From pranesh at cis-india.org Fri Jun 4 18:04:16 2010 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:04:16 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] =?utf-8?q?China=2C_India_To_Raise_Concerns_At_WTO_A?= =?utf-8?b?Ym91dCDigJxUUklQUy1QbHVz4oCdIE1lYXN1cmVzLCBBQ1RB?= Message-ID: <4C08F2C8.4000407@cis-india.org> http://j.mp/9SrSPI Intellectual Property Watch 3 June 2010 China, India To Raise Concerns At WTO About “TRIPS-Plus” Measures, ACTA By William New @ 10:18 pm China and India, two increasingly potent players on the global economic stage, next week plan to voice concerns at the World Trade Organization about efforts by developed countries to push poorer trading partners beyond their WTO commitments on trade and intellectual property rights, so-called TRIPS-plus measures. The issue has been placed on the agenda of the 8-9 June Council on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). “The idea is to raise concerns about all the TRIPS-plus [activity] around us,” said a developing country official familiar with the issue. This includes bilateral and regional free trade agreements and “its culmination in the form of ACTA,” the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated among a group of mostly developed WTO members (led by the United States and the European Union, which are actively negotiating bilaterals). The issue is coming up in part now that non-negotiating governments have seen the draft text of ACTA since its release in April under public interest pressure. “Now we have a basis for a systematic analysis,” the official said. Key areas of concern to be raised include: a lowering of the threshold for criminal cases, damages, transit issues, and cross-referencing in the European Union, the official said. The latter refers to the recently completed EU-CARIFORUM agreement that the official said will make it necessary for the Caribbean countries to effectively implement ACTA without having been involved in the ACTA negotiation. [*Update*: this refers to Article 139(1) of the EU-CARIFORUM Economic Partnership Agreement, [available here][1].] [1]: http://www.delbrb.ec.europa.eu/en/epa/epa_signing_docs/EPA_Full_Text_FINAL.pdf The TRIPS Council is a venue for discussing any issue related to the 1994 WTO TRIPS Agreement, which set out terms for respecting IP rights but also contains flexibility for countries to be able to override it if they deem it in their national interest. To China and India, the official said, TRIPS-plus issues “constrain flexibilities and undermine the balance of rights in the TRIPS Agreement.” The April 2010 public version of ACTA is [available here][2] [pdf]. [2]: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/2352422-v1-ACTA_Text_for_Public_Release_16_April_2010-1.pdf Countries negotiating ACTA include: Australia, Canada, the European Union and its 27 member states, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Switzerland. India and Brazil recently filed a dispute settlement case at the WTO against the EU for customs measures that have led to stoppages of legitimate generic medicines passing through from India to developing countries out of concern that the generics infringed IP rights of European brand-name drugmakers ([*IPW*, WTO/TRIPS, 12 May 2010][3]). [3]: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/05/12/counterfeit-medicines-in-wto-dispute-process-heating-up-at-who/ China this week came under fire in its biannual WTO trade policy review from the US and EU for lax IP rights enforcement and possibly discriminatory encouragement for domestic innovation ([*IPW*, WTO/TRIPS, 3 June 2010][4]). [4]: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/06/03/as-wto-reviews-china-eu-us-criticise-its-policy-on-innovation-ip-rights/ Next week’s TRIPS Council meeting also includes a usual list of issues related to the longstanding Doha Round trade negotiations at the WTO, and another new issue, a wish by some developing countries to hold a workshop to examine why a 2003 TRIPS amendment intended to help poor countries obtain affordable medicines more easily has almost never been used ([*IPW*, WTO/TRIPS, 31 May 2010][5]). [5]: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/05/31/drug-access-waiver-debate-looms-for-june-trips-council-meeting/ -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From pranesh at cis-india.org Tue Jun 15 01:28:20 2010 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 01:28:20 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] The copying behind FIFA World Cup theme song (Waka Waka) Message-ID: <4C1689DC.7060207@cis-india.org> For videos and twitter message images, go to: http://j.mp/aEt49P By Chief Boima ## March 02, 2010 ### Around the World... Waka Waka Hey Hey! Last summer my friend Lamin, who works on [WFMU's Mudd Up Show][1] with DJ Rupture and writes for the [Dutty Artz][2] music blog posted a video there to highlight a dance called the Whop from Liberia[2a]. [1]: http://wfmu.org/playlists/DR [2]: http://www.duttyartz.com [2a]: http://www.youtube.com/v/DD6lDEoElHc&hl=en_US&fs=1& The video drew my attention because I recognized the melody that the kids were singing from a Senegalese Hip Hop song that every so often would get played at San Francisco's [Little Baobab][3]. I liked the song, but didn't know the artist, the origins of the melody, or the language, which prompted some [interesting comments][4] from Lamin and crew. Luckily a week later I was in Dakar and was able to track the song down from DJ Coco Jean at a local radio station. [3]: http://littlebaobab.wordpress.com/ [4]: http://www.duttyartz.com/2009/liberian-whop/#comment-7829 Here is Didier Awadi with Zamouna[4a]: [4a]: http://www.youtube.com/v/-ilxu2I68Jg&hl=en_US&fs=1& For me the mystery was solved after I found Awadi's version... ...that is until I got this tweet a couple of weeks ago: [][5] [5]: http://twitter.com/DaveQuam/status/8841000833 I answered, [a little confused][6], and all of a sudden a flood of versions started popping up as Dave and I traded versions of the song. [6]: http://twitter.com/ChiefBoima/status/8846889680 Here is the [Bubbling][7] remix that he talks about: [7]: http://wayneandwax.blogspot.com/2005/10/bubble-up.html [DJ Mai$taH - Waka Waka (Bubbling Remix)][8] [8]: http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/CH/Waka_Waka_Bubbling_Mix.MP3 We eventually found the original of that song which is Los Chicas del Can's *El Negro No Puede*. What I eventually realized is that the Los Chicas del Can version was written for them by Wilfrido Vargas, who like Juan Luis Guerra, has played with [several African diasporic][9] styles in creating his high energy version of 80's synth Merengue. It makes sense that he would adapt this tune from somewhere like West Africa. What's also interesting to note is that in some of the [comments on the Youtube page][10] people speculate to the meaning of the words saying that they were meaningless phrases made up by Wilfrido to sound African, but didn't actually reference anything. [9]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNWx3wcp614 [10]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HjJkZW2yT0 The problem we had now was that Los Chicas del Can's version predates Awadi's Zamouna, the Liberian Whop video, and the Bubbling remix, and I'm convinced that the words mean more than nothing. Eventually Dave found a cover from Suriname that helped us connect the Bubbling remix to the Merengue original[10a]: [10a]: http://www.youtube.com/v/DgAPIWAU4zA&hl=en_US&fs=1& In the meantime while me and Dave were going back and forth, my friend Sonja [re-tweeted][11] the Zamouna video, which led to this exchange: [11]: http://twitter.com/sonjasugira/status/8967440713 [][12] [12]: http://twitter.com/ChiefBoima/status/8968921589 [][13] [13]: http://twitter.com/sonjasugira/status/8969579597 So now we have global proliferation and a potential origin. All I had to do was connect the dots to end up here[13a]: [13a]: http://www.youtube.com/v/WY053xz90jw&hl=en_US&fs=1& The song is apparently a [Cameroonian military song][14] (click the link to watch the whole video) popularized in the 80's by the group Golden Sounds. A roughly translated [French Wikipedia page][15] explains a little more: [14]: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.kotonteej.com/%3Fp%3D611&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhipmvh7GSzApcFdXDsTnXSbSyNE0w [15]: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zangal%C3%A9wa > *This song was apparently sung very often without understanding its meaning. The language is Fang since Za engalomwa word for a "Who did you sent?": The question of a Cameroonian military to another foreign-born, according to Guy Dooh Zangalewa group.* > > *This song is interpreted in Fang. This language is widespread in Gabon, southern Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, and a little east of Central.* So that's my story of an Internet musical mystery presented and resolved. We've found versions or mentions of the song in places far from each other in distance and language, places like France, The Netherlands, Rwanda, Suriname, The Dominican Republic, Senegal, Liberia, and Cameroon. The meaning of the words may escape most people who sing it, [even some from the nation of origin][16], and I'm sure there are versions in other countries around the world, but with the help of Twitter and some tricky Youtube searching, we were able to track down the origin and proliferation of a truly global song that proves language is no barrier to a great melody[16a]: [16]: http://mamalisa.com/?t=es&p=1091&c=83 [16a]: http://www.youtube.com/v/kd-mQ_eCijw&hl=en_US&fs=1& -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 From lawrence at altlawforum.org Wed Jun 23 23:11:18 2010 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:11:18 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Courage Craft and Contention: Human Rights and the Judicial Imagination (Transcript of public lectures by Justice A P Shah and Prof. Upendra Baxi) Message-ID: <2BEEE45C-0596-4B3A-A64C-91E91F9D4E97@altlawforum.org> Dear all On the 12th of June, the Alternative Law Forum (ALF) celebrated its tenth anniversary with a public lecture by Justice A P Shah and Prof. Upendra Baxi on the topic Courage Craft and Contention: Human Rights and the Judicial Imagination. We are happy to share the transcript of the lectures http://www.altlawforum.org/news/ALF%2010th%20Anniversary%20Speech.doc Lawrence -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pranesh at cis-india.org Thu Jun 24 04:56:25 2010 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 04:56:25 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Google wins against Viacom! Message-ID: <4C229821.8050507@cis-india.org> The judgment itself: http://j.mp/ceZDfw http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/technology/24google.html?hp Judge Sides With Google in Viacom Lawsuit By MIGUEL HELFT SAN FRANCISCO — In a major victory for Google in its battle with media companies, a federal judge on Wednesday dismissed Viacom’s $1 billion copyright infringement against YouTube, the video-sharing site owned by Google. The judge granted Google’s motion for summary judgment, saying that the company was shielded from Viacom’s copyright claims by “safe harbor” provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That law generally protects user-generated sites from liability for copyrighted material uploaded by users as long as the operator of the site takes down the material when notified by its rightful owner that it was uploaded without permission. The dispute is over videos owned by Viacom that others had posted to YouTube. Viacom, which sued Google in 2007 for copyright infringement, had argued that Google was not entitled to the copyright act’s protections because Google deliberately turned a blind eye and profited from to the rampant piracy on YouTube. Viacom, the owner of Comedy Central, MTV and Nickelodeon, said it planned to appeal the decision. “We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the intent of Congress and the views of the Supreme Court as expressed in its most recent decisions,” Viacom said in a statement. “We intend to seek to have these issues before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible. After years of delay, this decision gives us the opportunity to have the Appellate Court address these critical issues on an accelerated basis. We look forward to the next stage of the process.” Google hailed the decision, saying it would protect not only Google, but also other user sites that host user-generated content. “This is an important victory not just for us, but also for the billions of people around the world who use the Web to communicate and share experiences with each other,” Kent Walker, Google’s general counsel, wrote on a corporate blog. “We’re excited about this decision and look forward to renewing our focus on supporting the incredible variety of ideas and expression that billions of people post and watch on YouTube every day around the world.” -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Jun 28 20:16:56 2010 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:16:56 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Bilski v. Kappos (on business method patents) is out. Message-ID: <4C28B5E0.8040801@cis-india.org> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.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: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Jun 28 20:42:12 2010 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:42:12 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Bilski v. Kappos (on business method patents) is out. In-Reply-To: References: <4C28B5E0.8040801@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <4C28BBCC.9050803@cis-india.org> I agree that all in all the decision is disappointing. There are many dissenting and partially concurring opinions, so it'll take a while to read through them. But off the cuff: the judgment (per Kennedy) expressly states that Machine-or-Transformation test is NOT the sole test [not good]. But it does not lay down a test, saying that previous SCOTUS judgments are sufficient. And as pointed out, Kennedy quotes BSA's amicus brief approvingly. So, all in all, doesn't seem to change a thing. God only knows why the Supreme Court accepted the bloody case if they didn't have anything to say beyond clarifying that the CAFC's current test is restrictive. On Monday 28 June 2010 08:37 PM, Aditya Nag wrote: > Ver y interesting.. let's see what happens now with business process > patents.. Unfortunately, it's clear that the SCOTUS doesn't really get > tech.. and they haven't ruled out the applicability of software patents. > > Frankly, I'm a little disappointed, especially since SCOTUS paid so much > attention to the BSA. Oh well, at least it's not as bad as it could have > been. > > What do you guys think? > On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Pranesh Prakash > wrote: > > http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf > > -- > Pranesh Prakash > Programme Manager > Centre for Internet and Society > W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Software_patents_India" group. > To post to this group, send email to > software_patents_india at googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > software_patents_india+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/software_patents_india?hl=en. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Jun 28 22:00:46 2010 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:00:46 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Bilski v. Kappos (on business method patents) is out. In-Reply-To: <4C28BFD8.4020607@softwarefreedom.org> References: <4C28B5E0.8040801@cis-india.org> <4C28BBCC.9050803@cis-india.org> <4C28BFD8.4020607@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <4C28CE36.2050900@cis-india.org> I think the court bases its affirmation of the CAFC ruling very strongly on the abstract-ideas-aren't-patentable principle (which after all is there in the statute). But it hasn't provided a strong signal that software (or business methods, for that matter) are abstract ideas. Stevens opines clearly (and is concurred with by Breyer) that business methods are not processes under s.101. Stevens (and Breyer and Scalia concur) also clearly negates the overly-broad test laid down in State Street Bank. (Stevens, interestingly, also has another reading of the ratio of SSB (fn. 40, p. 31).) On Monday 28 June 2010 08:59 PM, Mishi Choudhary wrote: > Nothing has changed but it will definitely flood the court with > unnecessary litigation as no clear guidelines were provided to clear the > mess around the subject. > > The Court definitely missed an opportunity to send a strong signal that > ideas are not patentable subject matter. > > Pranesh Prakash wrote: >> I agree that all in all the decision is disappointing. There are many >> dissenting and partially concurring opinions, so it'll take a while to >> read through them. But off the cuff: the judgment (per Kennedy) >> expressly states that Machine-or-Transformation test is NOT the sole >> test [not good]. But it does not lay down a test, saying that >> previous SCOTUS judgments are sufficient. And as pointed out, Kennedy >> quotes BSA's amicus brief approvingly. >> >> So, all in all, doesn't seem to change a thing. God only knows why >> the Supreme Court accepted the bloody case if they didn't have >> anything to say beyond clarifying that the CAFC's current test is >> restrictive. >> >> On Monday 28 June 2010 08:37 PM, Aditya Nag wrote: >>> Ver y interesting.. let's see what happens now with business process >>> patents.. Unfortunately, it's clear that the SCOTUS doesn't really get >>> tech.. and they haven't ruled out the applicability of software patents. >>> >>> Frankly, I'm a little disappointed, especially since SCOTUS paid so much >>> attention to the BSA. Oh well, at least it's not as bad as it could have >>> been. >>> >>> What do you guys think? >>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Pranesh Prakash>> > wrote: >>> >>> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf >>> >>> -- >>> Pranesh Prakash >>> Programme Manager >>> Centre for Internet and Society >>> W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Software_patents_India" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to >>> software_patents_india at googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> software_patents_india+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/software_patents_india?hl=en. >> >> > > -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Mon Jun 28 20:59:28 2010 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:59:28 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Bilski v. Kappos (on business method patents) is out. In-Reply-To: <4C28BBCC.9050803@cis-india.org> References: <4C28B5E0.8040801@cis-india.org> <4C28BBCC.9050803@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <4C28BFD8.4020607@softwarefreedom.org> Nothing has changed but it will definitely flood the court with unnecessary litigation as no clear guidelines were provided to clear the mess around the subject. The Court definitely missed an opportunity to send a strong signal that ideas are not patentable subject matter. Pranesh Prakash wrote: > I agree that all in all the decision is disappointing. There are many > dissenting and partially concurring opinions, so it'll take a while to > read through them. But off the cuff: the judgment (per Kennedy) > expressly states that Machine-or-Transformation test is NOT the sole > test [not good]. But it does not lay down a test, saying that > previous SCOTUS judgments are sufficient. And as pointed out, Kennedy > quotes BSA's amicus brief approvingly. > > So, all in all, doesn't seem to change a thing. God only knows why > the Supreme Court accepted the bloody case if they didn't have > anything to say beyond clarifying that the CAFC's current test is > restrictive. > > On Monday 28 June 2010 08:37 PM, Aditya Nag wrote: >> Ver y interesting.. let's see what happens now with business process >> patents.. Unfortunately, it's clear that the SCOTUS doesn't really get >> tech.. and they haven't ruled out the applicability of software patents. >> >> Frankly, I'm a little disappointed, especially since SCOTUS paid so much >> attention to the BSA. Oh well, at least it's not as bad as it could have >> been. >> >> What do you guys think? >> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Pranesh Prakash > > wrote: >> >> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf >> >> -- >> Pranesh Prakash >> Programme Manager >> Centre for Internet and Society >> W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Software_patents_India" group. >> To post to this group, send email to >> software_patents_india at googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> software_patents_india+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/software_patents_india?hl=en. > > -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary Counsel Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org From paivakil at yahoo.co.in Wed Jun 30 00:23:36 2010 From: paivakil at yahoo.co.in (Mahesh T. Pai) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:23:36 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Bilski v. Kappos (on business method patents) is out. In-Reply-To: <4C28BFD8.4020607@softwarefreedom.org> References: <4C28B5E0.8040801@cis-india.org> <4C28BBCC.9050803@cis-india.org> <4C28BFD8.4020607@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <20100629185336.GB3723@homeamd> Mishi Choudhary said on Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 08:59:28PM +0530,: > The Court definitely missed an opportunity to send a strong signal that > ideas are not patentable subject matter. Huh?? The BSA said that times have changed, money does lie in machines and gadgets, but in things which has no physical existence outside the storage media (paper, tape, optical / magnetic drives, memory devices, etc). The US legal system says that because the BSA says so, it may be correct. I would classify that decision as obiter. A decision is binding only when the deciding court gives reason for its decision, and "somebody wants it that way" is no reason at all. In short, the US Sup. Ct. HAS sent a strong signal that ideas MAY be patentable. That is what the US law has been so far. Now, go and read any book on interpretation and look at the innumerable situations where "may" has been interpreted to mean "shall". The big question for me is why should the Indian lawyer / legal system be bothered about what the US legal system says about patents? We have a statute, which, as it stands now, allows only for limited patentability. At least, that is how I read the Indian statute. -- Mahesh T. Pai || http://[paivakil|fizzard].blogspot.com ``Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty'' From gautam at prathambooks.org Wed Jun 30 02:28:08 2010 From: gautam at prathambooks.org (Gautam John) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 04:58:08 +0800 Subject: [Commons-Law] Bilski v. Kappos (on business method patents) is out. In-Reply-To: <4C28B5E0.8040801@cis-india.org> References: <4C28B5E0.8040801@cis-india.org> Message-ID: The Proposed Draft National Identification Authority of India Bill 2010 is open for comments/suggestions: http://bit.ly/d1CC3U Thank you. Best, Gautam ________ http://social.prathambooks.org/ From gautam at prathambooks.org Wed Jun 30 02:29:19 2010 From: gautam at prathambooks.org (Gautam John) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 04:59:19 +0800 Subject: [Commons-Law] Proposed Draft National Identification Authority of India Bill 2010 Message-ID: *changed subject line* The Proposed Draft National Identification Authority of India Bill 2010 is open for comments/suggestions: http://bit.ly/d1CC3U Thank you. Best, Gautam ________ http://social.prathambooks.org/