India Moving Forward With Dangerous Approach On Expanding Patents

from the get-past-the-myths dept

As India has been revamping its patent policy, there had been some serious concerns about broadening patent subject matter eligibility to include software and business methods. Earlier this year, however, the Indian Patent Office clarified that it would not allow patenting of just straight software patents. And that's good.

But, it appears that that overall push to expand patents in India is still on a dangerous path, based mainly on some longstanding, but flat out incorrect, myths about patents and their impact on innovation. That link is to a story by Anubha Sinha, noting that it's clear that the new plans are designed to benefit giant corporations at the expense of the public, in part by sticking to the myth that if patents are good for innovation, stronger patents must be better -- ignoring that restricting the rights of the public has a real cost.

Delving briefly into the subject of IPRs, it is a matter of principle that a balanced intellectual property (IP) regime, i.e. a model that balances rights with adequate limitations/exceptions, contributes optimally to the holistic development and growth of the nation. Limitations or exceptions are flexibilities in the law, which cut down absolute monopoly conferred by IPRs, and ensure that use and sharing of knowledge for purposes such as research, education and access to medicines are not overridden by IP rightholders’ claims. The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement (TRIPS), which is the largest international agreement governing countries’ IPR regimes also promotes the use of these flexibilities to build balanced regimes. The policy does occasionally state its commitment to the TRIPS agreement and the Doha Declaration, but does not commit or spell out any new concrete steps. Thus, it fails to show any seriousness about upholding and promoting a ‘balanced’ regime – in stark comparison to the detailed and surgical manner in which it aims to raise awareness about IPRs and commercialise them.

This is unfortunate -- and it's also a reason why I've argued we need to move away from calling them "limitations and exceptions" and towards what they actually are: the public's rights. The intellectual property laws, themselves, are "limitations and exceptions" on the public's right to use these things.

Unfortunately, when you don't have much experience with these issues, and you just think that all patents are good and spur innovation, you miss out on how much damage to innovation and the public can be done with a patent regime that goes too far in restricting the public's rights.

The other big myth is that "patents = innovation." As we've noted for years, a rather unfortunate fact is that politicians (and, too often, academics) without a way to accurately "measure innovation" fall back on the easiest thing they can do: count patents. But the number of patents is not a proxy for innovation and in fact is quite misleading. But, because patents are countable, it becomes a metric that everyone keys off of. And we've covered how China, for one, has recently embraced a massive increase in patenting, proclaiming to the US that it's no longer a "pirate nation." But, of course, in the process, it's turned into a giant patent troll, using those patents to punish foreign competitors. But the actual patents that China has been getting, even as the numbers go way up, have been mostly junk.

But, as Sinha notes, it appears that India got the exact wrong message from China:

It is likely that the idea to use the IPR policy as a tool for ‘IPR indoctrination’ to result in staggering IPR generation came to the Indian government from their Chinese counterparts. In 1995, China started conducting elaborate training of its officers, researchers and students to popularise a generation of IPRs and last year the country received 10 lakh patent filings – an international record. At the conference, the officials were in awe of the Chinese statistics, and they were confident of catching up in the next few years. This despite the fact that in China, the race to patent innovations has only led to a proliferation of low value innovations in high numbers. Less than 1% of China’s patents are of intermediate or high value. Thus, China despite its high patent filings shows only a weak innovative performance. Globally, there is enough evidence to show that there is no positive correlation between patent filings and cumulative innovative performance of a country.

Unfortunately, this kind of blind belief that "patents = innovation" may serve to do severe damage to both the public and actual innovation in India. There are lots of (reasonable) concerns about high prices for medicines, but it could also harm India's pharmaceutical industry, which has actually thrived on being able to produce generic drugs that compete globally. Increasing a patent regime would actually stifle that industry. One hopes that at least someone who actually understands how innovation works can get through to the Indian government before it makes a big, big mistake.

Filed Under: china, india, maximalism, patent reform, patents

The End Of Maximalist Copyright?

from the shifting-tides dept

As I noted in my first post, copyright policymaking is driven mainly by politics, self-interest and deep-seated notions of morality at the expense of actual empirical evidence. Overall, this has led to some pretty indefensible policy outcomes, such as the continued extension of copyright terms. And when one considers the Obama administration's continued pursuit of ever-stronger copyright laws, in the United States and around the world, backed by some pretty powerful industries, it's easy to conclude that the centuries-long trend of copyright's expansion is likely to continue indefinitely.

I disagree. Ironically, the purely political nature of so much of copyright policymaking makes it vulnerable to potentially dramatic change. What has been politically made can be politically unmade. And perhaps sooner than we think.

The current US maximalist position on copyright and intellectual property was politically constructed through some savvy lobbying in the 1970s and 1980s by the copyright and IP industries, as documented by scholars such as Susan Sell, and Peter Drahos and John Braithwaite. Since then, US copyright policymaking has been subject to a classic case of regulatory capture, with tight linkages, for example, between the Office of the United States Trade Representative and the content industries.

That said, it's worth remembering that the explosion of (politically relevant) public and corporate interest in user rights and the like is a very recent phenomenon. There have always been groups interested in pursuing copyright balance, but it's only recently that the heavy hitters – Internet companies like Google, and the public at large – have begun to make themselves heard.

Remember the 1990s, when Silicon Valley made a virtue of not being interested in Washington's political games? As recently as 2008, when I was in DC to interview people for this book, I couldn't even find Google's Washington lobbyist. In 2003, Google ranked 213th in terms of spending on lobbying, according to the Washington Post. In 2012, it was in second place.

You can't win if you don't play. Public Knowledge has become one of the most prominent voices in favor of user rights in Washington; their first submission to the Special 301 process was only in 2010, as far as I can tell. And, of course, the 2012 SOPA protests proved that millions of Americans can be mobilized on digital-copyright issues.

This is just a thumbnail sketch, but what it suggests is that it's been less than a decade since the copyright debate got real. And while regulatory capture is a real thing, it will be difficult for any US governmental agency to ignore the potent combination of new players with cash and votes. Anyone with money and influence can play the regulatory-capture game.

I'm not arguing that a user-rights, content-is-free utopia is right around the corner. For one thing, the interests of a for-profit business like Google are very different from those of the average citizen. As a business, Google has proven to be more than willing to make private deals with copyright owners to limit user rights. Businesses, after all, crave stability over everything.

However, the interests of Google (to take only the most prominent of the digital-economy companies) on copyright are sufficiently different from those of the copyright industries currently driving Washington policy that it's reasonable to expect that the current US copyright position is not politically sustainable in the long run. And if digital copyright remains a mainstream political issue, then the prospects of significant long-term reform – in the United States and abroad – are even greater.

Blayne Haggart (@bhaggart) is an assistant professor of political science at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario. His first book, Copyfight: The global politics of digital copyright reform was just published by University of Toronto Press.

Filed Under: copyright, lobbying, maximalism, public interest

USTR Only Wants To Hear From You If Some Foreign Country Isn't Maximalist Enough

from the biasing-the-comments dept

For years, we've pointed out how ridiculous the USTR's Special 301 Report is. The report, which the USTR is required to put out each year, is basically a chance for copyright and patent maximalists to launder their complaints about certain countries through the USTR, allowing such complaints to get the official stamp of the US government, such that diplomats can pressure countries to implement really bad laws. The whole thing is a joke. Everyone admits that there is no actual objective process that the USTR uses to figure out who has been "naughty" and who has been "nice" when it comes to intellectual property laws. There is just the USTR going through submissions from copyright and patent maximalists, and deciding who has been named enough to be shamed.

Three years ago, we actually tried participating in the open comment period and submitted a comment highlighting the value of not creating a monoculture of maximalism around the globe on these issues, and why merely stamping the industry's claims as legit was probably not a good idea. The end result? The same exact crap as before. Given that this seems to be standard operating procedure for the USTR (and, it's only gotten worse with things like ACTA and TPP), I've not even bothered to submit comments any more. However, if anyone would care to try, the comment period is open through Friday... but it's interesting to note that the instructions for commenting already show that the USTR doesn't want to hear from you. It's really quite incredible. The very explanation of what they're asking for pre-supposes a whole bunch of things, and effectively says "only use this to complain about countries who haven't done enough to help your industry -- that's all we want to hear about."

USTR requests that interested persons identify those countries that deny adequate and effective protection for intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection.

What about comments from people pointing out countries whose copyright and patent policies are too protective? Not wanted?

Written comments should include a description of the problems that the submitter has experienced and the effect of the acts, policies, and practices on U.S. industry.

Not the US public. Not on US culture. Just on US industry. Yes, the USTR is focused on industry, but the very purpose of copyright and patent law is supposed to be to benefit the public. Shouldn't their interests matter?

In other words, the USTR doesn't care about the public or your interests. All it wants to know is how it can better force other countries into over-protectionist policies that benefit a few legacy industries. You can still submit your own comments, but it seems pretty clear that they don't want to hear from you.

Filed Under: comments, copyright, industry, maximalism, patents, public, special 301 report, ustr