Background of World Conference of International Telecommunication (WCTI-12)

International Telecom Union (ITU) convened a meeting from 3rd to 14th December 2012, at Dubai to review the draft International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs). The purpose and the scope of the draft resolution is to find out a better communication system in today’s world. The main focus will be on the modern communication tools like internet, phone and the computer. In 1988, 178 member countries of ITU agreed to ITR at Word Administrative Telegraph and Telephone conference in Melbourne. The Melbourne Regulation came into force in the year of 1990. The main object of the ITR treaty was to provide a smooth communication system to the international community. ITR provided the guidelines on the tariffs exchanged between different carriers, the method of calculating the charges and the procedure of dispute settlement. ITR laid down the foundation of privatization of telecommunication sector and encourage the competition among the service providers. The net result of their approach is efficient communication at a lower cost.
From the beginning of the twenty first century, the communication technology was changed significantly. The increase use of network, inexpensive communication through mobile phones and new technology creates a huge market of telecommunication industries. In this environment, the main concern of the industry is the privacy of the customer. Industry also has to built an infrastructure to cope with the enormous growth of the market.
In this scenario, the member countries felt the need of revamping the old ITR. All the countries agreed in the point that International co-operation is required to face the challenge of current situation. It is not possible for the Government alone to solve the problem. Government can play the regulatory roles and the required investment will come from the private investment. The public and private partnership can only provide the satisfactory services to the customers and maintain the security and privacy of the customers. To meet the objective, ITU includes the members from the private companies, scientific and industrial organizations, financial institutes and telecom industries. About 200 academic institutes also participated in the activities.

A working group was formed to chalk out a draft resolution for changing the old regulation. The draft resolution has proposed some changes and included some new suggestions. Major propose changes and the additions were recommended in the following fields:

• Human right of access to communications
• International frameworks
• Interconnection and interoperability
• Security in the use of ICTs
• Protection of critical national resources
• Convergence.

ITU convened the World Conference of International Telecommunication (WCTI-12) to introduce a new binding regulation on the basis of draft resolution submitted by the working group. WCIT Chairperson Mohamed Al Ghanim mentions that the draft resolution is a major breakthrough. The final treaty will ensure the equitable and affordable access the communication to all sections of people.
For more information on copyright, patent and intellectual property rights, please contact: Lex Protector
By Aurobinda Panda
Founder & C.E.O of Lex Protector International Law Office
Ph: +91-9658577326
Email | Website | Facebook | Twitter | Blog

How the Trade Secret is protected in India

A Trade Secret is a practice to keep secret the information about the practice, process, design and formulas from which an establishment can get financial benefits. The unauthorized use of the trade secret is a legal offence. The trade secret of the establishment is protected by the law of the country. There are some differences between the patent and trade secret protection. As for example, trade secret can be protected for an unlimited period, in contrary to the limited period of patent protection. Article 39 of the "Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement)"has provided a general guideline of trade secret protection.

The main features of the guidelines are:-

• Undisclosed information which has a commercial value should be protected from unfair practices. The unfair practices include the illegal acquisition of manufacturing process, technical data and business strategy for commercial gain.
• When a secret data is submitted for the approval, it should be protected from the leakage .

Trade secret is a self-administered process. There is no procedural formality of protecting Trade secrets. Manufacturers prefer trade secret protection than patent due to its hustle-free formalities. Individual country has made the trade secret law following the guidelines of "TRIPS Agreement".

There are no specific laws of trade secrets in India. In India, the concept of trade secret protection is not so popular like patent, copyrights and trademarks. Therefore, the concept of trade secret has not been developed. But, in the digital age, the competition has been stiff and the business has to be more vigilant to protect the business secrecy from the competitors. Unlike India, the contractual nations of "TRIPS Agreement" have enacted law for protecting the trade secret according to the guidelines of "TRIPS Agreement". In India, the only statutory provision is section 27 of Indian Contract Act to protect the trade secret. The current process is not enough for the protection of trade secrets. Therefore, Indian manufacturers and the producers felt the need of another convenient tool. In this context, they appealed the Central Government to enact a new law to protect the trade secret in the line of "TRIPS Agreement".

In the meantime, Department of Science and Technology (DST) has introduced the National Innovation Act, 2008 (the Draft Act) drafted by Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and the Industry (FICCI). The chapter VI of the draft proposed a guideline of the trade secret act. However, a section of experts have alerted the Government that the introduction of the trade secret law is okay, but if the proper care is not taken in promulgation of the law, it would open the floodgate of litigations. The Government wants a comprehensive analysis on the impact of the laws. They have sought the opinions of the experts. Whatever may be the consequence, the Government has to enact the law within a short period.

For more information on copyright, patent and intellectual property rights, please contact: Lex Protector

An analysis of the patient assistance program launched by the big pharmaceutical companies of India

The latest decisions of the "Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB)"to revoke the patent protection of Gefitinib, the cancer drug patented by AstraZeneca; Pegasys, hepatitis drug patented by Roche and Nexavar, the cancer drug patented by Bayer are the major setbacks of big pharmaceutical companies of India. In the above cases, the Indian generic companies have challenged the patent of these big multinational companies. The multinational drug manufacturers not only lost the legal battle, they also lose the support of Indian people. The main allegation of the general people is that they are selling the patented drug in Indian market at an exorbitant rate and making a huge profit from India. The big companies have rejected the accusations. The spokesperson of these companies said that a major portion profit made by them is use for the patient assistance program in India. Patient assistance program is earmarked for the patients who cannot afford the high cost treatment for the critical diseases. 

Now, it is the time to verify the truth behind the claimsof patient assistance scheme of big pharmaceutical

companies. There is no reliable information about the patient assistance program in India. The only exception is Glivec, a HIV drug by Novartis has a website that gives the detail information about their activities through "Arogya Parivar". Therefore, nobody can assess the claim of assisting the poor patients. Therefore, there is a doubt about the authenticity about the company's welfare program. 

However, these companies follow a clear policy in America and European countries to inform the public about their patient assistance scheme. The information includes the eligibility criteria, application procedure, the amount of help and the contact address of the company. Anyone can get the information from the website of the company. Why the big pharmaceutical companies maintain the double standards? The double faced policy of the companies has raised the doubt about their claim on the utilization of excessive profit in patient assistance scheme. 

Another point is if a company claims for this type welfare program in the court, the company should file an affidavit testifying the oath through its managing director. In the affidavit, the company will mention how many patients have been benefited by the scheme and effectiveness of the program. As far as I know, only Novartis have filed the affidavit in the case of Glivec. No other companies have filed the affidavit. 

Recent verdict against the big pharmaceutical companies have proved that Indian generic companies have the power to fight against the monopoly of the big pharmaceutical companies acquired by patent of a specific drug. Now, the generic companies can manufacture and sell the drugs at a lower cost. India is now going to implement the rights of medical treatment to all. 

For more information on copyright, patent and intellectual property rights, please contact: Lex Protector

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons may solve the territorial issue of Patent Exhaustion

Patent Exhaustion is also known as first sale doctrine. Under the doctrine, the rights of the patent holders become exhausted after the sale. Therefore, the patent holder cannot sue anyone for the infringement for the sold patent. The drawback of the doctrine is that it did not clearly define the territorial status of the doctrine. Even the Court delivers the conflicting rulings in the territorial dispute. Therefore, the doctrine should be analyzed to set up a standard of territory status in patent exhaustion case. However, the recent arguments in the case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. may find out permanent solutions on the territorial issue of Patent Exhaustion.

Kirtsaeng, a Thai national resold some books in the USA and earned millions of dollars. These books were purchased by his family from the Thailand bookstore.   When these activities of Kirtsaeng were detected by John Wiley & Sons, a reputed textbook publisher of the USA, Wiley filed a suit against Kirtsaeng on the ground of copyright infringement. Kirsten defended him arguing that the books that he sold in America were published under the license of John Wiley & Sons to its Asian subsidiary. Therefore, John Wiley & Sons could not sue anyone for reselling the text books under 106(a), 602(a) and 109(a) of the US copyright acts. The case raised two issues related to provisions of US copyright acts. The first one is whether a copyright owner can file infringement of copyright suit against anyone after the legal sale of his work to another one. The second one is whether the permission is required to import the material in US if anyone legally acquires abroad the copyright of a material from US.

Both the parties seek the justice under the provision of section 109 of copyright act. The section 109 has mentioned the limitations on exclusive rights of copyright owners. According to the section 109, “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord”. Kirtsaeng argued that as the books were published abroad under the license from John Wiley & Sons to its Asian subsidiary, reselling of the books in USA are exempted from punishment. In their counter argument, Wiley & Sons rejected the claim of exemption from punishment mentioning that the US Copyright Act is not applicable in Asia. Therefore, Kirtsaeng will not get impunity under the section 109 (a) of US Copyright Law. The District Court gives its verdict in favor of John Wiley & Sons imposing a damage charge of $600,000. The second circuit also affirmed the verdict.

Now, Supreme Court has heard the oral arguments of the case. The case has attracted the attention of the people related to copyright and patent acts. Both the parties had cited the examples of previous judgments of similar type of cases. The center of the attraction was the financial importance of 109(a) section; the rights of copyright holders to sell the copyrighted work at lower price in the foreign countries in the regime of globalization. A decision explicitly authorizing the importation into this country of low-cost foreign versions of copyrighted works would directly undermine the ability of content providers to maintain high prices for domestic versions of the works.

<p> For more information on copyright, patent and intellectual property rights, please contact:  <a href="http://www.lexprotector.com/blog/2012/09/20/trademark-protection-in-india/">Lex Protector</a></p>

International Humanitarian Law Student Writing Competition

Sponsor: American University Washington College of Law Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law and the American Society of International Law's Lieber Society
Deadline: January 31, 2013

Essay Topic: This competition aims to promote interest and enhance scholarship in international humanitarian law among students as well as deepen their understanding of this important area of international law.
Prize Information: The two winning authors will present their papers at an expert conference at American University Washington College of Law in Washington, DC, with travel and accommodation expenses covered. Winners will also receive a complementary registration at the ASIL Annual Meeting on April 3-6, 2013 in Washington, DC, and will receive a one-year student membership with ASIL.
Notes:
Students must currently be enrolled in a law degree program at a U.S. or foreign law school as of the sumbission deadline. Students may choose a topic within the scope of international humanitarian law. Submissions must be unpublished academic papers written solely by the candidate in English. Articles should be submitted online, as Microsoft Word attachments, to teachingihl@wcl.american.edu.

The deadline for submissions is Thursday, January 31, 2013, by 12 PM Noon (EST).
For detailed competition rules, please visit www.WCLCenterforHR.org

Contact:
Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law
American University Washington College of Law
4801 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20016
Tel: 202.274.4180
Fax: 202.274.0783
teachingihl@wcl.american.edu


Competition Website: www.WCLCenterforHR.org

IEL Hartrick Scholar Writing Compeition

Sponsor: Institute for Energy Law
Deadline: January 15, 2013
Essay Topic:

The general subject for this year's competition is any topic related to energy development. This includes, for example, topics concerning oil and gas law, alternative energy resources, energy regulation, and environmental regulation of energy industries.
Prize Information:
The Hartrick Scholar(s) selected by the Judging Committee will be notified on February 15, 2013. The Scholar(s) will receive a $2,500 cash award at the Institute for Energy Law's 64th Annual Oil & Gas Law Conference to he held February 21-22, 2013, in Houston, Texas. The Hartrick Scholar(s) also will be recognized for their work at the Career Paths for Young Attorneys in the Energy Sector Symposium to be held on March 1-2, 2013 at The University of Tulsa College of Law. Selection as a Hartrick Scholar includes, in addition to the $2,500 cash award, the cost of travel to attend the Conference in Houston and the Symposium in

Tulsa.
Notes:
Students enrolled in law school as of December 2012, and seeking a juris doctor degree, are eligible to submit an article for consideration in the IEL Hertrick Scholar competition.
The article can be any work prepared by the student while enrolled in law school and can include prior works prepared for law journal or a law school course, so long as the submitted version complies with the submission guidelines. The Hartrick Scholar Judging Committee will select one or more outstanding submissions that they deem worthy of recognition.
The article must be submitted to the Hartrick Scholar Judging Committee, at the address listed below, on or before January 15, 2013. The article should not exceed 8,000 words including footnotes (this approximates 40 double-spaced pages of text and footnotes or 25 printed pages). Footnotes should be in Blue Book format and placed at the bottom of the page where the footnoted text appears. The article should be submitted in pdf or hard copy accompanied by a cover email message or letter than contains the following information: (1) the title of your article; (2) the law school where you are currently enrolled; (3) your mailing address; (4) your telephone number; and (5) your email address. The article should not contain your name, law school, or any other identifying information.

Contact Information:-
The Center for American and International Law lhogarth@cailaw.org
5201 Democracy Drive
Plano, Texas 75024-3561
lhogarth@cailaw.org

Hogan/Smoger Access to Justice Essay Contest

Sponsor:

Public Justice Foundation
Deadline: March 31, 2013
Essay Topic: The topic for the 2013 Hogan/Smoger Access to Justice Essay Contest: Is Democrazy for Sale? Have Citizens United's Holding Run Amok? Legal Challenges Left to Super Pacs? Can Funding Disclosure Be Required?
Prize Information:
The Hogan/Smoger Access to Justice Essay Contest is a $5,000 cash award given to the author of the winning essay.
Notes:
Any student currently enrolled in an accredited American law school may submit a legal essay for the competition. Essays can only be written during the academic year covered by the competition and may not be prepared as part of paid legal work outside of law school.
Additional information about this contest is posted on the Public Justice website www.publicjustice.net/news-events/awards.
All entrants must fill out and submit the "intent-to-enter" form by January 31, 2013. To download the intent-to-enter form, visit out

website www.publicjustice.net.
For more information, contact Cassandra Goings at (202) 797-8600, ext. 244 or cgoings@publicjustice.net.

Competition Website: http://www.publicjustice.net/What-We-Do/Awards/Law-School-Essay-Contest.aspx

Center for Human Rights at Trinity Law School Annual Writing Competition

Sponsor:

b> The Center for Human Rights at Trinity Law School
Deadline: March 25, 2013
Essay Topic: The topic for this year's writing competition is: The evolving tension between the freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and hate speech and blasphemy laws. There is a growing tension, both domestically and internationally, between the freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the judicial or legislative restrictions on those freesoms. Many state and national constitutions provide for the protection of speech and religion, as do many international treaties. However, the scope of these freedoms has been the subject of increasing debate and limitation, with such limitations often being couched in terms of "hate speech" and "blasphemy"laws. Scholars are invited to address this growing tension in a manner that best expresses the depth and scope of this continually evolving issue.
Prize Information:
A First, Second, and Third place will be chosen from the eligible submissions. The prizes will be awarded as follows:
First Place: $3,000
Second Place: $1,000
Third Place: $500
All prizes will be paid in U.S. Dollars.
The First, Second, and Third place winners will also receive expedited consideration for publication in the 2013/2014 Trinity Law

Review. However, "expedited consideration" should not be viewed as a guarentee of publication.
Notes:
Submissions are due on or before March 25, 2013. No papers will be accepted after that date.
Winners will be announced by April 30, 2013, via e-mail.
Please submit all papers, questions, or inquiries to: CHR@tiu.edu
The Center for Human Rights at Trinity Law School provides exceptional research and educational opportunities for the promotion and understanding of international human rights. The Center provides a forum by which students and faculty can discuss and address the relationship between man and God, as well as the rights, durites and oblications that flow from that relationship. The Center supports the Human Rights Program in Strasbourg, France, that brings academics, philosophers, theologians, attorneys, NEGO's, and students together to address vital Human Rights Issues.

Competition Website: http://www.tls.edu/writing-competition

Daniel T. Murphy Writing Competition

Sponsor: Journal of Global Law and Business
Deadline: January 18, 2013
Essay Topic:

The topic of this year's competition is the looming domestic and international financial regulation in the wake of the worldwide economic crisis. All entries must pertain to timely legal issues concerning financial regulation in the U.S. or abroad, or the relationship between the two. Authors are expected to strongly include and analyze the topic material within their written work. Entries focused more generally on areas of global law and business will be considered, but preference will be given to those that address the topic substantively.
Prize Information:
Submission Procedures:
1. All interested MUST email emily.woodley@richmond.edu to request an anonymous submission number. Please place "Anonymous Number Request" in the subject line.
2. Students must mail TWO copies of their submission to:
Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business

University of Richmond School of Law
28 Westhampton Way
University of Richmond, VA 23173
3. Students who attend the University of Richmond School of Law may choose to hand deliver their work. A drop box will be located outside the Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business office during the week leading up to the due date. Any submission prior to that may be placed in the folder of Emily Woodley (3L).
4. Each submissions must contain a cover page containing the anonymous number of the author. The anonymous number must be included on each page of the submission. DO NOT place your name or school anywhere on the submission.
5. Entries must be postmarked by January 18, 2013.
http://law.richmond.edu/students/essay-catalog.html

American College of Legal Medicine's 2013 Student Writing Competition

Sponsor: The American College of Legal Medicine
Deadline: January 4, 2013
Essay Topic:

Legal medicine is the professional and academic discipline that concerns itself with legal aspects of medical science, medical practice and other healthcare delivery. Practitioners of the specialty have sufficient training, knowledge and expertise to address the scope of the specialty from a scholarly, scientific and practical perspective. As the subject matter of legal medicine is broad, we are looking for quality papers that cover any aspect of legal medicine. 1. All authors must have previously achieved a baccalaureate degree or equivalent from an accredited institution and must be currently enrolled in an accredited law, medical, podiatric, nursing, dental, health science or healthcare administration program in the United State or Canada. 2. No paper that has been previously published in any form will be considered; however, papers written for scholarly classes will be allowed as long as they have not been published. 3. All papers submitted will receive consideration for publication in the Journal of Legal Medicine or other medical legal publications.
Prize Information:
Hirsh Award Winner - $1,000
2nd Prize - $500
3rd Prize - $250
The first place paper will be named the Hirsh Award Winner. In addition, the ACLM will pay the Hirsh Award Winner's costs of travel

& lodging to present his or her paper at the ACLM 2013 Annual Meeting in Law Vegas, NV.
Notes:
Format:
1. The format rules below must be followed exactly. PAPERS THAT DO NOT FOLLOW ALL OF THESE RULES WILL NOT BE GRADED.
2. The paper's length must not exceed 5000 total words, and must not exceed 15 pages. The word count is applicable to the total paper; the words on the title page, footbotes, figures and tables are to be included.
3. All papers are to be submitted in Word document format, using 12 point Times New Roman font for all text. Papers must be typed double-spaced, with one-inch margins and all pages are to be numbered. All citations are to be as footnotes, which should be in 10 point Times New Roman font, single-spaced, and with one-inch margins.
4. The first page must be the cover page, which must include the following information: the author's name and contact information, including a telephone number, email address and the name of the author's school. The cover page must also contain the final work count obtained from Word.
5. At the top of page #2 the author must place the title of the paper all in capitals. After the title, two lines must be skipped and the text of the paper should begin.
6. If tables or figures are included, they are to be placed after the text according to the following rules: On the first page, after the end of the text, a list of all tables and figures will be provided. Each table and figure will then be placed on a separate page.
7. If an author wishes to acknowledge an individual or institution this can only be done on the cover page.
Content:
1. Papers must contain only uncollaborated original work.
2. Papers may relate to research done by the author.
3. Papers may deal with any aspect of legal medicine, including medical lecensure and regulation of the profession, busniess aspects of medical practice, liability of physicians, hospitals, managed care organizations, and pharmaceutical manufacturers, public health law, the physician-patient relationship, care of special patients, food and drug law, medical research, forensic science and the history of legal medicine.
4. Although papers may have been submitted for a grade at the author's school, the author may not have submitted the paper elsewhere for publication.
5. It is assumed that the author had no financial interest (direct or indirect) with the material presented. If the author does have a conflict this should be disclosed on the last page of the document.
Judging:
1. All papers will be judged by the Student Awards Committee of the American College of Legal Medicine in a blinded review process. The decision of the judges is final.
2. All prizes may not be awarded each year if the ACLM and/or Student Awards Committee determines that no entry meets the standards of a winning paper.
Papers will be judged in the following areas:
1. Appropriateness of subject matter for the contest
2. Originality, thoughtfulness
3. Quality of legal and bioethical, medical, law, dentitry, podiatry, nursing, pharmacy, health science, healthcare administration or publich health analysis
4. Quality of writing
5. Citation of authority/support for arguments
Deadline and Submission:
1. The papers must be submitted only via email to info@aclm.org. Papers transmitted or sent in any other form will not be considered for the writing competition.
2. Authors must submit their papers by the end of the business day, Jaunary, 2013. Under no circumstances will any paper be considered unless it is submitted by the dealine and in the required format.
3. Direct questions to:
Student Writing Competition, American College of Legal Medicine
Two Woodfield Lake, 1100 E Woodfield Road, Suite 520, Schaumburg, IL  60173
Phone: (847) 969-0283 Web: www.aclm.org Email: info@aclm.org
4. Winners other than the Hirsh Award Winner will be announced at the ACLM 2013 Annual Meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, and may appear personally at their own expense if they wish to be recognized.

2012-2013 Business Law Practice Note Competition

Deadline: March 1, 2013
Essay Topic:

Practice Notes shall be on a subject of interest to Virginia busniess lawyers and may focus on current legal issues, practical concerns to business lawyers or developers in the law. Suggested topics may include corporate finance, securities law, commercial transactions, creditors' reights, busniess entities, contractual relationships, indemnification, business regulation, and mergers and acquisitions. For examples of Business Law Practice Notes, see the Business Law Section's website: http://www.richmondbar.org/business_law.htm
Prize Information: The winning entry will receive a $400 award and an invitation to attend and be recognized at an event held by the Business Law Section or the Bar Association of the City of Richmond. The First Runner Up will receive a $100 award and an invitation to attend and be recognized at an event held by the Business Law Section of the Bar Association of the City of Richmond. The Practice Note and resume of the Winner and the First Runner Up will be disseminated at all members of the Business Law Section.

Notes:
Regularly enrolled Law Students at Virginia Law Schools are eligible to submit a Practice Note to the Business Law Section of the Bar Association of the City of Richmond.
Submissions shall be the original work of the Law Student and shall be no longer than 500 words.
All submissions will become the property of the Business Law Section and may be distributed to the members of the Bart Association of the City of Richmond or published in its publications.
The submissions will be judged on the basis of originality, clarity of writing and usefulness to the members of the Business Law Section. The decision of the Awards Committee of the Business Law Section will be made on or before April 1, 2013 and will be final. Only winner will be notified.
Submissions shall be made on or before March 1, 2013, to: Megan Martz Gilliland, Christian & Barton, L.L.P., 909 East Main Street, Suite 1200, Richmond, Virginia 23219, or by email to: mgilliland@cblaw.com, and shall include:
a. The Law Student's resume, including at a minimum name, address, contact information, Law School and class;
b. The Practide Note; and
c. The following statement signed by the Law Student: "The enclosed Practice Note is my own work and is submitted as an entry in the 2012-2013 Business Law Practice Note Competition conducted by the Business Law Section of the Bar Association of the City of Richmond. I have read the Rules of the competition and understand that the decision of the Awards Committe of the Business Law Section is final. The Bar Association of the City of Richmond and its Business Law Section are hereby granted rights to use my submission in any way they deem appropriate including without limitation publication and dissemination to their members in any form."

Competition Website: http://www.richmondbar.org/business_law.htm
Sponsor: The Business Law Section of the Bar Association of the City of Richmond

WIPO is about make a treaty for providing reading ability to the blind and other disable persons.

"Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)"and other similar organizations approached WIPO to create a mechanism so that the blind and other disable people can get access to the copyrighted reading materials like others. On 21st June 2011, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, the European Union and its Member States, Mexico, Norway, Paraguay, the Russian Federation, the United States of America and Uruguay submitted a document named "international instrument on limitations and exceptions for people with print disabilities" in twenty second session of "Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR)"of WIPO in response to the demand of KEI and other organizations.

The proposal was proposed by both the developed and developing nations without major differences. The proposer had admitted the logic behind the demand of KEI and other organizations. They have mentioned that their motive is to provide the full and equal access to the artistic and literary creation to the visually impaired person and other with printing disabilities. They had also pointed out the hurdles behind the implementation of the program. The 22nd session of SCCR took their decision to discuss the proposal in the next session.

The proposal was discussed elaborately in the 23rd. sessionfrom November 21 to December 2, 2011 and 24th. Session from 16th of July to 25, 2012 of “SSCR”, but no fruitful results was not found. However, a draft treaty text was adopted in the WPO General Assembly Session on 17th November 2012. The session decided to discuss the draft treaty in the extraordinary session of WIPO General Assembly which will be held on 17th and 18th December. The extraordinary session of WIPO General Assembly of December 2012 has come out with a positive signal. The delegates of the session discussed the major problems of the issue like limitations and exceptions of copyrights and cross-border exchange of accessible format copies. The session also worked out the duties and obligations of the members and contracting parties.

However, the US wanted to include the word "agreement" instead of "treaty". Most members opposed to the proposal because the inclusion of word "agreement "instead of "treaty" may downgrade the status of the proposal. The USA and EU informed that they would inform their views in the next session. However, at the end of the meeting, "treaty" prevailed in the final document. WIPO Director General Francis Gurry said that the decision of the meeting was a historical achievement. It was a positive outcome for delivering the equal rights to the physically impaired person. The session also decided to hold a diplomatic conference in Morocco in June, 2013 to conclude the treaty.

For more information on copyright, patent and intellectual property rights, please contact: Lex Protector

The proposed amendment of royalty to the artists in the entertainment industry under Indian copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2012 has raised a controversy.

Indian copyright (Amendment) Bill 2012 is now waiting for the approval of president. Enacting the amended act is now a matter of time. You can get the details of the bill from here. The experts and the people related to the copyright laws started to analyze the pros and cons of the bill. The general people and most of the critics have welcomed the passage of the bill. However, there are some concerns about the bill among the users of the copyright bill. The producers of film industries are most vocal against the proposed amendment of royalty to the artists in the entertainment industry. In this article, you will get the arguments of the two sides.

The amendment will ensure the royalty of the artists, composers, musicians and performers by making them the owner of copyrights. Previously, the producers or the publishers were the owners of the copyrights. Those who are in favor of the

amendment have said that Bollywood had misused randomly the copyright act and deprived the creative artists not paying the legitimate royalties to them. Being the owner of the copyrights, the producers could sell the rights of artistic work to anyone and make huge profits without paying a single farthing to the creator. Javed Akhter, renowned lyricist termed the deal as a legal surrender of intellectual property rights. The new law will bring the end of producer regime.

The above proposal sounds nice. However, this proposal was harshly criticized by the producers' guild labeling it as an unrealistic approach and emotionally guided policy. The charge was serious. They said that the content of the proposal was totally biased. The lawmakers have failed to access the reality of the entertainment Industry. Lyricist Javed Akhter and singer Shubha Mudgal approached the Ministry of Human Resources to inform the miserable conditions of "poor, downtrodden and starving performers". They argued that the mythical performers have no power to protect intellectual property rights or collect the royalties from the powerful film industries for using their works. The delegation said that the creator of the native performing arts can collect their legitimate royalty through a Government sponsored legislated co-operative society. Being convinced by the argument, the Government included the clause of Royalty Collection Society in the proposed bill. The critics of the bill said that it was right that the producers paid lesser amount to the artists. The main reason of it is that only seven percent of the works can be monetized. The producers fed the rest 93 percent from that monetization. The potential artists like Javed Akhter and A.R. Rahaman has the ability to negotiate with the producers. But, what will be the fate of new artists? Will anybody invest to promote their products? The new amendment will close the door of the new creation.

The issue is controversial. The time will say who is correct?

For more information, you can contact Lex Protector

By Aurobinda Panda: By Aurobinda Panda

Founder & C.E.O of Lex Protector International Law Office

Ph: +91-9658577326

Email | Website | Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Latest amendments of Indian Copyrights Act in 2012

India first enacted the Copyright law in the year of 1847 in the regime of East India Company. In the last 165 years, the copyright laws were amended several times to cater the needs of the changed social environment. Some changes are minor and some are the major changes. However, three major distinctive changes in the law brought the present generation copyright acts of today. In the year of 2010, Government realized that the last sweeping amendments of 1994 and minor changes afterwards did not meet the demand of the current situation. In the last few years, the tremendous growth of digital technology has totally changed the social environment. The advent of internet and the computer technology have posed a challenge to the old concept of protecting the rights of artistic works.

In this context, Government of India felt the need to amend the copyright law to cope with the present situation. The Government sought the opinions from the copyright related people to know their views about the nature of amendments. After long discussions, the Government of India has placed the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010 on the table of Parliament in 2010. Loksabha passed the bill on 22nd May, 2012 and Rajyasabha also passed it on 17th May.

The main objective of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill,2010 , 2010 is to protect all types intellectual property rights in the digital age. The new digital technology includes computer networks, satellite communications, electronic resources and devices. The salient features of the new bill are:-

• The author of a literary or musical work will now get a level playing field to negotiate the terms and conditions of the royalty with the publishers and producers. The creators will also get the equal share of royalties for the exhibition of their creation except in the case of the public show in cinema hall. Therefore, the exhibitors have to share the royalty with the author of creative art for a private show. The permitted exceptions are copyright societies and legal heirs to whom an author may assign the right.
• The new bill has included the following clause to provide the relief to the physically handicapped or disabled people. The amendment has exempted the works done for the benefit of physically handicapped person in Braille and other mode of communication system, from the copyright law. Moreover, the amendment also exempt copies created in non-special formats for the non-profit organization works.
• The exemption has also extended to the students for using literary, artistic, music, theater and cinematographic work for research purposes.
• According to the new amendment, it will be mandatory to pay royalties to the owners of the copyright for broadcasting each time the work in television and radio.

The Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2010 is now is waiting for President's confirmation and gazette notification. As soon as the bill will be notified in the gazette, the bill will come into the force. The new amendment will help to build a strong and vibrant new India protecting the rights of creative people.

For more information on the issues related intellectual property matters, please contact: Lex Protector.

American invents act has stopped the damage charge claiming false marking statute.

The American invents act has taken a major legal step against the marking statute. Before the enforcement of American invents act, anyone could file a case against any company accusing for selling the product that marked with numbers of expired patents or patents which did not cover the products. The suit was filed as qui tam action by which the plaintiff could collect up to 500 Dollars per unit of product sold. With the strength of the law, numerous numbers of false suits were filed claiming the compensation of millions of units of products. To avoid the long-term litigation process and financial burden, most of the manufacturers settled the matter outside the court.

If a manufacturer sells a product that affixes a false mark to assert the customer that the product is patented with the intention to deceive the customer that will be treated as unlawful activities. Any person who will be involved with this illegal activity will be punished up to $500.00 per unit of product under the Section 292 (a) of the patent act. The one half of the penalty will go to the person and the US Government will get the other half.

On 16th of September 2011, President Obama signed into the law of American invents act. That drastically cut the facilities of the plaintiffs who sued a manufacturer under the section 292 (a) of patent law. The major changes were

• Amendment abolishes of qui tam provision of 292 (b).
• It permits the Government only to collect the penalty.
  
• It limits the amount of damages of the plaintiff. It will be calculated on the basis of competitive injury due to false patent.

Congress has also proposed the legislation will be applicable to the pending cases as well. The new decision of the Federal Court in Rogers vs Tristar case cleared the confusion over the retroactive clause. In that case the plaintiff Rogers complained that defendant Tristar's claim on the patent of its power juicers is false and misleading. Rogers claimed $500 for every unit sold in the market. Rogers argued that application of retroactive clause under section 292 in the case will violate the Fifth Amendment of litigation rights. However, the Court observed that the intention of the 292 amendment to protect companies from having to expend resources to defend themselves from claims that they intentionally sought to harm consumers. Therefore, the Court denied the reconsideration motion of Rogers.

The verdict will bring the end of false marking statue cases.

For more information on the issues raised by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act or other intellectual property matters, please contact: Lex Protector

Proposals on inclusions of the new articles in the Industrial design (ID) treaty in WIPO meeting

Industrial design (ID) is a professional service of making and developing a product that enhances the usefulness, look and standards of the products. A perfect design can provide the various benefits to the manufacturers and the customers. An intensive research is required to fulfill the commitments of the manufacturers. The main feature of the industrial design is that it is not only functional, it should also be aesthetic. As the industrial design is a creative commercial product, it has a market value. Therefore, the creation should be protected, so that no other than the creator of design can make profit from the design.

On 06th November 1925, International community took the first step for International registration of industrial designs in Hague, Netherlands. The participating countries signed an agreement mentioning the definition of the industrial design, the reason of protection and procedure of registration. The convention was organized by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Director General of WIPO became the depository of the agreement. The agreement came into operation from 1934. The 1925 agreement have been revised several times according to the need of the hour. Recently the European Union and African group submitted some proposals to amend the Industrial designs act.

The African group proposed to include four clauses in the treaty to provide technical assistance and capacity building for developing countries and least developed countries (LDC) in the line of the WIPO secretariat document. African countries mentioned that fees should be reduced to 50% in the case of developing countries and the fees should be completely waived in the case of least developed countries where the fees are charged for registration. The applicants from those countries will be benefited financially from the reduction or waiving of the fees. The second proposed inclusion was to provide the technical assistance to facilitate the full advantage of the provisions of the industrial design treaty. Third proposal was to grant financial assistance to at least one member of the developing countries and LDC for participating in the ordinary and extraordinary session of WTO. The last proposal was that the member states should exchange the information about the registered designs among the members to protect the misappropriations of traditional designs and simplifying substantive examination of industrial designs.

On the other hand, European Union expressed a different view on the African proposal. They said that they do not favor the inclusion of African articles in the treaty. In a word, they want the proposals should be kept in non-binding status. Their argument was that the financial and technical assistance depends on the capacity of the developed nations.

The delegates who attend the Standing Committee meeting on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) from 10-14th December discussed the proposals. They could not make any decision on the proposal. According to a press source, the participants have only discussed informally about the impact on the proposals. In the next meeting, they will elaborately explore all the aspects of the proposals.

For more information, you can contact Lex Protector

By Aurobinda Panda: By Aurobinda Panda

Founder & C.E.O of Lex Protector International Law Office

Ph: +91-9658577326

Email | Website | Facebook | Twitter | Blog