The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 7.
International treaty to make books accessible to the blind
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-ramya-kannan-december-20-2012-international-treaty-to-make-books-accessible-to-the-blind
<b>It would make it legal to send accessible books across borders.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Ramya Kannan was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/international-treaty-to-make-books-accessible-to-the-blind/article4218770.ece">published</a> in the Hindu on December 20, 2012. Rahul Cherian is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a move that is likely to take more books closer to some 285 million people in the world, the Extraordinary General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has referred the Treaty for Visually Impaired Persons to a diplomatic conference in June of 2013.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The treaty would allow specialist organisations to make accessible copies of books in all signatory countries; make it legal to send accessible books across national borders and make more books available for the blind.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are an estimated 285 million blind and partially-sighted people in the world, of which the largest percentage lives in India. Like everyone else, blind people need books for education, pleasure and inclusion in society, but unlike others, these books are not accessible to them.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Books have to be converted into ‘accessible formats’ — audio, Braille, or large print — for the visually impaired. However, the fact is that about only 1 to 7 per cent of all books published are available in these formats.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“In many countries, the copyright laws prevent making accessible copies of the books, or importing them from nations where it is available,” said Rahul Cherian Jacob, who heads the Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy. He helped in drafting the Treaty and is the legal adviser to the World Blind Union on the Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some developed nations have huge budgets that would allow them to make books in accessible formats. For instance, the U.S. had about $400 million a year to spend on making such books, while countries like India have very little funds available for the purpose, he said. Even if these books were available in the U.S., they were not accessible in India, because of import restrictions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sam Taraporevala, Director of the Xavier’s Resource Centre for the Visually Challenged and vice president and chairman policy formulation, Daisy Forum of India, said this could not have come at a better time for India. It was in last June that the amendment to the Copyright Act was passed, making a special exception to make accessible books.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">G.R. Raghavender, Registrar, Copyrights, told <i>The Hindu</i>, “While the WIPO treaty looks at the blind and print-disabled, in June, Parliament introduced wider exceptions for physically disabled. Authorised entities will be allowed to produce accessible versions of books on a not-for-profit-basis without seeking for special permissions.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, even with this, owing to import restrictions, books already available in accessible formats in other countries could not be brought into India. They would have to be reprinted, Mr. Jacob noted.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"This is the real benefit of the treaty if it kicks in," Dr. Taraporevala said. Books could be sent across nations without restrictions, and this would mean a significant increase in the number of books available.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"However, what we do need to move towards a scenario where publishers will attempt to move towards equal opportunity publishing. The ideal scenario will be to make available every book that is published in accessible formats. Hopefully if all goes well, there will be something on the ground by the end of next year," he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Cabinet should give the nod for India signing and ratifying the international treaty for it to come into force. However, given the overwhelming positive reception to the recent amendment to the Copyright Act, getting approval would not be an issue, rights activists said.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-ramya-kannan-december-20-2012-international-treaty-to-make-books-accessible-to-the-blind'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-ramya-kannan-december-20-2012-international-treaty-to-make-books-accessible-to-the-blind</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaAccess to MedicineAccess to KnowledgeWIPO2012-12-21T11:36:11ZNews ItemNew Release of IPR Chapter of India-EU Free Trade Agreement
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/july-2010-ipr-india-eu-fta
<b>A draft of the IPR chapter of the EU-India FTA, made publicly available now for the first time, provides insight into India's response in July 2010 to several EU proposals on intellectual property protection and enforcement.</b>
<p>A draft of the IPR chapter of the EU-India FTA, made <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/upload/india-eu-fta-ipr-july-2010/at_download/file" class="external-link">publicly available for the first time</a> (PDF, 296Kb), provides insight into India's response in July 2010 to several EU proposals on intellectual property protection and enforcement.
The consolidated draft which was prepared to serve as the basis of talks that took place from July 12-14, 2010, in New Delhi, reveals parties' negotiating stances in response to preliminary positions put forth earlier (see <a class="external-link" href="http://www.bilaterals.org/spip.php?article17290">IPR Chapter May draft</a>).</p>
<p>In particular, this draft reflects India's rejection of many EU proposals that would require India to:</p>
<ul><li>exceed its obligations under the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), e.g by providing data exclusivity for pharmaceutical products; <br /></li><li>impose radical enforcement provisions, such as liability of intermediary service providers, border measures for goods in transit, and raised norms for damages and injunctions; or <br /></li><li>require legislative change, e.g., on data protection, and to accommodate the full EU demands on geographical indicators. <br /></li></ul>
<p>
A chart compiled by CIS comparing proposed language by India and the EU in several provisions with TRIPS can be found <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/india-eu-fta-chart.pdf" class="internal-link" title="New Release of IPR Chapter">here</a> (PDF, 402 Kb).</p>
<p>Sources close to the negotiations have also confirmed that during the July talks India reiterated its refusal to go beyond TRIPS, and its refusal to discuss issues that require changes to Indian law. India appears to have also reiterated that it could not finalise FTA copyright provisions before passage of the Copyright Amendment Bill in the Indian Parliament.</p>
<p>
It is hard to assess the current state of the negotiations on IP or to measure the outcomes of subsequently held talks without access to recent drafts, a public record of deliberations, or the schedule of full and intersessional rounds taking place. However, from press and other statements attributed to the European Commission and Indian officials after the December 2010 EU-India Summit in Brussels, it appears that:</p>
<ul><li>
both parties plan to conclude the FTA, the biggest ever for the EU, by Spring 2011; <br /></li><li>the EU has not relaxed its pursuit of at least some "TRIPS plus" provisions such as data protection for pharmaceuticals <br /></li><li>a mutually agreed solution to India's WTO case against the EU over the seizure of generic medicines may be round the corner. Its impact on the FTA is open to speculation. <br /></li></ul>
<p>Because the India-EU FTA is likely to set a new precedent for future trade agreements between developed and developing countries, and with enormous stakes for patients across the globe, India and the EU need to get it right and ensure no provision runs counter to the interests of millions of citizens.</p>
<p>For further information about the text, contact Malini Aisola <malini.aisola@gmail.com> or Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/july-2010-ipr-india-eu-fta'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/july-2010-ipr-india-eu-fta</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshAccess to MedicineIntellectual Property RightsIntermediary LiabilityAccess to Knowledge2011-09-22T12:34:05ZBlog 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 EntryInquilab 2.0? Reflections on Online Activism in India*
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/revolution-2.0/digiactivprop
<b>Research and activism on the Internet in India remain fledgling in spite the media hype, says Anja Kovacs in her blog post that charts online activism in India as it has emerged. </b>
<p>Since the late 1990s when protesters against the WTO in Seattle used a variety of new technologies to revolutionize their ways of protesting so as to further their old goals in the information age, much has been made of the possibilities that new technologies seem to offer social movements. The emergence of Web 2.0 seems to have only multiplied the possibilities of building on the Internet's democratising potentials, so widely heralded since the rise of the commercial Internet in the 1990s, and since then, the use of social media for social change has received widespread media attention worldwide. From Spain to Mexico, activists used the Internet as a central tool in their efforts to organise and mobilise – be it to express their stand against a war in Iraq, against a Costa Rican Free Trade Agreement with the United States, to mobilise support for the Zapatistas of Chiapas, or more recently, to push for a change of guard in Iran.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In 2009, when Nisha Susan launched the Pink Chaddi campaign, the 'ICT for Revolution' buzz finally seemed to have reached India as well. Phenomenally successful in terms of the attention it generated for the issue it sought to address, the campaign sought to protest in a humorous fashion against attacks on women pub-goers in Karnataka by Hindu right wing elements. In only a matter of weeks, Facebook associated with the campaign – 'The Consortium of Pub-going, Loose and Forward Women', which gathered tens of thousands of members. It was ultimately killed off when Susan's Facebook account was cracked by rivals. The campaign was perhaps the singular most successful account of ‘digital activism’ in India so far, and an impressive one by all measures.</p>
<p>The creativity of the campaign should not come as a surprise to those familiar with the long and rich history of activism for social change in India. Organised social actors have been critical influences in the emergence of new social identities as well as on critical policy junctures from colonial times onwards, developing a fascinating and unmistakably Indian language of protest in the process (see Kumar 1997 and Zubaan 2006 for examples from feminist movement).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As Raka Ray and Mary Faizod Katzenstein (2006) have pointed out, in the post-independence period, such organised activism for long was connected by at least verbal – if not actual – commitment to the common master frame of poverty alleviation and the ending of inequality and injustice, and this irrespective of the particular issues groups were working on. Since the late 1980s, however, a number of far-reaching changes have taken place in India. This period has been marked by the definite demise of secular democratic socialism as the dominant script of the Indian state and its simultaneous replacement by neo-liberalism. Moreover, in the same period, Hindu nationalism as an ideology too has gone from strength to strength, with only in the last five years a slowdown in its ascendancy. While for many traditional social movements of the Left the commitment to social justice remains, in this context a space has undeniably been created for groups with a very different agenda. The considerable popularity of organisations such as Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, both Hindu nationalist organisations, are prime indications of these transformations. However, the fragmentation of the activist space did not only benefit reactionary elements of society. The final emergence into visibility of a well-articulated middle class queer politics, for example, too, may well in many ways have been facilitated by the evolutions of the past 20 years. Although this point has been mostly elaborated in the context of the US (Hennessey 2000), in India, too, this seems to ring true at least in some senses.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The general shape-shifting of activism in India since the 1990s is not the only contextual factor that deserves obvious consideration in a study like this. In addition, since independence a close link has been forged in policy and people's imagination alike between science and technology on the one hand and development paradigms in India on the other. Not everyone agrees on the benefits of this association: all too frequently, the struggles of grassroots social movements are directed precisely against the outcomes or consequences of a supposedly 'scientifically' inspired development policy. The neo-liberal era is no exception to this: as Carol Upadhya (2004) has shown quite convincingly, the economic reform policies that are at the heart of neo-liberalism have been inspired first and foremost by the information technology sector in India, which has also in turn been their first beneficiary. And today as earlier, Asha Achuthan (2009) has pointed out, in the resistance to these policies, the subaltern who is the agent of grassroots social movements is frequently associated with a pre-technological purity that needs to be maintained in order to resist discourses and material consequences of technological change themselves. In popular discourses, at least, attitudes towards technology inevitably come in a binary mode.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Seeing the context in which digital activism in India has emerged, a number of pressing questions regarding the new forms that even progressive activism takes as it adopts new tools and methods, then, immediately offer themselves. Leaving aside the activities of right wing groups in India, who are the actors that occupy this space for activism and what are their relationship with offline activists groups? Which are the issues online activism seeks to address, and what are its master narratives, goals and audiences? Where does it locate problems in today's society, and what kind of solutions does it propose? How does it posit its relation to the global/international and to the offline-local; to dominant understandings of science and technology, development, or desirable social change? How are these understandings reflected in online activism, including in the choice and use of technologies but also in the discourses that are deployed and the audiences that are targeted? What are its methods, its strategies, its ways of organising? What role is played by organisations, collectives, networks, individuals? In what ways is the field marked by the conjuncture at which it emerged? Do those who first occupy (most of) it also set the parameters? Or do its tools fashion online activism's very conditions of existence?</p>
<p>The value of greater insight into these issues is not immediately apparent to all. For one thing, some would argue that, as connectivity in the emerging IT superpower remains limited, the importance of these questions to those concerned with social justice in India is really marginal. It is true that while commercial Internet services have been available in the country since 1995, for long the number of connections remained abysmally low. Even today, the number of subscriptions has only just crossed the 14 million mark, and barely half of these are broadband subscriptions, severely limiting the usefulness of a wide range of potential online activism tools (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India 2009 – figures are for the second quarter of 2009). According to I-Cube 2008 report (IMRB and Internet and Mobile Association of India 2008), there were an estimated 57 million claimed urban Internet users in the country in September 2008 and an estimated 42 million active urban Internet users. Corresponding figures for Internet users in rural areas in March 2008 were 5.5 million and 3.3 million respectively. Almost 88 million Indians were believed to be computer-literate at the time. Clearly, then, online activists are a tiny section of an already fairly small, privileged group, and at least in a direct sense, the availability of new tools is thus indeed unlikely to affect all activists or activism in the country.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Some of my own starting points while embarking on this study may seem to further give fuel to arguments against the value of this research. The idea of investigating online activism in India as it emerges followed from my observation – and a troubling one at that for me – that so far, and despite all the hype internationally, more traditional grassroots movements in India seem to have been slow to embrace the Internet as an integral part of their awareness raising and mobilisation strategies. Although they may attract the largest numbers of activists offline, the many so-called 'new' social movements that have emerged since the 1970s and that remain important actors pushing for social change seem most conspicuous by their relative absence online. This is especially true of those critical of current development paradigms and practices: movements fighting against dams, special economic zones or land acquisitions for “development” purposes seem visible only in relatively fragmented and generally marginal ways. Instead, middle-class actors addressing middle class audiences on middle class issues seem to be the flag bearers of Internet activism in India – the Pink Chaddi campaign or VoteReport India, a “collaborative citizen-driven election monitoring platform for the 2009 Indian general elections” (see votereport.in/blog/about) perhaps among the most well-known illustrations of this argument.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Both points are valid, and yet, while inquilab it may not be, to conclude from this that the study of online activism automatically is of only very limited value would be short-sighted. Indeed, even if the hypothesis that Internet activism is dominated by middle class actors who address middle class concerns is validated (note that in any case considerable segments of the leadership and cadre of grassroots movements, too, tend to come from middle class backgrounds), this is likely to affect all those interested in affecting social change, even if perhaps in varying degrees. For one thing, it would mean that as the public sphere is reshaped, important new quarters of its landscape are inhabited only be the elite, contradicting the still widely popular and even cherished belief (at least among those who are familiar with the Internet) that the Internet is a democratising force. Instead, the proportional visibility in the public sphere of dissenting viewpoints on development, science, neo-liberalism, progress, the state will only decrease. In addition, then, it may also indicate a further refracting of the activism landscape and its master narratives and methods, where different segments of activists increasingly need to vie with each other for recognition and validation of their respective understandings of political processes and of appropriate forms of engaging with these. As such battles intensify it is not too risky to make a prognosis on who will be the main losers. If, in an era in which the old activist master narrative of justice for all remains under strident attack, civil society has come to occupy at the expense of political society (a useful distinction first made by Parth Chatterjee in Chatterjee 2004) a whole arena of activism, this would indeed need to be a cause of concern for all. In order to gauge its ramifications, it is however, crucial to first of all understand in which ways and to what extent this statement rings true.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The current study may well not be able to fully develop all the above and other theoretical strands as they emerge in the course of this research. But what it does promise to do is to outline the breaks and continuities that mark the make-up, strategies, audiences and goals of those who embrace the new possibilities that the Internet provides at the same time as the information age so fundamentally reconstitutes our society. As a starting point for the analysis, this research will therefore, attempt to map the online activism that has taken place in India so far, focusing more specifically on the forms of activism that leave a public record on the Internet (a more extensive debate of various definitional issues is in order – I will take this up in a separate blog post, to follow later, however). At the core of the research will be the construction of a database pertaining to online activism in India with links to email lists, blogs, Facebook groups, popular hash tags and the like. Although much of the activism I will be looking at will be centred around what has come to be known as 'social media', my focus is thus broader than that, as older tools such as e-petitions, discussion boards and list servs, too, will be included in this study. The aim is to be as comprehensive as possible, although for the database to ever be complete will, of course, be an impossibility. Moreover, since only data available in the English language will be collected, the database will automatically have its limitations. The database will be further complemented by interviews with activists who have been involved in key online campaigns and, where appropriate, case studies. It is the data thus gathered that will form the basis of our analysis.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>While the scope of the study is thus admittedly ambitious, the fact that online activism in India is a fairly recent affair – little happened before 2002, and it has only really taken off in the past three years or so – makes this venture not an impossible one. The contribution I hope to make through this research is not simply to work on the Indian context, however. Despite the media hype surrounding the possibilities of the Internet for social change, research on the Internet and activism more generally remains limited so far. The paucity is perhaps particularly acute where activism and social media are concerned (Postill 2009). Moreover, the work that does exist, I argue, tends to look mostly at activists' use of one particular tool, for example YouTube, or Facebook. Sight is thus generally lost of the larger cyberecology of communication in which this use must be located, preventing an opportunity for genuine insight into the ways in which activism is reconfigured from materialising. By using a much wider lens, this research hopes to make a beginning to correcting this lacuna. It is in this way that the importance of the changes that are underway in the Indian activist landscape as elsewhere can be appropriately assessed.</p>
<p> </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><em><strong>*
Inquilab means revolution</strong></em></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"><strong>References</strong></p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Achuthan, Asha (2009).
Re-Wiring Bodies. Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.
<a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/rewiring/review">http://www.cis-india.org/research/cis-raw/histories/rewiring/review</a>,
last accessed on 15 January 2010.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Chatterjee, Partha
(2004). <em>The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular
Politics in Most of the World</em>. Delhi: Permanent Black.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Hennessy, Rosemary
(2000). <em>Profit and Pleasure: Sexual Identities in Late Capitalism</em>.
London: Routledge.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">IMRB and Internet and
Mobile Association of India (2008). I-Cube 2008: Facilitating Citins,
Altins, Fortins (Faster, Higher, Stronger) Internet in India. IMRB
and Internet and Mobile Association of India, Mumbai. <a href="http://www.iamai.in/">www.iamai.in/</a>,
last accessed on 15 January 2010.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Kumar, Radha (1997). <em>The
History of Doing: An Illustrated Account of Movements for Women's
Rights and Feminism in India 1800-1990</em>. New Delhi: Zubaan.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Postill, John (2009).
Thoughts on Anthropology and Social Media Activism.
<em>Media/Anthropology</em>,
<a href="http://johnpostill.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/thoughts-on-anthropology-and-social-media-activism/">http://johnpostill.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/thoughts-on-anthropology-and-social-media-activism/</a><a href="http://johnpostill.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/thoughts-on-anthropology-and-social-media-activism/">,
</a>last accessed on 15 January 2010.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Ray, Raka and Mary
Fainsod Katzenstein (2006). Introduction: In the Beginning, There Was
the Nehruvian State. In Raka Ray and Mary Fainsod Katzenstein
(eds.). <em>Social Movements in India: Poverty, Power, and Politics.</em>
New Delhi: Oxford University Press.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India (2009). The Indian Telecom Services Performance
Indicators, April-June 2009. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India,
New Delhi. <a href="http://www.trai.gov.in/">www.trai.gov.in</a><a href="http://www.trai.gov.in/">,
</a>last accessed on 15 January 2010.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Upadhya, Carol (2004). A
New Transnational Capitalist Class: Capital Flows, Business Networks
and Entrepreneurs in the Indian Software Industry. <em>Economic and
Political Weekly</em>, 39(48): 5141-5151.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY">Zubaan (2006). <em>Poster
Women: A Visual History of the Women's Movement in India</em>. New
Delhi: Zubaan.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY"> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/revolution-2.0/digiactivprop'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/revolution-2.0/digiactivprop</a>
</p>
No publishernishanthistories of internet in IndiaSocial mediaDigital ActivismCyberspaceAccess to Medicineinternet and societyResearchCybercultures2011-08-02T09:25:30ZBlog EntryArguments Against the PUPFIP Bill
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip/why-no-pupfip
<b>The Protection and Utilisation of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill (PUPFIP Bill) is a new legislation being considered by Parliament, which was introduced in the 2008 winter session of the Rajya Sabha. It is modelled on the American Bayh-Dole Act (University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act) of 1980. On this page, we explore some of the reasons that the bill is unnecessary, and how it will be harmful if passed.</b>
<h2>Summary</h2>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;"><a title="How is the legislation unnecessary?" href="#how-is-the-legislation">How is the legislation
unnecessary?</a></h2>
<ol><li><a title="1) The Indian government
does not have vast reserves of underutilized patents, as the U.S. did
in 1980." href="#1-the-indian-government">The Indian government does not have vast reserves of underutilized patents, as the U.S. did in 1980.</a></li><li><a title="2) Technology transfer is very important, but pushing IPRs aggressively is not the best way of ensuring technology transfer." href="#2-technology-transfer-is">Technology transfer is very important, but pushing IPRs aggressively is not the best way of ensuring technology transfer.</a></li></ol>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;"><a title="How is the legislation
harmful?" href="#how-is-the-legislation-1">How is the legislation
harmful?</a></h2>
<ol><li><a title="1) It's very foundation
is flawed and unproven: excessive patenting lead to gridlocks and
retard innovation." href="#1-it-s-very">Excessive patenting lead to
gridlocks and retards innovation.
</a></li><li><a title="2) The legislation makes
mandatory that which is optional now, and is anyway being followed in
many institutions." href="#2-the-legislation-makes">The legislation
makes mandatory that which is optional now, and is anyway being
followed in many institutions.</a></li><li><a title="3) Copyright, trademark,
etc., seem to be covered under the definition of public funded
IP." href="#3-copyright-trademark-etc">Copyright,
trademark, etc., seem to be covered under the definition of “public
funded IP”.</a></li><li><a title="4) It will result in
a form of double taxation for research, and will increase the consumer cost of
all products based on publicly-funded..." href="#4-it-will-result">It will result in
a form of double taxation for research, and will increase the consumer cost of
all products based on publicly-funded research.</a></li><li><a title="5) It could have
unintended consequences of varied kinds, including discouraging
fundamental research as well as discouraging industrial..." href="#5-it-could-have">It could have
unintended consequences of varied kinds, including discouraging
fundamental research as well as discouraging industrial research.</a></li><li><a title="6) Non-disclosure
requirements in the Bill restricts the dissemination of research within the academic community, and curtails freedom of..." href="#6-non-disclosure-requirements">Non-disclosure
requirements in the Bill restricts the dissemination of research within the academic community, and curtails freedom of speech.</a></li><li><a title="7) Exclusive licensing enables restriction on the dissemination of
academic research in the marketplace, and increase in cost of products..." href="#7-exclusive-licensing-enables">Exclusive
licensing enables restriction on the dissemination of academic research in the marketplace, and increase in cost of products based on public-funded research.</a><br /></li></ol>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h2 align="justify"><a title="Additional Resources" href="#additional-resources">Additional resources</a></h2>
<ul><li><a title="On the PUPFIP Bill" href="#on-the-pupfip-bill">On the PUPFIP Bill</a></li><li><a title="On Bayh-Dole" href="#on-bayh-dole">On Bayh-Dole</a></li></ul>
<h2 align="justify"><br /></h2>
<h2 align="justify">Arguments<br /></h2>
<h2 align="justify"><a name="how-is-the-legislation"></a>How is the legislation unnecessary?<br /></h2>
<h3 align="justify"><a name="1-the-indian-government"></a>1) The Indian government
does not have vast reserves of underutilized patents, as the U.S. did
in 1980.</h3>
<p align="justify">The idea behind the
Bayh-Dole Act was that the research funded by the government (and
owned, in the US, by the government) was being underutilized. In 1980, over 28,000 unlicensed patents lay with the U.S. government.[1] The Act shifted the title of such works
from the government to the University or small business that
conducted the research, thus allowing them to take out patents on the
research outputs. In India, under present laws, the researcher(s)
own the rights over their research whether they be government-funded
or not. Usually, due to employment contracts, the research
institutes already have the right to patent their inventions. Thus,
currently, there is no need for an enabling legislation in this
regard, as there was in the U.S. </p>
<p align="justify">In fact, currently, the Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has over 5173 patents
(counting both those in force and those under dispute), while only
222 patents are licensed (with 68 of them being under dispute).
Thus, even with the IP being in the institute's hands, there is a
"problem" situation similar to that which necessitated
Bayh-Dole in the U.S. Thus, quite contrary to the aims of the Act,
further patenting will only lead to a situation of even more
underutilized patents.</p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;"><a name="2-technology-transfer-is"></a>2) Technology transfer is very important, but pushing IPRs aggressively is not the best way of ensuring technology transfer.</h3>
<p align="justify">At a recent seminar held at NUJS Kolkata on
the PUPFIP Bill, it was revealed that while IIT-Kharagpur’s
TTO-equivalent (called the Sponsored Research & Industrial
Consultancy division - SRIC) currently handles over Rs.300 crores
through 850 projects, only around Rs. 5-15 crores (exact figures
weren't available) are currently made through its patent
portfolio.[2] Thus patents don't seem, on the face of things, to be the
best way of ensuring technology transfer. Indeed, the oft-cited 28,0000 unlicensed patents held by the U.S. government were composed primarily of patents for which industry had refused to take exclusive licences.[3]</p>
<p align="justify">Many contend that one of the most important functions of a patent is to get inventors to disclose their inventions rather than keep them as secrets. This reason for awarding a patent is invalidated if stronger protection is granted to trade secrets (no term limit, for instance) than for patents. Secondly, this reason for granting patents is not valid in case of government-funded research in academia and research
institutes. The culture of publication and the economy of reputation
are sufficient to ensure disclosure. Even without these intrinsic factors, there grant requirements can necessitate publication. If mere publication is believed to be insufficient, then the government would do well to ask for technology dissemination plans before grants are made. At any rate, monopoly rights in the form of patents are
thoroughly unnecessary.</p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;"><a name="how-is-the-legislation-1"></a>How is the legislation
harmful?</h2>
<h3 align="justify"><a name="1-it-s-very"></a>1) Excessive patenting lead to gridlocks and
retard innovation.</h3>
<p align="justify">It sees protection of IPR
as the sole means of encouraging innovation and driving research to
the doorstep of consumers. The trend around the world is that of
exploring alternative forms of spurring innovation. Even in India,
CSIR has gone for an innovative "<a class="external-link" href="http://www.osdd.net/">Open Source Drug Discovery</a>"
project, which has proven very successful so far. Furthermore, recent literature shows that excessive
patenting is harming research and innovation by creating gridlocks.[4] If platform technologies and basic research (such as SNP) gets mired in patents, then the transaction costs increase (not only in terms of money, but more importantly in administrative terms). This ends up in research clearances getting blocked, and thus retards innovation. It must be remembered that intellectual property is not only an output, but also an input. The more aggressively the outputs are guarded and prevented from being shared, the more the inputs will be affected. The study of patent thickets and gridlocks has reached such a stage that the U.S. law has been changed to reflect this. Firstly, the Bayh-Dole Act was amended in 2000 to state that the objectives of the Bayh-Dole Act were to be carried out "without unduly encumbering future research and discovery". Now, the courts (in the <em>Bilski</em> case) have increased the standard of obviousness in patent law (which means that less patents will be granted). Furthermore, the U.S.P.T.O. and the U.S. Senate are currently considering means of overhauling the U.S. patent system, which many fear is close to breaking down due to over-patenting. All these are signs that the footsteps we are seeking to follow are themselves turning back.</p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h3 align="justify"><a name="2-the-legislation-makes"></a>2) The legislation makes
mandatory that which is optional now, and is anyway being followed in
many institutions.</h3>
<p align="justify">While the CSIR labs
pursue patents aggressively, they also run the OSSD project. The latter
might not be permissible if the Act is passed as it stands.
Furthermore, this would increase the number of underutilized patents,
which is a problem faced currently by CSIR, which has had an
aggressive patent policy since the 1990s. Unlicensed patents constitute around 93% of CSIR's total patent portfolio. (In contrast, MIT averages
around 50% licensing of patents.) If aggressive patenting is made mandatory, it adds substantially to administrative costs of all institutes which receive any grants from the government. These institutes might not be large enough to merit a dedicated team of professionals to handle</p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h3 align="justify"><a name="3-copyright-trademark-etc"></a>3) Copyright, trademark,
etc., seem to be covered under the definition of "public funded
IP".</h3>
<p align="justify">This leads to a ridiculous need to attempt to commercialise
all government-funded research literature (and the government funds
science research, social sciences, arts, etc.). Furthermore, while the definition of "public funded IP" includes copyrights, trademarks, etc., yet the substantive provisions seem to only include those forms of IP which have to be registered compulsorily (copyright and trademark don't -- copyright comes into existence when an original work is expressed in a medium, and trademark can come into existence by use). Importantly, seeking to commercialise all copyrighted works of research would hamper
the movement for open access to scholarly literature. The inititative towards open access to scholarly literature is something that National Knowledge Commission has recommended, and is a move that would result in increased dissemination of public-funded research, which seems to be an aim of the PUPFIP Bill as well.</p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h3 align="justify"><a name="4-it-will-result"></a>4) It will result in
a form of double taxation for research, and will increase the consumer cost of
all products based on publicly-funded research.</h3>
<p align="justify">This bill would increase the
consumer cost of all products based on publicly-funded research,
because of the additional burden of patent royalties. </p>
<p align="justify">Public funds research -> Institute patents research -> Pharma MNC gets exclusive license over research -> Drug reaches market.</p>
<p align="justify">Assuming an exclusive licence: Cost of the drug = cost of manufacturing, storage, etc. + <em>mark-up (monopolistic) cost</em> + <em>cost of licence</em>.</p>
<p align="justify">Thus, in
effect, the public has to pay twice for the research: it pays once to enable the
scientist to conduct the research, and once again in the form of royalties to have that research brought to the marketplace. </p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h3 align="justify"><a name="5-it-could-have"></a>5) It could have
unintended consequences of varied kinds, including discouraging
fundamental research as well as discouraging industrial research.</h3>
<p align="justify">The former could happen since
institutions and individual scientists have a financial incentive to
<a class="external-link" href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/archive/2003_5b.htm">shift their focus away from fundamental research</a>; the latter,
conversely, because the filings and bureaucracy involved <a class="external-link" href="http://www.spicyip.com/docs/ppt-premnath-pdf.pdf">could drive
scientists away from reporting or even engaging in industrial
research</a> [pdf]. Faculty and researcher involvement in the business of
licensing is a sub-optimal usage of their talents, and there are
scientists who would rather stay away from business (as is shown by
the intake of former industry-researchers into government-funded labs
such as those of CSIR).</p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h3 align="justify"><a name="6-non-disclosure-requirements"></a>6) Non-disclosure
requirements in the Bill restricts the dissemination of research within the academic community, and curtails freedom of speech.<br /></h3>
<p align="justify">This will bring about a shift in science and research which is always done upon others' work. This is why in the U.S., the National Institute of Health (N.I.H.) has sought to ensure (without any legal authority) that it only finances that research that on single nucleotide polymorphism (S.N.P.) which is not patented, and is shared freely amongst scholars. Since this requirement of the N.I.H.'s does not have any legal backing (since it is contradictory to the Bayh-Dole Act), institutions are free to get the grant from N.I.H. and then go ahead and patent their inventions.</p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h3 align="justify"><a name="7-exclusive-licensing-enables"></a>7) Exclusive licensing enables restriction on the dissemination of
academic research in the marketplace, and increase in cost of products
based on public-funded research.</h3>
<p>The bill allows for both assignment of licences as well as exclusive licences. Both of these enable monopolistic pricing to be undertaken by the licensee/assignee. There are not even any mechanisms in the Act to ensure, for instance, that a public call is made to ascertain that no parties are willing to consider a non-exclusive licence. Patents are generally said to grant a monopoly right because of the opportunity to recover costs of research and development. When the research is being done by public-funded money, there is no justification for monopoly rights on that research, since there are no excessive costs to recover.</p>
<p> </p>
<p align="justify">Footnotes:</p>
<p align="justify">[1] See <a class="external-link" href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060262">So et al.</a> and <a class="external-link" href="http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/Thursby.pdf">Thursby and Thursby</a>, quoted in the <a class="external-link" href="http://knowledgecommission.gov.in/downloads/recommendations/LegislationPM.pdf">National Knowledge Commission's letter to the Prime Minister</a>.</p>
<p align="justify">[2] See Prof. Vivekanandans' presentation "<a class="external-link" href="http://www.spicyip.com/docs/ppt-vivek.pdf">Patenting and Technology Transfer-the IIT Khargpur Experience</a>"</p>
<p align="justify">[3] See <a class="external-link" href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060262">Anthony So et al., <em>Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries</em>, 6 PLoS Biol e262 (2008)</a></p>
[4] See <a class="external-link" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5364/698">Michael A. Heller & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, 280 Science 698 (1998)</a>
<p> </p>
<p align="justify"> </p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;"><a name="additional-resources"></a>Additional Resources</h2>
<h3><a name="on-the-pupfip-bill"></a>On the PUPFIP Bill</h3>
<ul><li>February 5, 2004: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.expresspharmaonline.com/20040205/happenings05.shtml">NIPER holds parallel session of Indian Science Congress (Express Pharma)</a> <br /></li><li>October 27, 2006: <a class="external-link" href="http://bayhdole25.org/node/40">Susan
Finston, India to Propose New Technology Transfer Legislation
(Bayh-Dole 25)</a></li><li><span id="__citationid396739" class="citation">January 16, 2007: <a class="external-link" href="http://knowledgecommission.gov.in/downloads/recommendations/LegislationPM.pdf">National Knowledge Commision's Letter to Indian Prime Minister (National Knowledge Commission)</a> </span></li><li>April 15, 2007: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20070415&filename=news&sid=23&page=2&sec_id=50">Archita Bhatta, Proposed IPR law raises concern (Down to Earth)</a></li><li>May 31, 2007: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=28342">Science & Technology needs to be core of the economic development says Kapil Sibal (<span class="Apple-style-span"></span></a><a class="external-link" href="http://www.pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=28342">PIB Press Release)</a></li><li>November 13, 2007: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.pib.nic.in/release/rel_print_page.asp?relid=32628">Government Accords Approval to National Biotechnology Development Strategy (PIB Press Release)</a></li><li>February 1, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/319/5863/556a">Yudhijit Bhattacharjee, Indian Government Hopes Bill Will Stimulate Innovation (Science)</a> </li><li>February 19, 2008: Shamnad Basheer, Exporting Bayh Dole to India: Whither Transparency? <a class="external-link" href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2008/02/exporting-bayh-dole-to-india-whither.html">(Part 1)</a> <a class="external-link" href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2008/02/exporting-bayh-dole-to-india-whither_21.html">(Part 2)</a> (SpicyIP)<br /></li><li>March 17, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=317122">Kalpana Pathak, Varsities may soon own patent rights (Business Standard)</a> <br /></li><li>March 17, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/03/17/stories/2008031751080100.htm">P.T. Jyothi Datta, Public-funded research may pay dividends for scientists (Business Line)</a></li><li>March 17, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=c2472b7c-0f57-4e16-b1ea-389c44c3b4a6">Joff Wild, India considers Bayh-Dole style legislation (IAM Magazine)</a><br /></li><li>April 30, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.pharmabiz.com/article/detnews.asp?articleid=44083&sectionid=46">M.K. Unnikrishnan and Pradeepti Nayak, Lessons from Bayh Dole Act and its relevance to India (PharmaBiz)</a></li><li>July 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1265343">Sean M. O'Connor, Historical Context of U.S. Bayh-Dole Act: Implications for Indian Government Funded Research Patent Policy (STEM Newsletter)</a><br /></li><li>July 7, 2008: Shamnad Basheer, <a class="external-link" href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2008/07/mysterious-indian-bayh-dole-bill.html">Mysterious Indian "Bayh Dole" Bill: SpicyIP Procures a Copy (SpicyIP)</a></li><li>July 09, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=328187">Latha Jishnu, Does India need a Bayh-Dole Act? (Business Standard)</a><br /></li><li>September 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/2036">V.C. Vivekanandan, Transplanting Bayh-Dole Act- Issues at Stake Authors (13 Journal of Intell. Prop. 480)</a></li><li>September 18, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.scidev.net/en/opinions/indian-patent-bill-let-s-not-be-too-hasty.html">Shamnad Basheer, Indian Patent Bill: Let's not be too hasty (SciDev.net)</a></li><li>October 28, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060262">Anthony So et al., <em>Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries</em>, 6 PLoS Biol e262 (2008)</a></li><li>October 31, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=44316">Cabinet gives approval for Protection and Utilization of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill, 2008 (</a><a class="external-link" href="http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=44316">PIB Press Release)</a></li><li>November 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.essentialmedicine.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/uaem-white-paper-on-indian-bd-act.pdf">Annette Lin et al., The Bayh-Dole Act and Promoting the Transfer of Technology of Publicly Funded-Research (UAEM White Paper on the Proposed Indian Bayh-Dole Analogue)</a> <br /></li><li>November 1, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2008/10/11002336/2008/11/01001052/Not-in-public-interest.html?d=2">Editorial: Not in Public Interest (Mint)</a><br /></li><li>November 12, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.genomeweb.com/biotechtransferweek/india-mulls-bill-modeled-bayh-dole-critics-claim-it-may-stifle-innovation">Ben Butkus, As India Mulls Bill Modeled on Bayh-Dole, Critics Claim It May Stifle Innovation (Biotech Transfer Weekly)</a> <br /></li><li>December 16, 2008: <a class="external-link" href="http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/2008-December/002973.html">Pranesh Prakash, Indian "Bayh Dole" Bill before Parliament (Commons Law)</a></li><li>January 23, 2009: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/time-to-rethink-intellectual-property-laws-.html">Editorial: Time to Rethink Intellectual Property Laws (SciDev.net)</a><br /></li><li>March 12, 2009: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/seta/2009/03/12/stories/2009031250021400.htm">Feroz Ali Khader, Does Patenting Research Change the Culture of Science? (The Hindu)</a><br /></li><li>April 24, 2009: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/450560/">Sunil Abraham & Pranesh Prakash, Does India Need Its Own Bayh-Dole? (Indian Express)</a></li><li>September 21, 2009: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2009/09/20235448/Proposed-patent-Bill-is-flawed.html?h=A1">C.H. Unnikrishnan, Proposed Patent Bill Is Flawed, Say Experts (Mint)</a></li><li>September 23, 2009: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/Articles/PrintArticle.aspx?artid=F92B5F6A-A789-11DE-A362-000B5DABF613">Editorial: An Idea That's A Patent Misfit (Mint)</a><br /></li><li>October 2009: <a class="external-link" href="http://ictsd.org/downloads/2009/11/sampat-policy-brief-5.pdf">Bhaven N. Sampat, The Bayh-Dole Model in Developing Countries: Reflections on the Indian Bill on Publicly Funded Intellectual Property (UNCTAD - ICTSD Policy Brief No. 5)</a><br /></li><li>January 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.icrier.org/publication/WorkingPaper244.pdf">Amit Shovon Ray & Sabyasachi Saha, Patenting Public-Funded Research for Technology Transfer: A Conceptual-Empirical Synthesis of US Evidence and Lessons for India (ICRIER Working Paper No. 244)</a></li><li>January 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/7196/1/JIPR%2015%281%29%2019-34.pdf">Mrinalini Kochupillai, <em>The Protection and Utilization of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill, 2008: A Critique in the Light of India's Innovation Environment</em>, 15 J. Intell. Prop. Rights 19 (2010)</a><br /></li><li>January 16, 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.financialexpress.com/printer/news/567807/">Amit Shovon Ray & Sabyasachi Saha, Intellectual Bottlenecks (Financial Express)</a><br /></li><li>January 21, 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/latha-jishnu-perilsthe-us-model/383179/">Latha Jishnu, Perils of the US Model (Business Standard)</a></li><li>January 22, 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Scientists-fume-over-new-patent-bill/articleshow/5486588.cms">Rema Nagarajan, Scientists Fume Over New Patent Bill (Times of India)</a></li><li>January 26, 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2010/01/26202909/The-problem-with-patents.html">Shamnad Basheer, The Problem with Patents (Mint)</a><br /></li><li>February 5, 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2010/02/05/stories/2010020550960900.htm">Shalini Butani, Public Research May Become More Private (Business Line)</a></li><li>February 8, 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2010/02/07225403/Scientists-want-changes-in-inn.html">Anika Gupta, Scientists Want Changes in Innovation Bill (Mint)</a></li><li>February 9, 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/Articles/PrintArticle.aspx?artid=AD533A7C-15A2-11DF-A92D-000B5DABF636">C.H. Unnikrishnan, Parliament Panel Wants Govt Review on Innovation Bill (Mint)</a><br /></li><li>February 15, 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20100215&filename=croc&sec_id=10&sid=2">Leena Menghaney, A Bad Example from the U.S. (Down to Earth)</a></li><li>February 19, 2010: <a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/581701/">Pranesh Prakash, A Patent Conundrum (Indian Express)</a><br /></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/search/label/Bayh%20Dole">SpicyIP coverage by tag 'Bayh Dole'</a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://spicyip.com/ip-resources">Presentations from NUJS, Kolkata conference on the PUPFIP Bill</a><br /></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3><a name="on-bayh-dole"></a>On Bayh-Dole</h3>
<strong>Newspapers and Magazines</strong>
<ul><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244">Marcia Angell, The Truth About the Drug Companies, New York Review of Books, July 15, 2004</a><br /></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/09/19/8272884/index.htm">Clifton Leaf, The Law of Unintended Consequences, Fortune Magazine, Sept. 19, 2005</a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.economist.com/science/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=5327661">The Bayh-Dole act's 25th birthday, The Economist, Dec. 20, 2005</a><br /></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/technology/07unbox.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print">Janet Rae-Dupree, When Academia Puts Profit Ahead of Wonder, N.Y. Times, Sept. 7, 2008</a><br /></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Academic Journals</strong>
<ul><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/20_02_02.pdf">Amy Kapczynski et al., Addressing Global Health Inequities: An Open Licensing Approach for University Innovation, 20 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1031 (2005) </a><br /></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060262">Anthony So et al., <em>Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries</em>, 6 PLoS Biol. e262 (2008)</a><br /></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?66+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+289+%28WinterSpring+2003%29">Arti K. Rai & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, <em>Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine</em>, 66 Law & Contemp. Probs. 289 (2003)</a></li><li>David C. Mowery & Arvids A. Aiedonis, <em>Numbers, Quality, and Entry: How Has the Bayh-Dole Act Affected U.S. University Patenting and Licensing?</em>, 1 Innovation Pol'y Econ. 187 (2000)</li><li>David C. Mowery, et al., <em>Learning to Patent: Institutional Experience, Learning, and the Characteristics of U.S. University Patents After the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992</em>, 48 Mgmt. Sci. 73 (2002)</li><li>Donald Kennedy, <em>Editorial: Enclosing the Research Commons</em>, 294 Science 2249 (2001)</li><li>F.M. Scherer, <em>The Political Economy of Patent Policy Reform in the United States</em>, 7 Colorado J. Telecomm. High Tech. L. 167 (2009)</li><li>Henry Steck, <em>Corporatization of the University: Seeking Conceptual Clarity</em>, 585 Annals of Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 66 (2003)</li><li>Jason Owen-Smith, <em>Trends and Transitions in the Institutional Environment for Public and Private Science</em>, 49 Higher Educ. 91 (2005)</li><li>Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, <em>University Licensing and the Bayh-Dole Act</em>, 301 Science 1052 (2003)</li><li>Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, <em>Who is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing</em>, 48 Mgmt. Sci. 90 (2002)</li><li>Josh Lerner,<em> Review of 'Ivory Tower'</em>, 43 J. Econ. Litt. 510 (2005)</li><li>Joshua B. Powers,<em> R&D Funding Source and University Technology Transfer: What is Stimulating Universities to Be More Entrepreneurial?</em>, 45 Research in Higher Educ. 1 (2004)</li><li>Lita Nelsen, <em>The Rise of Intellectual Property Protection in the American University</em>, 279 Science 1460 (1998)</li><li>Marcia Angell & Arnold S. Relman, <em>Patents, Profits & American Medicine: Conflicts of Interest in the Testing & Marketing of New Drugs</em>, 131 Daedalus 102 (2002)</li><li>Maria Jelenik, <em>Review: Two Books on Technology Transfer</em>, 50 Admin. Sci. Q. 131 (2005) (Review of '<em>Ivory Tower</em>')</li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/280/5364/698">Michael
A. Heller & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The
Anticommons in Biomedical Research, 280 Science 698 (1998)</a></li><li>Rebecca Henderson, et al., <em>Universities as a Source of Commercia Technology: A Detailed Analsis of University Patenting, 1965-1988</em>, 80 Rev. Econ. Statistics 119 (1998)</li><li>Rebecca S. Eisenberg, <em>Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Technology Transfer in Government-Sponsorded Research</em>, 82 Virginia L. Rev. 1663 (1996)</li><li>Rebecca S. Eisenberg & Richard R. Nelson, <em>Public vs. Proprietary Science: A Fruitful Tension?</em>, 131 Daedalus 89 (2002)</li><li>Richard Jensen & Marie Thursby,<em> Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions</em>, 91 Am. Econ. Rev. 240 (2001)</li><li>Roberto Mazzoleni & Richard R. Nelson, <em>Economic Theories about the Benefits and Costs of Patents</em>, 32 J. Econ. Issues 1031 (1998)</li><li>Thomas A. Massaro,<em> Innovation, Technology Transfer, and Patent Policy: The University Contribution</em>, 82 Virginia L. Rev. 1729 (1996)</li><li>Walter W. Powell & Jason Owen-Smith, <em>Universities and the Market for Intellectual Property in the Life Sciences</em>, 17 J. Pol'y Analysis Mgmt. 253 (1998)</li><li>William M. Sage, <em>Funding Fairness: Public Investment, Proprietary Rights and Access to Health Care Technology</em>, 82 Virginia L. Rev. 1737 (1996)</li><li>Zach W. Hall & Christopher Scott, <em>University-Industry Partnership</em>, 291 Science 553 (2001)</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<strong>Resources</strong>
<ul><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/archive/issue2003_5.htm">TIIP Newsletter: Patents and University Technology Transfer (2003) </a></li><li><a class="external-link" href="http://www.bayhdole25.org">Bay-Dole 25</a></li></ul>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<img src="file:///C:/Users/REBECCA/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.png" alt="" />
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip/why-no-pupfip'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip/why-no-pupfip</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshBayh-DoleAccess to KnowledgeAccess to MedicineIntellectual Property RightsPUPFIPPatentsPublications2011-09-12T11:03:09ZPageResources
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip/resources
<b>A collection of resources that will help one navigate through the arguments and evidence for and against the Indian "Bayh-Dole" bill.</b>
<p><u><strong><br /></strong></u></p>
<h2><strong>PUPFIP</strong></h2>
<h3>News-related/General Coverage</h3>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.financialexpress.com/news/relook-at-publicfunded-r&d-bill-to-address-red-tape/376844/0">Relook at public-funded R&D Bill to
address red tape</a> (The Financial Express)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2008/12/01144901/CSIR-looks-at-commercializing.html">CSIR looks at commercializing, leasing
out patent</a> (Live Mint)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2008/02/exporting-bayh-dole-to-india-whither_21.html">Exporting Bayh-Dole to India: Whither Transparency Part II</a><span class="post-author"> (Shamnad Basheer)</span></p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://ww.scidev.net/es/science-and-innovation-policy/intellectual-property/news/proyecto-de-ley-de-patentes-suscita-debate-en-la-i.html">Indian Patent Bill stirs debate among scientists</a> (Science and Development Network)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.knowledgecommission.gov.in/recommendations/legal.asp">Letter from the Knowledge Commission</a> (GoI)</p>
<h3>Scientific
Culture</h3>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.thehindu.com/delhi/?p=16251">Does Patenting research change the Culture of Science?</a> (The Hindu)</p>
<h3>Analytical Pieces<strong> </strong></h3>
<p>
<a class="external-link" href="http://www.scidev.net/en/opinions/indian-patent-bill-let-s-not-be-too-hasty.html">Indian Patent Bill: Lets not be too Hasty</a>(Shamnad Basheer)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/2008/11/01001052/Not-in-public-interest.html">Not in public interest</a>(Live Mint)<a class="external-link" href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3867/is_6_128/ai_n32062853/"><br /></a></p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3867/is_6_128/ai_n32062853/">The Indian Public Funded IP Bill: Are we Ready?</a>(K. Satyanarayana)</p>
<p> </p>
<h2><strong>Bayh-Dole</strong></h2>
<h3>Technology
Transfer</h3>
<p>
<a class="external-link" href="http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1476653">Innovation's Golden Goose </a>(The Economist)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=10787664">Improving Innovation</a>(The Economist)</p>
<h3><strong>Scientific
Culture</strong></h3>
<p>
<a class="external-link" href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-129366990.html">Patents and America's Universities</a>(The Economist)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/technology/07unbox.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print">When Academia Puts Profits Ahead of Wonder</a>(The New York Times)</p>
<p>
<a class="external-link" href="http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=E1_VPNSGGT">Bayhing for blood or Doling out cash?</a>(The Economist)</p>
<h3>Evaluative
Pieces</h3>
<p>
<a class="external-link" href="http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/Thursby.pdf">University Licensing under Bayh-Dole: What are the Issues and
Evidence?</a>(Thursby and Thursby)</p>
<p>
<a class="external-link" href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060262">Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries? Lessons from the US
Experience</a>(So et al.)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/09/19/8272884/index.htm">The Law of Unintended Consequences</a>(Fortune Magazine)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V77-41NCXY8-6/2/fa828bbd7705f51ffd8fcf60338daf16">The Growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities and the Bayh-Dole Act</a> (Mowery et al.)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/archive/2003_5g.htm">Overall Assessment of the Bayh-Dole Act</a> (Nelson, Mowery, et al.)</p>
<p> </p>
<h2><strong>General Resources</strong></h2>
<p> <a class="external-link" href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/archive/2003_5b.htm">Joint Ventures and Intellectual Property</a>(Andreas Panagopoulos)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/archive/2003_5c.htm">Patents vs. Other Knowledge Transfer</a>(Agrawal and Henderson)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/archive/2003_5f.htm">Incentives Structure and Licensing Success</a>(Dan Elfenbein)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/archive/2003_5e.htm">University Licensing and Research Behavior</a>(Lach and Schankerman)</p>
<a class="external-link" href="http://www.researchoninnovation.org/tiip/archive/2003_5b.htm">Open Science and Private Property</a>(Paul David)
<p> <strong><br /></strong></p>
<h2><strong>IP Alternatives</strong><br /></h2>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0040293">New Approaches to Filling the Gap in TB Drug Discovery </a>(Casenghi, Cole and Nathan)</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://keionline.org/misc-docs/Prizes/prize_tb_msf_expert_meeting.pdf">The Role of Prizes in Developing Low-Cost Point-of-Care Rapid Diagnostic Tests and Better Drugs for TB</a>(James Love)</p>
<p>How to boost R&D for essential drugs and diagnostics</p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://bmj.com/cgi/reprint/333/7582/1279.pdf">Scrooge and intellectual property rights</a> (BMJ January 2006)</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<div id="refHTML"> </div>
<div id="refHTML"> </div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip/resources'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip/resources</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshBayh-DoleAccess to KnowledgeAccess to MedicineOpen AccessPublic AccountabilityOpen Innovation2009-10-20T03:29:16ZPageCivil 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 Entry