Legal Dimensions of Cybertrespass

In common language the word 'trespass', means to go on another's property without consent. Though it is ordinarily a civil wrong, if trespass is done with criminal intention, it is treated as criminal trespass. Thus, as trespass actions are stranded in the idea of protecting an owner's control over his property and as even the websites should be considered as a species of property. As like in the case of trespass, when just cracking is there by the cracker, it is of a civil nature but once the intention to cause harm or rather damage the system is proved, the liability becomes that of a penal nature. Now it is not just criminal trespass, which can be done by cracking but cracking may also result in many other crimes which are mentioned in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Like, if a cracker cracks a banking website and transfers money into his own account, this may constitute a crime under Sec.378 of the Penal Code, which in this case may also be termed as Cyber Theft. The IT Act tries to achieve this by providing civil and penal consequences for cracking and other wrongful activities. The development of new-age technology in the form of computers and other such instruments is the cause of rampant tort of cyber-trespass. The computer may be used as a tool in the following kinds of activity, e-mail spoofing, forgery, cyber defamation, cyber stalking. It is necessarily the breach of personal information of a person and his personal identity details, website databases etc. The computer may however be target for unlawful acts in the most of the cases for e.g. unauthorized access to computer/ computer system/ computer networks, theft of information contained in the electronic form, e-mail bombing, data didling, salami attacks, logic bombs, Trojan attacks, internet time thefts, web jacking, theft of computer system, physically damaging the computer system and other such confidential information. As the capacity of human mind is unfathomable. It is not possible to eliminate cyber trespass from the cyber space. But it is quite possible to check them As computer data often contain personal information a cracker can also infringe one's right to privacy guaranteed by Art.21 of the Constitution of India. The paper will try to analyse the issues that whether there is an exclusive right of any of the parties in respect of the data base of the list of clients and service providers, and opinion and advices in respect of which the parties had an obligation to maintain confidentiality which they have created or whether it was a joint right of all the parties' How much consistent is IT Act in India while defining Hacking and setting its dimensions while dealing with other matters related to cyber trespass: Spamming and Cracking and Indian law. Cyber-stalking and the liability under Indian Law . Remedies for cyber-trespass: Spamming is not only lucrative but is also unregulated to a greater extent. The laws for the prevention of spam in India are missing. Even the IT Act, 2000 fails to address this issue directly and we have to take recourse of "Purposive and Updating Interpretation" to punish the offenders. It can be concluded that the provisions of the cyber law are not made so stringent that it may retard the growth of the industry and prove to be counter-productive.

Details of the paper will be available soon at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1460599

--
Dr.Tabrez Ahmad,
Associate Professor of Law,
KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, India,
Website: www.kls.ac.in, www.technolexindia.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/tabrezahmad7.
Blogs: http://www.blogger.com/profile/15337756250055596327
Research Papers: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1189281

First Technology Court Inaugurated in India

Justice KG Balakrishnan, Chief Justice of India, who inaugurated the CRAT court room recently, said during the inauguration that the increase of computers pose question for legal system. Union Law Minister of India Dr. M Veerappa Moily has opined that he would like to see more Acts to deal with the increasing volume and variety of cybercrimes. In December 2009, Government amended IT Act 2000, which was mainly intended to give legal recognition to e-commerce, including electronic filing of documents. It is only chapter 11 of the said Act that covers a few offences relating to use and abuse of computer system which invites penalty of fine or imprisonment or both. While other developed states for e.g. USA has several Acts including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Computer Misuse Act, Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Child Online Protection Act. We require well defined laws to deal with the fast emerging issues of cyber crimes in future.  Present Indian Penal Codes are quite helpful in tackling IT related offences, but that may not be enough,

Information Technology Act 2000 of India addresses some basic aspects such as legal recognition of electronic cards and digital signature for the purpose of entering in to contract. There are grey areas in forming contract in cyberspace. We are still trying to apply the Indian Contract Act 1872 in the contract entered through Internet. Of course there are some provisions in IT Act 2000, but those are not sufficient to deal with cyber contracts.

Justice Rajesh Tandon  the would be presiding officer of CRAT ( first cyber court room  ) in India very rightly expressed concern to organize  an international conference for the enforcement of cyber laws as most of the cyber crimes originate outside the country.

Probably the next world war would be fought in cyber space. Cyber terrorist and Mafias are emerging, whose activities are growing to threaten the sovereignty of India and the world over. Terrorists often take over us in the cyber space, which is a product of technical innovation. This we can only prevent by putting proper regulation everywhere.

An appellate tribunal at national level and cyber courts in various states will also be established soon.

--
Dr.Tabrez Ahmad,
Associate Professor of Law,
KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, India,
Website: www.kls.ac.in, www.technolexindia.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/tabrezahmad7.
Blogs: http://www.blogger.com/profile/15337756250055596327
Research Papers: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1189281

Nature and Scope of Cyberlaw

The biggest challenge before Cyber Law is its integration with the legacy system of laws applicable to the physical world. Since Cyber Space has no geographical boundaries, nor the Netizens have physical characteristics of Sex, Age etc, several conflicts surface when the rights of Netizens are viewed in the eyes of Citizens of a physical space. This is well reflected in the conflict between the Trade mark Laws and system of Domain Names.

The unique structure of the Internet has raised several legal concerns. While grounded in physical computers and other electronic devices, the Internet is independent of any geographic location. While real individuals connect to the Internet and interact with others, it is possible for them to withhold personal information and make their real identities anonymous. If there are laws that could govern the Internet, then it appears that such laws would be fundamentally different from laws that geographic nations use today. Since the Internet defies geographical boundaries, national laws will no longer apply. Instead, an entirely new set of laws will be created to address concerns like intellectual property and individual rights. In effect, the Internet will exist as its own sovereign nation. Cyber law encompasses a wide variety of legal issues which   includes intellectual property, privacy, freedom of expression, and jurisdiction. As the law of Cyber Space, as envisioned by William Gibson in his novel Neuromancer , Cyber Law addresses the issues of Virtual Property and Virtual Persons. It covers rights of Netizens who are the citizens of Cyber Space and regulation of the Cyber Space for a peaceful and harmonious existence of Netizens. There are several countries which have enacted special laws for regulating Cyber Space Transactions of Citizens within their Physical Jurisdiction and these are recognized as the Cyber Laws of the Physical Jurisdiction. Yet, as more physical locations go online, the greater the potential for physical manifestation of electronic misdeeds.  

Free Speech in Cyberspace
In comparison to traditional print-based media, the accessibility and relative anonymity of cyber space has torn down traditional barriers between an individual and his or her ability to publish. Any person with an internet connection has the potential to reach an audience of millions with little-to-no distribution costs. Yet this new form of highly-accessible authorship in cyber space raises questions and perhaps magnifies legal complexities relating to the freedom and regulation of speech in cyberspace.

In many countries, speech through cyberspace has proven to be another means of communication which has been regulated by the government. The Open Net Initiative, whose mission statement is "to investigate and challenge state filtration and surveillance practices" in order to "…generate a credible picture of these practices," has released numerous reports documenting the filtration of internet-speech in various countries. While China has thus far proven to be the most rigorous in its attempts to filter unwanted parts of the internet from its citizens , many other countries – including Singapore, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia – have engaged in similar practices. In one of the most vivid examples of information-control, the Chinese government for a short time transparently forwarded requests to the Google search engine to its own, state-controlled search engines . These examples of filtration bring to light many underlying questions concerning the freedom of speech, namely, does the government have a legitimate role in limiting access to information? And if so, what forms of regulation are acceptable? The recent blocking of "blogspot" and other websites in India failed to reconcile the conflicting interests of speech and expression on the one hand and legitimate government concerns on the other hand.

In the UK the case of Keith-Smith v Williams confirmed that existing libel laws applied to internet discussions.

Recently, these complexities have taken many forms, three notable examples being the Jake Baker incident, in which the limits of obscene Internet postings were at issue, the controversial distribution of the DeCSS code, and Gutnick v Dow Jones, in which libel laws were considered in the context of online publishing. The last example was particularly significant because it epitomized the complexities inherent to applying one country's laws (nation-specific by definition) to the internet (international by nature). In 2003, Jonathan Zittrain considered this issue in his paper, "Be Careful What You Ask For: Reconciling a Global Internet and Local Law". Leaving aside the most obvious examples of internet filtering in nations like China or Saudi Arabia (that monitor content), there are four primary modes of regulation of the internet:

Architecture: West Coast Code: these mechanisms concern the parameters of how information can and cannot be transmitted across the internet. Everything from internet filtering software (which searches for keywords or specific URLs and blocks them before they can even appear on the computer requesting them), to encryption programs, to the very basic architecture of TCP/IP protocol, falls within this category of regulation. It is arguable that all other modes of regulation either rely on, or are significantly supported by, regulation via West Coast Code.  2. Law: Standard East Coast Code, and the most self-evident of the four modes of regulation. As the numerous statutes, evolving case law and precedents make clear; many actions on the internet are already subject to conventional legislation (both with regard to transactions conducted on the internet and images posted). Areas like gambling, child pornography, and fraud are regulated in very similar ways online as off-line. While one of the most controversial and unclear areas of evolving laws is the determination of what forum has subject matter jurisdiction over activity (economic and other) conducted on the internet, particularly as cross border transactions affect local jurisdictions, it is certainly clear that substantial portions of internet activity are subject to traditional regulation, and that conduct that is unlawful off-line is presumptively unlawful online, and subject to similar laws and regulations. Scandals with major corporations led to US legislation rethinking corporate governance regulations such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

 Markets: Closely allied with regulation by virtue of social norms, markets also regulate certain patterns of conduct on the internet. While economic markets will have limited influence over non-commercial portions of the internet, the internet also creates a virtual marketplace for information, and such information affects everything from the comparative valuation of services to the traditional valuation of stocks. In addition, the increase in popularity of the internet as a means for transacting all forms of commercial activity, and as a forum for advertisement, has brought the laws of supply and demand in cyberspace.

 Norms: As in all other modes of social interaction, conduct is regulated by social norms and conventions in significant ways. While certain activities or kinds of conduct online may not be specifically prohibited by the code architecture of the internet, or expressly prohibited by applicable law, nevertheless these activities or conduct will be invisibly regulated by the inherent standards of the community, in this case the internet "users." And just as certain patterns of conduct will cause an individual to be ostracized from our real world society, so too certain actions will be censored or self-regulated by the norms of whatever community one chooses to associate with on the internet.

Issues of jurisdiction and sovereignty have quickly come to the fore in the era of the Internet. In general, a crux of "cyber law" lies in whether to treat the Internet as if it were physical space (and thus subject to a given jurisdiction's laws) or to act as if the Internet is a world unto itself (and therefore free of such restraints). Those who favor the latter view often feel that government should leave the Internet community to self-regulate. John Perry Barlow, for example, has addressed the governments of the world and stated, "Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract. This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different" (Barlow, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. A more balanced alternative is the Declaration of Cybersecession ("Human beings possess a mind, which they are absolutely free to inhabit with no legal constraints. Human civilization is developing its own (collective) mind. All we want is to be free to inhabit it with no legal constraints. Since you make sure we cannot harm you, you have no ethical right to intrude our lives. So stop intruding!").

Jurisdiction is an aspect of state sovereignty and it refers to judicial, legislative and administrative competence. Although jurisdiction is an aspect of sovereignty, it is not coextensive with it. The laws of a nation may have extra-territorial impact extending the jurisdiction beyond the sovereign and territorial limits of that nation. This is particularly so where the medium of Internet is used which recognizes no sovereignty and territorial limitations. The jurisdictional issues regarding internet are governed by "Private International Law" or "Conflict of Laws" as there is no uniform law of universal application. Thus, two countries may have different jurisdictional mandates. This is more so where the contents of a web site are legal in one country and illegal in another. The absence of geographical boundaries may give rise to a situation where the material legal in one country where it is posted will violate the laws of another country. This process is further made complicated due to the absence of a uniform and harmonized law governing the jurisdictional aspects of disputes arising by the use of Internet. An international cyber law treaty prescribing a harmonized standard may be its solution otherwise we have to rely upon "conflict of laws" to resolve cyber space disputes.

In practical terms, a user of the Internet is subject to the laws of the state or nation within which he or she goes online. Thus, in the U.S., Jake Baker faced criminal charges for his e-conduct (see Free Speech), and numerous users of peer-to-peer file-sharing software were subject to civil lawsuits for copyright infringement. This system runs into conflicts, however, when these suits are international in nature. Simply put, legal conduct in one nation may be decidedly illegal in another. In fact, even different standards concerning the burden of proof in a civil case can cause jurisdictional problems. For example, an American celebrity, claiming to be insulted by an online American magazine, faces a difficult task of winning a lawsuit against that magazine for libel. But if the celebrity has ties, economic or otherwise, to England, her or she can sue for libel in the British court system, where the standard of "libelous speech" is far lower.
The aim of this segment is to explore how far a person can use the retaliation tactics of aggressive defence  in India or elsewhere, whose computer has been targeted for a wrong, nuisance, virus attacks, etc. The opinion in this context is sharply divided across the globe and some advocate for its use while others considers it to be an illegal act. It would be interesting to analyse whether the traditional concept of "private defence" can be used in cyberspace?
Cyber law in India is incorporated in the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act, 2000). The IT Act, 2000 chiefly covers: (a) E-commerce in India, (b) E-governance in India, (c) Cyber contraventions, (d) Cyber crimes, etc. The IT Act has made major amendments to the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Evidence Act, Bankers Book evidence Act. The landmark amendment made by IT Act 2000, which was came into force on 17^th October 2000, is Sec. 56 B of The Evidence Act which made electronic records as an admissible evidence in a court of Law. Due to this amendment transactions of in the electronic form got legal recognition and has given fast growth in e-commerce, m-commerce and e-governace. Still Indian law requires lot of changes to have more teeth for regulation of cyberspace accordingly amendments were proposed in December 2008, but still those amendments are not came into force.

Let us wait and watch and see that what way the horse of cyberspace strides to us and mandates for legal regulation.

Now, get a PG diploma in IPR and patent law online from NLU Delhi

Delhi's National Law University has started a postgraduate course in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and patent law. The course, to be run through video conferencing, will enable students to get absorbed in research and development organisations, government and non-government agencies.

This 12-month course will encompass majority of the componets of Intellectual Property law, including filing procedures and how to conduct searches of Trademarks, Patents, etc.

This programme,as per the sources of NLU Delhi is at par with the finest IP programmes in the country, extensively covers issues related to management of IP such as commercialisation, valuation, licensing and portfolio audit.Other than legal frameworks, the training will also cover the technical aspects of writing patents and other forms of IP documents, within US, European and Indian processes.
The teaching process will be highly interactive and will consist of a judicious blend of lectures, real life case studies, examples from the corporate world, general discussions, quizzes and assignments in order to provide greater industry insights.
In order to attract working professionals, the classes will be conducted across India through a satellite based platform, before office hours, twice a week. The total fee for the program is Rs. 1,55,000.

Fancynews ( Blog ): We have lost one of the great Professor of Intellectual Property Law

Fancynews ( Blog ): We have lost one of the great Professor of Intellectual Property Law

Fancynews ( Blog ): Resident Fellowships, Yale Law School Information Society Project 2010-2011

Fancynews ( Blog ): Resident Fellowships, Yale Law School Information Society Project 2010-2011

Whether we need trade secret protection as a separate and distinct right?

I am firm believer that trade secrets should be viewed more centrally as part of anyone's bundle of IP rights. I want to consider one aspect that has practical as well as doctrinal significance, namely, whether one can contract around trade secrets law (similar, e.g., to the question that arises under copyright law whether one cannot contract away the right to reverse engineer).In trade secret law, [the question] comes up in three significant contexts: efforts to contract around the requirement of secrecy itself, whether in business disputes or in restrictive employment covenants, efforts to ban reverse engineering by contract, and the question of whether a confidential relationship can be implied absent a contract.
The rationale for not allowing one to contract away a trade secret right: The law relating to trade secrets reflects a balance of public and private interests in the encouragement of innovation, the preservation of ethics and the maintenance of a free marketplace of ideas and movements of labor. The balance should not be upset in any given transaction by private understandings between the parties."
Parties may also be prevented from opting out of particular rules of trade secret law, at least to the extent they rely on trade secret rather than contract remedies."
The issue of whether one can contract around trade secrets is a "big thing". The question is what is the ultimate enforceability of the contract around. The underlying difficulty is always the same--if there is a broad right to "contract around" the trade secret right, why exactly should trade secrtes be placed in same pantheon as patents, copyright and trade marks.
We don't have trade secrets laws as distinct from general equitable laws of confidentiality, and there is no great clamour for an extra set of rules. Confidential information is not a type of intellectual property but can be licensed in a similar way. As for "contracting around", an English court is unlikely to protect by contract (ie in a confidentiality agreement) information that does not have any inherent confidentiality. When it comes to non-compete clauses, the courts have set limits (or at least principles governing the limits) on what is acceptable in an employment context and in a sale of business context, respectively.
In USA court hold a party to a contract to an undertaking of confidentiality even if the information is not secret. As a matter of practice, we encounter from time to time "confidential" agreements under English law that include a clause that purports to obligate a party to maintain confidentiality of information and the like without a secrecy limitation to the obligation. We have often wondered how an English court would enforce such a provision where the "disclosure" was not of confidential information. As for the differences between the US, Israel, and other countries, with respect to the treatment of trade secrets that the legal treatment of the subject differs materially from country to country.The EU antiturst authorities give less deference to trade secret claims than their US counterparts because the European Union has no conception of trade secrets as property rights.

Myths and reality of copyright

There are some common myths that abound in the virtual world, and put you on the right side of the law.
The law does not recognize if you are unaware of copyright laws. So, don’t put yourself in an illegal situation when it is so easy and affordable to use Royalty Free Music from music production libraries. And don’t base your online actions on hearsay. When you download music from the Internet? Perhaps you wanted to use it in the classroom, or needed it for your website, or to add to a flash movie, or maybe to jazz up a multimedia project. Whatever the end use, more and more of us are frequently turning to the Internet as our one-stop resource for digital music because we know that it is a fast and easy way to get just what we are looking for! Unfortunately, what many of us don’t know is that it may not be legal to do so. Downloading music files from the Internet and using them like the music belonged to you means that not only are you infringing upon the copyright, but you are also risking being fined and even being legally prosecuted.
So what is copyright, anyway? When you own the copyright of a piece of work, it means literally that you have the “right to make copies” of that work. By extension you also have the right to license that work to others who want to use it. It is a form of intellectual property law that protects an original piece of work from being pirated and used without permission of its creator
To avoid getting on the wrong side of the law, consider purchasing a legal music license from royalty free music libraries. Whether you are looking for production music for your video or background music for a multimedia presentation, you can choose from literally thousands of royalty free soundtracks. What’s more, buying royalty free music online is really easy and affordable.

There are various myths as follows.
Myth 1: I bought a music CD, I can use the music on my website since I paid for it.

Fact: Wrong. You bought the CD – not the music! Buying a legitimate CD gives you the right to play the music privately. You definitely need permission from the composer of the music as well as the sound recording company to use the music on the CD as background music for your website.
Myth 2: It is legal to use any music for 7 seconds

Fact: No. Unlawful use of even a short excerpt from a song is enough to land you in a copyright infringement case. Don’t believe anyone who tells you otherwise, unless he is a copyright attorney! Remember, there is nothing like free to use music – not for 30 seconds, not for 7 seconds, not even for the first eight bars! You need a license to use music without landing into trouble.

Myth 3: It’s for a non-profit organization, so I can use any music I want for free.

Fact: False. Your project (website, presentation, video, anything) may be non-profit, but when it becomes available to other people, you are allowing them to hear music they didn’t purchase. That is a breach of the copyright law, no matter if you are making money on the project or not.

Myth 4: The composer is dead; his music is no longer under copyright.

Fact: Untrue. The copyright for a music composition lasts for approximately 70 years from the death of the composer. It does not automatically expire with its creator. And even if the composer is dead since a long time – like Mozart for example – you still don’t have the right to use someone’s interpretation of their music without a license.

Myth 5: I can use music because the website did not carry a copyright notice.

Fact: Beginning March 1, 1989, it is no longer mandatory to display the copyright notice to protect one’s intellectual property, in this case, music.
Myth 6: I can use this music for free because I found it on the Internet.

Fact: Absolutely not. All music found on the internet is under copyright. If you reproduce, perform, or distribute musical compositions and sound recordings without the requisite licensing, you are violating copyright law.

And if you are still not convinced, consider this: Would you pick up produce from a farm and walk away without leaving money for what you took? Most certainly not! You wouldn’t deprive a hard working farmer from his rightful income. Likewise, if you violate copyright law, you deprive a composer of the royalties derived from the purchase of their work. Think about it!

So you must be clear about unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted music, and keeping the copyright police out from knocking at your door!

Fancy News ( Blog ): Whether there is a need for stricter regulation on Cyber Cafes?

Fancy News ( Blog ): Whether there is a need for stricter regulation on Cyber Cafes?

Book Review: Calculating Lost Profit in IP and Patent Infringement Cases

Book Review: Calculating Lost Profit in IP and Patent Infringement Cases
The book Calculating Lost Profit in IP and Patent Infringement Cases Authored by Nancy J. Fannon ASA, CPA-ABV, MCBA. Published by Business Valuation Resources, this book is reportedly a 690 page hardback that will set you back US$329 + S&H if you buy it in the next ten days, whereupon the price rises to US$379.
The book brings together the comprehensive body of knowledge on lost profits damages and delivers a definitive resource for IP professionals, tech transfer execs, financial experts, and attorneys, delivers a thorough analysis of current case law and valuation methodology that form the basis of damage awards in IP and patent infringement cases. It comes with 24/7 access to the online edition, which includes the full text of relevant court opinions, a searchable PDF version of the book, plus bonus content and updates as they are released. We live in an era in which patents are commercially exploited -- and infringed -- on an international or global basis. Differentials in calculation as between major markets might lead to interesting forum-shopping questions. But if this book captures the necessary principles and approaches for calculation of lost profit in the US, where are its equivalents in other markets?

The Indian Journal of L:aw and Technlogy, Call for Papers

CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS
The Indian Journal of Law and Technology (IJLT) is an annual law journal published by the Law and Technology Committee of the Student Bar Association, at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, India. IJLT is the first and only law journal in India specifically devoted to the field of technology law. The previous issues of IJLT have featured articles by distinguished authors such as Yochai Benkler, Donald S. Chisum, Raymond T. Nimmer, John Frow, Jonathan Zittrain, Lawrence Liang and Shamnad Basheer.
The submissions to the Journal are selected for publication on the basis of a peer-review mechanism conducted through an external Article Review Board consisting of academicians and experts in the field of technology law. The Journal is edited by an Editorial Board consisting of students from the National Law School of India University selected on an annual basis through a selection process that tests them on their editing skills and knowledge in the concerned areas of law.
The Journal accepts academic submissions in the form of articles, notes, comments or book reviews on a host of legal issues regarding the interface between law and technology, including e-commerce, cyber crime, biotechnology, bioethics, competition law, outsourcing, intellectual property, related public policy, and law and society issues posed by new technology. The Journal is also oriented towards publishing academic work that considers the aforementioned is sues from a comparative perspective and/or the perspective of the developing world.
The Editorial Board invites submissions for Volume No. 6 of 2010. The Journal follows a rolling submissions policy and the deadline for the forthcoming volume is 15 December 2009. The submissions received after this date shall be considered for the next volume. The submissions must relate to any of the broad themes mentioned above or any other law and technology-related theme.
Guidelines:
1. All manuscripts (in hard copy or e-mail) must be accompanied by:
a. A covering letter with the name(s) of the author(s), institution/affiliation, the title of the manuscript and contact information (email, phone, etc.)
b. An abstract of not more than 200 words describing the submission
2. Electronic submissions (on website or email) should ideally be made in Word Format (.doc)/(.docx), although (.pdf) is also acceptable.
3. Text and citations should ideally conform to the rules in THE BLUEBOOK: A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION (18th edition). However, any uniform system of citation is also acceptable. The system of citation used (if not THE BLUEBOOK) must be specified in the covering letter. The Journal employs footnotes as the method of citation.
4. No biographical information or references, including the name(s) of the author (s), affiliation(s) and acknowledgements should be included in the text of the manuscript, file name or document properties. All such information may be incorporated in the covering letter accompanying the manuscripts.
5. The Journal encourages gender neutrality in its submissions.
6. The articles in the Journal will be edited and published according to the orthographical and grammatical rules of Indian English, which is based on British English; thus, submissions in American English will be modified accordingly.
7. To facilitate the publication of concise and relevant legal scholarship, the Journal strongly encourages authors not to exceed 30000 words (inclusive of text and footnotes). However, this word limit is not binding and can be waived in appropriate circumstances.
8. Authors are required to obtain written permission for the use of any copyrighted material in the manuscript and must communicate the same to the Journal. Such material may include tables, charts etc.
9. Authors are also required to inform the Editorial Board if they have submitted their manuscript to another law journal and if they have received an offer of publication. Authors may request an expedited review on this basis. It shall be within the discretion of the Editorial Board to grant an expedited review.
10. Either electronic or hard copies of the manuscripts may be submitted although electronic submissions are strongly encouraged.
Please send the submissions to:
a. editorialboard@ijlt.in
b. Address hard copies to The Chief Editor,
Indian Journal of Law and Technology
National Law School of India University,
Nagarbhavi,
Bangalore – 560242,
c. Submissions can also be made on our website – http://www.ijlt.in.
11. Upon selection for publication, the authors shall grant a licence to the Editorial Board/Law and Technology Committee to edit and publish the manuscript as part of the Journal. Authors shall retain copyright over their submissions but must acknowledge first publication in the Journal. Unless otherwise agreed upon, such a license shall be as per the standard terms and conditions provided by the Journal to the authors upon acceptance.
For more information log on to www.ijlt.in

Call for Papers Indian Journal of Intellectual Property Law

The Indian Journal of Intellectual Property Law, a NALSAR University of Law publication, is calling for final contributions for the third issue of its journal. The Journal has an erudite Board of Advisors, and two successful editions already out.


Completely organised by a board of Student Editors under the patronage of the Vice Chancellor and Hon'ble Justice UC Banerjee (Retd.), the IJIPL is now looking for articles by students, practitioners and academicians for its next issue to be released in July 2010.


The call for papers, submission guidelines as well as previous editions of the Journal can be found on the IJIPL website.http://www.nalsar.ac.in/IJIPL/Home/Home.html

IPLex (Intellectual Property Law Blog): As per BSA report dated 12th May 2009, Software Piracy rate goes down to 68% in India

IPLex (Intellectual Property Law Blog): As per BSA report dated 12th May 2009, Software Piracy rate goes down to 68% in India

As per BSA report dated 12th May 2009, Software Piracy rate goes down to 68% in India

Monetary value of software piracy losses increases to US$2.7 billion

New Delhi - May 12 2009The personal computer (PC) software piracy level in India registered 68 percent in 2008, a one point drop from 69% in 2007. However dollar losses caused by software piracy continued to increase, rising to US$2.7 billion in 2008 compared to losses of US$2 billion in 2007.

These are among the findings of the Sixth Annual BSA-IDC Global Software Piracy Study released today by the Business Software Alliance (BSA). The study was conducted by IDC, the information technology (IT) industry’s leading global market research and forecasting firm.

In 2008, the rate of PC software piracy dropped in slightly more than half (57) of the 110 countries studied, remained the same in nearly one third (36), and rose in just 16. However, the worldwide PC software piracy rate rose for the second year in a row, from 38 percent to 41 percent, mainly because PC shipments grew fastest in high-piracy countries such as China and India, overwhelming progress in these and other countries.

In another sign of the scale of the problem, the monetary value of “losses” to the software industry from PC software piracy broke the $50 billion level for the first time. Worldwide losses grew by 11 percent to $53 billion in non-adjusted dollars, although half of that growth was the result of the falling US dollar. Excluding the effect of exchange rates, losses grew by 5 percent to $50.2 billion.

“We are continuing to make significant progress against PC software piracy, which helps not only the software industry, but also the wider economy and society,” said BSA President and CEO Robert Holleyman. “The bad news is that software piracy remains so prevalent all over the world, undermining local IT service firms, giving illegal software users an unfair advantage in business, and spreading security risks.”

Jeffrey J. Hardee, BSA’s Vice President and Regional Director, Asia Pacific, said, “We are seeing mixed results in Asia Pacific with eight economies showing a decline in the PC software piracy rate, no change in seven and an increase in three. The average PC software piracy rate in Asia Pacific increased to 61 percent, up from 59 percent the previous year, with losses reaching over $15 billion. This increase in the average piracy rate is attributed to the mathematical outcome of more rapid growth of PC markets in economies of higher piracy rates. Even if piracy were to go down in every high-piracy country, their growing market share for PCs could drive the regional average up.”

“We are pleased that countries like China are moving in the right direction in bringing down their PC software piracy levels, and many governments across the region have continued to show their support with joint awareness campaigns, enterprise software legalization initiatives, enforcement actions and stronger legal remedies, but challenges still remain. One fertile ground for PC software piracy, especially in emerging markets, is the rapidly growing “white box” user base – typically consumers and small businesses – that buy locally assembled computers from non-brand-name vendors that bundle pirated software with their PCs,” said Hardee.

“The availability of pirated software on the Internet, which ironically is facilitated by increasing broadband penetration in the region, is also a major concern,” added Hardee. “On top of this, it is surprising how often we find that managers fail to institute policies and procedures in their organizations to manage their software assets to prevent the use of unlicensed software in the workplace and to gain efficiencies by carefully integrating their software assets to maximize productivity.”

Negative Impacts Go Far Beyond Software Industry

Software piracy affects much more than just the global software industry. For example, for every $1 of software sold in a country, there is another $3 to $4 of revenues for local IT service and distribution firms. A 2008 IDC study predicted that lowering PC software piracy by 10 points over four years would create 600,000 additional new jobs worldwide. That projection has been confirmed by actual experience in China and Russia, the new study says.

Software piracy also lowers tax revenues at a time of increased pressure on governments to provide essential services. According to the 2008 study noted above, reducing piracy by 10 points would generate $24 billion in higher government revenues without a tax increase.

According to an economic impact study of software piracy conducted and published by IDC last year, in India, reducing software piracy by ten percentage points over a four year period could generate an additional 43,000 new jobs, US$3.1 billion in economic growth, and US$200 million in tax revenues. There was further good news for local vendors, where the study also predicted an additional US$2.7 billion in revenues to local vendors alone.

Mr. Keshav Dhakad, Chair of the BSA India Committee said, “Software piracy levels in India are witnessing a gradual decline, and this can be attributed to the various intellectual property (IP) awareness efforts being driven by governments, industry and the judiciary. However, as the size of the Indian PC market grows, the impact of software piracy on the local economy continues to increase, with 2008 seeing a 35% increase in losses amounting to $2.7 billion. This is a direct threat to the competitiveness of the Indian IT industry, the country’s ability to attract new investments, innovation and the creation of job opportunities. Though the Indian domestic software industry has the potential to realize tremendous growth, it continues to be challenged by high software piracy rates. We are hopeful that the new government, together with the state governments, will take positive steps in driving anti-piracy initiatives, such as the formation of a national anti-piracy taskforce, the setting up of special IP courts, the promotion of IP rights and the training of enforcement officials,” added Mr Dhakad.

"It is encouraging to see a gradual decline in the software piracy rate in India, as reflected in the 6th BSA - IDC Global Software Piracy study, where the rate fell 6 percentage points in 5 years. Although, software piracy in India should be brought down at a faster pace, a slow and gradual decline is also indicative of the positive efforts taken by the government, industry and judiciary in helping raise awareness and supporting the fight against software piracy," said Mr. Som Mittal, President, NASSCOM. “NASSCOM realizes that software piracy is a serious threat to the growing Indian IT industry, eroding the potential for job creation, economic growth and increasingly important for domestic product innovation. Indian IT industry is moving towards product development and thus protection of IPR and reduction of software piracy should be taken seriously by all stakeholders. The findings of this study published by BSA - IDC reinforce the need for urgent collaborative effort between the government and industry to tackle software piracy in India through stronger policy, awareness and enforcement initiatives to help enhance India's economic and IT competitiveness."

Software piracy also increases the risk of cyber crime and security problems. For example, the recent global spread of the Conficker virus has been attributed in part to the lack of automatic security updates for unlicensed software. In a 2006 study, IDC found that 29 percent of Web sites and 61 percent of peer-to-peer sites offering pirated software tried to infect test computers with “Trojans,” spyware, keyloggers, and other tools of identity theft.

Impact of Global Recession Is Mixed

The global economic recession is having a mixed impact on software piracy, the study says. Victor Lim, Vice President, Asia/Pacific Consulting Operations at IDC, notes that consumers with reduced spending power may hold on to computers longer, which would tend to increase piracy because older computers are more likely to have unlicensed software loaded on them. However, pocketbook pressures are spurring sales of inexpensive “netbooks,” which tend to come with legitimate pre-loaded software; and spurring businesses to implement software asset management (SAM) programs to increase efficiencies and lower IT costs.

“Reduced buying power is only one of many factors affecting software piracy,” Lim says. “The economic crisis will have an impact – part of it negative, part of it positive – but it may not become fully apparent until the 2009 figures come in.”

Among the study’s other key findings:

China’s piracy rate has dropped 10 points in the last five years, a result of more vigorous enforcement and education, as well as vendor legalization programs and agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and resellers. The government, for instance, has mandated that PC manufacturers in China only ship PCs with legitimate operating systems.
India’s rate has dropped 6 points in five years, despite its sprawling PC market, of which consumers and small businesses account for 65%. While consumer PC shipments grew more than 10% last year, shipments to other categories dropped 7%.
Hong Kong’s PC software piracy rate declined by 3 percentage points in 2008, the largest drop in the region, while the piracy rate in Australia and Japan, two of the more mature markets in the APAC region, dropped by 2 points.
While emerging economies account for 45 percent of the global PC hardware market, they account for less than 20 percent of the PC software market. If the emerging economies’ PC software share were the same as it is for PC hardware, the software market would grow by $40 billion a year. Lowering global piracy by just one point a year would add $20 billion in stimulus to the IT industry.
Lowering global piracy by just one point a year would add $20 billion in stimulus to the IT industry.
Spreading Internet access will increase the supply of pirated software. Over the next five years, 460 million people in emerging countries will come online. The growth will be highest among consumers and small businesses, which tend to have higher rates of piracy than businesses and government agencies.
The lowest-piracy countries are the US, Japan, New Zealand, and Luxembourg, all near 20 percent. The highest-piracy countries are Armenia, Bangladesh, Georgia, and Zimbabwe, all over 90 percent.
“Fortunately, experience has shown that we can reduce software piracy through a combination of consumer education, strong intellectual property policies, effective law enforcement, and legalization programs by businesses and government agencies. The progress seen in many APAC economies is proof that this anti-piracy blueprint works – and that governments, businesses and consumers all benefit,” said Hardee.

The BSA-IDC Global Software Piracy Study covers piracy of all packaged software that runs on personal computers, including desktops, laptops, and ultra-portables. The study does not include other types of software such as server- or mainframe-based software.

For more details or a copy of the complete study, visit www.bsa.org/globalstudy.

About BSABusiness Software Alliance (www.bsa.org) is the foremost organization dedicated to promoting a safe and legal digital world. BSA is the voice of the world's software industry and its hardware partners before governments and in the international marketplace. Its members represent one of the fastest growing industries in the world. BSA programs foster technology innovation through education and policy initiatives that promote copyright protection, cyber security, trade and e-commerce. BSA members include Adobe, Agilent Technologies, Altium, Apple, Aquafold, Autodesk, Bentley Systems, CA, Cadence Design Systems, Cisco Systems, Corel, CyberLink, Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corporation, Dell, Embarcadero, Frontline PCB Solutions - An Orbotech Valor Company, HP, IBM, Intel, Intuit, McAfee, Microsoft, Mindjet, Minitab, NedGraphics, PTC, Quark, Quest Software, Rosetta Stone, SAP, Scalable Software, Siemens, Sybase, Symantec, Synopsys, Tekla and The MathWorks.

About IDCIDC is the premier global provider of market intelligence, advisory services, and events for the information technology, telecommunications, and consumer technology markets. IDC helps IT professionals, business executives, and the investment community make fact-based decisions on technology purchases and business strategy. More than 1,000 IDC analysts provide global, regional, and local expertise on technology and industry opportunities and trends in over 110 countries. For more than 45 years, IDC has provided strategic insights to help our clients achieve their key business objectives. IDC is a subsidiary of IDG, the world's leading technology media, research, and events company. You can learn more about IDC by visiting www.idc.com.

technolex( Cyberlaw Blog): New Anti-Piracy Law in France

technolex( Cyberlaw Blog): New Anti-Piracy Law in France

SPICY IP: Indian "Bayh Dole" Conference at NUJS in September

SPICY IP: Indian "Bayh Dole" Conference at NUJS in September

technolex: Three Indicted in Largest Hacking and Corporate Identity Theft Case in History

technolex: Three Indicted in Largest Hacking and Corporate Identity Theft Case in History

There Should Be a Tough Punishmemt for Software Piracy

As per the recent developements and views from BSA( Business software Alliance)we can say that due to weak law on software piracy there are only few convictions so far but because of our current justice system, some cases are still on appeal while some individual who have been convicted opted to go on probation.
cases.
According to senior officials of BSA of Anti-Piracy Asia-Pacific,from the last 12 months, the BSA hotline has received over 500 calls from reporters who gave valuable information regarding organisations using pirated software.In India as per the recent survey around 50 % organisations are using pirated softwares.We can say that these calls in the BSA hotline only prove that peoples are now started to realize the importance of fighting software piracy.
What i feel that to implement a tougher law against copyright infringement, adding that it has been more than 5 decades since the Copyright Act was passed in most of the countries.Now various business groups are already in talks with the Supreme Court (SC)and the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) of USA to come up with special rules on intellectual property cases.

Whether Market experimentation can be protected as Intellectual Property

Whether Market experimentation can be protected as Intellectual Property? Why don’t intellectual property theory and property rights theory more generally support the idea of Intellectual property protection for market experimentation? In certain cases exclusive rights have been used to encourage market experimentation. Exclusive franchise agreements are a widely employed means by which franchisors encourage new franchisees to risk developing a business in new geographic locations.Likewise British “patents of importation,” which provided exclusive rights for the importer of a technology already existing outside of Britain, were permissible for several years. USA took the leading role to promote market experimentation by rejecting the patents of importation. The current systems of intellectual property have several doctrines that are difficult to explain unless the relevant intellectual property rights are recognized as partially supporting the goal of encouraging market experimentation. Few observers said that there are companies in USA which do not produce any actual products but merely obtain and enforce patents. The traditional theory of the patent system believes in the basic idea that for obtaining exclusive patent rights is against the disclosure of the technology set forth in the patent document itself. Some patentee who makes a sufficient disclosure and obtains a valid patent cannot be playing with the system. So when the patent system will have two goals one spurring the disclosure of technological information and the other fostering actual investment in real-world market experiments—then the concern over patent trolls proves logical. It means that the law can be more liberal to organizations that have both made technological disclosure in patent specifications and taken risk in making investments in new technology based businesses.

New Begining of Cyberlaw in Newzealand Mr.Frank March, a senior special advisor with the IT and Telecommunications Policy Group at the Ministry of Economic Development has been appointed as a president of the Internet Policy making body of Newzealand. The said organization also administers domain names. The organisation (Internet NZ) uses the fees it receives from users who register .nz domain names to fund its advocacy work. The current issue in Newzealand is copyright, but content filtering, access guarantees, and the right to free speech, is also debated from the last few years. Social networking is already raising a whole new set of moral and personal security and privacy issues.” The group is actively involved in the IPV6 steering group (the next generation of internet protocol), and funds a Cyberlaw fellowship. This is a very encouraging development in Newzealand which further boost the cyberlaw in the country

ITIP MASALA: Patenting of Life forms and food security

ITIP MASALA: Patenting of Life forms and food security

Patenting of Life forms and food security

Does Granting Patent On Life Forms In Developing Countries Ensure Food Security? In fact many developing countries have been facing economic challenges, achieving basic food security. Hence, food security, as component element of sustainable development, is prominent on the domestic, as well as the international agendas of many countries from the South. In the ongoing debate of food security , thus, several strategies have been proposed in developing countries. It has been suggested that the path to sustainable food security in developing countries should emphasize, among other things, a transformation process that can move agriculture from its subsistence level through improved traditional farming, market and cash oriented agriculture by application of modern biotechnology and genetic engineering to the agricultural production process. It is said that it can be possible by enhancing IPRs on life forms and processes. Accordingly, developing countries are being encouraged for the application of IPRs to life forms and processes. But it also has its negative aspects which can create new problems. For eg. Threat to soil fertility, unnatural change in the gene structure may give rise to some new problems. Balancing of the rights of the plant breeders and farmers.

RIAA has got big success agaisnt Music Piracy

Beware Before Downloading Music on Internet. Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has got big success in the new strategy by working in association with Internet service providers to stop illegal music sharing. Yesterday a Boston University student, Tenebaum, who admitted illegally downloading, 30 songs, hundreds of tunes over Kazaa's file-sharing software was ordered to pay $675,000 to four record companies. The recording companies were Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and subsidiaries of Sony. The case is only the second time an individual has gone to trial for illegally downloading music. In June, 2009, a federal jury ordered Jammie Thomas-Rasset to pay record companies $1.92 million for illegally downloading 24 songs. The argument of Tenebaum’s attorney that he was just a kid doing what kids do on the Internet. The said argument was not accepted by the court and made him liable The court awarded lesser amount, $22,500 per track, than it could have awarded to as much as $150,000 per track, or $4.5 million. The RIAA argued that "real people" have been damaged by the illegal downloading of copyrighted music. So it brought legal action against thousands of individuals it claimed were guilty of music piracy. Tenenbaum was connected to that sweep. Tenenbaum's lawyer is planning to appeal against the jury's decision. Tenenbaum have decided that he would file for bankruptcy if the verdict is not overturned. This can be a good lesson for the Indian Music Industry as now it is losing many Billion Dollars annually due to music piracy.

Soon IP Law in Bagladesh

Policy to protect country’s intellectual properties soon Currently there is no law in the country to protect various local intellectual properties. So the Bangladesh government is planning to introduce an intellectual property policy to protect the country’s intellectual properties and encourage people to build a knowledge-based society.To protect innovations and other merit-based works as well as to encourage others in such works. The government has drafted a new law relating to ‘geographical indications’, under which, the country’s unique things like Hilsha, Neem, Jute and cultural assets etc will be patented. Mr. Barua chaired the sessions in the two-day meeting as the chairman of the 49 least developed countries (LDCs) in a High Level Forum on the Strategic Use of Intellectual Property for Prosperity and Development’, held in Geneva on July 23-24. Some 78 representatives from 33 countries attended the meeting and announced a joint declaration.. The Bangladsh has requested the WIPO for promoting public private partnership (PPP) to ensure development-friendly intellectual property utilisation in the LDCs. This really a great step taken by the Banladesh Govt in particular and LDC in genral which will further boost the fast development in IPR .

Linking of News and Copyright Law in India

Due to the google case ( Rescuecom Corp., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Google Inc., Defendant-Appellee April 3, 2009) there has been significant debate regarding whether news stories are protected by copyright law. The Associated Press of USA has taken action to prevent bloggers and other news site from using their stories. Specifically they have taken legal action against All Headlines News for using AP stories without their permission and they have implemented a new system to track digital articles. In addition, a federal judge in USA , proposed a ban on websites accessing or linking or paraphrasing a news article without the site’s consent. Now the question is whether it is possible to copyright a news story It is a general rule that ideas, factual information or news stories are not copyrightable. Only the original creations of the mind for e.g literary, dramatic or musical works etc are copyrightable. Stories that report facts and information are not creations of the mind and lack originality. As a result, the copyright laws have never extended to news stories. India’s Copyright Act 1957, Section 52 ,under the Fair Use provisions, “the copying of something for research or academic purpose or reproduction a criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship.” So when a blogger or website, paraphrases, quotes or does surface linking back to a news item, without obtaining the consent of the news source, currently, it is not a violation of copyright law. How to properly cite the copyrighted material The law is stricter when it comes to copyrighted material. A blogger or website can directly quote, paraphrase or do surface linking back to copyrighted material if: a. The site or blogger have taken the prior permission from the copyright owner during the posting the copyrighted material. b. If the copyrighted work is licensed under a creative common license, then the blogger or author is free to share, copy, and distribute the work if the blogger attributes the work to the copyright owner and does not use the work for financial gains or commercial purposes. c. Simply acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material is not a substitute for obtaining the copyright owner’s permission. (Taking Note by the Bloggers) Copyright infringement is now very easy and has become very common on the internet and copyrighted works are required to be protected. But re-posting news stories that are simply a reiteration of facts is not copyrightable material and should be reproduced and shared for the public benefit. If the copyright protection will be extended to news, it will restrict the free sharing of information. That will frustrate one of the basic object of the copyright and will be an antithesis to the doctrine of fair use.

Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc., No. 06-4881 Appeal by Plaintiff Rescuecom Corp. from a judgment of the United States District Court 13 for the Northern District of New York (Mordue, Chief Judge) dismissing its action against 14 Google, Inc., under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 15 Rescuecom’s Complaint alleges that Google is liable under §§ 32 and 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 16 U.S.C. §§ 1114 & 1125, for infringement, false designation of origin, and dilution of 17 Rescuecom’s eponymous trademark This case is about deceptive similarity due to linking by a search engine called google. In an action by the plaintiff as per the Lanham Act, for trademark infringement,trademark dilution, false designation of origin, district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim is vacated and remanded. In this case plaintiff's allegations was that the Google recommended and sold some trade marks which was deceptively similar to the plaintiffs mark. The dfendants advertisers triggers the appearance of plaintiff's advertisements and links in a manner likely to cause consumer confusion when a Google user launches a search of plaintiff's trademark.This is the commercial use of the mark and a fit case under the Lanham Act. Read Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc., No. 06-4881 Appellate InformationAppeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Argued: April 3, 2008 Decided: April 3, 3009, Errata Opinion: July 28, 2009

WIPO has launched aRDi, to coordinate all the stake holders for developmnet of IPR .

WIPO has launched a new public-private partnership – Access to Research for Development and Innovation (aRDi): A futuristic approach to IPR. Now the least developed countries affirmed their commitment to integrate IP in their national development strategies to guard both artistic and commercial intellectual properties. While all countries have different levels of research and development expenditures, they all welcomed the assistance of the WIPO in the pursuit of developing viable and strong IP infrastructures to benefit their societies and to encourage innovation We are in an era where most of the peoples are trying to steal, an artist, a musician nor an inventor will share their ideas for fear that an ethical standard is missing when it comes to stealing. In an alternate situation, the three might be safe to discuss their creations knowing that the ethical standard will not be challenged. All three, acting in their own best interest, would agree that in the quest of producing original work, protection of intellectual property is one of the solitary means they have when thinking over whether or not there is an economic incentive to develop their idea and to share it with the public, while retaining the right to control reproduction or adaptation. Now the protection depends on policy decisions and developing intellectual property infrastructures. The informed inventor is more than likely worried about his industrial property rights and deciding on the merits of the invention to determine whether or not to pursue a trademark or patent. Several least developed world countries are actively collaborating with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in order to secure the interests of one of their most valuable assets: their originators. Products and services have brought prosperity to many innovators around the world who can develop their idea in a conducive environment. I believe that intellectual property is a key element in reducing the knowledge gap and the digital divide. WIPO is doing a great job by working closely with developing and least developed countries to facilitate their integration into the global knowledge economy to help them realize their creative potential. In the ongoing century Knowledge has become a base for economic development in many countries around the world. Foreign ministers from least developed countries, senior government officials and heads of regional intellectual property organizations adopted a ministerial declaration that urged the WIPO to increase capacity-building assistance and support least developed countries in becoming more viably competitive. In order to increase access to the knowledge contained in scientific and technical literature, the WIPO has launched a new public-private partnership – Access to Research for Development and Innovation (aRDi). Research institutes, universities, and industrial property offices in least developed countries will benefit from free access, while industrial property offices in certain developing countries will benefit from low cost access, to this literature. Most of the countries at the forum ( aRDi) are concerned about the knowledge gap and digital divide and its negative consequences in their own countries. Ethiopia, firmly sees the stark reality of the division of the world along the lines of technological capability. Mali, may want to breathe life into the talent pool of inventors in Mali who show significant talented, however the reality of the situation is that there are significant stumbling blocks in implementing those inventions without a strong IP infrastructure. Nepal is defending the traditional realm by presenting the importance of measures to protect traditional expressions of culture and knowledge. In developing national development policies, are acknowledged that “strategic use of intellectual property is critical,” while questioning the readiness of least developed countries in taking full advantage of IP. Tanzania has provided a positive progress report depicting a more prosperous outlook where newly established comprehensive copyright laws have generated opportunities for the growing entertainment industry. Strengthening IP has resulted in more prosperity measured by the industry’s positive contribution to the country’s gross domestic product. Still, Tanzania faces industrial property challenges in the sphere of science and technology. Maldives aims to graduate from least developed country status in December 2010 and simultaneously be in full compliance with international IP obligations. Some prominent science and technology publishers are partnering with WIPO in the aRDi program. For e.g. the American Institute of Physics, National Academy of Sciences, , Springer Science + Business Media, World Health Organization, and the UN Environment Programme. Oxford University Press etc. This is a very nice step taken by the WIPO to integrate all the stake holders for the protection and development of the Intellectual Properties. The seriousness shown by most of the least developed and developing countries and at the same time the kind of support provided by the developed countries will definitely give a new direction to the growth of IPR in coming future.

IPR week in China

In fact, China is lagging behind in software development due to IPR. It's not about English-language skills, it's not about technical capabilities (in hard skills sans apps integration, China can easily match India; only in soft skills like project management does India do better). For software developmnte sector, there is an adequate supply of English-capable engineers. What about cost issues? . It may not be as cheap in Beijing, Shanghai or Shenzhen as some American firms would like, but it's still cheap compared to numerous global alternatives, and let's not forget that BJ, SH and SZ are not the only options in China. So it's not about English or technical skills, or costs. It's really about IPR.IPR: A Real Concern in China; "IPR Week": IPR is recognized as the greatest bottleneck to innovation in China. To some (re: many Americans), China makes a good living by copying others. Now china's tech policy community think that up to what extent it can go on copying, china have to invent its own technology. China also knows that if it wants to attract FDI in high tech sectors, they have to prioritise the IPR issues, although foreign concerns are not the driving force behind advancements in IPR protection. So what's the driving force? Answer: Protection of domestic innovation, i.e., innovations by Chinese companies within China's borders. "IPR Week," on the other hand, is much more for show to Westerners. It was a report on a conference session held in Beijing that featured five companies from south China. Their topic: How Western firms abuse IP laws to keep Chinese companies off their domestic turf!! Bottom line: According to the Chinese, foreign companies and countries bully Chinese companies by taking advantage of their domestic court systems, challenging Chinese firms with Section 337 actions.Ok, this may be one way of looking at the world.One problem with IPR protection in China is a lack of awairness regarding IPR basics. Often Chinese firms are not able to recognise what is legal, what is illegal. For example (as this is good one), many Chinese companies really don't know that they can't use existing technologies still under patent protection to create a newer technology without paying royalties to the patent holders of the existing/core technologies. This absolutely stuns the Chinese. However, the biggest impediment to IPR protection has nothing at all to do with the WTO, WIPO, or the legal systems in China or the USA. Fact is, the greatest challenge to Intellectual Property protection in China is culture. The common consensus among mainlanders is that it will take few generations for Chinese to fully appreciate IPR. If a company want to enter the China market? Good for it. Yes it can do it without using Chinese service providers? It'is in for a big surprise. Sure,it can service MNCs in China without too much interference from some entity of the Chinese government. But if it has grander visions of broader market penetration, it might already know that there are unwritten rules to playing in the China market. Some American firms believe that they can best control their IP developed in China by running a captive operation. Probably true, although not likely the best way to start. ODCs - offshore development centers - are a better way to go. This is where the Jack Bauer analogy comes to mind. Security, security, security. Physical and data. Don't take any unnecessary chances. Chinese companies tend to rely on Rent-a-Cop guards and easily crackable access card. Sorry, but this isn't enough.Physical and data security is best ensured through a combination of CCTV video surveillance, biometric access control and verification systems, intrusion detection, perimeter protection, keyloggers, no removable media, restricted Internet access, document destruction, randomized polygraph testing, counter-eavesdropping and zero-day exploit shields. Sounds like something out of Ft. Meade? Perhaps. But most of these measures are a lot easier to implement than they may sound. The condition in India is also not much beter than China, but it is improving day by day. Because the recent data of NASSCOM and BSA reflects that the software piracy in India is fast reducing.