In a few previous posts, we’ve taken a look at some critical comments that have been submitted to the DIPP, on the draft IP policy prepared by the IP Think tank – see Prof. N.S. Gopalakrishnan and Dr. T.G. Agitha’s views here, and some comments by other academics and civil society here and here. It so happens that several of the other comments submitted are currently available online. As they haven’t (yet?) been made available on the DIPP website, I thought it would be useful to put as many of them up together as possible in one place – to get a good sense of the varied perspectives that have been put forth to the IP think tank and the DIPP.
In addition to a list that Nehaa Chaudhari from CIS-India had forwarded on to me (big thanks to her! and also to whoever it was that first put together that list), I’ve also added a few more submissions that I was made aware of. If any of our readers have, or know of other submissions that were made that we can add to this list, please do send it across and I will update this post with it. Please note, if it’s not already publicly available online, we’d be happy to host it for you.
Here is the list of submissions/responses we’ve found so far:
1. Prof N.S.Gopalakrishnan & Dr T.G. Agitha, CUSAT:
//spicyip.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/National-IPR-Policy-of-IPR-Think-Tank-Comments-N.S.-Gopalakrishnan-and-T.G.-Agitha.pdf (blog post with highlights here: //spicyip.com/2015/02/guest-post-academics-submits-critical-comments-to-dipp-on-draft-national-ipr-policy-by-ip-think-tank.html)
2. Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC):
http://sflc.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/IPRDraftPolicyComments_SFLC.pdf
3. Profs Brook Baker, Srividya Raghavan, Sean Flynn (US legal academics):
http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ragavan-baker-flynn01302015.pdf
(blog post with highlights here: //spicyip.com/2015/02/academics-and-civil-society-submits-critical-comments-to-dipp-on-draft-national-ipr-policy-by-ip-think-tank-part-i.html)
(pre-submission draft by Profs Srividya Raghavan and Brook Baker here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8M-eytmCbwXR1BSTjQ2VnFKMXFJRmJ4WEphamNfMDd0MVZZ/view
4. Centre for Law and Policy Research (CLPR):
http://clpr.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/CLPR-Comments-to-IPR-Policy-30012015.pdf
5. Centre for Internet and Society (CIS):
http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-cis-comments-to-the-first-draft-of-the-national-ip-policy (blog post with highlights here: //spicyip.com/2015/02/academia-and-civil-society-submit-comments-to-dipp-on-draft-national-ipr-policy-part-ii.html)
6. CIPTEL, O.P. Jindal Global University:
7. Ravindra Chingale, Research Scholar, NLU-D:
8. Knowledge Ecology International (KEI): http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/KEI_30Jan2015_Comments_India_IPR_Policy.pdf
9. Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS):
http://www.cuts-international.org/pdf/CUTS_Comments_on_Draft_National_IPR_Policy.pdf
10. National Intellectual Property Organisation (NIPO):
11. Confederation of Indian Industry (CII): http://ciiknowledgexpo.in/Document/Newsletter/Policy%20Advocacy/CIISubmissiononNationalIPPolicy30Jan2015.pdf
12. Patent Agents Association of India:
http://www.paai.org.in/paa/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PAAi_Comments_National_IPR_Policy.pdf
13. Organisation of Pharmacuetical Producers of India (OPPI) initial reaction: http://www.indiaoppi.com/blog/initial-response-to-the-draft-ipr-policy/
14. International Trademark Association (INTA): http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTACommentsIndiaDraftNationalIPRPolicy2.pdf
15. International Chamber of Commerce’s Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (ICC/BASCAP):
16. Attachment to ICC/BASCAP Comments: A joint report by ICC/BASCAP and FICCI titled “Counterfeiting, Piracy and Smuggling in India – Effects and Possible Solutions”: http://www.iccwbo.org/Advocacy-Codes-and-Rules/BASCAP/International-engagement-and-Advocacy/Country-Initiatives/Counterfeiting_-Piracy-and-Smuggling-in-India-Effects-and-Potential-Solutions/
17. IP Federation (UK):
http://www.ipfederation.com/document_download.php?id=2545
18. US Intellectual Property Owners (IPO):
http://www.ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/IPO-Letter-on-India-IPR-Policy.pdf
19. US National Association of Manufcturers (NAM):
http://documents.nam.org/IEA/FINAL_NAM_Comments_IndiaIPRPolicy.pdf
20. Telangana Chamber of Events Industry (TCEI):
//spicyip.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/TCEI-SUGGESTIONS-ON-NATIONAL-IPR-POLICY.pdf
21. Sangeeta Godbole, Commissioner of Income Tax (in personal capacity):
//spicyip.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/feedback_IP-policy_Sangeeta-Godbole.doc
22. Swadeshi Jagaran Manch (Follow up to actual submission)
//spicyip.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/SJM-letter-for-Smt.-Nirmala-Sitharaman.pdf
Blog post with highlights, here: //spicyip.com/2015/04/sjm-sangh-parivars-economic-wing-raises-concerns-with-draft-ipr-policy.html
OPEN LETTER TO CGPDTM
Honorable Sir
Now that your 3 yrs is coming to an end, we feel as responsible officers our duty to highlight good and bad actions that your office has committed in this period.
First the good acts –
i. started the ISA and initiated Indian patent office to an achievement.
ii. effort made to implement FCS in the office (sad that the effort did not bear fruits)
iii. promotion of officers at many posts and worked for creation of posts.
some actions that were enacted at the office & some questions that are being asked-
i. Much office money was used in tours from mumbai-delhi. Why so many tours to delhi were undertaken personally? tours were allowed to handpicked officers on transfers to their home places on similar work excuses. all this strained the finances and the result being officers medical, LTC, other bills withheld on reasons of low budget. When the office finances are so low why lakhs of rupees were spent on a function in bihar?
ii. why some controllers did not perform statutory duties when there is so much pendancy. Instead officers were forced to bear the enormous work load of examination, grant causing compromises on law. points were irrationally awarded for disposing cases (examination reports, patent grant) many of which were duplication of foreign reports & grants. Officers were forced into doing cases in same manner showing them fear of transfers. So some officers were rewarded with points, transfers, tours for undermining scientific & legal work and copying foreign reports and grants – – establishing copy-paste work culture. the consequences shall be grave for the nation for such abuses.
iii.the paperless examination system is imposed without application of mind . the files are not uploaded, papers missing, stamp papers unauthenticated, payment of fees not showing online, electronic module unfit for searching. it is unfortunate that despite so many legal and finance complications, so much opposition by officers, the trademark egoistic decision was continued which may land the patent office in some legal soup.
iv. It is known in the patent office that two seniors particulalrly manipulate office resources to suit their needs. they are known to manipulate records and openly harass, target officers and suppress & manipulate information and misuse resources & openly show partiality. but they were still rewarded them with many tours, exempted from most substantial work, were distributed office spaces as if it is not a Govt property meant for official purposes, and were allowed to violate lawful office practices. For all these actions no sufficient basis was ever given. In your name and in your knowledge, they have reduced an office under the govt of India to their private kingdom.
v. The unreasonable actions established a sycophancy driven culture where honest officers are targeted and violators enjoy. Unfortunately a message is spread by the highest office that unreasonable whims based action can be taken against any officer and senior officers unfair & partial actions will never be questioned.
In your 3 years sir, the biggest sufferer is going to be the Indian patent system whose scientific work of search and examination has been reduced to copy paste work & when established lawful practices have been tampered like never before. Your time will be remembered as the period of lost opportunity for the department.
We hope that a fair enquiry will be conducted, where tampering of law and finances have been done at the patent office.
best wishes.
Dear Sir,
The Telangana Chamber of Events Industry (TCEI), Hyderabad has also submitted its comments on the National IPR Policy being drafted.
Our comments are mostly related to copyright and its impact on the Event and entertainments Industry in India.
It was no doubt a amateurish attempt to be apart of this big league of learned and intellectuals but we have brought out our problems and perceived solutions.
I hope you would add our comments as well.
This will encourage the average Indian to stand up for his issues.
Neeraj K.S. Thakur
Gen. Secretary – TCEI
Dear Neeraj,
We’d be happy to put it up. Please either send me a link to it, or mail it across to me at [email protected]
thank you,
swaraj
Thank you! I’ve received it and updated the post with your submission as well.