Centre for Internet and Society

Flowchart

praskrishna — 2015-11-24T14:16:14Z

Stakeholders

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_Flowchart.png

Flowchart

praskrishna — 2015-11-24T13:55:08Z

Flowchart

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Flowchart.png

Flaws_in_the_UIDAI_Process_0.pdf

praskrishna — 2016-03-06T10:37:28Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/Flaws_in_the_UIDAI_Process_0.pdf

Flashpoint #TrollControl: Maneka versus NCW

praskrishna — 2016-07-09T02:11:59Z

Amidst the debate over controlling online trolls - the proposal by Union Women and Child Development Minister to curb violence against women on the internet has triggered a fight between the minister and the National Commission for Women (NCW).

While Maneka Gandhi asked the NCW to monitor the internet to control trolls against women - NCW Chief Lalitha Kumaramangalam questioning the feasibility of the Minister's proposal, saying the internet is too big a space to be monitored. Sunil Abraham was interviewed. Times Now Television interviewed Sunil Abraham on this. Watch the video here.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/times-now-july-8-2016-flashpoint-troll-control-maneka-versus-ncw

Fixing Copyright for Education (SCCR34 Side Event)

praskrishna — 2017-06-07T00:48:42Z

This event, hosted by Communia, EIFL, Creative Commons, and PIJIP, provided an overview of legal trends and developments concerning education, and presented the reality of education today. Anubha Sinha was a speaker.

The speakers described legal challenges faced by educators using new technologies, and discussed how copyright limitations and exceptions can be adapted to be fit for education in the digital age. It was held in Geneva as a side event at WIPO’s 34th Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights

Speakers:

Sean Flynn, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University Washington College of Law. “Opening User Rights for Educational Uses.” Presentation | Data
Chichi Umesi, First Secretary, Mission Of Nigeria to the United Nations in Geneva. “The Importance of Education for Developing Countries.”
Teresa Nobre, Legal Expert on Copyright, Communia. “Mapping Obstacles to Educational Uses in Europe.” Final report | Infographic | Presentation
Delia Browne, Education Lead, Creative Commons Australia / Director, National Copyright Unit (Schools and TAFEs) Australia. “Tales from Australian Copyright Law Reform Debate.” Presentation | Background documents: Myth: Fair use would harm Australian authors | Myth: Fair use decimated educational publishing in Canada
Anubha Sinha, Centre for Internet and Society – India. “Access to Education Wins in Oxbridge Clash with Indian Photocopier.” Background document (by Lawrence Laing)

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/fixing-copyright-for-education-sccr34-side-event

Five Nations, One Future?

praskrishna — 2015-07-18T02:34:16Z

The Silicon Valley model for success - what Bangalore, Chile, London and Rwanda want to learn from California.

When it comes to IT, Silicon Valley is viewed worldwide as the model for success. What can we learn from the drivers of innovation in California? We investigate in Bangalore, Chile, London and Rwanda. The article by Bjorn Ludtke, Ellen Lee, Jaideep Sen, Gwendolyn Ledger, David Nicholson, and Jesko Johannsen was published by Voestalpine. Sunil Abraham was quoted extensively. Read more about the article.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/five-nations-one-future

Five Nations, One Future

praskrishna — 2015-07-18T02:24:48Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/five-nations-one-future.pdf

First Working Group Meeting on "An Internet Free and Secure"

praskrishna — 2016-09-23T00:38:57Z

Vidushi Marda attended a face-to-face meeting organized by the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) on September 7, 2016 in Strasbourg. The FOC has three working groups (WG), and Vidushi is part of the first WG - An Internet Free and Secure.

The group has been working together to come up with recommendations to shift the debate from “finding the balance” between cybersecurity and human rights to one that recognises that cybersecurity and human rights are mutually reinforcing. More info about the WG and the outcome documents here.

This meeting was held to discuss the following agenda items:

FOC overview.
WG1 Priorities - mandate, scope, further priorities and areas of focus.
Endorsements - status/next steps and last push prior to the Annual Conference in Costa Rica.
FOC WG 1 video - as part of the group's efforts to gather support and endorsements, we looked into the possibility of a video, discussed content and carried out review of script.
FOC Annual Meeting - This will take place October 17, 18 in Costa Rica. Tracks, role for WG members.
Post-Costa Rica WG priorities - brainstorming on future focus areas.
WG Platform for recommendations - review, connective text, next steps.

The participant list was as follows:

Lea Kaspar (Global Partners Digital)
Matthew Shears (Center for Democracy and Technology)
Tatiana Tropina (Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law)
Stefania Milan (University of Amsterdam)
Mallory Knodel (Association for Progressive Communications)
Gigi Alford (US Department of State - Technology, Human Rights and Media)
Vidushi Marda (Centre for Internet and Society)

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/freedom-online-coalition-meeting

First Round-table on Innovation, IP and Competition

praskrishna — 2016-04-25T07:42:45Z

The First Annual Roundtable on Innovation, Intellectual Property and Competition was organized by the recently established Centre for Innovation, Intellectual Property & Competition (CIIPC) at the National Law University, Delhi. Dr. Arul George Scaria and Prof. Yogesh Pai are the co-directors of this Centre. The event was held on April 1 and 2, 2016 at India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. Nehaa Chaudhari and Anubha Sinha participated in the event.

The round-table offered a unique forum for academia, policy makers, industry stakeholders and academically-minded practitioners on emerging issues at the interface of innovation, intellectual property & competition law and policy. The attempt is to create a balanced and open discussion on some of the intensely debated issues across the world, while taking particular note of recent developments in India.

The full day round-table on April 2 deliberated on the following sub-themes in four different sessions:

Innovation Economics: What can it Teach IP Policy-making in India?
Assessing the Role of Patents and Competition Policy in Technology Markets: Perspectives from Business and Regulation
Intellectual Property and Competition Law in India: Issues of Jurisdiction & Role of Courts
DIPP Discussion Paper on SEPs: FRAND in India from a Comparative Perspective

Download the Programme Schedule

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/first-round-table-on-innovation-ip-and-competition

First Post-Bilski Decision - Software Patent Rejected

praskrishna — 2011-08-23T03:24:25Z

In the first decision post-Bilski, the Board of Patents Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) rejected a software patent claimed by Hewlett-Packard. The ruling in this case has buttressed the fact that the Bilski decision furthered the cause of narrowing the patentability of software even though the Supreme Court of the United States totally avoided mentioning software patents or the applicability of the machine or transformation test for software patents in its decision.

As eagerly as it was awaited, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos (2010) was a dampener as far as its impact (or the lack of it) on patentability of software was concerned. The Supreme Court totally avoided even mentioning software patents or the applicability of the machine or transformation test for software patents in its decision and while many claimed that it was status quo maintained, a few of us found a silver lining in the Court’s ruling of abstract ideas as unpatentable and its admission of an argument that patents do not necessarily promote innovation and may, sometimes result in limiting competition and stifling innovation. Our hope that the Bilski case furthered the cause of narrowing the patentability of software was not misplaced is evident from the first decision post-Bilski, of the BPAI, which rejected a software patent claimed by Hewlett-Packard. The BPAI, in In Re Proudler, rejected a patent claim for software made by Hewlett Packard on the ground that software, being an abstract idea, is not patentable. The BPAI relied on, among others, the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos in holding that an abstract idea was not patentable.

The case before the BPAI was on appeal from the decision of the patent examiner who refused patent for the claim on the ground that it was obvious (on basis of prior art analysis) and therefore, “barred at the threshold” for patentability under US patent law. The patent was claimed for “a method of controlling the processing of data” comprising “defining security controls for a plurality of data items, and applying individualised security rules to each of the data items based on a measurement of integrity of a computing entity to which the data items are to be made available”. It was essentially a claim for software facilitation data processing and involving security controls for several data items. The BPAI refused patent for the claim but differed from the patent examiner in its reasoning. The BPAI held that all claims related to non-patentable subject matter and hence, could not be granted patent.

In coming to this conclusion, the BPAI relied on previous decisions including In Re Nuijten which held that Section 35 of the US Code of Patents which allows patents for a machine, a manufacture, a process or a composition of matter constitutes “the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter”. In ruling that HP’s claim was not patentable, BPAI also held that software, being an abstract idea, was not patentable. The line of argument relied on by the BPAI was something like this – “[A] machine, a manufacture, a process or a composition of matter” constitutes the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. Thus, laws of nature, abstract ideas, and natural phenomena are excluded from patent protection as held in the well known case of Diamond v. Diehr. The Federal Circuit in its decision in In re Warmerdam has held that an abstraction is not a patentable subject matter. In other words, a claim that recites no more than software, logic or a data structure (that is, an abstraction) does not fall within any statutory category. It has been held in Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp. that an abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment. Finally, and most significantly, the Bilski case has put the nail in the coffin by ruling that abstract ideas are not patentable. Against the background of these precedents, BPAI has confirmed the unpatentability of software on the ground that it is an abstract idea.

It is interesting that the BPAI also mentioned that “no true hardware structure is recited” in the claims to buttress its conclusion that the idea claimed was an abstract one. This means that the BPAI took note of the fact that although a hardware structure may have been essential to implement the abstract idea forming the claim such structure itself was not claimed for patent. The innovation claimed lay in the software alone and not in the hardware and therefore, did not merit patent protection. Thus, a claimed invention which is a combination of hardware (required to implement the software) and software may not be patentable as long as there is no ingenuity in the hardware as software alone, being a mere algorithm and an abstraction, falls outside the scope of patentable subject matter.

The first post-Bilski decision gives us more than one reason to cheer about –

It refused patent for software on the ground that it was an abstract idea and hence, did not fall under patentable subject matter. Acceptance of software as merely an abstract idea is catching up and is thus, good news for those who challenge the patentability of software.
The BPAI, in ruling software as an abstraction and thus, unpatentable relied directly on the Bilski decision and therefore, provided a clear, much-needed guideline for conclusively interpreting the Bilski decision as one restricting the patentability of software.
The decision supported the argument that any combination of hardware and software, to be patentable, must demonstrate ingenuity in the hardware component. As long as there is no claim for hardware, the software itself, being an abstraction, cannot be patented. This brings about greater clarity in the definition of software to be limited to an algorithm (and thus, abstract) and to be looked at in isolation from a hardware component which is solely used to implement the software and no more.

It will be interesting to follow the developments in this case and in other future claims for software which may rely on the Bilski decision. In Re Proudler is certainly encouraging for limiting software patents especially in the aftermath of Bilski. As far as patentability of software is concerned, the Bilski decision may not be that insignificant after all.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/post-bilski

First Odia Wikipedia Education Program concludes at IIMC, Dhenkanal

praskrishna — 2013-01-29T06:42:53Z

The first Odia Wikipedia Education program ended yesterday at Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), Dhenkanal with distribution of certificates to the participants.

This report by OdishaDiary bureau, Dhenkanal was published on Sunday, January 27, 2013.

Odia Wikipedia (or.wikipedia.org) is a free online encyclopedia in Odia language which everyone can edit. It is an open source project and the content is available online for free. This three month education program included three workshops to educate students of IIMC about typing in Odia, collecting sources to write articles, writing the articles on Odia Wikipedia and then geting them evaluated by faculty members and wikipedians.

The program was initiated in November and run until January end. During this time 16 students took part and wrote about 12 articles on various topics, starting from the articles of local importance to eminent personalities.

We are very keen on getting more students on board to edit Wikipedia which they read and use everyday. This could be one opportunity for them to showcase their writing abilities and documentation skill. I'd like to invite the Wikipedia team to help us install Odia Unicode fonts and continue such a program for the students again”, says Professor Mrinal Chatterjee.

This program was supported by Centre for Internet and Society, a grantee of Wikimedia Foundation.

“This was the first pilot Education Program ever done for Odia Wikipedia and I'm overwhelmed with the kind of support from the college faculty and the enthusiasm of the students will bring us back soon,” expresses Subhashish Panigrahi, Programme Officer , Centre for Internet and Society. “This was a great learning experience for us and I'd surely continue contributing to Odia Wikipedia. Had it been little longer I could have contributed more on Mass Communication and Journalism.

Odia Wikipedian Mrutyunjya Kar who took a central part in organizing the project and conducting workshops in the institute calls it a great start and a stepping stone for a long term program. Odia Wikipedians Manoranjan Behera, Srikant Kedia and Dr. Subas Rout were part of the education programme as resource persons.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/orissa-diary-january-27-2013-first-odia-wikipedia-education-program-concludes-at-iimc

First Meeting of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group for India Internet Governance Forum

praskrishna — 2014-03-06T05:28:38Z

The Department of Electronics and Information Technology organized a meeting of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) for India Internet Governance Forum (IIGF) at Electronics Niketan in New Delhi on February 10, 2014. Sunil Abraham participated in this meeting.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/first-meeting-of-mag-india-internet-governance-forum

First meeting of the high level committee on National Policy on Universal Electronic Accessibility

praskrishna — 2014-12-31T01:16:37Z

Sunil Abraham participated in the first meeting of the high level committee on National Policy on Universal Electronic Accessibility held on December 30, 2014 under the chairmanship of Mr.RS Sharma, Secretary, at the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, New Delhi.

More details on the meeting can be accessed here.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/news/first-meeting-of-high-level-committee-on-national-policy-on-universal-electronic-accessibility

First Asia Pacific Workshop on Empirical Methods in Innovation, Intellectual Property and Competition

praskrishna — 2017-03-14T14:14:12Z

Rohini Lakshané took part in a workshop organized by Centre for Innovation Intellectual Property & Competition in New Delhi from March 9 to 11, 2017.

The workshop was open for legal academicians (who are working in the areas of intellectual property law and/or competition law) and regulators working with intellectual property law and competition law issues in the Asia-Pacific region. Click here for the Agenda. More details on Spicy IP Blog here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/first-asia-pacific-workshop-on-empirical-methods-in-innovation-intellectual-property-and-competition

Fintech Conference Agenda

praskrishna — 2017-03-29T01:33:37Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/fintech-conference-agenda