The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has recently posted on its website all the feedback received by it in response to its discussion paper on the ‘Review of the Organizational Structure of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trademarks and Geographical Indication’. The Department has received feedback from a number of organizations including INTA, INTERPAT, OPPI, IPA, FICCI etc. All the responses can be accessed over here. The most interesting submissions, in my opinion, is from the ‘Officials of the Delhi Patent Office’. Not only have these officials questioned the practice of outsourcing examinations to the CSIR, they have also criticized the quality of examinations conducted by the CSIR. These officials have also made some interesting recommendations on improving the internal systems of the patent office. Their submissions can be accessed over here.
Disappointingly, there are absolutely no representations from any of the biggest IP law firms or the major IP associations (apart from INTA). I cannot for the life of me understand what in God’s name is wrong with IP lawyers in this country. If I was practicing before the IPO and had an internal knowledge of the workings at the IPO I would have definitely pounced upon this opportunity to help fix a system which is very badly broken. When the government is trying to initiate some reforms it is incumbent upon all practicing IP lawyers to assist the government with their own ideas or at the very least criticize the reforms suggested by the government. For a bunch of lawyers entrusted with protecting creativity and innovation in this country, the Indian IP Bar suffers from a terrible lack of imagination.
Prashant:
While there are a dozen odd responses, I can tell you that at least some are not uploaded as yet.
Additionally, I personally am not very impressed by most of the responses. I did like a minority for instance, the one by IPA and Brainleague.
Rest were not well thought or may be the questions were not simple and people were trying to put their grievances in public domain.
I particularly was surprised by one from the IP lawyers Forum – they claim to be IP lawyers and then almost miss the oppurtunity to respond!
Likewise, the response from Ravinder Singh is odd 🙂
Also, look at the response from the MSME folks… they are now commenting on utility models… where were they when the utility model paper was up for discussion?
In the end – too many useless/ sub optimal inputs… also, considering that we never happens to these response, am not sure of the utility of submitting any responses.
Regards,
Unfortunately, I need to be diplomatic while writing these days but you are right, most of the responses are not up to the mark.
I was hoping that there would be a deluge of responses from lawyers expressing their outrage at the system. Something to at least indicate the level of frustration with the Government.
Going by the response the DIPP has received, they are probably going to say that things are just dandy at the IPO with no need for any major reforms.
Best,
Prashant
Prashant,
You are absolutely right. There in fact has been very poor response. The DIPP is definitely going to say that things are absolutely right in view of the poor response. While on the other hand in your other blogs it has been stated that the IP office has gone to the dogs. The lawyers and other stake holders must come with the suggestions. The suggestions can be sent latest by 31st December, 2011, the extended date.
Everyone is frustrated with patnet office.they are using spicyip to express their anger.after the lokpal bill is enacted the public should bring to notice of lokpal about recruitment promotions and other allegations of patent office.even former controllers and examiners who was tortured in the patent office should help the lokpal in punishing culprits.
Only a few comments were creative and constructive. Most responses by the employees of IPO lack a broader vision and therefore, are narrow minded and selfish. Such comments reflect the mindset of the officers working there.It is also clear that some responses have been made by insiders(IPO employees) in the name of others(Chandrakanth Mith, C.Mit etc). DIPP should invite suggestions only from end users like Patent & Trademark firms, Organizations involved in IPR, NGOs, Individual applicants(Inventors)and even interested general public.
What is utterly surprising is that SPICY IP is praising one particular comment from Delhi Patent Officials . The said comment was made by one of the closest Patent personnel of SPICY IPs big boss Prof.S.Baseer.How that person has named it as “Delhi Patent Officials ” is also surprising.The said comment from one person cannot be of whole office or neither can be taken as others view.People have forgotten this days ethics in media/blog and utilising it for their personal interest or to promote the persons who are close to them and thereby becoming judgmental also. This is not expected from experienced columnist like Prasant.When will your conscience speak Prasant?
It is flattering to see that the language used in spicyip is copied verbatim in the response submitted by the All India Indian Patent Office Welfare Association, “examiners languishing without promotion”, “no promotional avenues” etc.
IMITATION IS THE BEST FORM OF FLATTERY.
@Anon 11:35 AM, you are right. Some writers of Spicy IP copy & paste from others without understanding the meaning in true sense.
@Prashant Reddy, have you sent your feedback in response to the DIPP discussion paper? If yes, where are your comments?
The officers of the Patent Office, Delhi present a very convincing evidence that “Officials of Delhi Patent Office” do not belong to the same class as that of other officers of the Patent Office. Had they been for the gross interest of the Patent Office, they would have consult with the other offices-Chennai, Kolkata & Mumbai.
I am disheartened to find that Prashant Reddy has made a propaganda for a particular class of officers as “interesting recommendations” while the class of officers fail to demonstrate maturity of their brains when they say:
“Copyrights, The Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Designs, Bio diversity and Plant variety protection and Farmers’ Rights should be brought under single Ministry/ Department of Govt. of India”.
@Anon, 2:22AM, you should disclose your name and post some “most optimal” inputs in the DIPP website. Show your actions and intelligence please.
@Anon, 2:22AM:
Are you really scared when few of the feedbacks are so constructive and tight just to make the patent system a very strong one? Then, why do you write this?:
“Rest were not well thought or may be the questions were not simple and people were trying to put their grievances in public domain.” Who is this Anon, 2:22AM? Come up guy, @Anon, 2:22AM, with your feedback if you have guts and merits. Don’t shout here like a scared drowning man.
It is seen from the past and present posts of this blog that Spicy IP spread propaganda on some non-sense issues which is selfish and doesn’t focus on the gross development of the system. Spicy IP, please do not propagate such inhibition on other feedbacks received till date. Prashant Reddy, your ability is understood by now. Therefore, stop making some biased, and got up comments please.
@Anon, 2:22AM, you should disclose your name and post some “most optimal” inputs in the DIPP website. Show your intelligence please. Govt is eager to accept any proposal which is more convincing. Don’t criticize feedback unless you have given inputs to them.
@Prashant Reddy, have you gone through all the feedbacks? I guess you haven’t. Please see few feedbacks are there to substantiate your following comment:
“Something to at least indicate the level of frustration with the Government.”
I have seen at least two feedbacks that speak on non-transparent functioning of the officers.
@Prashant Reddy, I am sorry to say that you really don’t have any sense while you write something. You have written “…outsourcing examinations to the CSIR…” You should know that examination is not outsourced, only prior art search is outsourced. Officials of Delhi Patent Office are not the only group who has contested on this agenda. Please read carefully others’ feedbacks before writing anything. Don’t use Spicy IP blog for your own business only. Please maintain dignity of the blog by maintaining ethics and norms of blogs.
@Anon, 11:11AM, your comments “..some responses have been made by insiders(IPO employees) in the name of others(Chandrakanth Mith, C.Mit etc).” seems to be abrupt unless that is supported by evidences. Please don’t make such illogical comments without knowing the reality. It shows your narrowness.
To all, please do not make abrupt comments unless you have evidences.
@ Jyoti – I’m not a practitioner before the IPO, I don’t earn my income through practice before the IPO. I don’t have any stake in this process. Its my right to criticize people like you just as it is your right to criticize me.
So let’s focus on the issue.
Prashant
@Prashant Reddy:
Thanks….. This may be one of the reasons why your comments on the actions of IPO are not so structured. Sorry to let you know that you have raised again a pointless poor comment– “Its my right to criticize people like you just as it is your right to criticize me”.
Criticism is healthy in a society, but it is feared that it becomes baseless if one isn’t a stakeholder of IPO. Sure, anyone can focus on the ‘issue’ if the ‘focus’ is target oriented and more factual rather containing wrong and volatile stories.
My humble request to you :
Please try to provide facts rather than trying to gather some ‘Anonymous’ posting with some baseless talks using your senseless posts. Thanx once again..
@Prashant Reddy:
Thanks….. This may be one of the reasons why your comments on the actions of IPO are not so structured. Sorry to let you know that you have raised again a pointless poor comment– “Its my right to criticize people like you just as it is your right to criticize me”.
Criticism is healthy in a society, but it is feared that it becomes baseless if one isn’t a stakeholder of IPO. Sure, anyone can focus on the ‘issue’ if the ‘focus’ is target oriented and more factual rather containing wrong and volatile stories.
My humble request to you :
Please try to provide facts rather than trying to gather some ‘Anonymous’ posting with some baseless talks using your senseless posts. Thanx once again..
Jyoti:
I am 2.22 anon.
a) Please stop smoking weed before puking verbal diarrhea styled comments here. You try to talk to me then to Prashant and then to me again and almost entirely, make no relevant points of your own.
b) I have submitted my comments to the DIPP on this issue.
In fact, with a clear conscience, I can tell you that I have submitted comments each and every time that DIPP/ IPO has asked for the same, be it the utility model issue or the earlier patent agent manuals etc.
c) You seem to be very annoyed by my anon status. And how exactly are you not ‘scared of drowning’ or other nonsense that you puked earlier without telling which Jyoti are you? For all that I care, you might be some whacked out andhera in the back of chor bazaar. So, if I am guilty/ scared etc. and am anon, you too are doing the same.
Now, that I have finished my rebuttal, let me come to the substance.
1) My comments to the submissions were after reading all of the uploaded .pdf files. I found some interesting, some coherent and some biased – that’s my view. But at least I have submitted my own comments and spend time reading other people’s comments.
2) I am pretty sure that Prashant too has read the pdf files.
3) While you are accusing me and Prashant of not submitting comments, have you EVER submitted comments?
Now that I have seen your version of intelligence, I bow out of this diatribe.
Regards,
Anon 2.22 am.
@Anon, 2:22AM:
It’s not any patent/design case Mr. Anon @2:22AM. And therefore it is not a ‘rebuttal’ Mr. Anon. Sorry… ur comments contains slangs which are not used in a civilised world to rebut others… ur comments are inclined to reflect immaturity rather a healthy discussion on the feedback of the DIPP. No constructive comment from u is seen. I am not surprised to find such a trash material from you, .. it discloses ur mindset and scariness on some of the prominent issues raised in the feedback on DIPP paper.
I can well understand that u ned to accomplish something which is more personal from the feedbacks on DIPP paper. Shame on your mindset @Anon, 2:22AM! ‘Chor bazar’, ‘andhera’–thesw words show your scariness on some issues of IPO. May be u r a person working in IPO and my comments affect u as u r involved in the ‘chor bazar’ with ur kala dhanda. Shame on u again!
Reactionary forces can’t do any good to the system unless logical consequences are perceived. Hitler, Stalin are the examples. I haven’t found a single word in ur statements that may lead towards reaching the goal of DIPP.
Carry on Mr. Anon…… if this mentality enhances the quality of mindsets of the Indian patent office.
Before responding u shoyld read carefully my comments @3.47PM wherein you will find comments relating to the theme of the article written by Mr. Reddy. I have pointed out the errors in the article written by Mr. Reddy. Sorry to let you know that your comments were full of imperialistic views and sudden conclusions had been made without showing any meaningful ‘optimal inputs’.
I m not ‘annoyed by my anon status’. One says to put some ‘optimal input’…and the same person hides himself/herself from the crowd. Doesn’t it look funny having low-level maturity?
1. As u r hiding as ‘Anon@2:22AM’ and tremendous scary, it is not possible to locate ur uploaded pdf file in DIPP website. Therefore, ur claim straightforwardly goes to trash bin.
2. How do u know that Mr. Reddy has read the pdf files? He provides some wrong information, see my 1st comment pls. R u related to Mr. Reddy and making some propaganda using some wrong information?
3. I hv never ‘accused’ u or Mr. Reddy, 2:22AM-wala Mr. Anon. Try to understand the meaning of the words written in the English language. Now I accuse you that u have abused me in ur last post. Be a descent person, maintain dignity of urself …if u hv enough intelligence and knowledge then come to the discussion table…otherwise keep ur slang-mouth shut for ever.
@Mr. Reddy, why do u publish comments using such slangs? Is it the norms of this blog?
Thanx.
Your royal highness, Ms Jyoti:
Can you at least now come out and show that you are NOT anonymous, whether or not mr. Anon 2.22 is using foul langauge or not?
You and anon are both equally anon at this point of time.
IP watcher
Jyoti,
Kenna vela tenu rab ne banaya.. ji kare tere comment padta rawa..lol. Grow up.
There are so many aspects of each and every patent depending on case to case, one thing has to be born in mind that any thing is not absolutely perfect. India has yet to learn the patenting art. We at CSIR have very good system of search and finding the prior art as far as possible and also each patent application is subjective of the examiners views. The URDIP’s program was different to digitize CSIR patent applications as well earn money through consultancy based on the experience built up. Now CSIR has evolved some strategy with our waste experience to get more commercially viable patents specially my self as IP Coordinator has introduced some radical changes at my end at NIIST, CSIR, Trivandrum and also IPU, CSIR has modified it’s priorities and all of us are doing well. One more thing those who are working knows what sort of difficulties we are facing, we have to mange one side the potential intellectuals from one side and from another side examiners objections or comments and another side audit queries and overall people who do not art patenting asking so many ……….Over the top of it IP asset management and initiating business is not a joke. Over all of this there are so many clowns and buffoons who know only the spelling of the patent and does not know what is patent analysis start commenting.