 "Kalpana Reddy, US Chamber of Commerce")
Kalpana Reddy, senior director of international intellectual property for the Global Intellectual Property Center, US Chamber of Commerce, tells Sudipto Dey why the recently unveiled national IPR policy might not improve India's scores on international IP index in the short term. Edited excerpts:
On India's stand that its IPR laws are TRIPS-compliant:
It is important to recognise that TRIPs (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) is an agreement that is 20 years old, and is not the standard anymore. Standards have changed and businesses need different types of protection. The ways of business have also changed (over the years).
While we respect India's statement that laws are TRIPS-compliant, that is no longer the question. The question is, have you created a system through your laws or policies that provide incentives for companies to develop new content, new technologies, and are those investments going to be protected.
On key positives and disappointments from the policy:
On the whole, the release of the policy was a positive development. It crystallised the thinking of Indian government, and provides certain degree of clarity to businesses. What the policy does well is highlight the need to create the awareness that India has to undergo a paradigm shift in how knowledge is viewed and shared. The key takeaway is that IP is linked to innovation. That intellectual property rights is a tool that will drive economic development, and lead to empowerment. With this new policy, there is recognition that IP brings benefits.
In terms of where there might be some disappointments, it would lie in lack of specifics. There are some differences in the draft IP policy released by the think-tank and the final policy. There is a need to look at legal reforms, assess if changes in law are necessary to address inconsistencies, or perhaps enhance the laws to make them more effective.
It would have been better to have more fleshed out recommendations with significant legislative reforms.
On how the new IPR regime will look like:
One of the key changes is creation of a nodal IP agency in the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP). In terms of policy and IP management, they will be the principal agency. They will work closely with the enforcement agencies. There is expected to be better coordination as far as IP-related functions are concerned. Having a centralised function in DIPP will help all stakeholders. However, there has to be better coordination between the Centre and the states when it comes to implementation.
On whether the IPR policy will get reflected in the next US Chamber International IP Index. In the latest report released in February this year, India was ranked the second last among 38 countries:
In the near term, it will be very hard to predict. Some aspects of the policy over the long term should improve the environment. If India is able to address piracy and counterfeiting effectively, that should help improve India's score. For 2017, I cannot give you a prediction. But, by 2020 we should see an uptake in India's score, if they are able to implement the policy effectively. One of the reasons why India scores poorly in our report is tied to the laws themselves. Without legal reforms, you may not see substantial increase in India's scores. Industry remains cautiously optimistic on prospects of IP in India.
On the need for short- and medium-term implementation goals:
The policy is designed to explain the government's views on IP, how IP will be viewed as a subject and influence government's other policies. The policy is like an over-arching umbrella. Under it, there are recommendations that are grouped as seven objectives. It would have been difficult for the government to lay out specific timelines. Our understanding is there has been internal discussion for coming out with detailed action-plan for each recommendation, and putting in milestones or timelines. It will become clear as the government starts outreach programmes tied to the national IP policy.
On why legislative reforms are an important follow-up to the policy announcement:
When the think-tank gave out its draft policy, it recommended that certain laws should be put into place. For instance, it recommended a law to protect trade secrets, or a law to facilitate technology transfer. The think-tank also recommended looking back at the regulatory regime which impacts industries that has to go through regulatory approval process. For instance, data given to regulator has to be protected. In most jurisdictions, that data would be protected. But, India does not have that system in place.
Innovative businesses across the board feel the need for patent linkages and data protection in the regulatory system. In the media and entertainment sector, the cinematic Bill has been pending for a while. That will be one of the ways to tackle the piracy issue.
The policy will do lot of good things, but ultimately improving awareness and improving the enforcement mechanism are of limited value if you don't address the underlying laws which in many cases are weak.
India has the potential to be an innovation economy, but part and parcel of it is looking at the legal and regulatory framework so that it is clear, predictable, and that companies can rely on the system when they come to India.
