From a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Mar  1 00:10:34 2007
From: a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk (Achal Prabhala)
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 00:10:34 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Fw: Mashelkar - Times of India article
Message-ID: <011c01c75b67$eff37f20$0201a8c0@som.yale.edu>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <g.m.dutfield at qmul.ac.uk>
To: <ip-health at lists.essential.org>
Cc: <a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:54 PM
Subject: Mashelkar - Times of India article


>
> Some of you will have read a report in today's Times of India in which the
> plagiarism of my work by Shahid Alikhan and R Mashelkar in their 2004 book
was
> exposed. I don't really want to add too much to the story. People can of
course
> check for themselves and are free to judge the situation as they see fit.
There
> is a view common among people who think they are very important that
others
> should be grateful to be cited at all. And it is true that a book I wrote
with
> the late Darrell Posey, which reproduces similar text to the plagiarised
> article, is cited elsewhere in their book. So Alikhan and Mashelkar may
use
> that to make some kind of a bogus case that I have been given "due
credit".  I
> am hoping nobody is going to swallow that. They did indeed cite that book
a few
> pages earlier, but it was from a completely different part of the book and
on
> another issue entirely, and a very specific one. In case you are
interested it
> concerned a plant collection expedition in Samoa. If you read the Times of
> India article you will know that is a completely different topic from that
of
> the text plagiarised, which elaborated on a concept called traditional
resource
> rights, coined by Posey. Incidentally, Darrell Posey got insufficient
credit for
> his lifetime achievements that included his heroic defence of the rights
of
> indigenous peoples and his determined efforts to help turn traditional
> knowledge protection into the mainstream issue it is today.
>
> Graham Dutfield
> Herchel Smith Senior Research Fellow
> Queen Mary, University of London
>
> www.ccls.edu
>



From lawrence at altlawforum.org  Thu Mar  1 15:07:43 2007
From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 15:07:43 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Mashelkar Plagiarism Controversy-2
Message-ID: <C20C9CBF.10E5C%lawrence@altlawforum.org>

 
Dear all,
 
In light of the recent findings of plagiarism committed by Mashelkar in
2004, ALF has archived substantial supporting documents that relate to the
original article published in the Times of India on Feb 28 (by Manoj Mitta)
- available at 
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mashelkar_book_not_his_own/articleshow/16
96776.cms 

as well as documents relating to Graham Duttfield's clarifications on the
matter - available at

http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/2007-February/002368.html.


These documents are to meant to facilitate greater public debate about the
nature of IP policy making in india and are available at

http://www.altlawforum.org/ADVOCACY_CAMPAIGNS/Mashelkar_2/
 
Of particular interest to readers and journalists would be the discovery of
several yet unreported plagiarisms in the Mashelkar Book: see

http://www.altlawforum.org/ADVOCACY_CAMPAIGNS/Mashelkar_2/3.Other-Unreported
-Plagiarism.pdf


 Please pass this on to anyone who might be interested in learning about, or
reporting on the issue.
 
Lawrence.




From hbs.law at gmail.com  Fri Mar  2 13:42:37 2007
From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth)
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:42:37 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Linux Kernel - Who wrote 2.6.20?
Message-ID: <8b60429e0703020012w283c0ac7hce937cd266b1bfc8@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

   Quite a few actvists believe that free software like Linux is written by
hackers in their free time with noble intentions of giving away things for
free. While quite a bit of that is true, the story is not that "pure"
fantasy untainted by the evil corporate world of greed and greenbacks. Take
a look at this article and survey. I agree beforehand that it is selective
in the that it only studies the Linux Kernel, further, minor numbers are
ignored. But the major set of data shows conveys the message.

Regards
Hasit Seth

Full article is at : http://lwn.net/Articles/222773/


Who wrote 2.6.20?

Top changeset contributors by employer
(Unknown) 1244 25.0%
Red Hat 636 12.8%
(None) 383 7.7%
IBM 368 7.4%
Novell 295 5.9%
Linux Foundation 261 5.2%
Intel 178 3.6%
Oracle 126 2.5%
Google 97 1.9%
University of Aberdeen 79 1.6%
HP 78 1.6%
Qumranet 71 1.4%
Nokia 67 1.3%
SGI 64 1.3%
Astaro 63 1.3%
MIPS Technologies 61 1.2%
SANPeople 53 1.1%
Miracle Linux 43 0.9%
MontaVista 41 0.8%
Broadcom 39 0.8%

Looking instead at the number of lines of code changed, the results become:

Top lines changed by employer
(Unknown) 66154 19.0%
Red Hat 44527 12.8%
(None) 38099 11.0%
IBM 25244 7.3%
Astaro 15306 4.4%
Linux Foundation 13638 3.9%
Qumranet 12108 3.5%
Novell 11930 3.4%
Intel 11652 3.4%
SANPeople 9888 2.8%
NetXen 9607 2.8%
Sony 8497 2.4%
Broadcom 8349 2.4%
Tensilica 8195 2.4%
Nokia 5581 1.6%
MontaVista 4394 1.3%
University of Aberdeen 4324 1.2%
LWN.net 3975 1.1%
Secretlab 3370 1.0%
HP 3211 0.9%
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070302/bcb19ce2/attachment.html 

From estark at law.harvard.edu  Fri Mar  2 22:41:49 2007
From: estark at law.harvard.edu (Elizabeth Stark)
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:11:49 -0500
Subject: [Commons-Law] Freeculture.org Announces the Free Music Project and
	OLPC Curation
Message-ID: <55bea5620703020911o7bdb74acwefc4573e38175939@mail.gmail.com>

Please check out the site and help contribute --
http://freemusic.freeculture.org. We're looking for free music from around
the world and would love everyone's help!


PRESS RELEASE -- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: freemusic at freeculture.org
Elizabeth Stark, Freeculture.org
Tim Hwang, Antenna Alliance

FreeCulture.org Launches the Free Music Project

New website will let Internet users upload and share freely licensed
music from all countries and genres

Cambridge, Massachusetts, March 2, 2007 -- Freeculture.org announces
the launch of a new website, http://freemusic.freeculture.org, dedicated
to sharing great free music, encouraging artists to release music under
free licenses, and providing access to recording and production time to
artists releasing works under a free license.  Users can upload music
from their own computers or link to music on another website
distributing freely licensed music.  Songs uploaded can be streamed,
downloaded and remixed into new creative works.

The Free Music Project will collect and record free music for children.
Selected songs uploaded to the site will be included in the first music
library shipping with laptops from One Laptop per Child (OLPC), a
non-profit organization devoted to improving education that is producing
low-cost, high-quality computers to distribute to children and teachers
in the developing world.

"This is a groundbreaking opportunity to locate the best free music out
there and share it with millions of people of all ages around the
world," said Elizabeth Stark, board member of Freeculture.org and
founder of the Free Culture group at Harvard. "Freely licensing
recordings allows artists to gain extremely valuable global exposure
through projects such as OLPC."

Freeculture.org will also work with creators and musicians to record and
license songs for the project, in collaboration with the music recording
project Antenna Alliance.  The Free Music Project site will provide
access to uploaded music, and includes community-oriented functionality
such as tagging, forums, and ratings.  "This project not only marks a
milestone in the position of free music worldwide, but also opens a vast
universe of possibilities for the development of an international
community of artists and producers committed to free culture," said Tim
Hwang, President of Antenna Alliance.


For more information:

FreeCulture.org is an international organization that promotes the
creation of a thriving cultural commons, in part by encouraging the use
of free licenses by artists and creators.  (http://www.freeculture.org)

Antenna Alliance is a Boston-based recording label that records,
promotes, and distributes freely licensed music online and across a
nationwide network of radio stations. (http://www.antalliance.org)

One Laptop per Child (OLPC) is a non-profit organization created by
Nicholas Negroponte and other faculty members from the MIT Media Lab to
design, manufacture, and distribute laptop computers that are
sufficiently inexpensive to provide every child in the world with access
to knowledge and tools for learning and exploration.
(http://www.laptop.org)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070302/54a6e717/attachment.html 

From jeebesh at sarai.net  Sat Mar  3 09:52:54 2007
From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi)
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:52:54 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Linux Kernel - Who wrote 2.6.20?
In-Reply-To: <8b60429e0703020012w283c0ac7hce937cd266b1bfc8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8b60429e0703020012w283c0ac7hce937cd266b1bfc8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C4BF8EB2-9029-43E1-9AC0-67591881515B@sarai.net>


How do we interpret this data beyond some simple positional gesturing?

GNU/Linux has emerged from a huge base of voluntary effort and over  
the last 5 to 6 years is being used by many companies, because the  
code base is high quality and immensely usable for both high-end and  
consumer end work. These companies have contributed to the code. GPL  
has ensured that the codes remained with the user/producer.

What do we learn from this?

best
jeebesh

On 02-Mar-07, at 1:42 PM, Hasit seth wrote:

> Hi,      Quite a few actvists believe that free software like Linux  
> is written by hackers in their free time with noble intentions of  
> giving away things for free. While quite a bit of that is true, the  
> story is not that "pure" fantasy untainted by the evil corporate  
> world of greed and greenbacks. Take a look at this article and  
> survey. I agree beforehand that it is selective in the that it only  
> studies the Linux Kernel, further, minor numbers are ignored. But  
> the major set of data shows conveys the message.   Regards Hasit  
> Seth   Full article is at : http://lwn.net/Articles/222773/       
> Who wrote 2.6.20?
> Top changeset contributors by employer
> (Unknown) 1244 25.0%
> Red Hat 636 12.8%
> (None) 383 7.7%
> IBM 368 7.4%
> Novell 295 5.9%
> Linux Foundation 261 5.2%
> Intel 178 3.6%
> Oracle 126 2.5%
> Google 97 1.9%
> University of Aberdeen 79 1.6%
> HP 78 1.6%
> Qumranet 71 1.4%
> Nokia 67 1.3%
> SGI 64 1.3%
> Astaro 63 1.3%
> MIPS Technologies 61 1.2%
> SANPeople 53 1.1%
> Miracle Linux 43 0.9%
> MontaVista 41 0.8%
> Broadcom 39 0.8%
>
> Looking instead at the number of lines of code changed, the results  
> become:
>
> Top lines changed by employer
> (Unknown) 66154 19.0%
> Red Hat 44527 12.8%
> (None) 38099 11.0%
> IBM 25244 7.3%
> Astaro 15306 4.4%
> Linux Foundation 13638 3.9%
> Qumranet 12108 3.5%
> Novell 11930 3.4%
> Intel 11652 3.4%
> SANPeople 9888 2.8%
> NetXen 9607 2.8%
> Sony 8497 2.4%
> Broadcom 8349 2.4%
> Tensilica 8195 2.4%
> Nokia 5581 1.6%
> MontaVista 4394 1.3%
> University of Aberdeen 4324 1.2%
> LWN.net 3975 1.1%
> Secretlab 3370 1.0%
> HP 3211 0.9%
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> commons-law mailing list
> commons-law at sarai.net
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law



From a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk  Sun Mar  4 14:06:24 2007
From: a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk (Achal Prabhala)
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:06:24 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] =?windows-1252?q?Mint_India=3A_There=92s_a_lesson_t?=
	=?windows-1252?q?o_be_learnt_here=2C_says_Mashelkar?=
Message-ID: <007001c75e38$33a4b400$0201a8c0@som.yale.edu>




http://www.livemint.com/2007/02/26010825/Theres-a-lesson-to-be-learnt.htx

There’s a lesson to be learnt here, says Mashelkar

Dr R.A. Mashelkar, former director-general of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, talks about what’s wrong with his report on patentability of new drugs and micro-organisms

Bhuma Shrivastava and Jacob P. Koshy

Dr R.A. Mashelkar, former director-general of Council of Scientific &amp; Industrial Research, is a troubled man these days. Battling charges of plagiarism in his latest report on patentability of new drugs and micro-organisms, the technocrat claims he has already done what he could (withdrawing the report) and the ball was now in the government’s court. Excerpts from Mashelkar’s conversation with Mint where he talked about what’s wrong with his report and what’s not:

Has the department of industrial policy and promotion responded to your letter where you had offered to re-submit the report in three months? How do you react to the demands that the technical committee, chaired by you, be scrapped and replaced by a joint parliamentary committee?
I have not received any response from the department so far. As for the demands being made by various groups, I’ll leave that to the government. It’s their call. Since they are the ones who set up the committee, they will decide what to do with the committee.

Were you aware that the Intellectual Property report was commissioned by Interpat, which in turn is funded in part by Swiss drug maker Novartis AG?
Obviously, not. To us, it was an IP Institute study. Also, I have just received a letter from Dr Paul Leonard, director of this IP Institute in which he has expressed concern over the furore being created about their report in India. He has written to me that he had taken allegations of bias against a study from his institute, very seriously since it impinged on the quality and independence of their work. 
The letter states that Interpat is not an industrial think tank but an independent not-for-profit research body that has a history of independent and unbiased studies. It was a report done by someone from the University of Oxford. How is one to know? 

If you submit a revised version of the report, would the basic tenor of the report’s recommendations change or would you stick to the current stance?
Can’t say. Let’s first see what the government does. Thereafter, the committee members (four others besides Mashelkar) will have to meet. We haven’t even had our first meeting after the decision to withdraw the report. But I stand by its findings 100%.

You could have merely made the necessary attributions to the report. Why did you take the extreme step of withdrawing it?
I did what a scientist does. I withdrew it and offered to re-examine it. I was heartbroken as this had never happened in 12 committees that I have chaired. There is a lesson to be learnt here and I’ll be using software applications to check for such verbatim lifts from other reports in the future.
Other people have also asked me if I over-reacted or done things differently. The answer is no. Actually, the report from which we have been accused of plagiarising, is mentioned in the Annexure to the report; so it’s not plagiarism per se. As part of our basic principles as scientists, we don’t copy verbatim. That’s it.

How does the committee work?
We are a five-member committee. Our job is merely to decide two aspects of the Indian patent act’s compatibility with TRIPS (Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property rightS) obligations. One, whether it would be TRIPS compatible to limit the grant of patent for pharmaceutical substance to new chemical entity or to new medical entity involving one or more inventive steps. Secondly, whether it would be TRIPS compatible to exclude micro-organisms from patenting. We study submissions from a wide range of society: patent lawyers, pharma companies, research groups. All deliberations that occur are recorded in the minutes of the meeting. All these, including the conclusions are sent to the drafting committee, which prepares the final document.

How do you respond to the allegations that the technical committee went beyond its terms of reference?
We did not do any such thing. (I) Don’t agree to that.

You met minister Kapil Sibal after the plagiarism charges erupted. What did he say?
We discussed a host of other issues. I can’t comment on them.

bhuma.s at livemint.com
Copyright © 2007 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070304/69f8b700/attachment.html 

From yuvaraj.a.r at gmail.com  Mon Mar  5 06:06:37 2007
From: yuvaraj.a.r at gmail.com (Yuvaraj Athur Raghuvir)
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 06:06:37 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Linux Kernel - Who wrote 2.6.20?
In-Reply-To: <C4BF8EB2-9029-43E1-9AC0-67591881515B@sarai.net>
References: <8b60429e0703020012w283c0ac7hce937cd266b1bfc8@mail.gmail.com>
	<C4BF8EB2-9029-43E1-9AC0-67591881515B@sarai.net>
Message-ID: <10505d5c0703041636u46710d72raf82730c256d2a14@mail.gmail.com>

1) It should also be noted that contributing to code base means contributing
to maintenance of the software. By putting back the code into the open
source code base, the companies are saving huge amounts on maintenance since
the community absorbs and takes care of the code. In this way, there is
"return to the commons". Since code needs to be actively used to make it
more reusable, there is a huge benefit in this approach.

2) Further, I understand that there are significant integration costs to get
the code into the common code base. This means that companies cannot create
code and expect it to be integrated just like that. The code is verified and
certified by the best people around the world before it reaches the common
code base. This additional cost pays off when the overall code base
increases without diminishing the quality.

So, it is the other way - if the code written by companies are absorbed into
the Open Source Code base, the companies benefit largely on the long run.
Thats why it is strategic to get the company written code back into the Open
Source code base.

~Yuva

On 3/3/07, Jeebesh Bagchi <jeebesh at sarai.net> wrote:
>
>
> How do we interpret this data beyond some simple positional gesturing?
>
> GNU/Linux has emerged from a huge base of voluntary effort and over
> the last 5 to 6 years is being used by many companies, because the
> code base is high quality and immensely usable for both high-end and
> consumer end work. These companies have contributed to the code. GPL
> has ensured that the codes remained with the user/producer.
>
> What do we learn from this?
>
> best
> jeebesh
>
> On 02-Mar-07, at 1:42 PM, Hasit seth wrote:
>
> > Hi,      Quite a few actvists believe that free software like Linux
> > is written by hackers in their free time with noble intentions of
> > giving away things for free. While quite a bit of that is true, the
> > story is not that "pure" fantasy untainted by the evil corporate
> > world of greed and greenbacks. Take a look at this article and
> > survey. I agree beforehand that it is selective in the that it only
> > studies the Linux Kernel, further, minor numbers are ignored. But
> > the major set of data shows conveys the message.   Regards Hasit
> > Seth   Full article is at : http://lwn.net/Articles/222773/
> > Who wrote 2.6.20?
> > Top changeset contributors by employer
> > (Unknown) 1244 25.0%
> > Red Hat 636 12.8%
> > (None) 383 7.7%
> > IBM 368 7.4%
> > Novell 295 5.9%
> > Linux Foundation 261 5.2%
> > Intel 178 3.6%
> > Oracle 126 2.5%
> > Google 97 1.9%
> > University of Aberdeen 79 1.6%
> > HP 78 1.6%
> > Qumranet 71 1.4%
> > Nokia 67 1.3%
> > SGI 64 1.3%
> > Astaro 63 1.3%
> > MIPS Technologies 61 1.2%
> > SANPeople 53 1.1%
> > Miracle Linux 43 0.9%
> > MontaVista 41 0.8%
> > Broadcom 39 0.8%
> >
> > Looking instead at the number of lines of code changed, the results
> > become:
> >
> > Top lines changed by employer
> > (Unknown) 66154 19.0%
> > Red Hat 44527 12.8%
> > (None) 38099 11.0%
> > IBM 25244 7.3%
> > Astaro 15306 4.4%
> > Linux Foundation 13638 3.9%
> > Qumranet 12108 3.5%
> > Novell 11930 3.4%
> > Intel 11652 3.4%
> > SANPeople 9888 2.8%
> > NetXen 9607 2.8%
> > Sony 8497 2.4%
> > Broadcom 8349 2.4%
> > Tensilica 8195 2.4%
> > Nokia 5581 1.6%
> > MontaVista 4394 1.3%
> > University of Aberdeen 4324 1.2%
> > LWN.net 3975 1.1%
> > Secretlab 3370 1.0%
> > HP 3211 0.9%
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > commons-law mailing list
> > commons-law at sarai.net
> > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law
>
> _______________________________________________
> commons-law mailing list
> commons-law at sarai.net
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070305/19f15e36/attachment.html 

From sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com  Mon Mar  5 09:54:04 2007
From: sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com (Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay)
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:54:04 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Linux Kernel - Who wrote 2.6.20?
In-Reply-To: <C4BF8EB2-9029-43E1-9AC0-67591881515B@sarai.net>
References: <8b60429e0703020012w283c0ac7hce937cd266b1bfc8@mail.gmail.com>
	<C4BF8EB2-9029-43E1-9AC0-67591881515B@sarai.net>
Message-ID: <45EB9B64.8020208@gmail.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jeebesh Bagchi wrote:
> How do we interpret this data beyond some simple positional gesturing?

We could to begin with look at how much of FOSS consumption is happening
without end user realising. Some of the company names might just make
you go - wh0a they do contributions to kernel too ?

> GNU/Linux has emerged from a huge base of voluntary effort and over  
> the last 5 to 6 years is being used by many companies, because the  
> code base is high quality and immensely usable for both high-end and  
> consumer end work. These companies have contributed to the code. GPL  
> has ensured that the codes remained with the user/producer.

Nearly all the major components that make up the FOSS consumption or
even the backbones of the various deployments have core
contributors/maintainers who are employed by commercial organisations -
is that what you hint at not being proper since it might mar the
voluntary nature of the code ? Or, is the "voluntary bit" somewhat
over-rated since someone did at sometime pay for the Lines of Code ?
Unlike commercial constructs, is not FOSS benefited by "over-harvesting"
of the produce ?

:Sankarshan

- --

You see things; and you say 'Why?';
But I dream things that never were;
and I say 'Why not?' - George Bernard Shaw
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF65tkXQZpNTcrCzMRArCEAJ95/JXMj4CJGYY2WrD9ZR5gP+AF+gCfZPeo
s3lIcF1v81LVxoqNs1l3bng=
=SvBG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com  Mon Mar  5 09:54:08 2007
From: sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com (Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay)
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:54:08 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Linux Kernel - Who wrote 2.6.20?
In-Reply-To: <10505d5c0703041636u46710d72raf82730c256d2a14@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8b60429e0703020012w283c0ac7hce937cd266b1bfc8@mail.gmail.com>	<C4BF8EB2-9029-43E1-9AC0-67591881515B@sarai.net>
	<10505d5c0703041636u46710d72raf82730c256d2a14@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <45EB9B68.7000504@gmail.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Yuvaraj Athur Raghuvir wrote:
> 1) It should also be noted that contributing to code base means
> contributing to maintenance of the software. By putting back the code
> into the open source code base, the companies are saving huge amounts on
> maintenance since the community absorbs and takes care of the code. In
> this way, there is "return to the commons". Since code needs to be
> actively used to make it more reusable, there is a huge benefit in this
> approach.

Umm...not quite true. Putting back the code into the code base under
OpenSource (or like licenses) does mean maintenance and in case of the
kernel the process for maintenance and contribution is much too well
defined to pull stunts of off loading the grunt work of maintaining the
code.

Cynically speaking, how many of the common consumers of the kernel code
actually go ahead and contribute by the trivial means of raising bugzillas ?

> 2) Further, I understand that there are significant integration costs to
> get the code into the common code base. This means that companies cannot
> create code and expect it to be integrated just like that. The code is
> verified and certified by the best people around the world before it
> reaches the common code base. This additional cost pays off when the
> overall code base increases without diminishing the quality.

Who is expected to certify and verify ? Who provides the infrastructure ?

> So, it is the other way - if the code written by companies are absorbed
> into the Open Source Code base, the companies benefit largely on the
> long run. Thats why it is strategic to get the company written code back
> into the Open Source code base.

It cuts both ways really. Without the companies paying the maintainers
there would be no code, without community consumption there would not be
much use for the maintainers.

:Sankarshan

- --

You see things; and you say 'Why?';
But I dream things that never were;
and I say 'Why not?' - George Bernard Shaw
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF65toXQZpNTcrCzMRAv57AJ4sjO4MKnWYJuaRKSATsl/1yp7loACfQl56
Qupog7G2DPeRkL6FltZ3hs4=
=teLP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From the.solipsist at gmail.com  Mon Mar  5 16:08:34 2007
From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 16:08:34 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Microsoft and Alcatel-Lucent's battle over MP3
Message-ID: <4785f1e20703050238k6f759bcbgcdfa62c811db2244@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,
While the Microsoft judgment came out long back (on February 22, 2007),
going through the archives I see that no one has posted anything on it.  In
this mail, I have also included another case related to MP3 patents that has
been filed against MP3 player manufacturers by a Texan company called Texas
MP3 Technologies.

Microsoft case
A trial court ordered Microsoft to pay $1.5 billion for infringing Alcatel's
patents in MP3.  Microsoft did pay $16 million to license MP3-related
patents from Fraunhofer, but Alcatel-Lucent is arguing that it has patented
technology that was not part of Microsoft's license, a point Microsoft
disputes.

MP3 technology was developed in large part by people with Germany's
Fraunhofer <http://www.fraunhofer.de/fhg/EN/index.jsp> and AT&T's Bell Labs,
which became part of Lucent when it was spun off in 1996. Alcatel and Lucent
merged<http://news.com.com/Shareholders+approve+Alcatel%2C+Lucent+merger/2100-1037_3-6113357.html>last
year, becoming Alcatel-Lucent.  For a history of MP3, go
here<http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/fhg/iis/EN/bf/amm/mp3history/mp3history01.jsp>.
Lots of companies have licensed MP3 technology.  Just see Thomson's licensee
list <http://mp3licensing.com/licensees/> for a list of companies licensing
MP3 technology from Fraunhofer (Thomson handles Fraunhofer's licensing).

Microsoft has also noted that roughly half of the damages are for overseas
sales of Windows, which could be affected by a separate patent
case<http://news.com.com/Microsoft+patent+case+stirs+software+export+fears/2100-1014_3-6160840.html>.
That case, currently before the Supreme
Court<http://news.com.com/High+court+wrestles+with+software+patent+questions/2100-1041_3-6161086.html>,
deals with whether overseas sales of software products should be subject to
U.S. patent law.

Links from which this has been hashed:
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+hit+with+1.5+billion+patent+verdict/2100-1030_3-6161480.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-6161760.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/23/microsoft_alcatel_patent/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6388273.stm


MP3 players case
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/28/mp3_patent_suit/
Texas MP3 buys patent, immediately files suitPublished Wednesday 28th
February 2007 10:39 GMT
<http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;71538881;13533154;j?http://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/page/skinker.html>
Find
your perfect job - click here from thousands of tech
vacancies<http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;39093442;13533154;c?http://www.jobsite.co.uk/>

The world's major MP3 player manufacturers have been sued in a patent
infringement case by a company that began the case the day after it acquired
the patent<http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F7065417>
.

Apple, Samsung and SanDisk have been sued by Texas MP3 Technologies which
bought the US patent from two Korean inventors. The patent was originally
lodged in 1997, was bought by Texas MP3 on 15 February this year, and the
suit was filed on 16 February.

<http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/jump/reg.management.4159/law;pos=middle;site=uk;dcove=d;sz=336x280;tile=3;ord=OB4mktRk6jcAAEbrC6gAAAEj?>

The patent makes broad claims saying it covers technology which is a
"portable audio device suitable for reproducing MPEG encoded data includes a
plurality of inputs, a data storage, a display, an audio output, at least
one processor and a battery".

The claim has been filed in a Texas district court by the company, which
operates out of a Texas post office box. Eastern Texas courts are regarded
as being sympathetic to patent holders and are often the chosen forum for
disputes.

The suit claims that the named companies wilfully violate the patents.
Wilful violation carries a stiffer penalty than simple violation.

The patent was sold by SigmaTel to a patent licensing company last summer,
though it is not clear whether or not that body was Texas MP3. Chief
executive Ron Edgerton explained the company's rationale last July.

"We made this decision because this patent may require millions of dollars
of legal fees to optimize its value, and otherwise would have required a
significant amount of SigmaTel's management attention," he said. "SigmaTel's
customers, however, will not have to worry about this patent being enforced
against them, as SigmaTel has retained the necessary rights to protect its
customers."

The case has come to light just days after Microsoft was ordered to pay
$1.5bn in a separate MP3 patent case. Alcatel-Lucent had claimed that
Microsoft's use of MP3 encoding technology violated patents it had long held
in the area.

Microsoft said a licence it has from German firm Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft
entitled it to incorporate MP3 encoding in its Windows operating system.
Alcatel-Lucent claimed that its Bell Labs subsidiary owns patents on the
technology.

Copyright (c) 2007, OUT-LAW.com <http://www.out-law.com/>

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070305/bff4714f/attachment.html 

From yuvaraj.a.r at gmail.com  Mon Mar  5 19:18:30 2007
From: yuvaraj.a.r at gmail.com (Yuvaraj Athur Raghuvir)
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 19:18:30 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Linux Kernel - Who wrote 2.6.20?
In-Reply-To: <10505d5c0703050547v479e632ak2d7bc976fe22c340@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8b60429e0703020012w283c0ac7hce937cd266b1bfc8@mail.gmail.com>
	<C4BF8EB2-9029-43E1-9AC0-67591881515B@sarai.net>
	<10505d5c0703041636u46710d72raf82730c256d2a14@mail.gmail.com>
	<45EB9B68.7000504@gmail.com>
	<10505d5c0703050547v479e632ak2d7bc976fe22c340@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <10505d5c0703050548x3a28478fu396abb602e4c6c9a@mail.gmail.com>

Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:
>
>
> Umm...not quite true. Putting back the code into the code base under
> OpenSource (or like licenses) does mean maintenance and in case of the
> kernel the process for maintenance and contribution is much too well
> defined to pull stunts of off loading the grunt work of maintaining the
> code.
>
> Cynically speaking, how many of the common consumers of the kernel code
> actually go ahead and contribute by the trivial means of raising bugzillas
> ?


Agreed that it is not pure dump of code to escape grunt work. And the
quality parameter as mentioned below is exactly what allows for putting back
into the code lines.

Who is expected to certify and verify ? Who provides the infrastructure ?


As I understand, Linnus Torvalds was spending more time integrating new code
rather than writing code when the contributions started increasing. Each bit
of code was also dissected into bits by the people in the community. Thats
the kind of people I speak about. And the open source believes in simple
editor, debugger and patch tools to work. I personally have not contributed.
But this is what I heard from a friend who contributed to Linnux Kernel.

It cuts both ways really. Without the companies paying the maintainers
> there would be no code, without community consumption there would not be
> much use for the maintainers.


So, where is the pay-off for a company? If it is not maintenance effort, why
should the company pay people to maintain community code? Is it that
companies want to have a "community-conscious" image?

Also, I now see that many Open Source programmers are being offered jobs in
companies. So, the cycle starts with a person contributing and later
acquiring a title in a company! In that sense, the company is not paying for
the maintainers. Rather, the company uses the knowledge of the maintainers
in other activities while the maintainer does what he/she always wanted to
do anyway. Maybe it is a side effect that when forums like this discuss on
the statistics, there are some interesting surprises.

What I would like to know  - to make more sense here - is how many of the
maintainers of these companies were contributing before they joined the
company and how many maintainers started contributing after joining a
company. I suspect that the first figure would dominate so making the
companies position less significant as is currently assumed from these
numbers.


~Yuva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070305/35c7e132/attachment.html 

From paivakil at yahoo.co.in  Mon Mar  5 19:53:06 2007
From: paivakil at yahoo.co.in (Mahesh T. Pai)
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 19:53:06 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Linux Kernel - Who wrote 2.6.20?
In-Reply-To: <10505d5c0703050548x3a28478fu396abb602e4c6c9a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8b60429e0703020012w283c0ac7hce937cd266b1bfc8@mail.gmail.com>
	<C4BF8EB2-9029-43E1-9AC0-67591881515B@sarai.net>
	<10505d5c0703041636u46710d72raf82730c256d2a14@mail.gmail.com>
	<45EB9B68.7000504@gmail.com>
	<10505d5c0703050547v479e632ak2d7bc976fe22c340@mail.gmail.com>
	<10505d5c0703050548x3a28478fu396abb602e4c6c9a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070305142306.GA18528@nandini.home>

Yuvaraj Athur Raghuvir said on Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 07:18:30PM +0530,:

 > >Cynically speaking, how many of the common consumers of the kernel code
 > >actually go ahead and contribute by the trivial means of raising bugzillas
 > >?
 > 
 > 
 > Agreed that it is not pure dump of code to escape grunt work. And the
 > quality parameter as mentioned below is exactly what allows for putting back
 > into the code lines.
 > 
 > Who is expected to certify and verify ? Who provides the infrastructure ?
 > 

See what you wrote below:-

 > As I understand, Linnus Torvalds was spending more time integrating
   new code

See??

There are people who do such things.
   
 > So, where  is the pay-off for  a company? If it  is not maintenance
 > effort,  why should the  company pay  people to  maintain community
 > code?  Is it that  companies want  to have  a "community-conscious"
 > image?

Because they get some benefit - and different entities get different
benefits. There is a no ``one answer fits all'' reply.

Any way, why bother with the motives of people who make the
contribution? 

 > company. I suspect  that the first figure would  dominate so making
 > the  companies position  less significant  as is  currently assumed
 > from these numbers.

This  argument cuts  both ways.  A business  is doing  a good  turn by
sponsoring a developer / contributor  who _may_ have to work only part
time without the sponsorship.
 
-- 
 Mahesh T. Pai <<>> http://paivakil.blogspot.com/
Free Software - it is free as in FREEDOM


From chansoobak at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  5 21:08:17 2007
From: chansoobak at yahoo.com (chan park)
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 07:38:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Commons-Law] =?utf-8?q?=28no_subject=29?=
Message-ID: <178885.7528.qm@web37701.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

The Novartis matter resumed today in the Madras High Court.  Under the Order of the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, the appeal of the Patent Controller’s order will be heard by the same bench of Justices Balasubramaniam and Prabha Sridevan.  


Mr. Soli Sorabjee, counsel for Novartis, commenced his rejoinder arguments relating to Novartis’ claim that Section 3d is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.  He contended that the manner in which the amendment to 3d was introduced, and the fact that India had undertaken a solemn obligation to comply with the TRIPS agreement, introduced an element of irrationality into the legislation, and therefore violated Art. 14.  He further repeated his contention that India’s refusal to comply with TRIPS would lead to an erosion of India’s credibility internationally.  


At this point, Justice Prabha Sridevan interjected and said that she understood the respondents’ arguments to say that whether 3d was TRIPS compliant or not was simply not a matter for judicial determination because TRIPS is not part of domestic law.  


Sorabjee responded by claiming that the court had to look at the background surrounding the legislation. He claimed that the legislative history showed that Commerce Minister Kamal Nath disagreed with the TRIPS-compliance of 3d, and that while there was uncertainty in the government as to whether 3d was TRIPS compatible, Parliament went ahead and enacted 3d anyway.


Then he argued that the fact that “efficacy” and “significant enhancement” lacked any guidelines made it vague and arbitrary.  Responding to the contention that a simple lack of definition did not render a statute invalid, he claimed that while other instances of broad undefined terms had acquired a well-understood judicial understanding, this was not the case with “efficacy” and “significant enhancement,” and thus made it vulnerable to varying interpretations that differ from individual to individual.  


He pointed to a litany of Indian caselaw to advance the argument that where Parliament delegates unguided powers to the executive brance without laying down any clear legislative policy in the legislation itself, such delegation could be struck down by the courts as an excessive delegation of power.  


At this point, Justice Balasubramaniam interjected and said that it was the case of the Respondents that “efficacy” was a concept known to those in the pharmaceutical field, including Novartis, and that the explanation only related to a requirement of significant increase in efficacy.  Responding to this, Sorabjee admitted that the meaning of “efficacy” is known and that what was problematic was that section 3(d) did not explain what constituted a “significant enhancement.”  


At this, Justice Prabha Sridevan observed that it appeared that Novartis’ grievance lay in the fact that section 3(d) did not provide a specific percentage for what constitutes “significant enhancement.”  She said that it could be case that for a headache medicine, a 30% enhancement in efficacy may not amount to an increase in efficacy but that it could be amount to a significant increase in efficacy for an anti-cancer drug. She said that it would be incorrect to lay down the a specific percentage and that section 3(d) gave  leeway to the Patent Controller to allow patentability of new forms of known substances. To this, Sorabjee replied that Novartis was not claiming that a rigid standard be defined.  


Sorabjee argued that section 3(d) created an irrational legal fiction of deeming new forms of known substances to be the same substance. He said that he would refer to authorities to cite instances in which irrational legal fictions had been struck down.  Sorabjee said that after creating such an irrational fiction, an attempt was made to provide an escape route by introducing the requirement of significant increase in efficacy. He said that it was important to have guidelines which were flexible.  


Justice Balasubramaiam asked how Parliament could possibly anticipate all derivatives of known substances and list them.  Responding to this, Sorabjee claimed that it was an irrational legal “fiction” to deem different substance to be the same substance.  He argued that this legal “fiction” was arbitrary, and that this arbitrariness was not cured by allowing only certain new forms to be patented.  


Admitting that Parliament could not lay down a rigid standard to determine what constituted an increase in efficacy, he argued that neither could Parliament leave section 3(d) without providing any guidance to the Patent Controller. He reiterated that a determination of what constituted a significant increase in efficacy would be a value judgment and that there was no guideline in section 3(d) that would guide the Patent Controller in arriving at this judgment.  


To show how arbitrary 3(d) could be, he pointed to the affidavit filed by the Patent Controller, where he stated that a 30% increase in bioavailability “may or may not be statistically significant.”  He argued that if even the patent controller did not know what constituted significance, then 3(d) surely was vague and ambiguous.


Mr. Shanti Bhushan, also appearing for Novartis, commenced his argument that 3(d) was incompatible with TRIPS.  He claimed that the EU Directive, from which the language of 3(d) was borrowed, related to the drug regulatory review process, and such concepts, as applied to patentability criteria, would result in an absurdity.  He claimed that the drug regulatory approval process generally took place years after a drug was patented, and that the clinical trials necessary to establish efficacy could not possibly be presented as evidence to satisfy the requirements of 3d during the patent examination stage.  


At this point, Justices Balasubramaniam and Prabha Sridevan both interjected, observing that while this may be true in some circumstances, it was the case that Novartis actually knew and had data relating to the efficacy of imatinib mesylate during the patent examination stage.  Mr. Bhushan admitted that this was the case, but this was only so because of the lag of several years between the filing of the application in the “mailbox” and the examination of the application in 2005.  Justice Prabha Sridevan observed that whatever the reason for the lag, if Novartis did in fact have clinical trial data relating to imatinib mesylate’s efficacy, on what basis could Novartis claim that 3d imposed an unreasonable requirement?  


Justice Prabha Sridevan also asked what the difference was between “invention” and “discovery.”  She asked whether or not it was the case that only inventions needed to be patented, and discoveries did not need to be patented.  Viewed in this light, she asked whether 3(d) is not a valid exclusion of all discoveries of new forms except for those with an increase in efficacy.  To this, Mr. Bhushan replied that all “discoveries” become patentable “inventions” if such “discoveries” involve an inventive step.  


Bhushan then continued with his argument that because section 3(d) imposes requirements above and beyond the basic requirements of novelty, inventive step and industrial application, it was in contravention to Art. 27 of TRIPS.  He contended that Articles 7 and 8 provided for flexibilities only with respect to compulsory licensing, which India took advantage of in section 84, et seq of the Patents Act.  He further argued that Article 27 only contemplates exclusions from patentability as laid out in Articles 65(4), 70(8), and subsections (2) and (3) of Article 27, and that no further exclusions are allowed under TRIPS.  Justice Prabha Sridevan asked whether it was his contention that the exclusions contemplated under 27(2) and (3) formed an exhaustive list of valid exclusions from patentability, to which Bhushan replied in the affirmative.  


At the conclusion of the day’s proceedings, Sorabjee indicated that he came to learn of the fact that the Additional Solicitor General, VT Gopalan, intended on filing some additional documents, one of which was the letter written by Henry Waxman to Novartis asking it to reconsider its position on the case.  Sorabjee asked that the documents be filed today, so that Novartis could examine it and initiate contempt of court proceedings against Congressman Waxman.  


To this, Grover responded that Novartis should examine its own website on which they were posting comments on the merits of the case, which also amounted to contempt of court.  


Bhushan will complete his arguments relating to TRIPS tomorrow, at which point the Respondents will have the opportunity to respond to some of the new arguments that Novartis presented during its rejoinder.  We will keep you posted.


In solidarity,


The Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit Team


Anand
Chan
Julie
Asha


All of the updates from this case can be found at our website,

www.lawyerscollective.org


 
---------------------------------
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070305/3914c2d4/attachment.html 

From sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com  Mon Mar  5 21:25:52 2007
From: sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com (Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay)
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 21:25:52 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Linux Kernel - Who wrote 2.6.20?
In-Reply-To: <10505d5c0703050548x3a28478fu396abb602e4c6c9a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8b60429e0703020012w283c0ac7hce937cd266b1bfc8@mail.gmail.com>	<C4BF8EB2-9029-43E1-9AC0-67591881515B@sarai.net>	<10505d5c0703041636u46710d72raf82730c256d2a14@mail.gmail.com>	<45EB9B68.7000504@gmail.com>	<10505d5c0703050547v479e632ak2d7bc976fe22c340@mail.gmail.com>
	<10505d5c0703050548x3a28478fu396abb602e4c6c9a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <45EC3D88.60604@gmail.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Yuvaraj Athur Raghuvir wrote:

> As I understand, Linnus Torvalds was spending more time integrating new
> code rather than writing code when the contributions started increasing.
> Each bit of code was also dissected into bits by the people in the
> community. Thats the kind of people I speak about. And the open source
> believes in simple editor, debugger and patch tools to work. I
> personally have not contributed. But this is what I heard from a friend
> who contributed to Linnux Kernel.

That's kind of a very simplistic point-of-view of the Linux Kernel
Development process.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050529095918381 provides an
account that is considerably detailed.

> So, where is the pay-off for a company? If it is not maintenance effort,
> why should the company pay people to maintain community code? Is it that
> companies want to have a "community-conscious" image?

No it is not really a Corporate Social Responsibility if that is what it
mean.

> What I would like to know  - to make more sense here - is how many of
> the maintainers of these companies were contributing before they joined
> the company and how many maintainers started contributing after joining
> a company. 

I guess you might like to take a quick look at some of the papers at
opensource.mit.edu

:Sankarshan


- --

You see things; and you say 'Why?';
But I dream things that never were;
and I say 'Why not?' - George Bernard Shaw
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF7D2IXQZpNTcrCzMRAr9OAJ9K5hwoEUXh3SkI9USm5YZa9R+mVACfdTCX
ZqAn9lWH7Gu1Z1P24pXLAs0=
=ldwE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From hbs.law at gmail.com  Mon Mar  5 23:52:27 2007
From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth)
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 23:52:27 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Linux Kernel - Who wrote 2.6.20?
In-Reply-To: <C4BF8EB2-9029-43E1-9AC0-67591881515B@sarai.net>
References: <8b60429e0703020012w283c0ac7hce937cd266b1bfc8@mail.gmail.com>
	<C4BF8EB2-9029-43E1-9AC0-67591881515B@sarai.net>
Message-ID: <8b60429e0703051022o241dba4dq71757ff14f19d379@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Jeebesh,

   This ain't all about positional gesturing. The corporations that are
contributing through their employees are doing this for multiple reason.
Some of which are:

(1) Linux (or GNU/Linux for purists) has become a widely used UNIX variant
even though GNU/Linux is pretty much a recreated copy of UNIX in everything
that makes it quite reliable (come on guys, you got to admit this much at
least :-). The corporations all had UNIX versions of their databases (from
the list - IBM's big iron DB2 and Oracle's DB). They had to shift to LINUX
to reduce the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) for their database customers.
Further, they had got into this clumsy situation of having their own UNIX
variants (IBM's AIX was very significant) which cost quite a good amount of
money to maintain. In comes Linux which eliminates their cost of maintaining
a UNIX variant for DB products. Hence, Linux tuned out to be a good option.

(2) There is nothing magical about the quality of Linux due to many people
maintaining it. IBM's OSs (OS 360, OS for AS400) for its large systems are
super strong. Sun's own UNIX variant Solaris (now open source) is the de
facto standard for the financial industry which need super reliability. And
AT&T's System V UNIX was very a strong OS too. None of these had the open
source review wrapper around them. All of these were created and maintained
by relatively small teams in company labs. Yet, they were as good and
probably better than LINUX/GNU's reliability. We can go on, but look at
fault tolerant OSs from say Tandem (Himalaya series servers) and you will
see that reliability is a factor of engineering design and execution of
actual OS design. Incidentally, the Tandem runs the BOLT (Bombay Stock
Exchange trading system) and it is as reliable as anything else. The much
touted OSS features of a community review being guarantee of high quality OS
is not a panacea for bad design. GNU lifted the UNIX design concepts, so the
reliability inherent in UNIX design was simply an inherent advantage of the
original, the community review fixed the bugs created in the process of
recreating the coding. And yes, the community review then worked well for
all the future changes (which anybody will say were non-trivial, no argument
there). But we got to be careful when we assign FULL credit for quality of
software to community review structure; the quality of GNU/Linux is is due
to the UNIX design which was the original masterful creation of which
GNU/Linux is a recreated-from-scratch copy, may be a creative copy at the
best.

(3) To the IBM like companies that are contributing to Linux maintenance,
Linux is a competitive advantage against Microsoft. Microsoft isn't adopting
Linux anytime soon. Old timers like me will recall that MS is not entirely
away from *NIX world. MS sold and supported XENIX, a *NIX variant for some
time. But given MS's current business strategy of Windows, IBM and Oracle
know that to sell their Databases with free Linux makes a great competitive
sales pitch and a safe USP against Microsoft. Plus, they eliminate their
dependence on MS for OS level work given that MS competes with them in DBs
too with its SQL Server product.

It is just fine that each OSS contributor may have their own sweet reasons
to contribute to OSS. Only point here is that quantum of corporate
contribution is significantly large to wonder if the Linux growth is after
all a community phenomenon or a corporate sponsored project that is
community vocal chord powered.

Please don't get me wrong, Linux is a huge change in the way software is
developed. It is beautiful to see software getting created by best minds
being able to collaborate across corporations, universities and individuals.
But whatever its size, a community is a finite group of people. Just as
great OSs were created in IBM labs (one group of people), another great OS
was created by another community at AT&T Bell Labs (another group of
people). And we cannot forget the great minds at PARC and APPLE created some
of the most loveable OS/interfaces ever created. Many unsung achievements
were in form of AMIGA's amazing OS, way way ahead of its time. I don't think
that just because something is proprietary and available for money that it
is not as good at the open source alternative. Point is let everyone create,
make great things, and if money and proprietary nature is necessary for some
to create, so be it. Ultimately, the concepts from "proprietary" OS have
become the standards in the fields (imagine a GUI that is not like XEROX
Star or Apple Mac GUI ! Impossible) and available for all to improve  upon
and design around if necessary. Community ain't the answer to ensure a
stream of great software creation in future, it may be one of the solutions,
but just one is not enough.

Regards,
Hasit Seth
(http://www.indyvation.com)


On 3/3/07, Jeebesh Bagchi <jeebesh at sarai.net> wrote:
>
>
> How do we interpret this data beyond some simple positional gesturing?
>
> GNU/Linux has emerged from a huge base of voluntary effort and over
> the last 5 to 6 years is being used by many companies, because the
> code base is high quality and immensely usable for both high-end and
> consumer end work. These companies have contributed to the code. GPL
> has ensured that the codes remained with the user/producer.
>
> What do we learn from this?
>
> best
> jeebesh
>
> On 02-Mar-07, at 1:42 PM, Hasit seth wrote:
>
> > Hi,      Quite a few actvists believe that free software like Linux
> > is written by hackers in their free time with noble intentions of
> > giving away things for free. While quite a bit of that is true, the
> > story is not that "pure" fantasy untainted by the evil corporate
> > world of greed and greenbacks. Take a look at this article and
> > survey. I agree beforehand that it is selective in the that it only
> > studies the Linux Kernel, further, minor numbers are ignored. But
> > the major set of data shows conveys the message.   Regards Hasit
> > Seth   Full article is at : http://lwn.net/Articles/222773/
> > Who wrote 2.6.20?
> > Top changeset contributors by employer
> > (Unknown) 1244 25.0%
> > Red Hat 636 12.8%
> > (None) 383 7.7%
> > IBM 368 7.4%
> > Novell 295 5.9%
> > Linux Foundation 261 5.2%
> > Intel 178 3.6%
> > Oracle 126 2.5%
> > Google 97 1.9%
> > University of Aberdeen 79 1.6%
> > HP 78 1.6%
> > Qumranet 71 1.4%
> > Nokia 67 1.3%
> > SGI 64 1.3%
> > Astaro 63 1.3%
> > MIPS Technologies 61 1.2%
> > SANPeople 53 1.1%
> > Miracle Linux 43 0.9%
> > MontaVista 41 0.8%
> > Broadcom 39 0.8%
> >
> > Looking instead at the number of lines of code changed, the results
> > become:
> >
> > Top lines changed by employer
> > (Unknown) 66154 19.0%
> > Red Hat 44527 12.8%
> > (None) 38099 11.0%
> > IBM 25244 7.3%
> > Astaro 15306 4.4%
> > Linux Foundation 13638 3.9%
> > Qumranet 12108 3.5%
> > Novell 11930 3.4%
> > Intel 11652 3.4%
> > SANPeople 9888 2.8%
> > NetXen 9607 2.8%
> > Sony 8497 2.4%
> > Broadcom 8349 2.4%
> > Tensilica 8195 2.4%
> > Nokia 5581 1.6%
> > MontaVista 4394 1.3%
> > University of Aberdeen 4324 1.2%
> > LWN.net 3975 1.1%
> > Secretlab 3370 1.0%
> > HP 3211 0.9%
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > commons-law mailing list
> > commons-law at sarai.net
> > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070305/d2f57074/attachment.html 

From chansoobak at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  6 10:57:18 2007
From: chansoobak at yahoo.com (chan park)
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 21:27:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Commons-Law] Novartis Hearing Update, 6.3.07
Message-ID: <20070306052718.81021.qmail@web37704.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Although the Novartis matter was set to resume this morning in the Madras High Court, Justice Balasubramaniam adjourned the matter until the 26th of March, as he was feeling unwell.  We will resume our updates then.

Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit Team

Anand
Chan
Julie
Asha

 
---------------------------------
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
 Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070305/e2d7ab22/attachment.html 

From chansoobak at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  8 08:42:10 2007
From: chansoobak at yahoo.com (chan park)
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:12:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Commons-Law] The Hindu:  Dilip Shah of IPA on Mashelkar Report
Message-ID: <392394.13344.qm@web37707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2007030802721100.htm&date=2007/03/08/&prd=th&

Dilip G. Shah, Secretary-General of the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance who has had 40 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry, answers questions on what type of pharmaceutical products should be eligible for patents in India; innovation in the Indian industry; and issues raised by the Mashelkar report, which has been withdrawn on account of `technical inaccuracies and plagiarism.' Excerpts from the interview conducted in Mumbai:


                                            How do we define new chemical entity? 
                                            

New Chemical Entity is not defined either in TRIPS or in Indian law, not even in United States patent law. Only the U.S. Food and Drug Association has defined NCE. Nowhere else is there a definition. This makes it clear that each country has the freedom to define in its own law what it considers to be a new chemical entity. This FDA definition is a good definition, which very clearly says that for any new inventive drugs you can submit a patent and any derivatives [small changes in form, usage] are not eligible. 
                                            

The Mashelkar report concludes that India cannot limit patents to NCEs because that would contravene Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement. What is IPA's view? 
                                            

The technical expert group has taken an interpretation of Article 27 without examining its nuances or considering practices followed by other WTO members such as Canada, or even taking note of the judgment of the WTO dispute settlement panel and appellate body [India-Patent Protection for Pharmaceuticals and Agricultural Chemical Products AB-1997-5, WT/DS50/AB/R, December 19, 1997]. Extensive volumes have been written on interpretations of Article 27, 7, and 8 and the Doha Declaration on public health. 


 Two commissions have also examined this. First, the United Kingdom Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR). Dr. Mashelkar was a member. Secondly, the WHO set up a commission on the same subject. Dr. Mashelkar was a member of this also. The commissions came to the same conclusion: defining patentability is a flexibility provided in the TRIPS agreement. 


 The absence of international patent law has led some countries to seek harmonisation in terminology of patent law at WIPO [World Intellectual Property Organisation] since the conclusion of TRIPS. Had TRIPS provided uniform patentability, there should be no need for the United States, European Union, and Japan to demand harmonisation. 


 Instead of examining the technical and legal issues of Article 27 and making use of available evidence, the Mashelkar group developed another set of criteria, which is purely political. This committee wasn't set up for that. 
                                            

What were these criteria? 
                                            

First, the report says they [the technical experts] want access to affordable medicines. But all it says is that every effort must be made to provide drugs at affordable prices to the people of India. But on how and who will make the drugs, there is nothing. You don't need an expert group to make this statement. This is a political statement. 
                                            

Secondly, the report implies that not limiting patents to NCEs would encourage innovation by Indian industry. But in this you encourage only tweaking of molecules [manufacturing derivatives] instead of real innovation. 


 Thirdly, the report claims that Indian industry is capable of only incremental innovation. And as evidence for that, the Mashelkar group cites in Annexure IV of the report, 215 (not 339 as it would appear at first glance) patent applications for incremental innovations. But why are Indian companies doing this? If the U.S. permits incremental innovation and I am going to sell my product in the U.S., I will go by U.S. rules. So I will file applications for the U.S. market for incremental innovation. Concluding from this that incremental innovation is the only capability of the Indian industry is not true. It's not true for the simple reason that companies do not want to make any claims today on where they stand on the development of a new molecule. They treat it as a trade secret. But we have enough evidence that the Indian industry has the capability for original research. Between 1998 and 2004 there were 60 molecules in the pipeline. Only if you ignore this data will you
 come to the conclusion that we can only do tweaking of molecules! And by using that argument you will only perpetuate tweaking of molecules. If you block that route, you push companies to go for high-end research. 
                                            

Fourthly, Dr. Mashelkar says he wants to balance India's obligations under international agreements with the wider public interest. But he is a scientist — that is not his term of reference. He was asked merely to say whether this was TRIPS-compliant or not. Balancing obligations is a political decision. 
                                            

What is your take on the fact that the Mashelkar group's conclusions are "borrowed without acknowledgement" from a paper funded by an association of multinationals? 
                                            

That is not the issue. The issue is intellectual honesty. If Dr. Mashelkar did not agree with what was written in the WHO report or the U.K. CIPR report, which stated that "developing countries should not be deprived of the flexibility of defining their own patent systems," then why did he not record his dissent? Whether he quotes Shamnad Basheer or Frederick Abbot, that is not the issue. 
                                            

What action should the government take? 
                                            

Since Dr. Mashelkar has withdrawn the report on his own, we have to see what new evidence and analysis he produces. This will create a credibility gap. How is he going to substantiate any changes? Anything that he writes in the second report will be compared with the first. He gave explanations to journalists when they asked him why submissions like Frederick Abbott's were not included; he said that only documents with the secretariat were used. But all these documents were available with the secretariat. We submitted some of them. If evidence was available with him earlier, why did he not examine that, analyse it and put it in the report? He has created a very difficult situation for himself and other members of the committee. The Government should not let him withdraw this report. Leave it and close this chapter. 
                                            

Do you think a new committee should be put together? 
                                            

At this moment I think we need to give the present intellectual property rights regime a chance to work. Let it be implemented and we can take at least five years to assess, one its impact on public health, specifically the availability and prices of medicines; two whether patented medicines are brought into this country by the innovators; three, the impact on domestic industry and its ability to export; and four, what sort of R&D is taking place and whether Indian industry has moved to high-end research or not. Then evaluate which direction to take. Until that time there is no need to keep destabilising or creating uncertainty on the IPR regime.

 
 This will not be acceptable to multinationals. So the government has to make a clear statement that we in India are taking a calibrated approach to IPR. 


 
---------------------------------
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070307/ff259d24/attachment.html 

From shai at filterindia.com  Tue Mar  6 17:47:51 2007
From: shai at filterindia.com (shai at filterindia.com)
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 17:47:51 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Experimenta 2007 in Bangalore & Bombay
Message-ID: <E0C083D71C9C4ED5AF001500108B29BE.MAI@weird.cx>

After a highly successful year of showcasing Indian experimental films
at the Tate Modern, London and Images Festival, Toronto, India's
ground-breaking international film and video festival &#8211; EXPERIMENTA
2007 held in Bombay for the past 4 years; now in its 5th year - comes
to Bangalore.

With an exciting array of radical films by innovative filmmakers from
across the globe EXPERIMENTA 2007 has been designed and curated by
Shai Heredia in partnership with eminent guest curator Marc Glode
(Berlin). A selection of 36 films has been meticulously compiled by
the curators, who will be present to contextualize each programme
through the duration of the festival.

EXPERIMENTA 2007 will run from March 8-11 in Bangalore at the
auditorium of the Goethe-Institut/Max Mueller Bhavan. Entry to the
festival is free and open to all. Seating will be on a first come
first served basis.

EXPERIMENTA 2007 will travel to Bombay from March 15-18.

Further information and detailed programme schedule at
www.filterindia.com / filter at filterindia.com and www.goethe.de /
bangalore/arts at bangalore.goethe.org

Please contact Maureen Gonsalves at the Goethe-Institut/Max Mueller Bhavan

EXPERIMENTA is a Filter project in collaboration with Goethe Institute
/ Max Mueller Bhavan.

EXPERIMENTA 2007 is sponsored by HSBC Private Banking and supported by
Sula Vineyards.

PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL


From a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Mar 10 17:19:38 2007
From: a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk (Achal Prabhala)
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:19:38 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Dutfield on Mashelkar Report
Message-ID: <16bb01c7630a$3015db30$0201a8c0@som.yale.edu>

[Ip-health] Mashelkar committee report 
Graham Dutfield g.m.dutfield at qmul.ac.uk 
Fri Mar 9 15:05:02 2007 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------
Dr Graham Dutfield
Herchel Smith Senior Research Fellow in Intellectual Property Law
Queen Mary, University of London
http://www.ccls.edu/staff/dutfield.html

New address from May 2007: Graham Dutfield, Chair in International
Governance, School of Law, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT
--------------------------------------------

Just a few reflections on the report before I shut up for good on this
subject.

The official mandate of the Mashelkar committee was to assess the TRIPS
compatibility of certain patent measures being debated in the Indian
parliament that were not actually in the existing legislation but
related to some extant measures. However, according to Mashelkar in an
interview with pharmabiz.com sent out earlier on IP Health
(http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ip-health/2007-February/010591.htm
l), the real agenda was to assess the TRIPS compatibility of the actual
2005 amendments to the Indian patent legislation. This is what he says:

"There is a confusion in understanding the terms of reference of the
committee. If you go back to the reference of the committee, the issue
before us was whether the amendments made were TRIPS-compatible or not.
Basically, it is a legal and technical issue. And there can be no
deviation or digression from the core issue of the committee as it
consisted of such legal experts as Madhava Menon, Goverdhan Mehta and
Asit Datta."

It seems very odd to me that the Indian government, of course for
reasons relating to domestic politics, commissioned a high-level group
to be seen by many as effectively performing in public the task of a WTO
dispute settlement panel and allowing (encouraging?) its conclusions to
be construed as finding India to be guilty of TRIPS violations.

One wonders how many countries' patent regimes would have a 100% chance
of surviving any WTO challenge. Surprisingly few I suspect. So why is
India doing this to itself? I can't imagine the United States government
commissioning any purportedly independent group of people to examine its
local working requirements concerning patent rights in inventions made
with federal assistance, and report back publicly. That=92s for other WTO
members to take up with them (as Brazil of course did to apparently good
political effect a few years back). One could examine many countries=92
patent laws and find questionable provisions. For example, the UK patent
law's crown use section contains public interest provisions that may
well be TRIPS incompatible. I might add that despite this, no company to
my knowledge has taken on the British government about it in the way
Novartis is doing towards India (Developing countries are of course
usually much softer targets anyway especially when they supply companies
suing them with such ammunition). Neither has the Wall Street Journal
seen fit to cast the UK as part of some axis of IP Evil in those rather
bitter editorials usually targeted at countries like Thailand and
Brazil, who seem to be the current whipping boys in Washington these
days. But this is domestic politics and I don't know very much about
India's. Certainly, from the view of an outsider it's most peculiar if
not perverse.

Frankly, the Mashelkar report is absolute rubbish and should be trashed
completely. And not because of the particular conclusions it came up
with. It would not have been a better quality report if the conclusions
had been the other way. One wonders how much time these committee
members spent on a report that they were apparently given 1-2 years to
produce, and that is so feeble. These people plagiarised 14 lines of
Shamnad Basheer's paper plus 22 lines comprising a slight "repackaging"
of the definitions of micro-organism compiled from the literature by
Margaret Llewelyn and Mike Adcock for the Quaker UN Office as presented
(and correctly cited) in Basheer's report. That's my count but I may
have missed more than this. So that is 36 lines from, well, not a 56
page report as the Indian press tends to state, but one that just about
stretches to 10 pages excluding annexes. As for Annex 5, this seems to
have been put together by a Brazilian law firm. But thankfully they are
named, so the committee is at least in the clear there from accusations
of plagiarism.

They were so unprofessional and incompetent that that couldn=92t even do a
proper table of contents, with the section numbering going from page 2
to 4, back to 2, 10, 15, back again to 2, and then 8-53. If this came
from my students as "finished" work, I would throw it back at them. But
the audience is not me or a couple of PhD examiners: it's the government
and people of India. How can they look at themselves with pride when
they are so sloppy even about the most basic report writing tasks?

Let's now look into the text. Some of these problems were pointed out to
me by my student Rajesh Sagar but I have gone through it all myself too.
On page 2 they refer to themselves as an Expert Group. I shall resist
the temptation for cheap sarcasm and move on. Suffice it to say, this
report displays little genuine expertise.

On page 4, the first paragraph repeats what is on page 2. This means
that section 1.0 (Background) and 2.0 (Approach) contain the same text,
albeit 2.0 adds the names and job titles of these eminences. After this
it hardly gets better.

On page 5, Annex II promises to summarise patenting practices relating
to new chemical entities and micro-organisms in some countries. For
NCEs, it summarises that of just one country, the USA. As for
micro-organisms, the number of countries covered isn't at all great.
Such information is very easy to get. Apparently they could not be
bothered to go find it. That's poor.

Page 5 also promises to provide a summary of the various submissions and
presentations. Well, there are quite a few of those submissions and
presentations. In fact, they form the greater part of the whole report.
But there is little if anything in the way of synthesis or analysis of
these. One wonders how and in what way they influenced the thinking of
the commissioners. Or are they just there for window dressing?

On page 6, the report chooses not to say anything about new medical
entities except to note they are not mentioned in TRIPS. Is that not a
missed opportunity and a failure to fully comply with the terms of
reference? Looks like a cop-out to me.

I understand Professor Mashelkar is a very distinguished scientist.
Nonetheless, this is much more than just a "slip" in the rush of the
"last working day", as he called it. Having said that, this report minus
annexes could have been written by five reasonably hardworking people in
one day quite easily! As for his talk of "technical inaccuracies",
that's an incredible euphemism for plagiarism; rather like Janet
Jackson notorious wardrobe malfunction for what others might call
indecent exposure!

Finally, the whole report looks very suspicious to me. My guess is that
the conclusions had been decided on from the start. This would explain
their total disinterest in producing any original and objective legal
and technical evidence to support those conclusions. I think they just
couldn't be bothered. Therein lies the real scandal of this affair, not
the plagiarism.



--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070310/b8ac9d79/attachment.html 

From songcraft at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 11 15:57:35 2007
From: songcraft at yahoo.com (Anthony McCann)
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 03:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Commons-Law] Enclosure, He(d)gemony, and the Politics of Gentleness
Message-ID: <941307.86253.qm@web33405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hiya all,

Just a note to let ye know that I've put up a real media file (.rm) of a talk I did recently for the Dept. of Folklore and Ethnology/Bealoideas of University College, Cork, called 'Enclosure, He(d)gemony, and the Politics of Gentleness'. If you click on the link to the file it downloads and then streams (if you have Real Player). It's about 57 minutes long.

In it, I outline how my work on my earlier copyright-related work on 'Enclosure and the Commons' has become work on 'Enclosure, He(d)gemony, and Gentleness' to allow me to focus more on relationship and attitude instead of just resources, aesthetics, or texts. I use a brief discussion of enclosing dynamics in the study of folklore as an example. 

The talk can be found on either the front page of http://www.craftinggentleness.org or the front page of http://www.beyondthecommons.com . 

This work is a significant change of direction from a 2001 article I published in 'Ethnomusicology', which very much adopted the resources approach to the notion of 'enclosure of the commons' which I critique in the talk. Any comments welcome.

All the best,

Anthony
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070311/f3c5a52e/attachment.html 

From lokesh at sarai.net  Tue Mar 13 22:28:48 2007
From: lokesh at sarai.net (Lokesh)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:58:48 -0400
Subject: [Commons-Law] Does Science Education Blunt Social Consciousness ?
Message-ID: <45F6D848.3040407@sarai.net>

on the occasion of
/124th Death Anniversary of Karl Marx &
128th Birth Anniversary of Albert Einstien/

Marx Club
/Invite you to/
a Discussion on
*Does Science Education Blunt Social Consciousness ?**
*

Lead Speakers : RAVI SINHA
                            (Physicist & Political activist)
                          
                            VIKRAM VYAS
                            (Lecturer, Deptt. of Physics, St. Stephens)

Student Panel : Awanish (KMC),    Saumya (KMC),   Ishira (St. Stephens),
                         Vaibhav Raj (Ramjas),   Shiekha (Ramjas),  
                         Nayanjyoti (Ramjas)

Venue            : Seminar Room, Kirori Mal College
Time              : 11.00 A.M.
Date               : 14th March, Wednesday.
E-mail            : marxclub at gmail.com


From a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Mar 13 22:14:20 2007
From: a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk (Achal Prabhala)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:14:20 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Frontline: Cleaning up after Mashelkar - Praful Bidwai
Message-ID: <011d01c7658e$dba84d30$0301a8c0@som.yale.edu>

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories/20070323002009400.htm

COLUMN

Cleaning up after Mashelkar 
PRAFUL BIDWAI 

      A JPC to look into the patents law and a strong initiative to promote innovation in pharmaceuticals through the non-patent route are needed.  




FORMER Director-General of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research R.A. Mashelkar has brought disgrace upon India's scientific establishment by producing a tawdry, poorly argued, unbalanced and pro-big business report on India's patents law, at the core of which lies rank plagiarism. Mashelkar has withdrawn the discredited report of the "Technical Expert Group on Patent Law Issues", which he headed. He says he did this to uphold "scientific ethics". But he continues to say: "I stand by the report and its findings, 100 per cent... ." 

He claims that there was no "plagiarism" and that "it would be wrong to attach motives" to the fact that a critical part of his committee's report was bodily lifted from a previously published paper. He minimises and trivialises this thoroughly deplorable and indefensible practice as consisting of mere "technical inaccuracies" or a "copying error by the sub-committee" that wrote the draft. 

It is disingenuous to argue that only "eight to ten lines" were extracted verbatim from the paper in question (by Shamnad Basheer), which was commissioned and published by the United Kingdom-based pro-pharmaceutical industry Intellectual Property Institute. The paper's commissioning clearly points to a conflict of interest. 

What is crucial is that the plagiarised portion forms the heart of the Mashelkar Committee's recommendation that India should not limit the "granting of patents for pharmaceutical substances to new chemical entities only" as that would be incompatible with India's obligations under the TRIPS (Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The recommendation is backed by very little analysis. It cites Basheer, who wrote the paper as a doctoral student, as an authority. 

Yet, Mashelkar has the gall to offer to "re-examine" the old report and "resubmit" it. 

This is not the only instance of plagiarism that Mashelkar stands accused of. In 2004, he co-authored with Shahid Alikhan a book entitled Intellectual Property and Competitive Strategies in the 21st Century (Kluwer Law International, 2004). The bulk of its section on traditional resource rights is lifted from a paper by Graham Dutfield carried in the Bulletin of the Working Group of Traditional Resource Rights (TRR) Spring 1996, No. 2 (The Times of India, February 28). There are as many as five paragraphs in the Mashelkar-Alikhan book that merely paraphrase, or repeat verbatim, sentences from Dutfield's paper, without attribution or acknowledgment. 

This is not the place to discuss Mashelkar or any of the other members of his committee, at least two of whom (Govardhan Mehta and N.R. Madhava Menon) are distinguished and highly regarded individuals. What is material here is not just the ethics of plagiarism but the policy bias of the Expert Group towards Big Pharma and its view that "incremental innovation", and not just new chemical molecules/entities, should be patentable. 

This is a prescription for "evergreening", or the virtually limitless patenting of minor or marginal modifications to drugs in order to retain a monopoly over producing them for indefinite periods. As the "Glivec/Gleevec" case by Novartis now being heard by the Madras High Court demonstrates, this can mean a 1,200 per cent difference in the price of medicines for leukaemia and effective denial of patient access to cheaper drugs. 

Big Pharma vigorously promotes and justifies "evergreening" because it is the surest guarantee of monopoly-based superprofits. But "evergreening" is demonstrably harmful to the goal of promoting public access to essential drugs at reasonable or affordable prices. 

Mashelkar has often unambiguously expressed his pro-industry bias by rooting for monopolistic patents and by urging Indian scientists to file patent applications "before publishing their research". Mashelkar is all praise for a highly questionable legislation being drafted by the Science and Technology Ministry, which is modelled on the lines of the controversial Bayh-Dole Act passed in the United States in 1980, which lifted a long-standing ban on the patenting of federally funded research and facilitated an unhealthy nexus between universities, laboratories and corporate interests. 

The issue of granting stiff intellectual property rights (IPR) protection such as patents for innovation in pharmaceuticals is deeply fraught. As this Column has argued earlier, the very concept of "intellectual property" is problematic: all individual innovations are based and built on the past achievements of others and the common pool of human knowledge. It is even harder to argue that innovations in respect of health-related products should be privileged for pecuniary reward. The ethics of granting patents for medicines is extremely dubious given the life-and-death issues involved. 

Philosophically, it makes little sense to "reward" any innovation through a negative right - in reality, a monopolistic privilege to produce a particular product (or rather, to prevent others from making it). There are other, perfectly viable, forms of recognising and appreciating innovation - for instance, through peer-group acknowledgement. In any case, most patents are held not by individual innovators but by corporations. 

India capitulated to Western pressure to negotiate TRIPS in the Uruguay Round and then found itself left with no choice but to sign the agreement in 1994 and allow the patenting of pharmaceutical products - as distinct from patenting the processes of making them, which is what the Patents Act, 1970, did. 

But this was seen and acknowledged as a compromise driven by compulsions - not the ideal state of affairs as India would like them to be, nor one to be desired. Thus, India amended its Patents Act in 2005 only under explicit pressure from the WTO, which demanded that a mere notification in respect of product patenting would not be enough. 

Policy drift 


However, the Mashelkar Committee report and the new Bill on "rewarding" scientists all point to a major shift in thinking among some of our policymakers. Product patenting - and in general, a stiff, highly monopolistic IPR regime strongly biased in industry's favour - is now seen as acceptable, desirable and worthy in and of itself. 

This is a dangerous sign. It also tells us that policy on important issues such as IPR in respect of medicines or computer software cannot be left in the hands of "eminent" scientists and "experts", many of whom have fallen prey to corporate ways of looking at the world - in which private greed becomes the motive force of innovation, growth and development. 

We need to take remedial measures - urgently and without hesitation. To start with, the Mashelkar Committee has completely lost its credibility. It would be pointless to replace it with yet another "expert" committee. As the unhappy experience with the Knowledge Commission shows, what we need is less technical expertise and more political clarity and a vision rooted in the public interest. 

It would be best to set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), which can summon experts whenever necessary but which will be guided by the spirit of the debate on the patents issue in Parliament in April 2005. The JPC should subject experts' views to the scrutiny of the public interest. 

We need to do much more. There is no reason why we should not explore the limits of TRIPS to the fullest extent (including its public interest-related Articles 7 and 8) and do whatever is possible within its framework, as elaborated by the Doha Declaration on Public Health. 

Equally, we must draw a clear line of distinction between the interests of the pharmaceuticals industry, including its wholly indigenous sector, and the larger social good. The two were closely related (yet conceptually separate) during the TRIPS debate but have become increasingly divergent. Many Indian drug manufacturers support patents for incremental innovations but with a raised bar. 

Three Initiatives 


At least three important initiatives are in order (the last two of which I am indebted to my scientist friend Satyajit Rath of the National Institute of Immunology). First, we must make the granting of patents an adversarial process. Put simply, this means that as in criminal law, which treats an accused as innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, access to knowledge or innovation must be treated as unrestricted unless proved patentable on the strict criteria of novelty, original invention, utility, industrial application, and so on. 

A patent applicant would have to submit extensive data to back his/her claim and allow it to be scrutinised in an adversarial fashion (akin to cross-examination in a criminal trial). This will hopefully limit the number of patents and toughen the criteria for granting them so that the larger public interest of establishing access to affordable medicines prevails over parochial considerations of profit. 

Equally important in such an amended law would be an emphasis on compulsory licensing, or the grant of a licence to a non-patent holder to manufacture a product considered essential in the larger national interest or in a medical emergency (a situation that is near-perennial in Indian society where half the population lacks access to modern medicines). 

Second, we must use public instruments to establish access to essential medicines and to make them affordable. We have a number of pharmaceuticals public sector undertakings (PSUs) that, despite official neglect, lack of support for innovations, and the depredations of the private sector, possess a fair amount of research and development (R&D) capability, good-quality special materials such as yeasts for fermentation, and a proven capacity to make low-cost products. 

The PSUs must be revitalised. They deserve strong R&D support. They should be mandated to produce "social good"-related drugs for national health programmes in large quantities. The government should procure drugs directly from them rather than buy them from the open market. 

In any compulsory licensing regime, PSUs will have a special, probably irreplaceable, role. Many Indian private manufacturers might hesitate to work with compulsory licences for fear of an adverse reaction from the original patent-holder. PSUs would have fewer constraints. 

Third, we must set up a programme to encourage non-patent-based innovation in every sphere. For instance, we must participate in and encourage open source initiatives like Bios (Biological Innovation for Open Society, www.bios.net) , which create a domain of non-patentable but "protected commons". Bios supports innovation in ways that overcome inequities and benefit the disadvantaged and marginalised. 

Equally important is a policy declaration by the government that the fruits of publicly funded research cannot be and will not be patented. Instead, they would be placed in protected commons and made accessible to all institutions and companies that agree not to patent them even though they may use them to generate profits. 

No less significant, we must institute "patent-busting" - just the way many multinational corporations do. This is a perfectly legal operation to break into the patent "thicket" or "hedge" that companies build around a single innovation so that it can be shielded and its patent monopoly preserved. This is perfectly compatible with TRIPS, indeed even with restrictive patents laws in Western Europe and the U.S. It must be put to full use. 

This is the only way India can still fulfil the worthy objective of medicines and health for all while remaining TRIPS-compatible and yet not caving in to market fundamentalism. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070313/436c6bf5/attachment.html 

From a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Mar 13 22:16:03 2007
From: a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk (Achal Prabhala)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:16:03 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Frontline: Batting for MNCs - Dinesh Abrol
Message-ID: <012601c7658f$18e4e050$0301a8c0@som.yale.edu>

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories/20070323001804200.htm

Batting for MNCs 
DINESH ABROL 


      Plagiarism was not the most important charge against the Mashelkar report; it was its bias towards MNCs that was most shocking.  




THE report of the Technical Expert Group on Patent Law Issues is currently in the eye of a storm. This group was set up by the government on April 5, 2005, under the direction of Parliament in order to examine whether India should limit the grant of patents to new chemical entities (NCEs) and define micro-organisms to exclude genes/gene-constructs from patent protection. It was also meant to suggest how this could be done without violating the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, who chaired this group and submitted the report, is a highly embarrassed man because some of its important conclusions have been criticised for being literally copied from a paper prepared by Shamnad Basheer, Associate of Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre. 

This criticism was first made in an article published in The Hindu on February 12, 2007, by Chan Park of the Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit and Achal Prabhala, a researcher on intellectual property rights. They refer to the issue of plagiarism to show how the report, essentially, copied its major conclusions from a work that INTERPAT, a Swiss pharmaceutical lobby group of multinationals, had sponsored. 

Mashelkar's stated claim was that the "technical inaccuracy" was very unfortunate and was basically in terms of the failure to acknowledge the source of eight to 10 lines that were taken verbatim from Basheer's paper. If he is to be believed, this error crept in inadvertently at the hands of a sub-group that the committee had created for drafting the report. Mashelkar responded to the criticism from all over the world by withdrawing the report and sought three months' time from the government to resubmit it. 

Multinational connection 


The charge of plagiarism is not the only serious allegation against the Mashelkar Committee. The recommendations of the report are also influenced by its multinational connection: Ranjit Shahani, vice-chairman and managing director of Novartis India Limited, chairs INTERPAT, India, and is also the elected president of the Organisation of Pharmaceutical Producers of India (OPPI), which advocated the acceptance of the TRIPS proposals. 

The Mashelkar Committee's connection with multinational corporations (MNCs), including Novartis India, is perhaps evident from the fact that Novartis could benefit directly from the recommendations of the report. Currently, this company is fighting a case in the Madras High Court over the `patentability' of its "new" salt used in the treatment of cancer. The case is of interest to small and medium Indian companies and cancer patients who have opposed Novartis' patent application for Gleevec, an essential medicine for the treatment of leukaemia. If Novartis is granted the patent for it, the price of the medicine could increase. The same drug sold by Indian companies is about 10 times cheaper than Novartis' Gleevec in the Indian market. 

Misplaced interest 


Experts consider the patent application filed by Novartis to be an important example of one of the many possible ways of `evergreening' of patents. This court case effectively challenges the legal validity of Indian companies' right to produce the drug. Novartis has even challenged the government on the validity of Section 3(d) of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. It claims that the provisions of this law are TRIPS incompatible. Shockingly, the Mashelkar Committee report, in Para 5.11, endorses this view, tangentially. The issue of the legal validity of the provisions of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, was not part of the Committee's terms of reference. 



Going by the spirit of the deliberations in Parliament, the Committee's mandate was to suggest ways by which India would be able to further strengthen the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Committee was asked to suggest strategies to prevent multinational companies from making use of the `evergreening' possibilities available to them under the current patents law. The Mashelkar Committee did the opposite: it tried to pass off the interests of MNCs and select Indian corporations (such as Ranbaxy and Nicholos Piramal) as the national interest. 

The Committee concluded: 

1. "[I]t would not be TRIPS compliant to limit granting of patents for pharmaceutical substance to new chemical entities"; 

2. "excluding micro-organisms per se from patent protection would be violative of the TRIPS Agreement"; 

3. "limiting grant of patents to new chemical entities will not be conducive to competitive growth and incremental innovations are sequential developments that build on the original patented product - and therefore, such incremental innovations ought to be encouraged by the Indian patent regime"; 

4. "with an enabling provision for protection of intellectual property in bio-technological innovations and inventions provided through the provision of patentability of micro-organisms, the Indian biotechnological research would be enabled to compete globally, attract collaborations, FDI, contract R&D etc". 

The Committee's conclusions were biased; its analysis was thin and presented without cogent arguments. The conclusions were not even based on the clarifications provided in the Doha Declaration on TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. This declaration clearly affirms that "the Agreement (TRIPS) can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO members' right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all". 



The Mashelkar Committee conveniently ignored the recommendations of the 2002 study entitled "Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy" produced by United Kingdom Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, an authoritative international group. It also ignored the conclusions reached by the World Health Organisation (WHO) Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health in its 2006 report. 

Both these international bodies have unambiguously clarified that "since there is no definition of invention in the TRIPS Agreement, developing countries may determine in their own ways, the definition of an invention, the criteria for judging patentability, the rights conferred on patent owners and what exceptions to patentability are permitted". 

In fact, the U.K. Commission specifically recommends that developing countries should aim at "limiting the scope of subject matter that can be patented". Mashelkar was himself a member of the U.K. Commission. Furthermore, the Pharmaceutical Research and Development Committee (PRDC), which produced its report in 2001 and was chaired by Mashelkar, also recommended that "pharmaceutical patents should be granted only for new chemical entities or new medical entities". 

The Mashelkar Committee's report was full of quotes from laws of developed nations on the patenting of pharmaceutical inventions and micro-organisms. It had no analysis of the political economy of these laws and was hardly concerned about their lessons for the interests of India. It ignored the views of not only public interest groups but also of the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance (IPA) and the Indian Drug Manufacturers Association (IDMA), the two most important groups of the Indian drug industry. 

The Committee's report indicated that it was in the national interest to allow incremental innovations since in-house capabilities of the Indian drug industry were limited. It reached this conclusion on the basis of the examination of international patents filed by selected Indian companies. It ignored the fact that patents law was territorial in nature and had to be in line with both the stage of development of the industry and the socio-economic conditions of the nation. Interestingly, Shamnad Basheer himself states: "The key failing of the Committee is not engaging with the tough policy issues. The conclusions may be correct, but there is much to be said for the manner in which they were arrived at." 

The issue of the cost of drug research appeared only once, indirectly, in the report; the Committee was sceptical of the capacity of Indian companies to raise investments for the development of NCEs. The Committee noted: "Drug discovery research is still finding its feet in India. Though many companies are investing, it will at least be a decade before a critical mass is in place and results start accruing. Thus, restricting patentability to just NCEs would mean that most of the pharmaceutical product patents would be owned by MNCs." But it did not address the obvious question: would MNCs not be successful in owning the largest number of incremental pharmaceutical product patents too? 

The Committee did not even consider possible alternatives within the framework of the TRIPS Agreement on the issue of patentability of incremental innovations. It would be in the interests of both the public and the Indian industry to design a patents law that would protect only "new drugs" (NCEs) under the provision of product patents and use the provision of process patents to protect the remaining incremental pharmaceutical innovations. In this way, it would still be possible, in a manner compatible with TRIPS, to use the provisions of "dependent" non-voluntary or compulsory licences for the introduction of even those new drugs that are still under product patents. Indian companies would still be required to use the Patents Act as an instrument of balanced competition, involving less litigation. If Section 3(d) of the current Act, which spells out what is not patentable in the drug industry, is retained in such a law, it will need to include additional safeguards of clinical superiority. This strategy would encourage the Indian drug industry to develop as a complete value chain, allow the national innovation system to become more oriented to the domestic market and encourage public sector research-and-development (R&D) organisations to undertake more work on neglected diseases. 

The Mashelkar Committee did not distinguish between discrimination and differentiation. It cited Article 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreement to argue that it would be TRIPS incompatible to limit patentability to NCEs and that India could not exclude certain kind of "pharmaceutical inventions" from the scope of patentable inventions. The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, excludes patenting of inventions relating to atomic energy (Section 4) and in the area of national security (Section 39) broadly if the invention is relevant for defence purposes. 

As for the problem of attracting foreign direct investment in contract R&D and the manufacture of bulk drugs, a good contract law that meets the requirements of confidentiality would suffice. Already, India has been able to attract a lot of investment in contract R&D and also foreign direct investment; it can do so in the future, too, without strengthening the Patents Act in favour of MNCs. 

Parliament might consider referring the matter of the Mashelkar Committee report to the Standing Committee of the Ministry of Commerce, instead of allowing Mashelkar to resubmit the report. That would put Parliament in a better position to work out the mechanisms of strengthening the patents regime and to address the issues raised here. 

Dinesh Abrol is co-convener of the National Working Group on Patent Law and a scientist with the National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070313/20c7f099/attachment.html 

From a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Mar 13 22:17:43 2007
From: a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk (Achal Prabhala)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:17:43 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Frontline: Against Monopoly - Yusuf Hamied
Message-ID: <012f01c7658f$53c44990$0301a8c0@som.yale.edu>

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/stories/20070323001904600.htm

Against monopoly 
SARAH HIDDLESTON 


      Interview with Dr. Yusuf Hamied, chairman, Cipla Limited.  




YUSUF K. Hamied is the chairman of Cipla, one of India's largest pharmaceutical companies and the country's fifth largest private spender in research and development. Both an entrepreneur and a scientist, Hamied is considered a pioneer of the Indian drug industry. Since returning from Cambridge with a PhD in organic chemistry in the 1960s, he has fought for the right of the Indian industry to develop drugs for sale at low cost on payment of a royalty to the inventor. In February 2001, he broke the monopoly of multinational drugs companies on HIV/AIDS drugs by offering the world the first triple therapy combination at less than a dollar a day. 

Hamied was awarded the Padma Bhushan in 2005 for his efforts in trade and industry. Ironically, that was the same year India amended its patents laws to adhere to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). In the light of controversies on the Mashelkar Committee report, Hamied spoke to Frontline on the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, and the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Exerpts from the interview given in Mumbai: 

How does India's Patents Act interplay with international obligations under the TRIPS Agreement? 

Patent laws in general are national laws, not international. No two countries have the same patent laws. British law is different, American law is different, German law is different. So every country decides for itself, within a framework, what the national laws should be. And within the needs of that particular time. That is important. 

The present problem, which arose after the patents Bill was passed, is what the definition should be for patentability. For that, there was Section 3 (d) [which states] that unless there is a substantial improvement in the efficacy of a drug, you cannot patent a polymorph or a salt or an esther or a metabolite or a pro-drug and so on. Now, that is correct, because that is what stops evergreening. The point they put in was [that there should be a] substantial improvement in efficacy. How do you define that? It's vague, it can go to court. What Mashelkar was saying was that incremental improvements should be allowed to be patented. 

What should be the defining criteria for a patent? 

A patent has to be something that is totally novel, inventive. Suppose this is a product [holds a business card] and then you just do that [turns it through 90 degrees], is that a novelty or not? In my personal opinion, no. You have a patent or a dozen patents on a product - fine. But some products today have 240 patents - is that what patenting is all about? Take the first anti-AIDS drug, AZT. It was invented in 1963. Only in 1985 did they find out that it was good for HIV/AIDS. So it was re-patented in 1985, [and given a] usage patent for AIDS until 2005. Come 2003, GlaxoSmithKleine says that AZT by itself is no good, and it has to be given in combination with a drug called Lamuvidine. Lamuvidine's patent expires in 2007. They put the two together in one tablet, and took out a patent in 1997. That patent in America and most European countries is valid up to 2017. Now, directly and indirectly, AZT, has a monopoly for 54 years. My fight over this patent issue is not against patents. We have never been against patents. An inventor should be rewarded. But countries in the third world cannot afford a monopoly... . 

Now, post-2005, you will see us going back to the pre-1972 era. I call it genocide. In 2015, drugs won't be available at affordable prices. It's going to be a catastrophe. 

What would you say to the idea that the Indian pharmaceutical industry's strength is just in making small changes? 

What do you mean by small changes? There are two types of R&D [research and development] in the world. One is concept, and the other is `me too'. Now, conceptual research is done essentially by universities, NIH [National Institutes of Health], [and is] government funded. In America, $20 billion is spent in universities and NIH on conceptual research. The multinational pharmaceutical industry, even if it is Pfizer or Bayer, is essentially investing in `me too' research. Diazepam, the first major tranquiliser [is a] concept drug. Then you have Alprazolam and Lorazepam and Midazapam and Temazepam, and so on, [of the same] family. Typically, the breakthrough drugs normally happen through government-supported venture capital or small companies, and then they get taken over by the big boys. Today, 70 per cent or more of all drugs marketed were not invented by the guys who are selling them. I develop something I can't sell; I go to Pfizer and ask them to sell it for me. They'll take it up. Lipitor, the world's number one drug, was not invented by Pfizer. Ninety per cent of the drugs for HIV were not invented by the originator. 

In 1987, I came out with Deferiprone, marketed as Kelfer, a drug for thalassemia [an inherited disease of red blood cells]. I thought it would sell well in India; it was an iron chelator. It didn't sell. So, I go to doctors in India and say here is a drug, why aren't you using it? [Their response was:] "Dr Hamied, if the drug is as good as you say it is, how come other companies like Pfizer haven't brought it out?" Even if I do the research, the acceptability is not there. How many countries have come out with a drug on their own steam? None. So, how will I be successful on my own if I bring out a new product? It's very difficult. 

Do you think patents should be restricted to new chemical entities? And to what extent do you agree with the analysis of the Mashelkar report? 

Definitions should be very exact. There is no real definition of a new chemical entity. I would say "a new chemical entity in relationship to a drug". Then I can say for certain if it is active, if it has some efficacy. Patenting is when someone has invented something [and] needs a suitable award. A patent to me is the grant of a favour by the state to the inventor. You have a monopoly for 20 years. If it is something that I have gifted to you, it is something that I can withdraw as well. 

In the context of India's development, a national law should be made to suit India and to suit Indians. Just because six or seven pockets of India are superdeveloped, it doesn't make India a superdeveloped country. There are several Indias within India. If you take Assam, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, we are backward. Has the WTO defined `least developed country'? How do you define `least developed' country? I tried to investigate it. There is a U.N. definition - 500 dollars per capita income. Moreover, any country with a population of over 75 million cannot be considered least developed. Why is India not in the least developed category? Look at the Human Development Report. Under Low Human Development Index, India; under medium, even Peru, Sri Lanka and so on. We are in the bottom 50 of 138 countries. 

What action should the government take? 

The issue that makes my blood boil is that this should have been done prior to March 2005, not post-March 2005. I am not against patents, I am against monopoly. The word `incremental' never existed when the patent law was discussed. All this should have been discussed pre-2005. Let Parliament withdraw the patents law of 2005 and reinstate the 1970 Act until it sorts out the problem of defining patentability and so on. And, if not, then get out of the WTO. In what way has membership of the WTO helped India? Not at all. Every deal is bilateral today. China was not a member, yet the Americans gave preferred-country treatment to China, so all the imports to China were duty free. 

The Ministers and Secretaries say the government is bowing to the inevitable. Kamal Nath has said we cannot upset the international community... 

What do you mean by that? Investment in India is short term. They will only invest in India if they can get their money out in three years. Then they don't mind continuing. We are sitting here like guinea pigs. 

What we have [going on] is PR&D [public relations and development] All research has to be accountable. Mashelkar makes a statement that CSIR will take out 1,000 patents every year. Since 1995 they should have taken out 10,000 patents. Has any one drug come out of it? No. Can he explain the outcome of the CSIR research in actual commercial terms? It's very easy to talk, but what is the track record?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070313/257d5926/attachment.html 

From a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Mar 13 22:19:28 2007
From: a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk (Achal Prabhala)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:19:28 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] ZeeNews: Mashelkar can resubmit report: Govt
Message-ID: <014c01c7658f$934e9d40$0301a8c0@som.yale.edu>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070313/82786d1f/attachment.html 

From a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Mar 13 22:20:39 2007
From: a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk (Achal Prabhala)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 22:20:39 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] ZeeNews: Mashelkar can resubmit report - Govt
Message-ID: <015901c7658f$bd7f1720$0301a8c0@som.yale.edu>

http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=359785&sid=NAT


      Mashelkar panel to review its report on patent laws 
     
     
      New Delhi, March 13: The government today said it has asked an expert group under R A Mashelkar to re-examine its report on patent law issues and remove inaccuracies. 

      "The government has agreed to allow the technical expert group to remove technical inaccuracies in the report," Minister of State for Industry Ashwani Kumar told Lok Sabha in a written reply to a question. 

      He said the group was set up to examine whether patents should be granted to new chemical entity or new medical entity, involving one or more inventive steps. 

      The group was also asked to examine whether it would be compatible with the trips agreement of the WTO to exclude micro-organisms from patenting. 

      Kumar said reports had surfaced in the media regarding plagiarism in the report and the chairman of the group requested for government approval to withdraw the report and re-examine it. 

      He said that the group would take three months for resubmitting the report. 

      In reply to another question, Kumar said there was no committee on foreign direct investment which has asked national security council secretariat to provide guidelines for sectors and nations from which investment need to be closely monitored. 

      Govt takes initiatives to promote medical tourism 

      To promote medical tourism in the country, the government has taken several initiatives, the Rajya Sabha was informed today. 

      In a written reply, Minister of Tourism and Culture Ambika Soni said, "The Ministry of Tourism in collaboration with the Ministry of Health has already initiated several measures to promote medical tourism." 

      Apart from promoting India as a healthcare destination in international travel fairs and overseas market, publicity materials like brochure, CDs and films have been distributed in the target markets. 

      "A guide on select Indian hospitals of the country for health tourism purposes has been placed on the tourism ministry`s website for wider publicity," Soni said. 

      10% subsidy on loans to promote budget hotels 

      A subsidy of 10 per cent is offered on the loans to promote the construction of budget category hotels in India, Rajya Sabha was informed today. 

      In a reply, Ambika Soni said a tax holiday for five years for the budget hotels has already been announced by the Minister of Finance in the proposed budget 2007-2008. 

      This would apply to hotels being constructed in Delhi and some adjoining districts to promote investment in this sector. 

      Construction of hotels is primarily a private sector activity and the ministry only facilitates the process, Soni said. 

      An estimated 30,000 additional hotel rooms will be required in Delhi and the national capital region to meet the requirement of Commonwealth Games 2010. 

      A budgetary allocation of Rs 10 crore has been proposed for the year 2007-2008 for creation of land banks for hotels, the minister said. 

      Bureau Report 
     
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070313/7cccb36f/attachment.html 

From a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Mar 13 23:05:57 2007
From: a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk (Achal Prabhala)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:05:57 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] COL Copyright Audit
Message-ID: <02b501c76596$176f5320$0301a8c0@som.yale.edu>

The Commonwealth of Learning (COL) has put out an audit report for copyright law, prepared in December 2006 by Tobias Schonwetter of the University of Cape Town and I, which may be of interest/use to some:

http://www.col.org/colweb/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/docs/COLCopyrightAudit.pdf

The document was designed for policymakers as a concise intro to copyright, a2k and learning - through a set of about 50 short questions. COL is in the process of sending this out to Commonwealth member states, and if you would like more information on the exercise, please contact Paul West, pwest -at- col.org

Cheers.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070313/7afcc9da/attachment.html 

From k.ravisrinivas at gmail.com  Wed Mar 14 08:11:01 2007
From: k.ravisrinivas at gmail.com (ravi srinivas)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:11:01 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Frontline: Cleaning up after Mashelkar - Praful Bidwai
Message-ID: <eb75b7990703131941v6e84814buc348b365a643369d@mail.gmail.com>

Praful Bidwai will be doing a great service to all of us if he stops writing
like this.I may even say that if he stops writing it will be a great
service :).   The controversy over the report by Mashelkar committee is now
being used by many to put forth their favorite ideological positions and
opposition to intellectual property rights per se, anti WTO agendas etc.
The left perhaps wants to turn the terms of the debate in its favor and
indulge in rhetorical posturing. I think it is high time that the focus is
brought back on the core issues.This issue is not just a question of taking
pro-MNC or anti-MNC position. It is one thing to reduce it to a mere
technical question as if that it has no relevance for policy.It is another
thing to reduce it to pro-MNC vs anti-MNC issue.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070314/832b9cf5/attachment.html 

From Isa_Seow at mpaa.org  Wed Mar 14 08:48:44 2007
From: Isa_Seow at mpaa.org (Isa_Seow at mpaa.org)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:18:44 +0800
Subject: [Commons-Law] unsubscribe
In-Reply-To: <eb75b7990703131941v6e84814buc348b365a643369d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <739151BEC852624CA9B8175645D751D501B9234D@sgmail.sg.mpaa.org>

unsubscribe


________________________________

From: commons-law-bounces at sarai.net
[mailto:commons-law-bounces at sarai.net] On Behalf Of ravi srinivas
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:41 AM
To: commons-law at sarai.net
Subject: [Commons-Law] Frontline: Cleaning up after Mashelkar - Praful
Bidwai

 

Praful Bidwai will be doing a great service to all of us if he stops
writing like this.I may even say that if he stops writing it will be a
great service :).   The controversy over the report by Mashelkar
committee is now being used by many to put forth their favorite
ideological positions and opposition to intellectual property rights per
se, anti WTO agendas etc. The left perhaps wants to turn the terms of
the debate in its favor and indulge in rhetorical posturing. I think it
is high time that the focus is brought back on the core issues.This
issue is not just a question of taking pro-MNC or anti-MNC position. It
is one thing to reduce it to a mere technical question as if that it has
no relevance for policy.It is another thing to reduce it to pro-MNC vs
anti-MNC issue. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070314/431ad9d7/attachment.html 

From a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Mar 15 00:54:11 2007
From: a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk (Achal Prabhala)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:54:11 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Business Standard: Mashelkar gets time to purge
	`follies`
Message-ID: <024a01c7666e$59c90350$0201a8c0@som.yale.edu>

http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage.php?autono=277782&leftnm=3&subLeft=0&chkFlg=


      Mashelkar gets time to purge `follies` 
     
      PHARMA MUDDLE 
     
      BS Reporter / New Delhi March 15, 2007 
     
     
     
      The commerce ministry has allowed the technical expert group headed by former Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) chief RA Mashelkar to correct the “technical inacuracies” in the patent law report and re-submit it within three months.  
        
      Mashelkar had wanted the report to be withdrawn as 10 sentences in the report were plagiarised due to “inadvertent” mistakes at the drafting level.  
        
      Meanwhile, Graham Dutfield, a senior researcher with the University of London, in a mail to Internet discussion groups has rejected Mashelkar’s report as “absolute rubbish” that it “should be trashed completely”.  
        
      Dutfield’s reasons: “These people plagiarised 14 lines of Shamnad Basheer’s paper plus 22 lines comprising a slight “repackaging” of the definitions of micro-organism compiled from the literature by Margaret Llewelyn and Mike Adcock for the Quaker UN Office as presented (and correctly cited) in Basheer’s report. That’s my count but I may have missed more than this. So that is 36 lines from, well, not a 56-page report, as the Indian Press tends to state, but one that just about stretches to 10 pages excluding annexes...  
        
      “... the whole report looks very suspicious to me. My guess is that the conclusions had been decided on from the start. This would explain their total disinterest in producing any original and objective legal and technical evidence to support those conclusions. I think they just couldn’t be bothered. Therein lies the real scandal of this affair, not the plagiarism...”  
        
      Reacting to the government’s decision, CPI(M) reiterated today its demand that the patent issues should be handed over to a joint parliamentary committee and not left with the technical expert group (TEG) as “vital portions of the report were an act of plagariasm and cheating” and were aimed at protecting “the interest of multinationals”.  
        
      TEG was set up to examine TRIPS (the trade related intellectual property rights) agreement of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) compatibility of limiting the grant of patents to new chemical entities (only new discoveries and not new uses of old discoveries).  
        
      It was also asked to examine whether it would be compatible with TRIPS to exclude micro-organisms from patenting.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070315/6f96097f/attachment.html 

From a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Mar 15 00:55:17 2007
From: a_prabhala at yahoo.co.uk (Achal Prabhala)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:55:17 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] The Hindu: Expert group to review Mashelkar report
Message-ID: <025301c7666e$82244800$0201a8c0@som.yale.edu>

http://www.hindu.com/2007/03/14/stories/2007031407021200.htm

Expert group to review Mashelkar report 
Special Correspondent 

      To remove "technical inaccuracies" on patent law issues  





NEW DELHI: The Government has permitted a Technical Expert Group to remove "technical inaccuracies'' from the controversial Mashelkar report on patent law issues, Minister of State for Industries Ashwani Kumar said in a written reply in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday. 

The former chief of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), R. A. Mashelkar, has been accused of plagiarising the recommendations of a study backed by multinational pharmaceutical companies and presenting them as his own in the report. He and four others were asked to study two key issues that were objected to by the Left Parties while agreeing to help approve the Patents Bill. 

Mr. Kumar said following reports in the media of plagiarism, Dr. Mashelkar had sought the Government's approval to "withdraw, re-examine and resubmit the report [so that it] meets with the requirements of the highest standards. The Government has allowed the TEG to remove the technical inaccuracies in the report.'' 

However Left parties, experts and the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance wanted the Government to reject the report because "it dresses up MNC interest as national interest.'' They favoured a Joint Parliamentary Committee to examine the two issues — limiting pharma patents to a chemical entity or in case of substantial improvements and excluding micro organisms from the patents regime.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20070315/bb84ea06/attachment.html 

From jeebesh at sarai.net  Thu Mar 15 14:52:24 2007
From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:52:24 +0530
Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: [foil] Press Release: Savage State Terror in
	Nandigram
Message-ID: <1C700F33-EF35-4709-AC34-F4204D5F8F9C@sarai.net>

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: nilanjan hajra <nhajra at hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:59:03 AM
Subject: FW: Fwd: [foil] Press Release: Savage State Terror in  
Nandigram!
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 04:28:59 +0000

In addition to the protests listed below against Buddhadeb  
Bhattacharjee-led
CPI(M) government's well planned (for over two months) and calculated  
murder
(the police IG was constantly in touch with the Chief Minister) of at  
least
20 farmers in Nandigram, the following leading theater personalities  
(as far
as I know, there may be some more) of West Bengal have resigned from the
West Bengal Natya Academy, refusing to have any connection with the  
killers:

Mr. Bibhas Chakraborty
Mr. Monoj Mitra
Mr. Ashoke Mukhopadhyay
Mr. Kaushik Sen
Mr. Bratya Basu

Bratya Basu has written a moving piece in Bengali daily Ek Din on farmer
Haradhan Bag's suicide after losing his land in Singur to the TATA  
MOTORS.

EK DIN Editor Suman Chattopadhyay in a signed front page Editorial has
compared the Nandigram murder to Jaliwanala Bagh.  West Bengal's  
Governor
Gopal Krishna Gandhi in his reaction has said, "the news has filled  
me with
cold horror" (reproted in all major channels and dailies).

Lawyers in large numbers, irrespective of party affiliations, have  
taken to
the streets across West Bengal in protest.

CPI(M) Politbureau Members Biman Bose, Brinda Karat and Sitaram  
Yechury have
justified the police action.

We appeal to all human beings to join the protest in whatever  
possible form.
   Please also forward these mails to as many as you can especially  
outside
West Bengal.

In Solidarity,
Nilanjan Hajra.
Kolkata.
------------------------------------------------------
Dear All,

A situation of terror has been created by the ruling
C.P.M Government and party in Nandigram over the past
few days. The matter reached a head as a huge
contingent of 4000-5000 comprising the Police Force
along with Para-Military, Rapid Action Force and
Combat Commando Force attacked Nandigram in the name
of "Operation Nandigram". This has come as a
repressive measure in the face of protest and local
movement (Bhumi Ucched Pratirodh Committee (Committee
to Prevent Farmland Eviction)) by the people of
Nandigram against the forceful land acquisition for
proposed SEZs (Salim Group, Indonesia) in the area.

This is the second instance of violence in the area,
the first being in early January when 6 people were
killed. The last instance was provoked in the wake of
the local adminsitration serving notices for land
acquistion. After country wide crticism and protests
againt the state government, the Chief Minister had
issued a statement that no land would be acquired in
Nandigram if the people are not willing. Despite this
statement government has continued to maintain
pressure in the area through deployment of armed
forces. This clearly shows on whose side the Fascist
West Bengal Government is.

Today, on Wednesday morning the armed forces broke
fire on the people as a result of which 20 people have
been killed and over 200 injured. The State Government
and West Bengal police are still not declaring the
numbers dead and injured. A huge protest movement has
spread accross West Bengal. In every district
rallies,demonstrations, road-blockages are being
organised.In Kolkata a protest in the Rajya-sabha and
other places is going on. National Hawker Federation
and
Hawker Sangram Committee is also strongly condemning
this barbaric fascist action of West Bengal government
and organizing rallies all over Kolkata. Reporters
from all the major media institutions are also being
forcefully stopped from covering and reporting the
reality. Two reporters of TARA BANGLA News were
threatened by CPM party caders and are now missing.

WE APPEAL TO ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY TO
CONDEMN THIS FASCIST MOVE BY THE GOVERNMENT TO
PRESSURISE LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO GIVE UP THEIR ONLY
SOURCES OF LIVELIHOODS. WE SEE THIS NANDIGRAM POLICE
FIRING AS A MASS KILLING LED BY THE GOVERNMENT WHO
STANDS ONLY IN SUPPORT OF CAPITALISTS AND ITS OWN
SELFISH INTERESTS.

WE APPEAL TO ALL CONCERNED TO
SEND LETTERS TO THE PRIME MINISTER, PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF MINISTER OF WEST BENGAL CONDEMNING 'OPERATION
NANDIGRAM'
ORGANISE PROTEST MEETINGS AND DEMONSTRATIONS IN OUR
RESPECTIVE CITIES AND REGIONS
SPREAD THE NEWS OF THIS HENIOUS ACT OF THE GOVERNMENT
IN WEST BENGAL
WRITE TO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION FOR IMMEDIATE
INTERVENTION
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

Sudipta Moitra
International Federation of Hawkers and Urban Poor
National Hawker Federation
Hawker Sangram Committee
16/17 College Street, Kolkata-700012, West Bengal,
India.
Tele/Fax: 91-22196688
Mob: 09433972662.
E-mails: ifhup.secretariat at gmail.com ,
nationalhawkerfederation at gmail.com ,
hawkersangramcommittee at gmail.com ,
sudipta.y2k at gmail.com , saktimghosh at yahoo.com

Samar Das, NAPM - 0943335946

Sumit Chowdhury, NAPM - 09830249430
sumit_chowdhary at yahoo.com

In Solidarity
Rifat Mumtaz and Manshi Asher

PLEASE CIRCULATE THIS MAIL WIDELY

II.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6448749.stm

'Seven die' in India farm clash

At least seven people have died after police in
eastern India fired at farmers protesting at
industrial plans.

Riot police were sent to Nandigram in West Bengal
after protests against land being used for a planned
chemical hub.

Police confirm two deaths. Doctors say five others
died of bullet wounds. Unrest in January claimed six
lives.

Protests have gone on despite the state government
pledging to move the plant elsewhere. New economic
zones are a hugely contentious issue in India