Open Forum
New
Delhi, 12 November 2014
IPR Policy
EDUCATION DECISIVE
By Dr S Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New
Delhi)
The Government of India has
announced that it will soon unveil the country’s first Intellectual Property
Rights (IPR) policy. The move is obviously in response to the concerns
frequently expressed by the US
and EU countries over inadequacy of the Indian Patent Act.
The annual review of the global
state of IPR protection and enforcement – Special 301 Report brought out by the
US, the major IPR interest
holder, has put India
under a “priority watch list country”. It seems clearly a threat to downgrade India’s IP
environment. Some American companies, particularly in the pharmaceutical
sector, are unhappy with Indian laws whereas India has been resisting attempts
at infringement of copyright and commercial misuse of its indigenous knowledge.
India opposes the unilateral
action favoured by the US,
and maintains that the country’s position is in conformity with the
requirements of Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights commonly
known as TRIPS.
During Prime Minister Narendra
Modi’s recent visit to the US,
leaders of both countries agreed to constitute a high-level Working Group with
deciding authority and also technical groups as part of the Trade Policy Forum.
There is also some urgency to clarify the IPR policy of the Government so to
encourage FDI needed in some sectors.
The Commerce and Industry Ministry too
has constituted a think-tank to draft the policy to advise the Government on
the most suitable practices to be adopted in the IPR. The policy, it is said,
will also provide for a system of efficient and transparent functioning of
offices dealing with IPR. Whatever anomalies
found in present legislations are likely to be removed.
This panel will examine the demands
made by foreign trade partners and their implications to domestic trade and
industries and give periodic reports. It will keep track of IPR related
developments in other countries that may impact India’s interests and will
collaborate with associations of Indian industries – the stakeholders.
The object evidently seems to create
an IPR regime that will protect domestic interests as well as promote foreign
investments and trade. Commerce and
Industry MoS is reported to have said that an overarching IPR policy is
necessary to have “a legitimate fight with countries that raise questions on
the country’s IPR regime” adding that India “is very strong in IPR and we
certainly want to protect our interest”. This assertion may be an answer to
critics who may read in the sudden haste for IPR policy an opening for FDI
rather than protection for Indian products.
BJP’s 2014 election manifesto has
promised to “embark on the path of IPRs and patents in a big way”. A national
network of specialized institutions to encourage inventions with protection of
intellectual property and courts to settle disputes were promised.
The main object of an IPR policy in
any country is to promote research and inventions and their utilization in
practice. It is a strategy to guarantee ownership for innovations and prevent
theft of intellectual output.
Several nations have adopted
policies and strategies in this regard. Beijing,
for instance, adopted a National Intellectual Property Strategy in 2008 for
improving its capacity to create, utilize, protect, and administer IP to make China an
innovative and prosperous country. The Czechs introduced the National
Innovation Strategy in 2004 to “improve entrepreneurial and investment
environment”. Ghana
adopted a National IP Policy and Strategy Document to strengthen management of
IP system so as to bring it in line with TRIPS.
The European Commission constituted the
Innovating Regions in Europe Network to “facilitate exchange of experience and
good practice”. Hungary has a
clear IP policy. Malaysia
has announced its policy in 2007; and Japan has made progress in evolving
a policy and connecting knowledge and development. The UK has
formulated a Science and Innovation Strategy in 2001. The US is the pioneer with its IPR Center
to facilitate sharing of information and development initiatives. India’s present
initiative to frame a policy has many precedents in other countries.
Intellectual properties covered
under TRIPS are of various types – patents, copyrights, trade marks, industrial
designs, new plant varieties, bio-tech inventions, lay-out designs of
integrated circuits, geographical locations, trade secrets, etc.
Developing countries are generally
IP importers and users more than exporters. They argue that TRIPS puts them at
a disadvantage and forces them to adopt an IP system that is disadvantageous in
their stage of scientific and technological development. A common IPR standard
has been found problematical ever since the introduction of TRIPS in 1994. The situation has not altered much.
IP is an intangible asset and its policies
and practices differ between countries. But IP protection is necessary to
protect one’s inventions, brands, and methods in domestic and international
market. As technology has advanced in many ways, instantaneous copying is
possible. Extremely easy methods of duplicating products have developed.
Victims of IPR violations at home and abroad have to be protected by law and its
implementation.
We are living in the century of
knowledge and information. Our ability to acquire and use these intangible
assets to convert them as wealth and goods depends on our ability to safeguard
our knowledge. Globalization has enhanced the importance of protecting IPR.
Small and medium enterprises (SMEs)
receive facilities and encouragement from the Government as a policy. They need
IP knowledge to remain within their rights and IP protection to safeguard their
rights. For the growth of Indian economy, SMEs have to survive against big
enterprises in the highly competitive business world. Unfortunately, in India as in
many developing countries, many of them are not well-informed about the IP
system and its utility and significance. The policy now under preparation has
to address this problem.
Similarly, medium and small-level
story writers and novelists, and musicians often face theft of their
unprotected creations. Lessons in IPR, therefore, become necessary to prevent
offences and protect victims. Many suggest including teaching of IPR in
schools as part of curriculum and conducting awareness campaigns for
stakeholders, authors/creators and users, and enforcement agencies. Creativity
and inventions are indispensable capital in the present world along with land,
labour and monetary capital emphasized by the conventional economists. They
have to be protected against infringements and rewarded in the interest of
growth and development.
India has a Copyright Act, Trade Marks
Act, Geographical Indications of Goods Act, Designs Act, Patent Act,
Semi-Conductor Integrated Circuits Layout Designs Act. Still, there is scope
for international disputes as Indian concept of knowledge and its sharing is
different from western concept which tries to rule the world.
Wherever a whole community is the
owner of particular traditional knowledge, individual-centric inventor concept
of western societies is not applicable. Traditional knowledge of medicine and cure
belongs to a community and is passed on from generation to generation and is
not fully documented. Oral tradition is still strong in India. As a
result, a resourceful foreign company may get a patent for a common cure known
to people in general as inventor because of laxity and indifference of concerned
people to prevent illegal exodus of knowledge.
The World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) has acknowledged the strength of orally transmitted
knowledge source in developing countries. But controversies arise on several
issues. Therefore, in the policy now being drafted, IPR education should find
place in general education so that the general public – at least the educated
sections – become IPR conscious. The owner of intellectual property must be
aware of his/her rights and the way to safeguard the right. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|