In January 2021, the Ministry of Science & Technology released the 5^th draft ‘Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy’. The draft policy was open to comments from stakeholders till January 31, 2021. The draft was finalized and released on the Ministry’s website after nearly 300 rounds of consultations with thousands of stakeholders distributed in terms of region, age, gender, education, economic status, etc. Part of the Government of India’s ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ vision, the aim of the draft policy is to build a self-reliant and strong indigenous ecosystem in the fields of Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI).

The draft policy proposes to inter alia strengthen R&D infrastructure in the country by setting up Higher Education Research Centres (HERCs), a central repository for information on the STI landscape, an open access system for scientific data and resources, and a uniform research and innovation framework at par with international standards.

Notably, the draft policy has recognized the need for Intellectual Property (IP) and suggested relevant measures to boost innovation, viz. IP creation by promotion of such innovation as well as by addressing the challenges in IP protection mechanisms. One such measure is the development of innovation clusters and technology parks which it proposes to leverage for collaborative activities and cost sharing. The second such measure is that of raising mass awareness and sensitizing young innovators and researchers about IP, and in specific, Patent filing and commercialization.

The priorities and framework of the policy have been stated to have a close cross-link with those of the National IPR Policy. In doing so, the draft policy has proposed to identify and address the current challenges in IPR protection and seeks to strengthen the IP regime by streamlining regulatory framework and addressing issues relating to patent management and filing, IP ownership, licensing, sharing, commercializing and transfer.

Another interesting proposal included in the Policy is that of integrating the Traditional Knowledge Systems into the overall education, research and innovation system to promote grassroot and sustainable innovations. Such innovations have also been encouraged by proposing institutional assistance in obtaining or asserting any legal claim (including Intellectual Property) in the said innovations. While the draft policy has gone in depth and included various aspects such as data governance, financial backing for the STI ecosystem, connecting entrepreneurship with research and innovation, etc., the instant summary has largely focused on the aspects addressing IP protection and related measures.

The draft policy can be accessed here:

https://dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/STIP_Doc_1.4_Dec2020.pdf

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

Blockchain has since its invention been an intriguing technological innovation. The recent application of this digital information storage system is the Non- Fungible Tokens (“NFTs”) which can prove to be a game changer for the Digital Arts Industry. Fungible simply means something which is mutually interchangeable. NFTs are non interchangeable (unique) cryptographic tokens which can represent digital assets (music, images, tweets, videos, etc.) and are useful in determining the authenticity and ownership of such digital assets.

In the era of digitalization, piracy of digital content and its misappropriation largely undermine the economic potential of such assets. Moreover, claims of ownership and authenticity pose further challenge to monetization of digital assets. These challenges are being taken care of by the NFTs.

Since NFTs are unique tokens, each such token can represent only one digital asset, thereby forming a unique identity to that digital creation. Though the digital content may be reproduced, the token identifies that digital asset is not reproducible. Moreover, the technology enables the creator of digital content to track all the subsequent transactions and make provisions for royalties in the form of a Blockchain enabled contract to be executed at the time of first sale.

The draft bill proposing to ban cryptocurrencies in India- ‘Banning of Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill, 2019’, under section 2(a) defines tokens generated through cryptographic means as cryptocurrency; whereas section 3 seeks to criminalise dealing in cryptocurrencies within the territory of India. Therefore, the draft bill, if passed in its present form, would lead to complete banning of all types of NFTs in Indian Digital Market. The Government should reconsider the draft bill to exclude NFTs at least partially from its ambit.

The primary motivation of the Government for being harsh on cryptocurrency seems to be the technological challenges in regulating virtual currency. However, NFTs can serve a useful purpose.  Being merely an application of the Blockchain technology to generate a unique token on cryptographic databases, a limited use of NFTs for digital arts has the potential to bring about a revolution in the digital arts market. Thus, the government should reconsider its policy for cryptocurrency. 

While globally, artists are getting “unimaginable monetary returns” for their digital art [1], there seems no justifiable reason why Indian Digital Artists should be denied making the most of this technological innovation. No matter the Government’s stance over its proposed ban on cryptocurrencies, the applications of blockchain and cryptocurrencies continue to evolve.

References: 

[1] https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/interview-anand-venkateswaran-vignesh-sundaresan-metakovan-twobadour-nft-beeple-christies/article34318045.ece

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

The COVID-19 pandemic was a harbinger of change in the functioning of every industry across the globe, law firms being no exception. It accelerated us to the future, causing IPOs, in-house practitioners, and law firms to pivot perhaps more quickly than anticipated. The traditional system underwent a drastic makeover with remote working, remote communications and meetings, online invoicing and payments, and even remote court appearances and TMO hearings being the norm. Future law firms are expected to be better acclimatized and more evolved in their practices and procedures from the pandemic-learnings, hopefully  more agile and effective as well as more diverse and inclusive.

Future trends in law firms that are anticipated are the moves toward a business partner relationship, technological advancement such as AI and automation, and operational changes, such as the blurring of separation between IP professionals and service providers. Over the years, the scope of an IP firm has transcended traditional roles of trademark protection and enforcement and embarked into the territories of service providers viz public relations, policy, data privacy, regulatory services, promoting innovation, providing education on IP, and understanding the IP marketplace, such as how stakeholders discern IP valuation and make licensing decisions etc.

The INTA’s “In-House Practice of the Future Think Tank Report”[1] remarks upon this trend- “In the future state, trademarks will continue to be the key area of responsibility; however, the roles will evolve, as the nature of the work continues to change, and in-house teams take on additional responsibilities,” Clients are increasing their expectations from the in-house legal teams, who are increasingly being tasked to do more with less. IP professionals will also continue to expand the scope of their services, donning the hat of a business advisor. Law firms will strive to equip themselves with the knowledge and flexibility to counsel and support business clients across wide-ranging industries and issues.

It is imperative for law firms to remain flexible and diversify their services customizable to client specific business needs. It will be the add-on services such as branding, portfolio management, the use of technology and communications, innovation, etc. that will set firms apart and ensure their success and growth. The INTA Report also contains an important note about Intellectual Property Offices (IPOs)- “With so much change occurring simultaneously, we must ensure that IPOs of the future are nimble and robust enough to absorb, manage, facilitate, and enable change.” To conclude, this author is of the view that the future of IP professionals entails a shift from being just restricted to legal advice to more comprehensive client service.

References:

1. https://www.inta.org/perspectives/ip-law-firms-of-the-future-think-tank-report/ last accessed on March 26, 2021

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

In terms of creativity, the world is our oyster for inspiration. However, there is a limit on the extent and scope of what one could use to create and innovate owing to statutory safeguards vested with creators of intellectual properties. For instance, Copyrights Act, 1957 and Patents Act, 1970 confer exclusive rights to the creators or inventors in their works and any unauthorized use thereof is liable to be punished for infringement. As a result, most creators or inventors resort to what is available for common use in the public domain (viz. the commons).

It may be argued that ‘Labour Theory’ propounded by John Locke (viz. recognition of fruit borne as a result of one’s own labour) when examined with reference to Intellectual Property Rights, may act as a basis for granting exclusive rights in intellectual property.

To truly innovate create and develop, however, one requires access to resources. Public domain merely helps level the field in terms of access to material to legally create and innovate. Some of the prominent proponents of the concept of public domain are – ‘Copyleft’, a movement which allows free grant of the right to distribute and utilize intellectual property and ‘Creative Commons’, a nonprofit organization which enables knowledge sharing and creativity through a standardized way of granting copyright permissions for creative works such that creators/innovators are allowed to copy, distribute, and make use of others’ works.

Public domain, thus, should be seen as an important resource and also be expanded often as it helps in boosting creativity. It is imperative that a balance be created between monopoly of rights over creations/inventions and the availability of the same to further innovation.

Another recurring argument against the concept of public domain is that easy and free access of intellectual property works would diminish the value thereof like a free plot of land which would eventually lose its value when it is made available for all animals to graze upon. However, the author reiterates that free access to more works shall only boost creativity and foster inventions to cater to the modern sensibilities, tastes and desires. For instance, sampling of music is a common practice in the music industry, where pieces of sound recordings from existing works are incorporated in a new work. Beethoven’s ‘Symphony 5’ is a piece which is often covered in different genres, yet the author believes there is no loss of appeal in the original work and rather, the work only gains a wide outreach for generations and could still be termed relevant.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

A bill titled ‘The Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021’ (“the Bill”) was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Tamil Nadu in February, 2021. The main objective of the said bill is to ban wagering or betting in cyber space by amending the Tamil Nadu Gaming Act, 1930 (“the Act”) and extending its application throughout the state. Keeping that objective in mind the bill introduces new sections to substitute certain existing sections in the Act and also prescribes the punishment for wagering or betting in cyberspace.

Section 2 is substituted to extend the application of the Act to the whole state of Tamil Nadu. Further, Section 3 is substituted to introduce certain definitions in the Act. It defines gaming to include any game which involves wagering or betting either in person or in cyberspace. However, it does not include a lottery.

Moreover, no person shall wager or bet in cyberspace and play games like Rummy, poker or any other games by using computers, computer resources or any other instrument of gaming. Also, no person shall either facilitate or organize any such wager or bet in cyberspace. It also prescribes the punishment if any person is found indulging in any of the above-mentioned activities. The Bill states that any person who wagers or bets or facilitates or organizes such wager or bet, shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding two years or with fine of upto ten thousand rupees or with both.

Further, the Bill also inserts Section 13-B in the Act. It provides that if an offence is committed by a company under this Act, every person who was in charge of the business of the company, as well as the company at the time of the offence being committed, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence committed and shall be held liable. However, if any such person in-charge proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence, shall not be held liable for such offence. Also, where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it can be proved that such offence has been committed with the consent of the director, manager or any other officer, or such offence can be attributable to any neglect of the director, manager or any other officer, such officer shall be deemed guilty of the offence.

The introduced bill can be accessed at: http://www.stationeryprinting.tn.gov.in/extraordinary/2021/63_Ex_IV_1_E.pdf.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP