Discussion on proposed "Public Funded Research and Development (Protection, Utilization and Regulation of Intellectual Property) Bill"

My high-level take aways from the discussion on "Public Funded Research and Development (Protection, Utilization and Regulation of Intellectual Property) Bill" are:

1. Bootstrapping of IP generation and commercialization is too important an activity and I just hope this bill is passed ASAP by the parliament.
2. I would love to see more accountability provisions in the bill. A minimal return on investment should be mandated in return for higher public spending on research.
3. If this bill is to succeed and IP generation in public funded research is to take off, it is very important to educate the research community on IP related concepts and practice. It's heartening to see that the bill mandates the creation of an IP management cell in every institution that receives public funding for research.
   

Running notes from IP Discussion

• Basics of IP
  • IP rights are seen as incentive for inventors and investors
    • Seen as "good for public"
    • Not clear if this assumption is true
      • Research on this topic is inconclusive
  • Different types of IP rights
    • Patents
    • Copyrights
      • Protects works of authorship
      • Bcos of BERN convention, copyrights are almost universal where as patents are territorial
    • Trademarks
    • Trade Secrets
  • International conventions on IP Protection
    • BERN convention for copyrights
    • Paris convention for Industrial IP
    • TRIPS under WTO
    • All of these try to accomplish basic consistency in laws
  • Most IP rights (except Trademarks, Trade Secrets) are time-bound
    • Ashcroft case challenged consistent prolonging of copyright terms
      • Mickey mouse syndrome
• IP created via public-funding
  • US act allowed universities to own IP that comes out research funded by the public
  • Similar bill proposed in india
    • Timelimit proposed for IP disclosure
      • Countries in which univ wants to retain rights also need to be listed
      • Univ MUST take steps within certain time period before the right to claim expires
    • Only disclosed IP can be owened by the inventor
    • IP management cell must be set up - otherwise, funding will be suspended
    • 30% of income needs to be shared with the inventors
    • Out of the remaining 70%, 30% can be used by the IP cell
• Exemptions
  • E.g., Methods of medical treatment is excluded in india
  • Govt. has the declare IP as unenforceable, or mandate compulsory licensing
• Questions for discussion
  • Is IP protection warranted?
    • Debate died down bcos of WTO
    • IP rights encourage technology transfer
    • Reverse engineering efforts are "Wasteful"
    • IP rights do not really encourage "creators"; they do make sense where large investments are required
    • Countries should be able to decide on areas where IP rights should be reduced
    • Patent offices are not always doing their job leading to abuse
  • Does India need such a legislation?
    • Data shows 70% govt funding of all public research
    • Puts pressure to re-invest in research
    • Puts presssure to show returns on investment
    • Does it impede knowledge sharing?
    • Should it go further?
      • Should it mandate certain rate of return
    • Spirit of extracting value
    • Good inventions stay on the shelf currently
      • No infrastructure to file a patent
      • No infra to market inventions
    • Awareness will grow among the academia
  • Implementability
    • Infrastructure for commercialization is missing
    • Companies can exploit faculty?
    • "Return on investment" is the point that really needs to be made