Events & Issues
New
Delhi, 30 June 2016
IPR Policy
INDIA’S DILEMMA
By Dr.S.Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
Prime Minister Modi’s
recent visit to the USA
soon after the declaration of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy naturally
raised serious concern about pressure on the Indian Government to expedite
amendment of IPR laws to the advantage of foreign investors and trade among
many stakeholders and NGOs.
Wherein a group of
NGOs even urged Modi to “resist” such pressures expected to come from
pharmaceutical multi-national companies and renewed its demand for transparency
in negotiations relating to IPR.
Undeniably, the fear
is not imaginary in view of statements emanating from some influential sections
in favour of aligning India’s
Patent Law with international standards.
Arguably, the US
Special 301 Report through which pressure is applied for amendment of IPR laws
has placed India
on the “Priority Watch List” for its failure to amend its laws and conform to
the IPR regime.
Besides, the US Trade Representative (USTP) has included India in the
list of “most significant concerns” with regard to weak IPR laws. Indeed, India’s Patent Law
has already proved to be a trouble spot in bilateral economic ties between the
two countries.
Notably, no democratic
Government is in a position to yield to external pressures against national
interests. Clarified, Minister of State
for Commerce, “We will not lose out on our traditional knowledge…Our
legislative framework is very robust and courts have kept up the rule of law”.
In fact, Indian
industry, trade and farm sectors have their own reservations about the IPR
policy which is looked upon not as an unmixed blessing. Many commercial and consumer groups express
anxiety and concern, more than satisfaction, and convey doubts about the increasing
scope for encouragement to innovations
through IPR. To them, as for common
people, generation of IPRs is not the goal of development.
On the other hand,
their contention is that it restricts scope for developing countries like India to obtain
higher technologies for development besides escalating costs of several
essential goods. Among these are
medicines, seeds and textbooks which have a huge demand and are absolutely
essential.
Besides, the aam aadmi to whom IPR has not much direct
meaning, lament global level prices affecting indigenous products and link this
with the IPR.
Importantly, intellectual
property is an intangible asset – actually a creation of human mind and
intellect. It is used to create tangible
objects and can be introduced and reproduced in different places by different
people at different times.
Intellectual property
rights, as explained by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO),
includes rights relating to inventions in all fields of human endeavour,
scientific discoveries and industrial designs.
The IPR extends to literary, artistic and scientific work, performance
of artists, trademarks, service marks, commercial names et al.
Further, as promised
in the BJP’s 2014 election manifesto a new IPR Policy was declared by the Government
last month. Whereby, the proclaimed
mission of the policy is two-fold.
One, to stimulate a
dynamic, vibrant and balanced IPR system to foster creativity and innovation in
the country. And thereby promote entrepreneurship and enhance socio-economic
and cultural development.
Two, focus on
enhancing access to healthcare, food security, environmental protection and
other sectors of vital social, economic, and technological importance.
Significantly, the
vision envisaged is an IP regime for the benefit of all, promotion of science
and technology, arts and culture, traditional and bio-diversity resources. The policy visualizes an India where
“knowledge is the main driver of development wherein knowledge owned is
knowledge shared”.
The policy lays down
seven laudable objectives to promote the IPR regime. These include creating awareness about the
benefits of IPR among all sections of the population; stimulating generation of
IPRs; having strong and effective laws which balance interests of rights owners
and larger public interest.
Modernizing and
strengthening the IPR administration; getting value for IPRs through
commercialization; strengthening enforcement and adjudication mechanism for
combating infringements; expanding institutions for teaching, training,
research and skill building in IPRs.
Actually, in the
Global Innovation Index which measures performance of a country with respect to
creativity and innovation, India’s
rank declined from 62 in 2011 to 76 in 2014.
Indeed, while its
applications for trademarks are increasing, but not for patents, which is a
crucial indicator of innovation. Reportedly,
the number of new applications for patents for drugs has never crossed the single
digit figure.
Undoubtedly, this grim
picture, interpreted as low level on creativity, is but one side of the IPR
rule. Whether the number of applications
and patents awarded is the proper measure of a country’s creative abilities is
questionable.
In a country like India, where
people are hardly aware of their right over their creations, where people still
have not learnt to jealously guard the secret of their knowledge and skills, the
IPR is still an alien concept though it was introduced by the British long ago
in 1852.
It is something to be
learnt consciously, understood and absorbed and acted upon to convert our
creative talents into economic wealth. Lack of knowledge of the significance of
IPR in the current knowledge society and of the process of acquiring the right
is the reasons for the low level of applications.
Moreover, there exists
a mountain of difference between an uneducated village craftsman toiling over
original designs and enthusiastically sharing his knowledge with others and a
well educated scholar applying for copyright for his work.
Cases pertaining to
lifting of stories published in small magazines to make high budget movies with
no acknowledgement to the original are fought in courts.
Clearly, knowledge
sharing is ingrained in the Indian culture. Remember, in traditional India knowledge
was not looked upon as a marketable commodity.
The knowledge giver, the “guru”,
was not paid any remuneration.
Pertinently, it will
take time to shape the Indian mind to adjust to the IPR regime. But, this is necessary especially in the
aftermath of the naked grab of our household knowledge of the properties of “née’
and ‘turmeric” by IPR exploiters abroad.
Thus, the task before
us is to develop our capacity to convert our knowledge into wealth and our know-how
into social good by publicizing our innovations. Certainly, we are in a dilemma
and have to cross the hurdles.
Meanwhile, the country
might have to face the disadvantages of a global system. In a strong IPR
regime, developing countries might face reduced access to technology for
innovations. Furthermore, an important issue is balancing the interests of the
inventor and that of society.
All in all, issues of
generation, valuation, protection and infringement of IP are going to be
critical in international economic relations. In the meantime lots of original
creations are likely to get a patent without the knowledge of the original
creator. This is the blunt reality which
we are afraid of and have to prevent.
Consequently, to
counter this reality, the policy speaks of integrating IP as a policy and
strategic tool in national development plans. Clearly, a holistic approach on and
enforcement aspects would inform the implementation of the policy. Our main
thrust has to be on protecting unprotected innovations and safeguarding
national interests. ---- INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
.
|