(Posting on behalf of Kartik Chawla.)
The SpicyIP Highlight of the Fortnight period is Thomas’ post on the Enforcement Directorate attaching IPRS’ assets. He discusses the bases of the allegations, and makes note of the fact that an attachment by the ED indicates that there is the ED at least has reasons for believing that the proceeds in question are the proceeds of a crime. He discusses the history of the IPRS, shrouded in mystery as it is, and how it confounds investigations by switching between a ‘copyright society’ and a ‘company’ as and when it deems fit. He notes that while, due to all the irregularities, it is not surprising that the ED is looking into the organisation, the difficult question is how do we address this issue moving forward, especially since the IPRS has even avoided the amendments to the law that would have made it more transparent. He then looks into the factors contributing to the IPRS’ legally dubious functioning, and makes recommendations on how the issue can be addressed. He concludes by making a note of the fact that while this may seem like a small issue, for hundreds of artists across the country, this holds a deeper meaning, and might actually ensure a stable livelihood for them.
We started this period with a Tidbit by Gopika on Lahari Audio suing K A Suresh for copying their songs for his films. She notes that audio companies suing producers for copying songs seems to be becoming a trend lately, and discusses the procedural developments in the case. She concludes by noting that it is heartening to see audio companies being better aware of their intellectual property rights and to see them more inclined to enforce them, but makes a note of caution that this trend should not result in spurious lawsuits used for harassment.
This was followed by Prashant Reddy’s excellent Guest Post on the Rs. 400 Crore war between Monsanto and Indian seed companies, He paints us a picture of the history of this dispute, discussing the three parties involved – Monsanto, which has the patents, the Central and State Governments, which wants to regulate the prices, and Indian seed companies, which refuse to pay royalties and argue for compulsory licensing. He then discusses the technical details of Monsanto’s Bt gene technology, around which this dispute revolves, and the importance of the same. He then discusses the history and necessity of the Government’s price control measures, and how the Telangana Government’s recent foray into the uncharted waters of state government-level regulation of the price paid for patented technologies triggered, which is the first aspect of this dispute. The second aspect of this dispute, he states, is the litigation between Monsanto and the local seed companies, where the decreasing cotton prices mean that the Indian seed companies are more and more reluctant to pay the royalties they owe Monsanto as per their contract, and are asking for lower prices through various methods. Monsanto has initiated arbitral proceedings against the 8 Indian seed companies who refused to pay their royalties. He then looks into the legal issues at hand, including a) whether the State Government can legitimately regulate the technology fees set in private contracts, and b) Justice Srikrishna’s recommendation, to have the matter referred to the Competition Commission for ‘suitable corrective action’, arguing that Monsanto is abusing its dominant position, and c) compulsory licensing.
This was followed by Prof. Shamnad’s post, where he brings our old Qu-IP series out of hiatus with an excellent quote from one of his exam papers.
Matthews followed this up with his excellent post discussing his thoughts on plagiarism, prompted by alleged acts of plagiarism by Putin and the ruling elite of Russia. He separates the issue from its political context, focusing on the academic and legal issues. He then quotes the principles set out in R.G. Anand v, Delux Films, which set the standard for plagiarism. He then discusses the interaction between plagiarism and integrity, and points out how the importance of the latter in academic circles is why the former is taken so seriously in the same. He then states that the plagiarism related controversies reported in SpicyIP are highly disturbing, as they seem to be symptoms of lacking quality in legal scholarship. He the concludes with a note towards the lacking state of Indian legal scholarship, stating that we need more people like Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti and Prof. Noam Chomsky.
Finally, we conclude this period with a pair of Tidbits by Gopika, noting the release of the new draft rules amending the Patent Rules, 2003, by the DIPP, and the appointment of Shri. Om Prakash Gupta as the new Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (CGPDTM) (JS Level). She also notes that it is curious to see a change in the Patent Rules, in the context of the PIL filed by Prof. Shamnad on the very same issue.
International Developments
- As per statements by its President Joko Widodo, it seems likely that Indonesia will soon join the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
- The European Parliament has voted-in the Telecommunications Single Market regulation text without amendment, despite widespread protests, raising huge questions with regards to the future of the open internet in EU.
- An informal meeting of WHO Member States to negotiate the Framework of Engagement with non-State Actors took place in Geneva from 19th October to 21st October.
- States could soon be sanctioned for public health failings by the WHO.
- Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) sent a letter to the USTR, requesting clarification on the conflicts between the language of the TPP on damages and the Biologic Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA).
- After the much-publicised Daraprim price hike by Turing Pharmaceuticals, San Diego-based Imprimis Pharmaceuticals has released a $1 version of the generic drug.
