Subtle Intimidation by Cipla Counsel: Whither Transparency?

Firstly, I wish to draw the attention of this aggrieved counsel to the last sentence in our post:

“Needless to state, they are not responsible for any of the contents of this post.”

In other words, while I may have taken their inputs on the various “facts” that transpired during the course of this hearing, all opinions and conclusions based on the facts are solely mine. The sources are in no way responsible for what I’ve stated in the post. In fact, we named only some sources–a large number of them went unnamed, as they wished to remain anonymous.

Secondly, this very same counsel had taken the pains to call me during the course of our reporting at the earlier stage (when Justice Bhat was deciding the matter) to congratulate me on the reporting and analysis. At that stage, our reporting had pointed out flaws in Roche’s legal strategy and opined that Justice Bhat’s judgment should not be seen as “patent busting”.
Clearly, our opinions at that stage suited this particular counsel. Now, when we’ve made certain statements that do not appear to suit this particular counsel, she appears terribly upset.

We wish to reiterate our motto which is very visible on our home page: “WE AIM TO INCREASE TRANSPARENCY IN INDIAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY/INSTITUTIONS. WE ALSO STAND FOR FAIR, OBJECTIVE AND ACCURATE REPORTING/REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INNOVATION POLICY NEWS FROM INDIA.”

Court proceedings in the Roche vs Cipla matter are “public” in nature and the public have a right to know what is going on. We are of the humble opinion that our public service aids “transparency” in some way. Naturally, we will not take too kindly to any individual who subtly attempts to influence our sources with a view to furthering their vested interests in a particular case. If they have a specific grievance and think that there has been any misreporting from our end, they ought to let us know directly, rather than sneakily approaching our sources.

This incident has caused us to change one of our policies. We’ve always believed that credit must be given where it is due and sources acknowledged, wherever possible. However, in the light of this incident, where sources are targeted and subtly intimidated, we will not revealing our sources in future. A bad thing for transparency no doubt, but sadly, there is no other way out. We’ve also made some slight changes to our earlier post, so that this particular counsel does not use it against our sources in future litigations. I wish to state again that the contents of the last post are my sole responsibility (in my individual capacity), and if this counsel wishes, she should proceed against me directly.