From nicheant at gmail.com Wed Aug 5 04:45:13 2009 From: nicheant at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?TmlzaGFudCB8IOCkqOCkv+CktuCkvuCkgeCkpA==?=) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 04:45:13 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] EU Accepts Browser Ballot of Windows 7 Message-ID: <4439ee330908041615l6b6abbefxa3aa6bf6351fa1e4@mail.gmail.com> Microsoft drops Windows 7 E for Europe Microsoft this weekend revealed that it would drop plans to launch Windows 7 E for Europe following a change in attitude from the European Commission. The special release, which would have provided Windows without any browser at all, is being scrapped as the Commission has tentatively embraced the company's browser ballot approach to providing a choice of web browsers. These customers should now get the same version of Windows 7 as elsewhere. Elaborating on how the ballot would work, Microsoft deputy general counsel Dave Heiner said that any version of Windows 7 with Internet Explorer as the default browser would at least initially see a ballot website providing them with a choice of browsers, including Chrome, Firefox, Opera and Safari. Computer users could return to the page at a later date and wouldn't see the page if Windows is already set to a competing browser. XP and Vista should also see the ballot appear retroactively. The move is meant to head off a looming antitrust case against Microsoft accusing the company of abusing its Windows monopoly to control the web browser market. Microsoft has regularly objected to the position and has been supported by Firefox's roughly 30 percent market share. http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/08/03/microsoft.drops.win.7.e/ From the.solipsist at gmail.com Tue Aug 11 12:11:44 2009 From: the.solipsist at gmail.com (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:11:44 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Intellectual Property & Vaccine Production In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4785f1e20908102341v5959881brb7c64c5ee40c2618@mail.gmail.com> An interesting WHO report has been leaked when all the news media are intent on telling us about the panic that is striking at the hearts of ordinary citizens due to H5N1. The upside: there is even more reason to panic, especially for developing countries (which are currently dependent on developed-world manufacturing facilities and developed-world patents). For more, see the Wikileaks page: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sangeeta Date: Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 13:59 Subject: [A2k] Intellectual Property & Vaccine Production To: "Ip-health at lists.essential.org" , a2k discuss list A paper that throws some light on the issue of IP and Pandemic Influenza Vaccine Production is a paper by Edward Hammond done for WHO South East Asia Regional Office. The paper is titled "Observations on Vaccine Production Technologies and Factors Potentially Influencing Pandemic Influenza Vaccine choices in Developing Countries". This paper is available at http://88.80.16.63/leak/pandemic-vaccine-options-2009.pdf Sangeeta -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 From pranesh at cis-india.org Wed Aug 12 13:44:38 2009 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:44:38 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Texas judge rules Microsoft Word infringes US patent Message-ID: <4A8279EE.2020406@cis-india.org> A Texas judge ruled Tuesday that Microsoft cannot sell one of its flagship products, Word, in the United States because of patent infringement. You read that right: Microsoft cannot sell Word, the judge ruled. Judge Leonard Davis, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, ordered a permanent injunction that "prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML," according to [an announcement][1] by the plaintiff, Toronto-based [i4i][2] Inc. [1]: http://media.prnewswire.com/en/jsp/latest.jsp?resourceid=4041905&access=EH [2]: http://www.i4i.com/ XML essentially is a programming language that allows users to customize the underlying format of their word-processing documents, for example, and makes them readable across different word-processing programs. The ability to read and write XML documents is an integral feature of Microsoft Word. [Download the injunction (PDF)][3] In its complaint ([PDF][4]), i4i alleges Microsoft willingly violated its 1998 patent (No. 5,787,449) on a method for reading XML. The company, whose Web site [advertises][5] that users can "Create and edit XML content in Microsoft Word," helps clients work with XML. [3]: http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/library/20090811i4iinjunction.pdf [4]: http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/library/20090811i4icomplaint.pdf [5]: http://www.i4i.com/solutions/Edit_XML.htm i4i filed the lawsuit in March 2007, seeking an injunction and damages. The Eastern District of Texas is known for being a haven for patent litigation. The injunction ([PDF][3]), which becomes effective in 60 days, prohibits Microsoft from selling future Word products that allegedly use the patented technology. It also enjoins Microsoft from testing, demonstrating, marketing or offering support for those future products. Davis also ordered Microsoft to pay i4i more than $290 million in damages. "We are disappointed by the court's ruling," Microsoft spokesman Kevin Kutz said in a statement. "We believe the evidence clearly demonstrated that we do not infringe and that the i4i patent is invalid. We will appeal the verdict." Indeed, Microsoft will likely do everything in its power to overturn Tuesday's ruling. And indeed, Microsoft will likely prevail. [Download the judgment (PDF)][6] [6]: http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/library/20090811i4ijudgment.pdf -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090812/cca05076/attachment.bin From lawrence at altlawforum.org Thu Aug 13 15:22:46 2009 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:22:46 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] The Right that Dares to Speak its Name: A Primer on The Naz Foundation Decision References: Message-ID: > > Dear All > > Given the importance of the Naz Foundation decision, and despite the > fact that it is an excellently written judgment, we recognize that a > 105 pages can be a challenge for many people. We were therefore > prompted to bring out an analytical primer which could serve as a > guide through the intricacies of the judgment. > > We are happy to announce the publication of a new primer on the > judgment. "The Right that Dares to speak its Name" has been put > together by Arvind Narrain and Marcus Eldridge. The Primer contains > a schematic guide highlighting the key aspects of the judgment with > a commentary. It then examines the background and finally contains a > few commentaries that came out after the judgment. The Primer is > 140 pages and is priced at Rs. 50. Copies are available at ALF > > > For more details and to download a copy please visit > > http://www.altlawforum.org/announcement-of-new-publication-the-right-that-dares-to-speak-its-name > > > Lawrence > > > Table Of Contents: > > Introduction > > Schematic Guide: Naz Foundation v. Union of India > > * The Law > * The Parties > * The Bench > * The Rationale > * Conclusion > * Basis of Ruling > * Territorial Applicability of the judgment > > > Background: The Naz Judgment > > Outline of Arguments on behalf of Voices against 377 > > Edited Transcripts of the final arguments before the Delhi High Court > > Commentaries > > > * On Freedom's avenue, Gautam Bhan > * Reforming Macaulay, Kajal Bharadwaj > * India: From 'perversion' to right to life with dignity, > Kalpana Kannabiran > * Who’s afraid of Homosexuality, Ram Jethmalani > * Striving for magic in the city of words, Lawrence Liang and > Siddarth Narrain > * Its about all of us , Prathap Bhanu Mehta > * Good for all minorities, Tarunabh Khaitan > * Navigating the Noteworthy and the Nebulous in Naz Foundation, > Vikram Raghavan > * Keeping Religion out of the Gay debate, Siddharth Bhatia > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090813/a965ea78/attachment-0001.html From pranesh at cis-india.org Fri Aug 14 11:51:55 2009 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:51:55 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Signature campaign: Open letter to the President of the CII Message-ID: <4A850283.1030800@cis-india.org> *Apologies for cross posting. Dear All, Greetings! This is with reference to a signature campaign that we are currently undertaking to express the Indian civil societies' strong disapproval of certain intellectual property (IP) enforcement initiatives of the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII). It is of immense concern to all of us since higher norms of IP enforcement necessarily undermine various other rights of the people at large, including the right to access to medicines and access to knowledge. It is disheartening to note that the CII being an Indian industry organization is hosting the Third International Conference on Counterfeiting and Piracy from 19-20th August 2009 in partnership with American Embassy and the Quality Brand Protection Committee (QBPC), China (QBPC comprises over 80 MNCs). There are serious credibility issues presented by CII's decision to organize this event. Considering that the Indian Government and the global civil society is fighting another battle against the upward ratchet of IP enforcement norms at various international forums, it is really unfortunate that the CII and other major industry organizations are acting as adversaries of public interest. Outlined below (also attached in pdf format) is an open letter to the President of the CII explaining various concerns of the Indian civil society. We request the members of Indian civil society (either in their personal capacity or in their organizational capacity) to communicate their support of this cause and sign the letter below. Please also forward this mail to those in India that you feel would wish to express their solidarity against this attempt to increase IP enforcement. We are planning to send this letter to the President of CII and various other functionaries at 16:00 on Monday, August 17, 2009. Kindly send your confirmations by 13:00 IST on the 17th of August, 2009 to centad at centad.org or pranesh at cis-india.org. Thanks, Trade and Public Health Team, Centre for Trade and Development, New Delhi and Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore ********************** *An Open Letter to the President of Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) on the Third **International Conference on Counterfeiting & Piracy* To *Mr. Venu Srinivasan *The President Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) The Mantosh Sondhi Centre
23, Institutional Area, Lodi Road
 New Delhi - 110 003 Dear Mr. Srinivasan, We understand that Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) is hosting the Third International Conference on Counterfeiting and Piracy from 19-20th August 2009 in partnership with American Embassy and the Quality Brand Protection Committee (QBPC), China. As stated in the invitation letter the primary objectives of the Conference are: 1) to initiate coordinated action for cross border enforcement; 2) to highlight the importance of protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs); 3) to combat the growing threat of piracy and counterfeiting; 4) to facilitate a global meeting of customs officials across the globe; 5) to recommend the creation and setting up of a governmental “National Brand Protection” group; 6) to serve as a forum to discuss legal guidelines related to the prosecution of IPR infringement and to eliminate ‘loopholes’ within the existing laws; and 7) to strengthen cooperation between enforcement agencies and chalk out strategies for enforcement agencies a industry action both at national & international level. We also understand that this International Conference is part of CII Intellectual Property Division’s special initiative on enforcement of IPRs. As part of the special initiative CII aims at “engaging government to create conducive legislative measures, policy levels reform and impressing [upon them] to adopt stringent enforcement initiatives and exemplary punitive and monetary measures to further safeguard and secure the interest of industry”. CII also wants to ‘create a global partnership to synergise efforts of international community and to support and participate in India's efforts in combating counterfeiting both at domestic and international levels. We, the undersigned, representing various civil society organizations in India, write this letter to express our strong reservation on the conference as well as on CII’s special initiative on IP enforcement. Without raising any question on CII’s right to organize events we would like to convey the following concerns with regard to the conference and CII’s initiative on IP enforcement. Many of the above mentioned objectives of the conference and the special initiative are directed towards the enhancement of intellectual property (IP) standards like coordinated action on border measures, common guidelines for prosecution of IP infringement, exemplary punitive and monetary measures, etc. In other words, enhancement of IP standards means using more public money to protect private rights; very often protecting the monopoly over intangible property rights of multi-national corporations (MNCs). As you may be aware, MNCs and their developed country hosts are currently engaged in the implementation of a multi-pronged strategy to enhance IP enforcement standards.[1] <#_ftn1> This is similar to the MNC’s initiatives in the mid 80s to enhance international IP protection, which resulted in the Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Unlike the 80s, now MNCs and developed countries use multiple forums to pursue the objective of enhancement of IP enforcement standards. Some developed countries have unilaterally enhanced their IP enforcement strategy to force other countries, especially developing countries, to accept the same through various multilateral organizations, namely the World Customs Organization (WCO), World Health Organization (WHO), Universal Postal Union (UPU), Interpol, WIPO and WTO. Developed countries are also using Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), Bilateral Agreements on IP Enforcements as well as financing lobbyist studies, conferences and policy recommendations to impose higher IP enforcement standards. These efforts for the enhancement of IP enforcement standards are a matter of grave concern for the people of developing countries and their governments. By partnering with the US Embassy and Quality Brand Protection Committee of China (QBPC)[2] <#_ftn2> in the organization of this conference, CII is allowing itself to play in the hands of MNCs and some developed countries, whose interests do not match with that of India industries and that of the Indian people. As you are aware, the Government of India is taking a very strong position in resisting enhancement of IP enforcement standards in all the multilateral forums. India along with like-minded developing countries successfully pushed back TRIPS Plus[3] <#_ftn3> IP enforcement agenda at WCO and WHO. India is also trying its level best to convince other developing countries the need to stick to TRIPS-compliant standards rather than adopting TRIPS Plus enforcement standards. In the wake of the controversial generic drug seizures by EU customs authorities, India has also raised the issue of TRIPS Plus IP enforcement standards contained in the EU IP Enforcement Directive at least two times at the TRIPS Council.[4] <#_ftn4> The Indian political leadership has unequivocally raised its concern over the enhancement of IP enforcement standards at other fora also.[5] <#_ftn5> In adopting this stance, the Government of India has cited public interest as well as the operating freedom of Indian industry as its justifications.[6] <#_ftn6> By partnering at this vital stage with an MNC lobby group and a heeding to developed country governments, CII is not acting in furtherance of the legitimate public interests of Indian domestic industry and the Indian people. It is a well-evidenced fact that TRIPS plus enforcement standards adversely impact not only legitimate trade between nations (as shown by the EU seizures) but also the day-to-day life of millions of people especially in India and other developing countries.[7] <#_ftn7> Unfounded IP enforcement measures would adversely impact access to life saving medicines and educational materials. Thus the IP enforcement measures also have the potential to deny right to development to people in the global South. Hence an organization like CII should not view IP as only a business tool but should look at the larger scheme of things especially in the social and economic realities of India. In fact, by promoting enhancement of IP enforcement standards CII is advocating a policy, which would violate the right to health, the right to knowledge, as also the right to development. We would also like to point out that Indian pharmaceutical industry is one of the victims of TRIPS Plus IP enforcement standards. In 2008 alone, 17 consignments[8] <#_ftn8> were seized in transit at Europe using the EU Directive on IP Enforcement, which allows seizure of goods in transit.[9] <#_ftn9> These consignments were being exported from developing countries (such as India and Brazil) to other developing countries, and the contents of the consignments are perfectly legal in both the exporting as well as the importing nations. These highly questionable seizures resulted in the crisis of health programmes as it resulted in delays in and prohibitive costs of access to life-saving medicines in developing countries of Africa and Latin America. CII can barely claim to be representative of the interests of Indian industry if it ignores such episodes and partners with self-promoting MNCs and developed countries’ governments to advocate for the enhancement of IP enforcement standards. In the light of above-mentioned issues, we request you to consider the following:** *Rejecting the TRIPS Plus enforcement agenda in toto.* We demand CII, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry(ASSOCHAM) and other Indian business associations to reject any and all attempts of bringing in a TRIPS Plus enforcement agenda in India, in the interests of Indian industry and the Indian people.** *Completely disengaging from any collaborative efforts with foreign institutions to further TRIPS Plus standards of IP protection in India and also abstaining from any engagements on the anti-counterfeiting efforts with foreign agencies. *CII should attempt to engage with domestic institutions and build national consensus before engaging with foreign institutions with the claim of representation of Indian industry.** *Take necessary proactive steps to safeguard the interests of access to medicine and access to knowledge along with the interest of the Indian domestic industry.* *Participate in a more creative discussion on IP and development rather than simply accepting the simplistic and largely discredited view that stronger IP regime leads to more innovation and is a necessary condition for socio-economic development.* CC:*Anjan Das *Senior Director & Head Technology, Innovation, IPR & Life Sciences Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) Plot No. 249-F, Sector-18; Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana End notes: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [1] <#_ftnref1> See Susan K Sell, /The Global IP Upward Ratchet, Anti-counterfeiting and Piracy Enforcement Efforts: The State of Play. /Aavailable at http://www.iqsensato.org/wp-content/uploads/Sell_IP_Enforcement_State_of_Play-OPs_1_June_2008.pdf [2] <#_ftnref2> QBPC barely qualifies as a representative of Chinese interest, as it is comprised of more than 180 multinational member companies. See http://www.qbpc.org.cn/About_QBPC/Introduction/2008-08/01_116.html. [3] <#_ftnref3> ‘TRIPS plus’ refers to any protection of IPRs that surpasses the standards and requirements spelt out in WTO-TRIPS provisions. [4] <#_ftnref4> See Jonathan Lyn, /India Brazil raise EU drug Seizures issue at WTO,/ available at http://www.livemint.com/2009/02/04232721/India-Brazil-raise-EU-drug-se.html [5] <#_ftnref5>/ //Indian Minister of State for External Affairs Broaches Seizures of Generics at ECOSOC/, available at http://www.keionline.org/blogs/2009/07/08/india-ecosoc-seizures/#more-2404 [6] <#_ftnref6> Indian Commerce Secretary’s Speech to the African Community Ambassadors. available at http://www.centad.org/focus_77.asp. [7] <#_ftnref7> For two very recent examples, see /Intellectual Property Enforcement: International Perspectives/, Xuan Li & Carlos Correa (eds.) (2009); Anand Grover, /Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, /A/HRC/11/12 (2009). [8] <#_ftnref8> Jyoti Datta, /16 out of 17 drug consignment seizures in the Dutch were from India available at /http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/06/08/stories/2009060851700300.htm [9] <#_ftnref9> The EC Regulation No 1383/2003 allows for seizure of goods in transit. -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090814/d89be7fe/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: letter_to_CII.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 164419 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090814/d89be7fe/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090814/d89be7fe/attachment-0001.bin From pranesh at cis-india.org Fri Aug 14 13:21:53 2009 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:21:53 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Signature campaign: Open letter to the President of the CII Message-ID: <4A851799.9080400@cis-india.org> *Apologies for cross posting. Dear All, Greetings! This is with reference to a signature campaign that we are currently undertaking to express the Indian civil societies' strong disapproval of certain intellectual property (IP) enforcement initiatives of the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII). It is of immense concern to all of us since higher norms of IP enforcement necessarily undermine various other rights of the people at large, including the right to access to medicines and access to knowledge. It is disheartening to note that the CII being an Indian industry organization is hosting the Third International Conference on Counterfeiting and Piracy from 19-20th August 2009 in partnership with American Embassy and the Quality Brand Protection Committee (QBPC), China (QBPC comprises over 80 MNCs). There are serious credibility issues presented by CII's decision to organize this event. Considering that the Indian Government and the global civil society is fighting another battle against the upward ratchet of IP enforcement norms at various international forums, it is really unfortunate that the CII and other major industry organizations are acting as adversaries of public interest. Outlined below is an open letter to the President of the CII explaining various concerns of some Indian civil society organizations. We request other members of Indian civil society (either in their personal capacity or in their organizational capacity) to communicate their support of this cause and sign the letter below. Please also forward this mail to those in India that you feel would wish to express their solidarity against this attempt to increase IP enforcement. We are planning to send this letter to the President of CII and various other functionaries at 16:00 on Monday, August 17, 2009. Kindly send your confirmations by 13:00 IST on the 17th of August, 2009 to centad at centad.org or pranesh at cis-india.org. Thanks, Trade and Public Health Team, Centre for Trade and Development, New Delhi and Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore ********************** *An Open Letter to the President of Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) on the Third **International Conference on Counterfeiting & Piracy* To *Mr. Venu Srinivasan *The President Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) The Mantosh Sondhi Centre
23, Institutional Area, Lodi Road
 New Delhi - 110 003 Dear Mr. Srinivasan, We understand that Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) is hosting the Third International Conference on Counterfeiting and Piracy from 19-20th August 2009 in partnership with American Embassy and the Quality Brand Protection Committee (QBPC), China. As stated in the invitation letter the primary objectives of the Conference are: 1) to initiate coordinated action for cross border enforcement; 2) to highlight the importance of protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs); 3) to combat the growing threat of piracy and counterfeiting; 4) to facilitate a global meeting of customs officials across the globe; 5) to recommend the creation and setting up of a governmental “National Brand Protection” group; 6) to serve as a forum to discuss legal guidelines related to the prosecution of IPR infringement and to eliminate ‘loopholes’ within the existing laws; and 7) to strengthen cooperation between enforcement agencies and chalk out strategies for enforcement agencies a industry action both at national & international level. We also understand that this International Conference is part of CII Intellectual Property Division’s special initiative on enforcement of IPRs. As part of the special initiative CII aims at “engaging government to create conducive legislative measures, policy levels reform and impressing [upon them] to adopt stringent enforcement initiatives and exemplary punitive and monetary measures to further safeguard and secure the interest of industry”. CII also wants to ‘create a global partnership to synergise efforts of international community and to support and participate in India's efforts in combating counterfeiting both at domestic and international levels. We, the undersigned, representing various civil society organizations in India, write this letter to express our strong reservation on the conference as well as on CII’s special initiative on IP enforcement. Without raising any question on CII’s right to organize events we would like to convey the following concerns with regard to the conference and CII’s initiative on IP enforcement. Many of the above mentioned objectives of the conference and the special initiative are directed towards the enhancement of intellectual property (IP) standards like coordinated action on border measures, common guidelines for prosecution of IP infringement, exemplary punitive and monetary measures, etc. In other words, enhancement of IP standards means using more public money to protect private rights; very often protecting the monopoly over intangible property rights of multi-national corporations (MNCs). As you may be aware, MNCs and their developed country hosts are currently engaged in the implementation of a multi-pronged strategy to enhance IP enforcement standards.[1] <#_ftn1> This is similar to the MNC’s initiatives in the mid 80s to enhance international IP protection, which resulted in the Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Unlike the 80s, now MNCs and developed countries use multiple forums to pursue the objective of enhancement of IP enforcement standards. Some developed countries have unilaterally enhanced their IP enforcement strategy to force other countries, especially developing countries, to accept the same through various multilateral organizations, namely the World Customs Organization (WCO), World Health Organization (WHO), Universal Postal Union (UPU), Interpol, WIPO and WTO. Developed countries are also using Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), Bilateral Agreements on IP Enforcements as well as financing lobbyist studies, conferences and policy recommendations to impose higher IP enforcement standards. These efforts for the enhancement of IP enforcement standards are a matter of grave concern for the people of developing countries and their governments. By partnering with the US Embassy and Quality Brand Protection Committee of China (QBPC)[2] <#_ftn2> in the organization of this conference, CII is allowing itself to play in the hands of MNCs and some developed countries, whose interests do not match with that of India industries and that of the Indian people. As you are aware, the Government of India is taking a very strong position in resisting enhancement of IP enforcement standards in all the multilateral forums. India along with like-minded developing countries successfully pushed back TRIPS Plus[3] <#_ftn3> IP enforcement agenda at WCO and WHO. India is also trying its level best to convince other developing countries the need to stick to TRIPS-compliant standards rather than adopting TRIPS Plus enforcement standards. In the wake of the controversial generic drug seizures by EU customs authorities, India has also raised the issue of TRIPS Plus IP enforcement standards contained in the EU IP Enforcement Directive at least two times at the TRIPS Council.[4] <#_ftn4> The Indian political leadership has unequivocally raised its concern over the enhancement of IP enforcement standards at other fora also.[5] <#_ftn5> In adopting this stance, the Government of India has cited public interest as well as the operating freedom of Indian industry as its justifications.[6] <#_ftn6> By partnering at this vital stage with an MNC lobby group and a heeding to developed country governments, CII is not acting in furtherance of the legitimate public interests of Indian domestic industry and the Indian people. It is a well-evidenced fact that TRIPS plus enforcement standards adversely impact not only legitimate trade between nations (as shown by the EU seizures) but also the day-to-day life of millions of people especially in India and other developing countries.[7] <#_ftn7> Unfounded IP enforcement measures would adversely impact access to life saving medicines and educational materials. Thus the IP enforcement measures also have the potential to deny right to development to people in the global South. Hence an organization like CII should not view IP as only a business tool but should look at the larger scheme of things especially in the social and economic realities of India. In fact, by promoting enhancement of IP enforcement standards CII is advocating a policy, which would violate the right to health, the right to knowledge, as also the right to development. We would also like to point out that Indian pharmaceutical industry is one of the victims of TRIPS Plus IP enforcement standards. In 2008 alone, 17 consignments[8] <#_ftn8> were seized in transit at Europe using the EU Directive on IP Enforcement, which allows seizure of goods in transit.[9] <#_ftn9> These consignments were being exported from developing countries (such as India and Brazil) to other developing countries, and the contents of the consignments are perfectly legal in both the exporting as well as the importing nations. These highly questionable seizures resulted in the crisis of health programmes as it resulted in delays in and prohibitive costs of access to life-saving medicines in developing countries of Africa and Latin America. CII can barely claim to be representative of the interests of Indian industry if it ignores such episodes and partners with self-promoting MNCs and developed countries’ governments to advocate for the enhancement of IP enforcement standards. In the light of above-mentioned issues, we request you to consider the following:** *Rejecting the TRIPS Plus enforcement agenda in toto.* We demand CII, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry(ASSOCHAM) and other Indian business associations to reject any and all attempts of bringing in a TRIPS Plus enforcement agenda in India, in the interests of Indian industry and the Indian people.** *Completely disengaging from any collaborative efforts with foreign institutions to further TRIPS Plus standards of IP protection in India and also abstaining from any engagements on the anti-counterfeiting efforts with foreign agencies. *CII should attempt to engage with domestic institutions and build national consensus before engaging with foreign institutions with the claim of representation of Indian industry.** *Take necessary proactive steps to safeguard the interests of access to medicine and access to knowledge along with the interest of the Indian domestic industry.* *Participate in a more creative discussion on IP and development rather than simply accepting the simplistic and largely discredited view that stronger IP regime leads to more innovation and is a necessary condition for socio-economic development.* CC:*Anjan Das *Senior Director & Head Technology, Innovation, IPR & Life Sciences Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) Plot No. 249-F, Sector-18; Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana End notes: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [1] <#_ftnref1> See Susan K Sell, /The Global IP Upward Ratchet, Anti-counterfeiting and Piracy Enforcement Efforts: The State of Play. /Aavailable at http://www.iqsensato.org/wp-content/uploads/Sell_IP_Enforcement_State_of_Play-OPs_1_June_2008.pdf [2] <#_ftnref2> QBPC barely qualifies as a representative of Chinese interest, as it is comprised of more than 180 multinational member companies. See http://www.qbpc.org.cn/About_QBPC/Introduction/2008-08/01_116.html. [3] <#_ftnref3> ‘TRIPS plus’ refers to any protection of IPRs that surpasses the standards and requirements spelt out in WTO-TRIPS provisions. [4] <#_ftnref4> See Jonathan Lyn, /India Brazil raise EU drug Seizures issue at WTO,/ available at http://www.livemint.com/2009/02/04232721/India-Brazil-raise-EU-drug-se.html [5] <#_ftnref5>/ //Indian Minister of State for External Affairs Broaches Seizures of Generics at ECOSOC/, available at http://www.keionline.org/blogs/2009/07/08/india-ecosoc-seizures/#more-2404 [6] <#_ftnref6> Indian Commerce Secretary’s Speech to the African Community Ambassadors. available at http://www.centad.org/focus_77.asp. [7] <#_ftnref7> For two very recent examples, see /Intellectual Property Enforcement: International Perspectives/, Xuan Li & Carlos Correa (eds.) (2009); Anand Grover, /Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, /A/HRC/11/12 (2009). [8] <#_ftnref8> Jyoti Datta, /16 out of 17 drug consignment seizures in the Dutch were from India available at /http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/06/08/stories/2009060851700300.htm [9] <#_ftnref9> The EC Regulation No 1383/2003 allows for seizure of goods in transit. -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090814/6f2ec502/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090814/6f2ec502/attachment-0001.bin From monica at sarai.net Sat Aug 15 19:16:15 2009 From: monica at sarai.net (Monica Narula) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:16:15 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Ai Wei Wei and the Chinese State Message-ID: <4CD7B1E8-CF3F-44A5-AD63-C7C245A850CE@sarai.net> Avant-garde artist Ai Weiwei, one of China's foremost public intellectuals, was recently detained and beaten by police when he attempted to testify at the show trial of dissident Tan Zuoren in Chengdu. Harassment and threats are connected, in part, to his "Names Project," a performative intervention which aims to compile, publish, disseminate, and memorialize the names of the thousands of children who were crushed to death en mass in their "crumbling tofu construction" schools (the rotten fruits of official corruption and kickbacks) during the May 12, 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, while neighboring government buildings stood intact. The State has strong- armed bereaved parents into silence, refused to investigate government corruption, and barred the victims' names from public release. Ai Weiwei's vocal defiance has led to his censorship, intimidation, threats and now arrest and beating. Having spent the first 2 decades of his life with his father, the revolutionary poet Ai Qing, in a cadre labor reform camp for errant intellectuals, Ai Weiwei understands that no one in China, no matter how "high profile" is ever "safe. Thus, he has chosen to push the State as far as he can in an attempt to reclaim the public sphere for critical discourse, and champion the cause of free speech and genuine citizen and human rights in China. As such, he has willingly put himself in a great deal of danger. His recent statement merits reposting. I hope that you will pass this on and share it with others who believe in the need to nurture and support critical public intellectuals, especially in places like China, where there are so few such clarion and courageous voices. "Watch out! Have you prepared yourself?" -- Ai Weiwei: "I am ready. Or, perhaps I should say that there is nothing to prepare, no way to prepare myself. A person--this is all of me--is something that can be received by others. I offer up all of myself. When the time comes when it is necessary, I will not hesitate, I won't be ambiguous about it. If there is anything that I am reluctant to leave behind it is the wondrous miracle that life has brought me. And that miracles are that every one of us is the same, that people are equal in this game, as well as the fantasies that come along with playing it, and our freedom. I regard every kind of intimidation, from any kind of 'authority or power' [sic - the character is for quanli as in 'rights', but from the context this appears to be a typo, perhaps?], as a threat to human dignity, rationality and reason--a threat to the very possibility of opposition. I will learn to face and confront this." Monica Narula Raqs Media Collective Sarai-CSDS www.raqsmediacollective.net www.sarai.net From pranesh at cis-india.org Thu Aug 20 01:55:10 2009 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:55:10 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: [Ip-health] LA Times - Obama endangering developing countries' access to affordable drugs, activists charge Message-ID: <4A8C5FA6.90204@cis-india.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Ip-health] LA Times - Obama endangering developing countries' access to affordable drugs, activists charge Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:59:33 -0400 From: James Love To: Ip-health Tom Hamburger, a very good journalist at the LA Times, has written this story for the LA Times on the Obama Administration's unfortunate embrace of big pharma in the area of access to medicine in developing countries. One complaint: it includes the legendarily but apparently mandatory inaccurate assertion that compulsory licenses are limited to health emergencies (Microsoft is asking for a CL right now on a software patent on XML files formats). Otherwise, this is the first real reporting in the mainstream press on the disappointing trade policy by the Obama Administration. The common theme expressed by activists is something along the lines of we hoped for something better. Jamie http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-drugs-international20-2009aug20,0,1784501.story latimes.com Obama endangering developing countries' access to affordable drugs, activists charge The administration may be reluctant to confront pharmaceutical firms during the healthcare debate, critics say. 'We had high hopes for change' after Bush, an Oxfam official says. By Tom Hamburger 7:09 AM PDT, August 19, 2009 Reporting from Washington Click here to find out more! In an unexpected spillover from the healthcare battle, activists in Washington, and Thailand and other developing countries are accusing the Obama administration of endangering access to affordable drugs to fight AIDS and other epidemic diseases. And they say the problem may lie in the administration's reluctance to confront the giant pharmaceutical companies at a time when the companies are crucial allies in President Obama's struggle to revamp the U.S. healthcare system. Organizations such as Doctors without Borders and OxFam International long accused U.S.-based pharmaceutical companies and the Bush administration of impeding their efforts to make generic drugs available to fight major diseases in poor countries. They say they expected Obama to take a less restrictive approach. Now, many say those expectations have been disappointed. "We had high hopes for change," says Rohit Malpani, a policy advisor to Oxfam, an international advocacy organization that opposed Bush-era trade policies as detrimental to public health. "It appears that Obama appointees are continuing to work from the playbook of the last administration," he said. Obama administration officials reject the claims of Malpani and half a dozen other health advocates interviewed by the Times/Tribune in the last two weeks, saying that the president remains committed to the international health goals he embraced during the campaign. The administration has already initiated some changes, officials say. The issue is expected to be discussed today at a meeting of the advocacy community and Obama administration officials from State Department, the U.S. trade representative and the Commerce Department. Industry leaders support many programs for providing lower-cost drugs and note that they have contributed billions of dollars in medicines to poor countries. But they say they press for aggressive enforcement of rules against copying their products so as to assure the quality and safety of drugs, as well as assuring economic incentives for developing new medicines. Critics were especially unhappy with trade representative reports released this spring on intellectual property enforcement and with negotiations in Geneva over a treaty to set drug research and funding priorities to fight disease around the world. To James Love, who will attend today's meeting and is an advocate for the distribution of lower-cost medicines to combat common diseases worldwide, the Obama administration made concessions that fit what he called an emerging pattern of cozying up to the drug industry. "The substance of these reports read as if they were written by a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry," Love says. "It is appalling, coming as it does from the Obama White House." The issue is enmeshed in long-standing, highly technical issues of trade, patent and intellectual property rules, but the end result can have serious consequences for ordinary victims of disease in less developed countries. In general, pharmaceutical companies that develop new drugs are protected by patents that bar other companies from producing cheaper copies of the medications. International treaties grant governments the right to over-ride these barriers when confronted with health emergencies. That exemption has been a key to obtaining generic copies of crucially needed drugs in Thailand and other countries, the activists say. Governments in these countries are highly vulnerable to U.S. pressure, however, and activists say that tough talk from Washington about the importance of honoring drug patents can cause governments in the developing world to effectively curb access to lower-cost medicines. In effect, that's what activists say the Obama administration has been doing, as the Bush administration did before it. Every year, for instance, the U.S. trade representative produces a report on the state of intellectual property protection around the world. The report, required by an act of Congress and reviewed by the White House, can be couched in mind-numbingly technical language. But seemingly unexceptionable sections placing Thailand on a "priority watch list" for poor patent enforcement and others urging its government to address "public health challenges while maintaining a stable patent system." can discourage poor countries from seeking lower-cost drugs, activists say. Administration officials dispute the complaints, pointing out that the language in administration trade reports has been softened on drug policy issues, compared with reports issued during the Bush era. "We approach our trading partners recognizing the public health needs in developing and least developed countries as well as promoting a thriving global environment for innovation. We don't see these as mutually exclusive," said Debbie Mesloh, a deputy assistant U.S. trade representative. Administration officials point out that the most recent report focuses mostly on Thailand's breach of counterfeiting and digital piracy rules. There is, however, a section urging Thailand "to consider ways of addressing its public health challenges while maintaining a stable patent system that promotes investment, research and innovation." Activists say that language threatens to shake Thailand's continued support for drug initiatives that are considered models for fighting epidemics in the developing world. "This policy got real results," said Kannikar Kijtiwatchakul, a university researcher in Bangkok who works with Doctors without Borders, the international medical relief organization. She said that the number of Thai AIDS victims using a promising anti-retroviral drug trebled to more than 50,000 after the government made a cheaper generic version available. Thailand's actions brought pressure from pharmaceutical companies and the Bush administration, which complained it undermined the international patent system. "We had hoped for change," Kijtiwatchakul said of the Obama administration, "because Mr. Obama . . . expressed support for the use of generic drugs. However, we now view the Obama administration as no different from Bush. Access to treatment and essential medicines is not considered a high priority." In Guatemala, international activists say they are concerned that access to life-saving AIDS drugs is becoming more limited. In the past, they say, these drugs were available through a government initiative to buy them at a reduced price from international organizations, a move opposed by drug companies and the U.S. Recently, the government has begun to pay market price for AIDS drugs, they said. "There really needs to be a course correction by the U.S," said Ellen R. Shaffer, a co-director of The Center for Policy Analysis, an international health advocacy organization that has been studying the situation in Guatemala. She acknowledged that the Obama administration reduced criticism of the Guatemalan government in the latest report. But, she said, "that signal evidently hasn't been strong enough to stop the backwards slide in Guatemala at the expense of people's health. In effect, the Obama administration so far is stuck in the status quo." tom.hamburger at latimes.com 2009, The Los Angeles Times -- James Love, Director, Knowledge Ecology International http://www.keionline.org | mailto:james.love at keionline.org Wk: +1.202.332.2671 | US Mobile +1.202.361.3040 | Geneva Mobile +41.76.413.6584 _______________________________________________ Ip-health mailing list Ip-health at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090820/185a3da3/attachment.bin From daya.shanker at deakin.edu.au Tue Aug 18 12:18:33 2009 From: daya.shanker at deakin.edu.au (Daya Shanker) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:48:33 +1000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Mashelkar Report Message-ID: Dear Chan Park I have just seen reports of the adoption of the Mashelkar Committee Report with some changes (presumably removal of plagiarised paragraphs) by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. The previous report apart from plagiarised was highly misleading and conclusions regarding the non-patentability of micro-organisms and incremental innovations being incompatible with the TRIPS Agreement was an extraordinary distortion of the TRIPS Agreement which itself is an illegitimate and invalid treaty. Can you tell us what has happened and who are the people behind it? The new Minister of Commerce has been a controversial figure right from the day he has taken change starting from his comments on the Doha Negotiations but these actions of his appear to confirm that India has changed its position in international treaty negotiations and is willing to tow the lines of multinationals again. I was reading eth editorial of the Indian Express which has tried to justify the adoption of incremental innovation on the ground that Indian firms can resort to patenting only through incremental innovations. Perhaps Japan built its patent portfolio through incremental innovations and perhaps China is building its patent portfolio through such innovations but can Indian firms build their patent portfolios through such incremental innovations? This was basically to facilitate the evergreening process the international pharmaceutical industry has resorted to in the last few years through patenting of racemates and changes in dosage regime around the world. Daya shanker -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090818/3728aa0c/attachment.html From pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Aug 24 12:57:37 2009 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:57:37 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] One Kilo of Cannabis versus One Kilo of Pirated CD's Message-ID: <4A9240E9.1080800@cis-india.org> Resending a 2008 mail accidentally sent only to Lawrence, instead of the mailing list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Commons-Law] One Kilo of Cannabis versus One Kilo of Pirated CD's Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 22:11:19 +0530 From: Pranesh Prakash To: Lawrence Liang References: <483A7788.7060601 at altlawforum.org> Alternatively it is also possible that the report was written after sampling one kilo of cannabis and one kilo of pirated CD's That is most probably the case. Independent calculations by me, trying to account for manufacturing costs, also peg the profit at around €20 (€22.40). *Needless elaboration on your comments follow, but which I found interesting as a experiment in figuring out costs.* As you point out, the article meant to say that a kilo of CDs are *worth* more than a kilo of cannabis, and instead ended up smuggling CDs is more profitable. According to the article, a consignment of around around a hundred discs "... weigh under two kilos". So, it takes the figure of 50 discs per kilo and considers the cost of a disc as €60.50. So, basically, *all *disc (clubbed together as "entertainment") that are sold are Grand Theft Auto IV discs, and none of them are movie/music CDs which are as low as one-sixth the cost. By the way, some internet research throws up the figure of 15-16 g as the weight of a CD. So, by that reckoning, there ought to be around 64 CDs in a kilogramme. Using that figure, the price of a CD (for profits of €3000) comes to around €48. You put the figure of profit as €20, but that doesn't subtract cost (which you take to be negligible). I thought, what if we factored for manufacuring costs as well. Below you find my calculations. I wish someone could provide us with better figures, because my estimations run like this: Last I enquired, Rs.8 can get you a blank CD (bought in bulk, without any packaging). Thus, the cost of manufacturing a CD in a slipcase, with "entertainment" burnt on to it, plus shipping, would probably be around (Rs.5+1+1+3) Rs.10. That, in Euros would be €0.15. The CDs are sold for around half a Euro. So, the profit on each CD is around €0.35. That multiplied by 64 CDs (for a kilogramme) would make it *€22.40 per kg*. A loss of "€3000" equals a profit of €22.4. Regards, Pranesh On 5/26/08, *Lawrence Liang* > wrote: Hi all So here is a report with an interesting claim about piracy form the european Commision It says that One killo of Cannabis brings in 2000 euros while one kilo of pirated cd's brings in 3000 euros, and that it is more profitable to engage in CD piracy than in drugs: Wow But since i was not sure of the maths of a kilo of CD's works out and checked for myself, that a kilo of CD's is around 40 cd's The article says that from 'a profit point of view, the trade in fake CDs and DVDs is giving drug trafficking a run for its money. "One kilo of cannabis sold in Europe will bring in less than €2,000, a kilo of pirate or counterfeit CDs will bring in €3,000," the report said. It also say that the pirated CD's are sold for around half a euro each, which means that you earn around 20 euros from the sale of 40 pirated CDs, so how does this leap happen where it suddenly becomes more profitable than selling cannabis? I am presuming that they mean that if the legit CD had been sold (50 euro x 40= 2000 euros), then it would be 2000 euros, so will someone slightly better than me at maths explain this curios phenomenon... Alternatively it is also possible that the report was written after sampling one kilo of cannabis and one kilo of pirated CD's Lawrence http://hardware.silicon.com/storage/0,39024649,39117084,00.htm Pirated CD seizures fall 70 per cent More profitable than drugs and evading customs Printer Friendly Email Story RSS By Christophe Guillemin > Published: 26 November 2003 14:30 GMT Show related articles )> According to the latest statistics from European customs, seizures of pirate CDs, DVDs and video tapes have fell by 70 per cent last year compared to 2001. Entertainment is still second on the fake products list, just behind the humble cigarette. A statement from the EC has revealed the figures from customs at the EU's external borders. "The numbers of CDs, DVDs and [video] cassettes seized were down significantly, from 40 million in 2001 to about 12 million in 2002," it said. The annual report from the Commission's tax and customs authorities continued: "This fall can be put down to the scope for downloading off the internet but also to customs action against the traffic in blank CDs." Even if seizures have fallen, CDs, DVDs and videos are still among the most common counterfeit goods turning up at European borders. In 2002, customs authorities confiscated nearly 12 million of them – around 14 per cent of their total haul, with cigarettes leading the way at 36.9 per cent. The countries most often found to be 'exporting' counterfeit goods are in Asia – with Thailand and Malaysia each producing 22 per cent - but the third place goes to Belgium with 16 per cent. Brussels isn't giving out any details on the Belgium's counterfeiting operations but waxes lyrical about what it calls the "CD-Thai connection". The report explained that customs are often led to discover many tens of thousands of pirated CDs in a single commercial consignment, very often packaged in the same way – around a hundred discs packed in rolls that weigh under two kilos. From a profit point of view, the trade in fake CDs and DVDs is giving drug trafficking a run for its money. "One kilo of cannabis sold in Europe will bring in less than €2,000, a kilo of pirate or counterfeit CDs will bring in €3,000," the report said. The average value of a disc for a games console on the European market will vary between €55 and €60. The selling price for a counterfeited version of the same disc is around half a euro each, the report continued. The tax authorities have also noted that the figures have shown up a significant rise in counterfeiting in the area of mobile phones. It's a key development, they believe, saying: "The figures show a rise of almost 503 per cent in the number of seizures in 2002, compared to 2000… This can be explained by the success of the mobile" – a theory borne out by the recent scare over exploding Nokia batteries . IT hardware, on the other hand – PCs, monitors, printers and so on – represents "only" 0.1 per cent of the goods seized by customs in 2002. /Christophe Guillemin writes for ZDNet France./ Add Comment Add comment Printer Friendly Print story Email Story _______________________________________________ commons-law mailing list commons-law at sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090824/1900cd0f/attachment-0001.bin From aarthisridhar34 at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 13:54:15 2009 From: aarthisridhar34 at gmail.com (Aarthi Sridhar) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:54:15 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] 'Kingston Logic vs. The History Brush' - a presentation by Annie Paul at GALLERYSKE Message-ID: <9cd3816e0908260124h21794690v8c85981c6b59e8c1@mail.gmail.com> GALLERYSKE and Annie Paul welcome you to a talk on ‘Kingston Logic vs. The History Brush’. The subject of the talk emanated from the theme of the Third Guangzhou Triennial -Farewell to Post-Colonialism at Guangzhou, China 2008. The theme led Paul to wonder whether it would be possible to think of Jamaican/Caribbean art and music in terms of post-West knowledge production. In this presentation Paul will attempt to question whether there exists Kingston Logic in places such as Jamaica, which are so profoundly and inextricably inflected by the West. This presentation will take a stab at tracing the contours of what the speaker sees as important alternative ‘artmaking’, which though Western does add something crucial to the pot of postcolonial art. Speaker profile: Annie Paul works at the University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica, where she heads the Publications Section of the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies (SALISES). She is a founding editor of the journal Small Axe (Duke University Press) and the recipient of a grant from the Prince Claus Fund (Netherlands) in support of her book project, Suitable Subjects: Visual Art and Popular Culture in Postcolonial Jamaica. She has also been a contributor to the prestigious Documenta11 curated by Okwui Enwezor; the AICA 2000 International Congress & Symposium at the Tate Gallery of Modern Art, London; Meridien Masterpieces, BBC World Service; Dialogos Iberoamericanos (Valencia, Spain), the Guangzhou Triennale and in forums sponsored by Iniva (Institute of International Visual Art, London). Paul is author of the blog ‘Active Voice’ and her website is: http://www.anniepaul.com/. Date and Time: Thursday, 27 August 2009, 5:30 pm Venue: GALLERYSKE, The Presidency 82, St. Marks Road Bangalore - 560001 Phone: +91 80 65951972 / 41120873 Please R.S.V.P with Aarthi Sridhar at +919740194008 or aarthi at galleryske.com GALLERYSKE THE PRESIDENCY 82 ST.MARK'S ROAD BANGALORE 560001 INDIA T +91 80 65951972 / 41120873 F +91 80 22238312 www.galleryske.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20090826/3e9ca4f6/attachment.html From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Thu Aug 27 06:02:07 2009 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:32:07 -0400 Subject: [Commons-Law] =?utf-8?q?Ban_a_boon_for_Jaswant=E2=80=99s_book_pub?= =?utf-8?q?lisher?= Message-ID: <908adbd0908261732x5a5d8d13sd11cc7ee93855efc@mail.gmail.com> http://www.thehindu.com/2009/08/26/stories/2009082662961200.htm Back National Ban a boon for Jaswant’s book publisher Anita Joshua NEW DELHI: On Monday, exactly a week after the former Union Minister, Jaswant Singh’s book Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence was released, publisher R. K. Mehra was signing the 10th print run of the 674-page tome. Anticipating a controversy — but not such a windfall — Rupa & Co. went in for a large first print run. This was sold out in the first two days. With Mr. Singh’s expulsion from the Bharatiya Janata Party on the third day of the release of the book and the Gujarat government banning it that very evening, it is selling beyond expectations. Mr. Mehra has been ordering a fresh print run daily — on some days like Monday, even more than one — and hopes that the sales will touch the 50,000-mark by the end of next month. “I’m very happy with the ban; it has helped sales,” Mr. Mehra told The Hindu, while voicing the hope that better sense would prevail upon the Gujarat government. “I hope the Gujarat government will reconsider its decision. The notice that has come to us does not even specify what is objectionable. All it says is that ‘we have come to know’ of the book and its contents could be misleading and may affect tranquillity of State.” Constitutional expert A.G. Noorani said the Gujarat notification was “a sitting duck awaiting the whiff of a judicial shotgun. As it stands, the order is absurd. It is clear they haven’t read the book, and the grounds mentioned do not relate to Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to this provision, State Governments must declare the grounds on which a book is banned.” Stating that the Supreme Court could take suo motu notice of State Govts abusing the power to proscribe books, Mr. Noorani felt that any citizen could approach it as banning a book challenged a fundamental right. Meanwhile, Mr. Mehra was not alone in admitting that controversy and localised bans could be a blessing in disguise. Conceding the fact, Ravi Singh, Editor-in-Chief of Penguin India, was quick to add that no publisher could accept even a localised ban, however much it helped sales. “Gujarat may be an average-sized market, but even if there is one person who wants to read the book, he/she has the right to do so.” Though India has seen a growing incidence of censorship — both state and social — Mr. Singh maintains that this has not affected editorial decisions. “Obviously, we do not publish anything that is irresponsible.” Penguin last year ran into trouble with its book Rani by Jaishree Mishra, when the UP government banned it for suggesting a romance between Rani Lakshmibai and a British officer. © Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu From prashantiyengar at gmail.com Mon Aug 31 08:34:05 2009 From: prashantiyengar at gmail.com (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:04:05 -0400 Subject: [Commons-Law] Rs 695 in stores, Rs 150 on streets, Jaswant book a sellout everywhere Message-ID: <908adbd0908302004u76703c89qda7a9edeba3be0ca@mail.gmail.com> http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/509166 Nitya Kaushik Posted online: Monday , Aug 31, 2009 at 0159 hrs Mumbai : Expelled BJP leader Jaswant Singh’s controversial book on M A Jinnah is selling not only in its original form at legitimate bookstores, but also in pirated prints on the pavements. Jinnah India-Partition Independence costs Rs 695 if you want an original from Rupa Publishers. The cost of a pirated version varies, as low as Rs 150 for those who can bargain and as high as Rs 250 for those who cannot. At Bandra station, outside the ticket booking office on the west side, a street stall owner says he has not stopped selling copies for a week. “Every morning, I get around eight to 10 copies; by 5 pm, they are all sold out,” he says. This vendor starts off by asking for Rs 250. “It costs Rs 700 in a big store,” he says, but later agrees to sell for Rs 180. By 3 pm on Sunday, he has just two copies left. He refuses to say where the stock comes from. At Colaba, Fountain and Churchgate, at railway stations and signals, bargains are being sealed between Rs 150 and Rs 250. A buyer at Fort says, “The cover and the pages are of poor quality and the print is smudged at places, but it’s Ok for a quick read.” At Churchgate, near Gaylords Restaurant, a vendor quotes a “fixed price” of Rs 150. “The book is out of stock now but you can place an order and I will get it in a day or two,” he says. He says he has been ordering copies on alternate days and they sell out in four or five hours. “The book is controversial and so in demand,” he says. On Friday, when Newsline stopped at a stall peddling pirated books on Colaba Causeway, the copies were available at Rs 200. When this reporter bargained, the owner said, “This week we have too much demand, but maybe in a few weeks, I can give it for Rs 100.” Among legitimate stalls, Strand Bookstall in Fort has sold about 500 copies since August 17, said T Jagath, assistant manager. “We are bringing in stock every second day. Immediately after the expulsion, we sold about 200 copies. After that we have been consistently selling 100 to 200 copies everyday.” Jagath doesn’t see any threat from piracy. “There is a separate readership for original and pirated books. Our clients are people who value the intellectual rights of the author. Piracy rarely eats into our sales.” From pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Aug 31 18:18:01 2009 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:48:01 +0700 Subject: [Commons-Law] Rs 695 in stores, Rs 150 on streets, Jaswant book a sellout everywhere In-Reply-To: <908adbd0908302004u76703c89qda7a9edeba3be0ca@mail.gmail.com> References: <908adbd0908302004u76703c89qda7a9edeba3be0ca@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4785f1e20908310548h372d3400qadad803eb402973b@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 10:04, Prashant Iyengar wrote: > Jagath doesn’t see any threat from piracy. “There is a separate > readership for original and pirated books. Our clients are people who > value the intellectual rights of the author. Piracy rarely eats into > our sales.” Now that's an opinion of a bookseller that did not find any representation amongst "industry" voices at the recently-concluded CII meeting on counterfeiting and piracy. It seems so commonsensical too. -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283