strong>Sunil Abraham talking Open Standards at IGF09</strong></p>
<p>(Video added on December 30, 2009)<br /><br /><br /><a title="<OBJECT>, shockwave-flash@http://www.youtube.com/v/woC_6GddD6A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" class="__noscriptPlaceholder__" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/woC_6GddD6A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1">
</a></p>
<div style="float: none; text-align: start;" class="__noscriptPlaceholder__1"><a title="<OBJECT>, shockwave-flash@http://www.youtube.com/v/woC_6GddD6A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" class="__noscriptPlaceholder__" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/woC_6GddD6A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1">
<div class="__noscriptPlaceholder__2"> </div>
</a></div>
<a title="<OBJECT>, shockwave-flash@http://www.youtube.com/v/woC_6GddD6A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" class="__noscriptPlaceholder__" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/woC_6GddD6A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1">
</a>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-workshop-09'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/dcos-workshop-09</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshOpen StandardsConsumer RightsDigital GovernanceFair DealingsFLOSSWorkshopOpenness2011-08-23T02:54:03ZBlog EntryAt the end of the niche optical pirate
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/at-the-end-of-the-niche-optical-pirate
<b>In this blog post, Siddharth Chaddha goes enquiring into the modus operandi of a video pirate / film lover / businessman in Bangalore's famed National Market.</b>
<h3><strong>Getting to the National Market</strong></h3>
<p>Wading through Majestic Bus Stand,
Flea Markets, Private Bus Stops and vehicles going around in circles,
you could almost miss this board outside one of the shopping plazas.
NATIONAL MARKET, the famed "pirate market" at the heart of
the city. Most of the business here is illegal and the local police
raid the thirty odd shops selling goods, which within the purview of
any multilateral agreement under WIPO or TRIPS regime would be an
infringement of copyright, at least once a
month. The shops run shutter to shutter, each one five by four feet.
Crowded with sellers and customers, all pirate markets typically
smell the same. Pirated DVDs, DVD players, Chinese mobile phones and
PDAs, even VHS players of the yore, smuggled MP3 music systems, fake
Ray-Bans and Police sunglasses, gaming consoles. You name it, and
National Market has it.</p>
<h3>Meet the Pirate</h3>
<p>Tall and sporting a stubble, Sooraj
(name changed) is a Malayali who has been in the trade for over 8
years. "Earlier, I used to have the best English Movie
collection ever. But now, its all going away. Most people have
shifted from DVD's to Digital Storage and Bit Torrents", says
Sooraj. A family comes across the counter. A middle aged man
accompanied by two women in a burqua, one of them carrying a young
baby boy in their hand. "Tom and Jerry!", says the man and
Sooraj's helper brings out a carton full of animated Hollywood films.
Finding Nemo, The Lion King, Madagascar, its all there. "No Tom
and Jerry. This doesn't have Tom and Jerry", growls the stout
customer. Sooraj jumps into the action, hunts out a DVD from a stack
and puts it on the table. "Tom and Jerry Tales - 13 episodes",
reads the the outside with a classic Tom chasing Jerry picture on the
cover. Satisfied, the family puts it aside and goes on to explore
other popular cartoon series. In the end, the man calls for
Maharathi, a recent Bollywood flick. He looks at the cover
intriguingly and I decide to butt in, "Amazing movie. Just saw
it last week. Great plot." The deal is seized and after a bout
of bargaining over the price. As the family dissolves into the market,
Sooraj turns back and says to me, "A lot of customers bargain. I
get a headache. And my shop is the first one in the market, inside
people operate on margins of 5-10 rupees. That just ruins everything
for us. They don't think of the amount of the risk involved."</p>
<h3>The Business of Piracy<strong><br /></strong></h3>
<p>Sooraj explains to me how Chennai is the biggest market of
the South. "Chennai is a sea. You will get everything there.
Once you take a dive in that ocean, it's all there." When I ask
him of the chain of distribution, he says, "No one will say that
I print the covers of fake DVDs or I copy prints. For me, I just
call my distributor and everything comes from Chennai. I don't ask
beyond that. The stock comes in the price range of 25-35-40 Rupees.
Now, there is only one quality of stock. The market is dying. No one
has good stock. Earlier, we used to sell DVDs for Rs.70-80. Now,
there is no demand. Even the wholesale business is at a low.'' I ask
him, "So what are you going to do, now that soon DVDs will be
gone?" Sooraj is not flustered. "We will shut this and start
a new business," he says. I quietly step back, as another
customer comes asking for audio CDs. He doesn't deal in those.</p>
<h3>Enforcement Threat<strong><br /></strong></h3>
<p>When the customer is gone, I ask him,
"How often does the police raid this market?" He smiles and
replies, "Not often anymore. The business is almost dead. But
yes, they come sometimes. Then you are taken away and a case ensues."
I decide to ask him candidly, "How many times have you been
booked?" He smiles again. "5-7 times. I have a few cases
pending, dates that I have to go and visit the court. They arrest you
for a day but that's all they can do. After all this is not a big
crime." He continues dealing with customers who have various
demands for music and films. Some he sells to, he guides others to
the inside shops. "I sell about a 1000 DVDs everyday. Earlier,
the figure used to be much higher. Mostly English. Hindi, Tamil and
Telugu too. No Kannada," he volunteers. I probe further, "Why
no Kannada?" He says that that he supports protection for their
own industry. "And the market price for Kannada films is
appropriate. Some are Rupees 60, 90, 110. That's reasonable. We do not
need to pirate it."</p>
I ask him for Tamil titles. He asked if
I wanted <em>Ghajani</em>. “I saw it when it released. Give me something
that's worth watching.” He picks out two. <em>Saroja</em> and <em>Subramaniya
Puram</em>. He doesn't make a profit in this deal but something tells me
that he is happy to spread the love of good films. "Can I click
a picture?" He refuses, saying it would not be a good idea. I
shake his hand. Until next time.
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/at-the-end-of-the-niche-optical-pirate'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/at-the-end-of-the-niche-optical-pirate</a>
</p>
No publishersiddharthIT ActConsumer RightsPiracyIntellectual Property Rightsinternet and society2011-08-04T04:44:58ZBlog EntryCivil Society Letter Against TRIPS-Plus IP Enforcement
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/civil-society-letter-against-trips-plus-ip-enforcement
<b>This open letter was sent to the president of Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and high-level government officials on the eve of the Third International Conference on Counterfeiting & Piracy organized by CII. This conference aims to strengthen the enforcement of intellectual property rights and thus creating an imbalance in the protection that intellectual property offers to both those who own it as well as those who don't.
</b>
<h2>An Open Letter to the President of Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) on the Third International Conference on Counterfeiting & Piracy</h2>
<p><br />To<br />Mr. Venu Srinivasan <br />The President <br />Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) <br />The Mantosh Sondhi Centre, 23, <br />Institutional Area, Lodi Road <br />New Delhi - 110 003 <br /><br />Dear Mr. Srinivasan,<br /><br />We understand that Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) is hosting the Third International Conference on Counterfeiting and Piracy from 19-20th August 2009 in partnership with the Embassy of the United States and the Quality Brand Protection Committee (QBPC), China. As stated in the invitation letter the primary objectives of the conference are: 1) to initiate coordinated action for cross border enforcement; 2) to highlight the importance of protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs); 3) to combat the growing threat of piracy and counterfeiting; 4) to facilitate a global meeting of customs officials across the globe; 5) to recommend the creation and setting up of a governmental “National Brand Protection” group; 6) to serve as a forum to discuss legal guidelines related to the prosecution of IPR infringement and to eliminate ‘loopholes’ within the existing laws; and 7) to strengthen cooperation between enforcement agencies and chalk out strategies for enforcement agencies a industry action both at national & international level. We also understand that this international conference is part of CII Intellectual Property Division’s special initiative on enforcement of IPRs. As part of this special initiative CII aims at “engaging government to create conducive legislative measures, policy levels reform and impressing [upon them] to adopt stringent enforcement initiatives and exemplary punitive and monetary measures to further safeguard and secure the interest of industry”. CII also wants to “create a global partnership to synergise efforts of international community and to support and participate in India's efforts in combating counterfeiting both at domestic and international levels”. We, the undersigned, representing various civil society organizations in India, write this letter to express our strong reservation on the conference as well as on CII’s special initiative on IP enforcement. Without raising any question on CII’s right to organize events we would like to convey the following concerns with regard to the conference and CII’s initiative on IP enforcement.</p>
<p>Many of the above mentioned objectives of the conference and the special initiative are directed towards the enhancement of intellectual property (IP) standards like coordinated action on border measures, common guidelines for prosecution of IP infringement, exemplary punitive and monetary measures, etc. In other words, enhancement of IP standards means using more public money to protect private rights; very often protecting the monopoly over intangible property rights of multi-national corporations (MNCs).</p>
<p>As you may be aware, MNCs and their developed country hosts are currently engaged in the implementation of <a class="external-link" href="http://www.iqsensato.org/wp-content/uploads/Sell_IP_Enforcement_State_of_Play-OPs_1_June_2008.pdf">a multi-pronged strategy to enhance IP enforcement standards</a>.[1] This is similar to the MNC’s initiatives in the mid 80s to enhance international IP protection, which resulted in the Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Unlike the 80s, now MNCs and developed countries use multiple forums to pursue the objective of enhancement of IP enforcement standards. Some developed countries have unilaterally enhanced their IP enforcement strategy to force other countries, especially developing countries, to accept the same through various multilateral organizations, namely the World Customs Organization (WCO), World Health Organization (WHO), Universal Postal Union (UPU), Interpol, WIPO and WTO. Developed countries are also using Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), Bilateral Agreements on IP Enforcements as well as financing lobbyist studies, conferences and policy recommendations to impose higher IP enforcement standards. These efforts for the enhancement of IP enforcement standards are a matter of grave concern for the people of developing countries and their governments. By partnering with the US Embassy and <a class="external-link" href="http://www.qbpc.org.cn/About_QBPC/Introduction/2008-08/01_116.html.">Quality Brand Protection Committee of China</a> (QBPC)[2] in the organization of this conference, CII is allowing itself to play in the hands of MNCs and some developed countries, whose interests do not match with that of India industries and that of the Indian people.</p>
<p>As you are aware, the Government of India is taking a very strong position in resisting enhancement of IP enforcement standards in all the multilateral forums. India along with like-minded developing countries successfully pushed back TRIPS-plus[3] IP enforcement agenda at WCO and WHO. India is also trying its level best to convince other developing countries the need to stick to TRIPS-compliant standards rather than adopting TRIPS-plus enforcement standards. In the wake of the controversial generic drug seizures by EU customs authorities, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2009/02/04232721/India-Brazil-raise-EU-drug-se.html">India has also raised the issue of TRIPS-plus IP enforcement standards</a> contained in the EU IP Enforcement Directive at least two times at the TRIPS Council.[4] The <a class="external-link" href="http://www.keionline.org/blogs/2009/07/08/india-ecosoc-seizures/#more-2404">Indian political leadership has unequivocally raised its concern</a> over the enhancement of IP enforcement standards at other forums also.[5] In adopting this stance, the Government of India has cited <a class="external-link" href="http://www.centad.org/focus_77.asp">public interest as well as the operating freedom of Indian industry</a> as its justifications.[6] By partnering at this vital stage with an MNC lobby group and a heeding to developed country governments, CII is not acting in furtherance of the legitimate public interests of Indian domestic industry and the Indian people.</p>
<p>It is a well-evidenced fact that TRIPS-plus enforcement standards adversely impact not only legitimate trade between nations (as shown by the EU seizures) but also the <a class="external-link" href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/11session/A.HRC.11.12_en.pdf">day-to-day life of millions of people</a> especially in India and other developing countries.[7] Unfounded IP enforcement measures would adversely impact access to life saving medicines and educational materials. Thus the IP enforcement measures also have the potential to deny right to development to people in the global South. Hence an organization like CII should not view IP as only a business tool but should look at the larger scheme of things especially in the social and economic realities of India. In fact, by promoting enhancement of IP enforcement standards CII is advocating a policy, which would violate the right to health, the right to knowledge, as also the right to development.</p>
<p>We would also like to point out that Indian pharmaceutical industry is one of the victims of TRIPS-plus IP enforcement standards. In 2008 alone, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/06/08/stories/2009060851700300.htm">17 consignments</a>[8] were seized in transit at Europe using the <a class="external-link" href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:196:0007:0014:EN:PDF">EU Directive on IP Enforcement</a>, which allows seizure of goods in transit.[9] These consignments were being exported from developing countries (such as India and Brazil) to other developing countries, and the contents of the consignments are perfectly legal in both the exporting as well as the importing nations. These highly questionable seizures resulted in the crisis of health programmes as it resulted in delays in and prohibitive costs of access to life-saving medicines in developing countries of Africa and Latin America. CII can barely claim to be representative of the interests of Indian industry if it ignores such episodes and partners with self-promoting MNCs and developed countries’ governments to advocate for the enhancement of IP enforcement standards.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In the light of above-mentioned issues, we request you to consider the following:</p>
<ul><li>Rejecting the TRIPS-plus enforcement agenda in toto. We demand CII, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry(ASSOCHAM) and other Indian business associations to reject any and all attempts of bringing in a TRIPS-plus enforcement agenda in India, in the interests of Indian industry and the Indian people.</li><li>Completely disengaging from any collaborative efforts with foreign institutions to further TRIPS-plus standards of IP protection in India and also abstaining from any engagements on the anti-counterfeiting efforts with foreign agencies. CII should attempt to engage with domestic institutions and build national consensus before engaging with foreign institutions with the claim of representatives of Indian industry.</li><li>Taking necessary proactive steps to safeguard the interests of access to medicine and access to knowledge along with interest of the Indian domestic industry.</li><li>Participating in a more creative discussion on IP and development rather than simply accepting the simplistic and largely discredited view that stronger IP regime leads to more innovation and is a necessary condition for socio-economic development. </li></ul>
<p><br />CC:<br />Shri Anjan Das <br />Senior Director & Head <br />Technology, Innovation, IPR & Life Sciences <br />Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) <br />Plot No. 249-F, Sector-18; Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, <br />Gurgaon-122015, Haryana <br /><br />Shri. P. Chidambaram<br />Minister<br />Ministry of Home Affairs<br />Government of India<br />North Block, Central Secretariat<br />New Delhi 110001 <br /><br />Shri G. K. Pillai<br />Secretary Justice<br />Department of Justice<br />Ministry of Home Affairs<br />Government of India<br />North Block, Central Secretariat<br />New Delhi 110001 <br /><br />Shri Naresh Dayal,<br />Secretary, Dept. of Health and Family Welfare<br />Ministry of Health and Family Welfare<br />Government of India<br />149-A, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 011 <br /><br />Shri Ajay Shankar<br />Secretary<br />Department Of Industrial Policy & Promotion<br />Ministry of Commerce and Industry<br />Room 153, Udyog Bhavan,<br />New Delhi – 110 011 <br /><br /></p>
<h3>Signatories to this letter</h3>
<ul><li>Centre for Trade and Development (Centad), New Delhi</li><li>Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore</li><li>National Working Group on Patent Laws, New Delhi</li><li>Lawyers Collective (HIV/AIDS Unit)</li><li>All India Drug Action Network (AIDAN)</li><li>International Treatment Preparedness Coalition (ITPC), India</li><li>Consumers Association of India, Chennai</li><li>IndoJuris Law Offices, Chennai</li><li>All Indian People’s Science Network, New Delhi</li><li>Delhi Science Forum</li><li>Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore</li><li>Knowledge Commons</li><li>Moving Republic</li><li>IT for Change</li><li>Centre for Health and Social Justice(CHSJ), New Delhi</li><li>Navdanya, New Delhi</li><li>Support for Advocacy and Training to Health Initiatives (SATHI)</li><li>Centre for Enquiry Into Health and Allied Themes (CEHAT)</li><li>Initiative for Health Equity & Society</li><li>International Peoples Health Council (South Asia)</li><li>Drug Action Forum – Dharwad, Karnataka</li><li>Dr. Mira Shiva, New Delhi</li><li>Tina Kuriakose, PhD Scholar, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi</li><li>Dr Gopal Dabade, Dharwad</li><li>Dinesh Abrol, Scientist NISTADS, CSIR, New Delhi</li><li>Madhavi Rahirkar, Lawyer/Consultant, Pune</li><li>Gautam John, Bangalore</li><li>Achal Prabhala, Bangalore</li></ul>
<p><br />Endnotes</p>
<p>[1] See Susan K Sell, The Global IP Upward Ratchet, Anti-counterfeiting and Piracy Enforcement Efforts: The State of Play.<br />[2] QBPC barely qualifies as a representative of Chinese interest, as it comprises more than 180 multinational member companies.<br />[3] ‘TRIPS-plus’ refers to any protection of IPRs that surpasses the standards and requirements spelt out in WTO-TRIPS provisions.<br />[4] See Jonathan Lyn, India Brazil raise EU drug Seizures issue at WTO, available at http://www.livemint.com/2009/02/04232721/India-Brazil-raise-EU-drug-se.html<br />[5] Indian Minister of State for External Affairs Broaches Seizures of Generics at ECOSOC, available at http://www.keionline.org/blogs/2009/07/08/india-ecosoc-seizures/#more-2404<br />[6] Indian Commerce Secretary’s Speech to the African Community Ambassadors. available at http://www.centad.org/focus_77.asp.<br />[7] For two very recent examples, see Intellectual Property Enforcement: International Perspectives, Xuan Li & Carlos Correa (eds.) (2009); Anand Grover, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, A/HRC/11/12 (2009).<br />[8] Jyoti Datta, 16 out of 17 drug consignment seizures in the Dutch were from India available at http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/06/08/stories/2009060851700300.htm<br />[9] The EC Regulation No 1383/2003 allows for seizure of goods in transit.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/civil-society-letter-against-trips-plus-ip-enforcement'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/civil-society-letter-against-trips-plus-ip-enforcement</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to MedicineConsumer RightsIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2011-09-22T12:48:51ZBlog EntryConsumers International IP Watch List 2009
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/consumers-international-ip-watch-list-2009
<b>In response to the US Special 301 report, Consumers International brought out an IP Watch List. CIS contributed the India Country Report for the Watch List.</b>
<p>Every year the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) publishes a report known as the Special 301 Report, documenting IP regimes in various countries, and publishing a list of those countries which do not afford 'adequate and effective' protection for US intellectual property. This year <a class="external-link" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org">Consumers International</a>, which set up the <a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org">A2K Network</a>, published a counter-report, the <a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org/watchlist">IP Watch List 2009</a> for which the <a class="external-link" href="http://a2knetwork.org/reports2009/india">India report</a> [pdf <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/../publications/cis-publications/pranesh/IP%20Watch%20List%20-%20India%20Report.pdf" class="internal-link" title="CI IP Watch List 2009 - India Report">here</a>] was prepared by the Centre for Internet and Society. While the Special 301 Report labels India a "Priority Watch List" country (meaning that it has an IP regime least conducive to the trade interests of the United States), the Consumers International report holds India to have the most consumer-friendly and balanced IP regulation amongst the sixteen countries surveyed. The CI report lambasts the USTR's attempts to make countries comply with unreasonable demands which go over and above the countries' international obligations. For instance, the WIPO Internet Treaties, which have been criticised by many, is sought to be imposed on countries like Israel, India, and Canada. <a class="external-link" href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/62/128/">Prof. Michael Geist</a> of the University of Ottawa even notes that piracy levels and accession to the WCT and WPPT do not seem to be correlated: "In fact, only five countries that have ratified the WIPO Internet treaties have software piracy rates lower than Canada." Still, the USTR has placed both India, whose IP laws are being praised by Consumers International and Canada, which has low piracy rates even by the accounts of the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3993427">notoriously propagandist BSA</a>, have both been placed in the Priority Watch List. The reasons for doing so are not all that unclear if we look at who really shapes the USTR's Special 301 report.</p>
<p>The India section of the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Full%20Version%20of%20the%202009%20SPECIAL%20301%20REPORT.pdf">USTR Special 301 report [pdf]</a> (pp. 18-19) notes:<br /> "India will remain on the Priority Watch List in 2009. India has made progress on improving its IPR infrastructure, including through the modernization of its IP offices and the introduction of an e-filing system for trademark and patent applications. Further, the IP offices have started the process of digitization of intellectual property files. In addition, the Indian ministerial committee on IPR enforcement has supported the creation of specialized IPR police units. Customs enforcement has also improved through the implementation of the 2007 IPR (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules as well as by seizures of unlicensed copyrighted goods intended for export. However, the United States remains concerned about weak IPR protection and enforcement in India. The United States continues to urge India to improve its IPR regime by providing stronger protection for copyrights and patents, as well as effective protection against unfair commercial use of undisclosed test and other data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical and agrochemical products. The United States encourages India to enact legislation in the near term to strengthen its copyright laws and implement the provisions of the WIPO Internet Treaties. The United States also encourages India to improve its IPR enforcement system by enacting effective optical disc legislation to combat optical disc piracy. Piracy and counterfeiting, including of pharmaceuticals, remain a serious problem in India. India’s criminal IPR enforcement regime remains weak. Police action against those engaged in manufacturing, distributing, or selling pirated and counterfeit goods, and expeditious judicial dispositions for IPR infringement and imposition of deterrent-level sentences, is needed. As counterfeit medicines are a serious problem in India, the United States is encouraged by the recent passage of the Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Act 2008 that will increase penalties for spurious and adulterated pharmaceuticals. The United States urges India to strengthen its IPR regime and stands ready to work with India on these issues during the coming year."</p>
<p>Large chunks of it seem to have been 'borrowed' from the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2009/2009SPEC301INDIA.pdf">IIPA submissions</a>. The IIPA (International Intellectual Property Alliance), which is made up of US-based IP-maximalist lobbyists like the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America, National Music Publishers Association, Association of American Publishers, and Business Software Alliance, is a body that was created to lobby the USTR to impose trade sanctions on those countries which did not follow the path that IIPA thought best for those countries.<br />Interestingly, the IIPA submissions talk not of IIPA's concern about weak IPR protection and enforcement in India, but instead states: "the United States remains concerned about weak IPR protection and enforcement in India". This exact line even manages to finds itself in the USTR Special 301 report. Many IIPA complaints find themselves as USTR recommendations, including: a) fast-track judical dispositions of IP cases; b) special laws against optical disc piracy; c) ratification of the WCT and WPPT (the "WIPO Internet Treaties"); d) increased criminal enforcement of intellectual property.</p>
<p>Thus, the Special 301 report emerges as a <a class="external-link" href="http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86148/is-putting-canada-on-a-priority-watchlist-going-to-backfire/">discredited report</a> that the US's trade partners should not (and by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3911/125/">many accounts</a> <a class="external-link" href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2870/125/">do not</a>) pay attention to. Measurement of IP balance and consumer-friendliness such as the Consumers International IP Watch List are more important, and should eventually lead to a <a class="external-link" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1021065">measurement index for Access to Knowledge</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/consumers-international-ip-watch-list-2009'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/consumers-international-ip-watch-list-2009</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshPiracyConsumer RightsIntellectual Property RightsFair Dealings2011-08-04T04:42:27ZBlog EntryOf my struggle with a Broadband Connection
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/of-my-struggle-with-a-broadband-connection
<b>This is a reflection on my experiences with installing a broadband Internet connection at home.
The closing post of an interview is delayed since Jamie and Peter are traveling.
</b>
<p align="left">While you read this article, it is
likely that I am sitting at my home/workspace, relishing a Kirostami
film, cooking, cleaning, reading, or maybe out in the market. All but
surfing the cloud. Until last year, Weather and Broadband Internet
were the two best things about living in Bangalore. Especially the
later. A stable fast always on Internet connection is what many of my
friends in Mumbai, Delhi and Chennai wish for on Christmas. When I
first applied for a 384 Kbps Connection with Airtel in my Aga
Abdullah Street house in Richmond Town, Airtel became my Santa and
obliged. The engineers came the same day and changed my life. The
world of Cinema came begging to my feet with Bit Torrent technology.
Streaming became an everyday affair on Internet that was the best I
had ever had. In my bliss of downloading bytes upon bytes, I forgot
the lesson that experienced souls like Lord Krishna in Gita and
Gautam Buddha tell: Nothing in the world is Permanent.</p>
<p>
It was at the end of March that I
called up Airtel and requested for my connection to be transferred to
8<sup>th</sup> Main Road on Vasant Nagar. Assured with a time frame
of 10 days, I waited patiently. After two weeks of waiting, I was
inclined to call and see when I would get my internet bliss back. The
process was delayed and at the end of the week, I was informed that
due to a fault in their line, they could not provide me with a new
connection. Furious, I called up TATA and asked their people to fit
their 512 Kbps Wimax technology in my house. The installation charges
were to be waived off if I payed for 4 months in advance. I agreed
and the Internet was back. It did not take me long to realize that
the new TATA Wimax connection was anywhere close to my old Airtel
Broadband. Every couple of hours I would be disconnected from the
network when I would have to call the customer care and reset my
account. Alas, I had paid for 4 months in advance and this would have
to be a long wait. Soon enough, I found myself proficient enough to
log into the Tata Indicom server and solve the problem myself. In the
meanwhile, an engineer from Airtel called me to check if I still
needed to old connection and I asked him to wait for a couple of
months. To cut down my ordeal, I decided to upgrade my connection for
a Night booster plan, which would mean a full 1 Mbps speed at night.
A little too much to expect as things barely boosted on any of the
nights that followed. At the end of the third month, I requested them
to disconnect the connection, and pledged never to go back to them
again.</p>
<p align="left">As I once more, cheerfully walked
inside the Airtel office at Cunningham Road, my dream Internet
connection flashed in front of my eyes. I played out the procedure of
the next couple of hours in front of my eyes, expecting the engineers
to be home, creating a mess while drilling wires. And when it is all
done, I would go back and spend the night catching up with all the
episodes of my favorite shows that I had missed over the past 3
months. The executive informed me that this would take a little
longer than expected, 3 days on the max! I looked up for more
patience within myself and went back home. The paper work was
completed the next day and the payment of Rs. 2000 was made. A week
later, I was still waiting for the engineers to come. Expectantly, I
would call the local executive who would promise to be at my service
in a couple of hours and not turn up. The game went for a couple of
days before he finally turned up. In the next 20 minutes of him
jumping on the terrace, exploring the outside of the house, he came
to break the news to me. “Sorry Sir, we cannot put a connection
here. There is a fault in the line coming this side and it will take
at least a month to fix it.” I was almost in tears. His words broke
my heart and all he could do to console me was promise a refund in 3
days. The cheque came a couple of weeks later. And I still call him
to check every three days, if the fault has been repaired and I can
get my dream Internet back!</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/of-my-struggle-with-a-broadband-connection'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/of-my-struggle-with-a-broadband-connection</a>
</p>
No publishersiddharthConsumer RightsIT Citiesinternet and society2011-08-04T04:44:37ZBlog Entry