 "Meir Pugatch")
Continuing its dismal run for the third year, India was ranked second from bottom among 30 countries in the third edition of the annual international IP index brought out by the US Chamber of Commerce's Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC). Meir Pugatch, author of GIPC IP Index, who specialises in intellectual property policy, tells Sudipto Dey with the draft IPR policy India has started thinking strategically of how it wants to use its IP rights. Excerpts:
There is a growing feeling of victimisation in India - rightly or wrongly.
The index as a tool is not focusing on India - and not only on pharmaceuticals. It is an index that looks at 30 countries. It has 30 parameters, which include patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks enforcement, among others. Only 20 per cent of that is pharma-related. When we define the indicators and measure the different countries and scores, we certainly don't have only India on our mind.
To some extent the India score in my view challenges the common narrative that India's IT environment is roughly the same as in other countries. It creates a debate in India as to where India's intellectual property environment needs to go. Some interest groups did not like the fact that India's score was too low - the choice was to attack the index, rather than discuss the issues.
India is not being victimised. We looked at all countries and all indicators, and this is the result that came through. Maybe the index revealed a gap in the context of discussion on the future of Intellectual Property regime.
How does one explain India's dismal low rank, year after year?
India's score is low across the board. For instance, India does not allow for patenting of computer implemented technologies. So, all the inventions that you might have on a smart phone and electronic devices - like video feed, music feed or technologies - are not patentable by law. India lacks other standards such as regulatory data protection. In almost all developed countries, regulatory data protection is granted for five years to 12 years. In India, you have none. In fact in the medium-scoring countries you have much more attention to computer implemented invention; in India you have none. In advanced world there is much more attention to the issue of copyrights enforcements. These are lacking in India.
India also did not sign or ratify any of the treaties while other countries with different degree of variance are members of these international conventions. So, when benchmarked (with other countries) India got a rather low score on all aspects.
But India's stand has been that our IP regime is WTO-compliant.
The purpose of the index is not to judge whether India is WTO-compliant or not. Technology does not wait for international treaties. Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) has been signed 20 years ago. Since then technology has evolved with smart phones, Facebook, with bio-technology. The world intellectual property market is thriving. The fact that India chooses not be part of the game is what is reflected in this score. This is an index that aims to reflect how innovators and creators perceive to the extent to which different countries have supportive IP environment.
The question is what is that you want to achieve with IP - is it more innovation and creativity? For example despite having Bollywood, the contribution of creative economy to India in terms of GDP is the lowest among Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS). This is because of - among other things - insufficient enforcement mechanisms that do not allow Indians themselves to capitalise on their knowledge.
So, the question of whether you are compliant or not is legal, but the question of where you want to be - and how you want to get there - is strategic. The index here is like a map - you can choose to like it or not. But to say you have an excellent IP environment and the measurement is wrong, that is a problem.
Are you saying India has not been able to capitalise on Bollywood due to inadequate IP regime, despite the sheer volume of movies and other creative content generated?
The entertainment sector accounted for less than one per cent of Indian GDP. But in creative industries in other countries, such as South Korea, is almost 10 per cent, China is 6.3 per cent, Russia is 6 per cent, while in the US it's 11 per cent. Bollywood's creative powers are amazing. But with proper IP mechanism in place they can be ten times better.
Ambiguity is the enemy of investment. If India can remove ambiguity from its intellectual property regime, it will hugely improve confidence.
Does the draft national intellectual property rights policy help in that direction?
The document is a vision, roadmap, and blueprint. The ambition is to tap into IP to leverage domestic talent, to become much connected to the knowledge economy to benefit Indians. I hope this will be the turning point. The change can be of any pace - gradual or quicker. You have a vision which is not suspicious of the IP system, but seeks to use it, and understand its powers. The draft report lays the foundation of what India wants to do. The operational discussions - of which there will be debates - will follow.
For the first time I saw use of terms such as "transforming India into an innovative economy", using the knowledge assets of Indians to become more competitive. These were missing earlier. Thinking strategically of how you want to use your IP rights for your own domestic (industry) catches my attention in the draft policy.
