Analytical study of Intellectual property and Economic

development of India.

Dissertation Submitted in part Fulfilment for the requirements of the Degree

of
LL.M

Submitted by: Supervised by:

Rohit Chaudhary Dr. Ashish Singhal

Id. 2015000276 Assistant Professor

SCHOOL OF LAW
SHARDA UNIVERSITY
GREATER NOIDA
(2016)
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Mr. Rohit Chaudhary, Research Scholar, LLM (Corporate Law)
(System id.2015000276) has worked under my supervision on the topic “Analytical study
of Intellectual property and Economic development of India” to the best of my
knowledge, the work produced in this thesis is original and has not been submitted in part
or in full to this University or any other institution for award of any degree. I am satisfied
that this thesis is worthy of consideration for award of the degree of LLM.

PROF. DR. ASHISH SINGHAL

Assistant Professor
Faculty of Law
Sharda University
Greater Noida.
 DECLARATION

I, Mr. Rohit Chaudhary, Research Scholar, LLM (Corporate Law) (System

id.2015000276) do hereby declare that this dissertation paper titled “Analytical study of
Intellectual property and Economic development of India” is the result of my own
research work and my own intellectual efforts, under the supervision of Dr. Ashish
Singhal. I declare that this research work is original and has not been submitted in part or
in full to any other university or any other institution for award of any degree. I have
quoted titles of all original sources i.e. original documents and name of the authors whose
work has helped me in writing this research paper and my indebtedness to other works
has been duly acknowledged at the relevant places. I have not infringed copy rights of
any other author to the best of my knowledge and I am satisfied that this thesis is worthy
of consideration for award of the degree of LLM.

Rohit Chaudhary
Research Scholar
LLM (Corporate law)
Sharda University
Greater Noida.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I earnestly acknowledge my prime obligation towards my supervisor Dr. Ashish Singhal,

Professor, Faculty of Law, Sharda University, who through his profound and learned
knowledge, wisdom, experience and sharp legal acumen has constantly guided me in this
research so as to enable me to bring this thesis to its logical conclusion. I am sincerely
grateful to him for sparing me his valuable time despite his busy schedule for the
numerous sessions with me for developing and finalizing this research work.

I also extend my thanks to all my friends for their insightful comments and constructive
suggestions to improve the quality of this thesis work. I thank the God for the acumen,
perseverance and good health that he has bestowed upon me during the course of this
work.

Finally, I am extremely thankful to my parents, my wife, for supporting and encouraging

me, without which this work would not have been possible.

Greater Noida, 15th May, 2016 Rohit Chaudhary

 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

DSU Dispute Settlement Understanding

FDI Foreign Direct Investment

GATT General Agreement on Trade and Tariff

IMF International Monetary Fund

IP Intellectual Property

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

TRIPS Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property

WB World Bank

WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization

WTO World Trade Organization

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GI Geographical Indication.
 CONTENTS

Page No.

Certificate

Declaration

Acknowledgements

List of Abbreviation

CHAPTER – 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Research Problem

1.3 Scope and Objectives

1.4 Hypothesis

1.5 Methodology of the Study and Chapterization.

CHAPTER – 2: What are Intellectual property rights?

2.1 Introduction

2.2 History

2.3 Types of IPR

2.4 Patents

2.5 Trademarks

2.6 Copyrights

2.7 Geographical Indications

2.8 Industrial design

2.9 Trade Secrets

CHAPTER – 3: Evolution of IPR: Why they need to be protected

3.1 Paris Convention

3.2 Berne Convention

3.3 World Intellectual property Organization

3.4 TRIPS

CHAPTER – 4: Theories of Intellectual Properties

4.1 The Utilitarian theory

4.2 The Labor theory

4.3 The Personality theory

4.4 The Social Planning theory

4.5 Criticism
4.6. Alternative models

4.7. The Libertarian Utopia Model

4.8. The Rothbardian Solution

CHAPTER – 5: India and the Intellectual Property

5.1 History of Copyright Law

5.2 History of Patent Law

5.3 History of Trademark Law

5.4 Current Legislations

CHAPTER – 6: Economic Development of India

6.1 India’s GDP

6.2 Inflow of FDI

6.3 India life expectancy

6.4 Patents over the years

6.5 Designs over the years

6.6 Trademarks over the years

6.7 Geographical Indication over the years

6.8 Indian’s IT companies

6.9 Indian’s Pharmaceuticals companies

6.10 Indian’s Bio-technologies companies

6.11 Green revolution in India

6.12 White revolution in India

CHAPTER – 7: Future aspects of IP

CHAPTER – 8: Conclusion

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Introduction

Intellectual property plays a key role in the development of human being. Be it socially,
economic, culturally. In my thesis, I will be doing research on the role of Intellectual
property in economic development of India.

India’s economy is growing in the range of 6 to 7% per annum (GDP), after it opened its
economy to globalization in 1991. Dr. Manmohan singh as finance minister of India, in
the government of congress under the leadership of than prime minister P.V.Narshima
Rao, decided to open Indian economy to global players and allowed foreign direct
investment (FDI) in India.

India became WTO member on 1st January 1995, and implemented all the mandatory
requirements of TRIPS by 1st January 2006. Since than, it is giving protection to IP rights
according to the agreements of TRIPS to its and all the others citizens of the world.

These IP than resulted in the huge inflow of funds, technology transfer, innovation in
India, and I will be analysing those with the relation of economy of India.

Research Question
1) What are Intellectual property rights and how they came in to effect?

2) Why they need to be protected?

3) What impact IP have on economic development of a country?

4) What are the theories linking IP with development?

5) Does India successful growth rate is because of IP?

6) What is the impact of IP on Indian economy?

Scope & Objectives Of Study

There has been a lot of controversy on the role of intellectual property

protection (IPP) regime especially the patent system in fostering innovation,
technology and industrial development of a country. IPP is expected to encourage
innovation by rewarding the inventor. Strong IPP regime may also inhibit diffusion
of knowledge and even technology development in the countries that are technology
followers. Countries have fine-tuned their IPP regimes as per their developmental
requirements.

My objective of the study is to compare directly economic development of India, with the
Intellectual property.

Hypothesis

1) IPR is likely to affect growth indirectly by encouraging the innovative activity.

2) IPR helps in innovation activities.

3) Effect of IPR in inflow of FDI, technology transfer and trade.

4) There is close relation between IP and development of India.

5) IP can help in economic development of any country.

Research Methodology

The undertaken research is based on analysis of different Primary and Secondary Sources
available either as books, Articles, Reports, Legislation or on-line information. Therefore,
it is essentially the “Doctrinal Method” that would be followed.
Introduction

Intellectual property constitutes of two words, intellectual and property, first let me
describe separately what is intellectual and what property is.

An intellectual is a person who engages in critical study, thoughts, and reflection about
the reality of society, and proposes solutions for the normative problems of that society,
and, by such discourse in the public sphere, he or she gains authority within the public
opinion.1

And the definition of property as defined by Supreme Court says;

Property means the highest right a man can have to anything, being that right which one
has to land or tenements, goods or chattels which does not depend on another courtesy:
it include ownership, estates and interests in corporeal things, and also rights such as
trademarks, copyrights, patents and even rights in personam capable of transfer or
transmission, such as debts; and signifies a beneficial right to or a thing considers as
having a money value, especially with reference to transfer or succession, and to their
capacity of being injured.2

So, Intellectual property refers to creations of mind, such as inventions; literary and
artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce.3 Intellectual
property is an intangible right exercisable and asserted in respect of a material or tangible
work.4 In Gramophone Company Of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey, AIR 1984
SC 667: (1984) 2SCC 534: (1984) 2 ECC 142: 1984 UJ (SC) 475: 1984 Cur Civ LJ 292:
1984 SCC (Cri) 313: (1984) 1 Comp LJ 362, the Supreme Court has observed that
intellectual property are the brainchild of the authors, the fruits of labour and therefore
considered to be their property.
1
Jennings, Jeremy and Kemp-Welch, Tony. “The century of the Intellectual: From Dreyfus to Salman
Rushdie”, Intellectuals in Politics, Routledge: New York (1997) p.1.
2
. R.C. Cooper vs. UOI, 1970 SC 564: (1970) 3SCR 530,
3
WIPO(World Intellectual Property Organization )
4
Law of Intellectual Property – V J Taraporevala. p.4.
“If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I
will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we
exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas”.
- George Bernard Shaw.

The quote above by George Bernard Shaw clearly highlights the importance of ideas.
And these ideas need to be protected so that people are encouraged to come up with
innovative and futuristic ideas. The protection given to these intellectuals is termed as
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

Intellectual Property Rights are legal rights, which results from intellectual activity in
industrial, scientific, literary & artistic fields. These rights safeguard creators and other
producers of intellectual goods & services by granting them certain time-limited rights to
control their use. Protected Intellectual Property Rights like other property can be a
matter of trade, which can be owned, sold or bought; these are intangible and non-
exhausted consumption.

“The congress shall have to… promote the progress of science and useful arts, by
securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective
writing and discoveries”5 And that is the reason that even USA incorporates the
fundamental principle for intellectual property protection in its constitution.

In Mazer v. Stein6 the US Supreme Court said while defending this principle that, “The
economic philosophy behind the clause empowering the congress to grant patents and
copyrights is the conviction that the encouragement of the individual efforts by personal
gains is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and
inventors in science and useful arts.”

5
Article 1 Sec. 8 of US Constitution.
6
347 U.S. 201 (1954).
History

Protected innovation law developed under the Elizabethan period as imperial favours
allowed by the King or the master of the area to the introducers of new procedures. Those
imperial favours as illustrious sanctions, letters close and letters patent allowed a
restraining infrastructure to create specific merchandise or give specific administrations.

In any case, the Crown frequently abused those forces and regal favours were seen as
benefits creating particular restraining infrastructures. The parliaments that succeeded the
rule of Queen Elizabeth saw how such regal favours, creating imposing business models,
were inconvenient to organized commerce and in this manner, attempted to stifle them.
This advancement saw the improvement of a contemporary idea of licensed innovation as
a useful intends to encourage mechanical advance and ensure open welfare.

With mounting weights by legal feedback, protected innovation was controlled under
regular law and the Statute of Monopolies ordered in 1623 rendered unlawful all
imposing business models aside from those for a characterized term of years; this
structures the premise of current patent law. Early copyright benefits, before the
authorizing administration, were additionally conceded as imposing business models as
letters patent. Those letters patent were conceded to distributers in acknowledgment of
the creators of their work. The Licensing Act 1662 set up a register of authorized books
to direct book exchange and secure printers against theft. The time of normal law-
copyright finished when the Statute of Anne 1709 (long title An Act for the
Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or
buyers of such Copies, amid the Times in that specified), gave statutory security in books
and different compositions. The Statute of Anne 1709 is seen as the source of copyright
law since it expressly presented the idea of a creator being the proprietor of the copyright.
Plans and Trade imprints are contemporary classes of licensed innovation law and have
been liable to later statutory insurance. Present day protected innovation law was
modelled by practices and traditions of the past. As an after effect of an un codified
Constitution, the premise for the assurance of protected innovation rights in the United
Kingdom is found amongst the key statutes administering licensed innovation.
The Statute of Monopolies7 and the Statute of Anne8 are said to constitute the origins of
modern intellectual property.

The Statute of Monopolies was the first act by Parliament of England for Patent Laws
and was passed on 25 May 1624. And,
Statue of Anne, which is also known as Copyright Act 1709, which was the first statute to
provide for copyright regulated by the government and courts, rather than by private
parties got it royal assent on 5 April 1710 and commenced on 10 April 1710, with the
title “An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books
in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned”.

7
1624
8
1710
 9

This is the first copyright act in the world, the British Statute of Anne, from 1710.

Types of IPR :-
9
Taken from British Library, 8 Anne c. 19
Patent

A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or assignee

for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention. An
invention is a solution to a specific technological problem and is a product or a process.10
It is an exclusive right given to an inventor to prevent others from making, selling,
distributing, importing or using their invention, without license or authorization, for a
fixed period of time. TRIPS have fixed minimum protection of 20 years in case of patent
protection. Patent is granted not for an idea but for the novelty, an award conferred to
recognize the intellectual input that encloses the idea.
The right of a patentee acquires is a monopoly to him personally to manufacture the
patented chattel. Without the Patent Act, he can manufacture, It is the grant of the
monopoly of manufacture, which is the legal right conferred by the Patent Act.11

As observed by the Supreme Court:

“The object of the patent law is to encourage scientific research, new technology and
industrial progress. Grant of an exclusive privilege to own, use or sell the method or the
product patented for a limited period, stimulates new inventions of commercial utility.
The price of the grant of the monopoly is the disclosure of the invention at the Patent
Office, which after the expiry of the fixed period of the monopoly, passes into the public
domain.”12

The purpose of an invention is to protect and encourage fair competition in the field of
technology so as to transform inventions or creations into real productive forces as
quickly as possible. A country’s market economy is dependent on a successful working
of its patent system.13
10
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use. Chapter 2: Fields of Intellectual Property
Protection WIPO 2008.
11
Edward vs. Picard, (1909) 2 KB 903, 905, 909, 910.
12
Bishwanath Prasad vs. H.M Industries, AIR 1982 SC 1444, 1447-8.
13
Industrial Gases vs. Kamsup Industrial gases, PTC (Supp.) (2) 358, 368.
In same case Supreme Court said that the fundamental principle of patent law is to grant a
patent only for an invention which must be new and useful. The thrust is on novelty and
utility.14 It is essential for the validity of a patent that it must be the inventor’s own
discovery as opposed to a mere verification of what was already known before the date of
the invention.15 The invention must be more than a mere workshop improvement.16

Thomas Alva Edison (February 11, 1847 – October 18, 1931), who is known for
inventing light bulb, was a famous inventor. He was also called "The Wizard of Menlo
Park".17 He is having 1,093 US patent in his name in the field of Electric power,
Lightning, Batteries, Phonograph, Cement, Telegraphy, and Mining.

Currently, Kia Silverbrook of Australia holds the record of most number of patents by a
single inventor, with 4732 patents in the fields of Printing, Digital paper, Internet,
Electronics, Chemical, DNA18, Lab-on-a-chip, MEMS19, Mechanical, VLSI20, CGI21.

In case of company it is IBM who holds the most patent in the US. IBM has a record
6,809 assigned patents. Samsung is second with 4,675 patents, and Canon is third with
3,825 patents.22

The word 'patent' comes from the Latin 'litterae patentes', meaning an open letter. The
first recorded patent of invention was granted to John of Utynam.
In 1449, he was awarded a 20-year monopoly for a glass-making process previously
unknown in England. In return, John was required to teach his process to native
Englishmen.23
14
Bishwanath Prasad vs. H.M Industries, AIR 1982 SC 1444, 1448 para 18.
15
Smithklin Beecham’s PCLs (paroxeline Anhydrate) Patent 2003 RPC 855; Windsurfing International vs.
Tabur Marine, 1985 RPC 59, 73, 74.
16
Ibid. para 21.
17
“The Wizard of Menlo Park” The Franklin institute Retrieved February 24, 2013.
18
Genetic testing.
19
Microelectromechanical systems.
20
Very large scale integration.
21
Computer generated Imagery.
22
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2322913/ibm-holds-the-most-patents-in-the-us
23
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/806647.cms
The first Patent Act of the U.S Congress was passed on 10th April 1790. And, the first
patent was granted on 31st July 1790, to Samuel Hopkins for a method of producing
potash (potassium carbonate).

24

24
Public domain
James Puckle's 1718 early autocannon was one of the first inventions required to provide
a specification for a patent.

25

25
Public domain
The Venetian Patent Statute, issued by the Senate of Venice in 1474, and one of the
earliest patent systems in the world.

26

26
Public domain
Trademarks

“Trade mark”27 means a mark capable of being represented graphically and which is
capable distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others and may
include shape of goods, their packing and combination of colors.
Where mark28 “includes a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word,
letter, numeral, shape of goods, packaging or combination of colors or any combination
thereof”.
The concept of trademark dates back to ancient times. Even in the Harrapan Ciilization
marks of trade with foreign countries such as Mesopotamia and Babylon were found
embossed on articles.29 The law of trade mark was formalized with the process of
registration which gave an exclusive right to a trader to deal in his goods using a symbol
or a mark to distinguish his goods from similar goods sold by other traders.30

27
S.2(1)(ZB), Trade Marks Act, 1999
28
S.2(1)(m), Trade Marks Act, 1999
29
Ramdev Food Products vs. Arvind Bhai, 2006 (33) PTC 281, 299.
30
Ramdev’s case, supra, 299.
In 2015, following were the top 10 brands in the world with their brand values31
$300,000,000,000

$250,000,000,000

$200,000,000,000

$150,000,000,000

$100,000,000,000

$50,000,000,000

$0
s
pl
e gle oft IB
M
VI
SA &T izo
n
Co
la
ald ro
Ap
o os T r - n bo
Go icr A
Ve ca o ar l
M Co cD M
M

31
http://www.businessinsider.in/The-10-most-valuable-brands-in-the-world/1-Apple/slideshow/
47439824.cms
Some of the oldest trademarks registered in different countries are as follows:-

United Kingdom: 1876 – The Bass Brewery’s label incorporating its triangle logo for ale
was the first trademark to be registered under the Trade Mark Registration Act 1875.32

33

U.S.: The oldest U.S. registered trademark still in use is trademark reg. no 11210.34 a
depiction of the Biblical figure Samson wrestling a lion, registered in the United States
on May 27, 1884 by the J.P. Tolman Company (now Samson Rope Technologies, Inc.),
a rope-making company.

32
 Case details for trade mark UK00000000001, United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office
33
http://www.anheuser-busch.com/
34
U.S. Trademark Reg no. 11210, filed Apr. 07, 1884, reg. May 27, 1884. Accessed June 11, 2013.
 35

Germany: The Krupp steel company registered its trademark in 1875, under the German
Trade Mark Protection Law of 1874.

36

35
http://www.samsonrope.com/
36
https://www.thyssenkrupp.com/
Copyrights

Copyright is a legal term describing rights given to creators for their literary and artistic
works. It protects literary, musical, dramatic works, pantomime, choreographic works,
pictorial, graphics, architectural and sculptural works, motion pictures and other
audiovisual works and sound recordings; rights of broadcasting organization and of
performers, computer software, email and a host of other features.
Thus copyright means the exclusive privilege of a creator of cultural goods, for a stated
period, to exercise and exploit various intangible rights (including the age old rights to
make copies) in respect of his tangible works. This is the reward to the creator.37
These rights are protected for life of the author plus 60 years after the creator’s death.
The concept of copyright comprises the exclusive right of the owner of the works to
make copies thereof, and to exclusively exercise various other rights granted to him by
the law.38

37
Law of Intellectual Property – V J Taraporevala. p.174.
38
S.14, Copyright Act, 1957.
Geographical Indications

A geographical indication (GI) is a sign used on products that have a specific

geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin. In
order to function as a GI, a sign must identify a product as originating in a given place. In
addition, the qualities, characteristics or reputation of the product should be essentially
due to the place of origin. Since the qualities depend on the geographical place of
production, there is a clear link between the product and its original place of production.39
For example, ‘Swiss watches’ from Switzerland, ‘Basmati rice’ from India, ‘Bordeaux’
wine and champagne from France. Marks indicating the geographical indications of
goods have been known to exist since long.
A geographical indication points to a specific place or region of production that
determines the characteristic qualities of the product that originates therein. It is
important that the product derives its qualities and reputation from that place. Place of
origin may be a village or town, a region or a country.

39
World Intellectual property Organization (WIPO).
Industrial design

S.2(d) of the Designs Act, 2000, ‘design’ means only the features of shape, configuration,
pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or colors applied to any article whether in two
dimensional or three dimensional or in both forms, by any industrial process or means,
whether manual, mechanical or chemical, separate or combined, which in the finished
article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye; but does not include any mode or
principle of construction or anything which is in substance a mere mechanical device, and
does not include any trademark,40 or any mark,41 or any artistic work.42
The essential purpose of design law it to promote and protect the design element of
industrial production. It is also intended to promote innovative activity in the field of
industries. As quoted by Supreme Court “The purpose of the Act is to balance two
interests, namely, ensure effective protection to design element in an article of production
and to ensure that the law does not necessarily extend protection beyond what is
necessary to create the required incentive for design activities while removing
impediments to the free use of available designs.43

40
As defined in S.2 (1) (v) of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.
41
As defined in Section 479 of Indian Penal Code 1860
42
As defined in S.2 (c) of Copyright Act, 1957.
43
Bharat Glass Tube vs. Gopal Glass Works, 2008 PTC (Vol.37) 1, 7 SC
Trade Secrets

A trade secret is a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, commercial

method, or compilation of information which is not generally known or reasonably
ascertainable by others, and by which a business can obtain an economic advantage over
competitors or customers.44  Any confidential business information which provides an
enterprise a competitive edge may be considered a trade secret. Trade secrets encompass
manufacturing or industrial secrets and commercial secrets. The unauthorized use of such
information by persons other than the holder is regarded as an unfair practice and a
violation of the trade secret.45 A trade secret can be protected for an unlimited period of
time but a substantial element of secrecy must exist, so that, except by the use of
improper means, there would be difficulty in acquiring the information.

44
Executive Trade Secrets, 87 Notre Dame Law Review (2012).
45
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1883

The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial property was adopted in Paris,
France on 20 March 1883. It was one of the first treaty on intellectual property. Initially
signed by 11 countries, it has 176 contracting member as on September 2014. The Treaty
was revised at Brussels, Belgium, on 14 December 1900, at Washington, United States,
on 2 June 1911, at The Hague, Netherlands, on 6 November 1925, at London, United
Kingdom, on 2 June 1934, at Lisbon, Portugal, on 31 October 1958, and at Stockholm,
Sweden, on 14 July 1967, and was amended on 28 September 1979.
The Paris Convention applies to industrial property including patents, trademarks,
industrial designs, utility models, service marks, trade names, geographical indications,
indication of source, and the repression of unfair competition.

The provisions of the Convention fall into three main categories: national treatment, right
of priority, common rules46.

National treatment
This principle states that, in terms of the protection of industrial property, each
Contracting State must grant the same protection to nationals of other Contracting States
that it grants to its own nationals. Nationals of non-Contracting States are also entitled to
national treatment under the Convention if they are domiciled or have a real and effective
industrial or commercial establishment in a Contracting State.

Right of priority
This guideline says that it accommodates the privilege of need on account of licenses and
utility models, marks and mechanical outlines. This right implies, on the premise of a
normal first application documented in one of the Contracting States, the candidate may,
inside a specific timeframe (12 months for licenses and utility models; 6 months for
mechanical plans and checks), apply for insurance in any of the other Contracting States.
These ensuing applications will be viewed as though they had been recorded around the
same time as the main application. At the end of the day, they will have need over
46
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/summary_paris.html
applications documented by others amid the said timeframe for the same innovation,
utility model, mark or modern configuration. Also, these ensuing applications, being
founded on the principal application, won't be influenced by any occasion that happens in
the interim, for example, the production of a creation or the offer of articles bearing an
imprint or joining a modern configuration. One of the considerable down to earth
preferences of this procurement is that candidates looking for insurance in a few nations
are not required to present the greater part of their applications in the meantime however
have six or twelve months to choose in which nations they wish to look for assurance,
and to sort out with due consideration the strides vital for securing assurance.

Common rules
The Convention sets out a couple of regular decide that all Contracting States must take
after. The most vital are:

(a) Patents. Licenses conceded in various Contracting States for the same development
are autonomous of each other: the allowing of a patent in one Contracting State does not
oblige other Contracting States to give a patent; a patent can't be cannot, abrogated or
ended in any Contracting State on the ground that it has been rejected or revoked or has
ended in some other Contracting State. The innovator has the privilege to be named all
things considered in the patent. The award of a patent may not be won't, and a patent may
not be refuted, on the ground that the offer of the licensed item, or of an item got by
method for the protected procedure, is liable to confinements or impediments coming
about because of the residential law.

Every Contracting State that takes authoritative measures accommodating the gift of
mandatory licenses to keep the misuse which may come about because of the elite rights
presented by a patent may do as such just under certain conditions. A necessary permit in
light of inability to work or inadequate working of the protected innovation, may just be
allowed compliant with a solicitation documented following three years from the award
of the patent or four years from the recording date of the patent application, and it must
be rejected if the patentee gives honest to goodness motivations to legitimize this
inaction. Moreover, relinquishment of a patent may not be accommodated, aside from in
situations where the stipend of an obligatory permit would not have been adequate to
keep the misuse. In the last case, procedures for relinquishment of a patent might be
founded, however simply after the lapse of two years from the stipend of the primary
obligatory permit.

(b) Marks. The Paris Convention does not control the conditions for the recording and
enlistment of imprints which are resolved in every Contracting State by residential law.
Thusly, no application for the enlistment of an imprint recorded by a national of a
Contracting State might be can't, nor may an enrolment be discredited, on the ground that
documenting, enlistment or recharging has not been affected in the nation of birthplace.
The enrolment of an imprint acquired in one Contracting State is autonomous of its
conceivable enlistment in some other nation, including the nation of source; therefore, the
omission or invalidation of the enrolment of an imprint in one Contracting State won't
influence the legitimacy of the enrolment in other Contracting States.

Where an imprint has been appropriately enrolled in the nation of starting point, it must,
on solicitation, be acknowledged for documenting and ensured in its unique structure in
the other Contracting States. By and by, enrolment might be declined in very much
characterized cases, for example, where the imprint would encroach the obtained
privileges of outsiders; where it is without particular character; where it is in opposition
to ethical quality or open request; or where it is of such a nature as to be at risk to mislead
general society.

In the event that, in any Contracting State, the utilization of an enlisted imprint is
mandatory, the enrolment can't be crossed out for non-use until after a sensible period,
and after that exclusive if the proprietor can't legitimize this inaction.

Every Contracting State must deny enrolment and restrict the utilization of imprints that
constitute a proliferation, impersonation or interpretation, subject to make perplexity, of
an imprint utilized for indistinguishable and comparative merchandise and considered by
the able power of that State to be understood in that State and to as of now have a place
with a man qualified for the advantages of the Convention.

Every Contracting State should similarly reject enlistment and forbid the utilization of
imprints that comprise of or contain, without approval, armorial orientation, State
insignias and authority signs and signs of Contracting States, if they have been imparted
through the International Bureau of WIPO. The same procurements apply to armorial
direction, banners, different insignias, truncations and names of certain intergovernmental
associations.

Aggregate imprints must be conceded security.

(c) Industrial Designs. Modern plans must be secured in every Contracting State, and
insurance may not be relinquished on the ground that articles joining the outline are not
fabricated in that State.

(d) Trade Names. Insurance must be allowed to exchange names in every Contracting
State without there being a commitment to document or enlist the names.

(e) Indications of Source. Measures must be taken by every Contracting State against
immediate or roundabout utilization of a bogus sign of the wellspring of products or the
character of their maker, producer or broker.

(f) Unfair rivalry. Every Contracting State must accommodate powerful insurance
against out of line rivalry.

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works,

1886
Berne Convention was the first convention on copyright for the protection of Literary and
Artistic work. It was adopted in Berne, Switzerland on 9th September 1886. At present
there are 170 members that are parties this convention.
Berne Convention introduced the concept that a copyright exists the moment a work is
"fixed", rather than requiring registration.
The term Literary and Artistic Work include, every production in the literary, scientific
and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books,
pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same
nature; dramatic or dramatic-musical works; choreographic works and entertainment in
dumb show; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to
which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works
of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic
works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography;
works of applied art; illustration, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works
relative to geography, topology, architecture or science.47

The Berne Convention states that all works except photographic and cinematographic
shall be copyrighted for at least 50 years after the author's death, but parties are free to
provide longer terms.48 For photography, the Berne Convention sets a minimum term of
25 years from the year the photograph was created, and for cinematography the minimum
is 50 years after first showing, or 50 years after creation if it hasn't been shown within
50 years after the creation.

The Berne Convention is based on two principles, National treatment and automatic
protection.49

National treatment

47
Law relating to Intellectual property rights-By V K Ahuja. P.718.
48
Article 7, Berne Convention.
49
Law relating to Intellectual property rights-By V K Ahuja. P.719.
The Berne Convention provides that works originating in one of the Member States of the
Berne Union must be given the same protection in each of the other Member States as the
latter grants to the works of its own nationals.

Automatic protection
The Berne Convention is also based on the principles of automatic protection, which
provides that enjoyment and the exercise of rights under the national treatment principle
shall not be subject to any formality and such enjoyment and such exercise shall be
independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of work. This means
that the protection is granted automatically and is not subject to any registration, deposit
or to any formal notice in connection with the publication.

These principles are really important because Before the Berne Convention, national
copyright laws usually only applied for works created within each country. So for
example a work published in United Kingdom by a British national would be covered by
copyright there, but could be copied and sold by anyone in France or in any other
country. So, many people use to take works from one country and publish them in
another without paying the original authors.
 5051

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

50
The Pirate Publisher—An International Burlesque that has the Longest Run on Record, from Puck
Magazine, 1886
51
Puck Magazine (1871-1918).
After the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property in 1883 and the Berne
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1886, an organization
was formed in 1893 to administer these convention, and was named  BIRPI (Bureaux
Internationaux Réunis pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle, 
French acronym for United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual
Property), this organization was later succeeded by WIPO. It was signed at Stockhol in
1967 and entered into force in 1970. Since 1974, WIPO has the status of a specialized
agency of the United Nations. WIPO has currently 188 members associated with it.

Objectives
WIPO main objective is to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the
world through cooperation among States and, where appropriate, in collaboration with
any other international organization; and,
to ensure administrative cooperation among the intellectual property Unions, that is, the
"Unions" created by the Paris and Berne Conventions and several sub-treaties concluded
by members of the Paris Union. Intellectual property comprises two main branches:
industrial property, chiefly in inventions, trademarks and industrial designs, and
copyright, chiefly in literary, musical, artistic, photographic and audiovisual works.
Neighboring rights are connected with copyright, but somewhat different, in that they
deal with the performance, reproduction or other transmission of works already protected
by copyright.52

Functions
 Legal technical assistance to states in the field of intellectual property.
 Setting norms and standards for the protection and enforcement of intellectual
property rights through international treaties.
• International grouping and institutionalization exercises, including participation
among mechanical property workplaces concerning licenses, trademark and modern
configuration documentation

52
http://www.unesco.org/archives/sio/Eng/presentation_print.php?idOrg=1038
• Registration exercises, including administrations identified with global
applications for licenses for developments and the enrollment of worldwide imprint and
modern outlines.

Organs
WIPO has following three main organs:

WIPO General Assembly

The WIPO General Assembly is made out of the Member conditions of WIPO which are
likewise individuals from any of the Unions. Its fundamental capacities are, the
arrangement of the Director General upon designation by the Coordination Committee,
survey and endorsement of the reports of the Director General and the reports and
exercises of the Cordination Committee, appropriation of the biennial spending plan
normal to the Unions, and selection of the money related controls of the Organization.

WIPO Conference

The WIPO Conference is made out of gatherings to the WIPO Convention. It meets once
at regular intervals in standard session. It is, entomb alia, the capable body for embracing
alterations to the Convention, for all matters identifying with legitimate specialized help
and sets up the biennial project of such help. It is additionally skilled to talk about matters
of general enthusiasm for the fields of protected innovation and it might embrace
suggestion identifying with such matters.

WIPO Coordination Committee

The WIPO Coordination Committee is made out of part chosen from among the
individuals from the Executive Committee of the Paris Union and the Executive
Committee of the Berne Union. It meets each year in the conventional session and its
principle capacity are to offer counsel to the organ of the Union, the General Assembly,
the Conference, and the Director General, on all regulatory and money related matter
important to these bodies. It likewise set up the draft motivation of the General Assembly
and the draft plan and draft program and spending plan of the Conference.53

Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)

53
Law relating to Intellectual property rights-By V K Ahuja. P.717-718
Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is an
International agreement between the member nations of World Trade Organization
(WTO).TRIPS Agreement is aimed at harmonizing the Intellectual Property (IP)
related laws and regulations worldwide. The TRIPS Agreement accomplishes this
motive by setting minimum standards for protection of various forms of IP.
The TRIPS Agreement by and large sets out the base norms in regards to the award of
rights to the proprietor of IP, implementation necessities in the national laws, and
settlement of question and solutions for those whose IP rights get encroached. The scope
of the TRIPS Agreement incorporates the different ranges of IP including licenses,
trademarks, copyrights, geological signs, mechanical plans, and so on. The target of the
TRIPS Agreement is to guarantee the assurance and authorization of Intellectual Property
Rights (IPR) to add to the advancement of mechanical development, exchange and
dispersal of innovation, common favorable position of makers and clients of innovative
learning in a way that is helpful for social and monetary welfare, and equalization of
rights and commitments, around the world. It was arranged toward the end of the
Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1994.

Structure

The three critical components of the Agreement, i.e. guidelines, authorization and debate
settlement are secured in seven sections i.e. the Agreement comprises of seven sections.
Part I manages the general procurements and fundamental standards. Part II depicts the
models concerning the accessibility, extension and utilization of IPR as for various sorts
of IP. Part III portrays the IPR implementation commitments of part countries, and Part
IV addresses the procurements for gaining and looking after IPR. Part V is coordinated
particularly to question settlement under the Agreement. Part VI concerns transitional
plans, and the Part VII concerns different institutional courses of action.

General Provisions and Basic Principles

Part I of the Agreement manages the general procurements and fundamental standards.
Part I of the Agreement has eight Articles out of which Articles 3 and 4 frame the
essential basics of the Agreement.
Article 3 manages National Treatment responsibility. Under this article the part countries
are obliged to accord to the nationals of other part countries, a treatment no less good
than that it accords to its own nationals concerning the insurance of IPR. Be that as it
may, this article perceives certain exemptions as of now gave in the Paris Convention
(1967), the Berne Convention (1971), the Rome Convention and the Treaty on
Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits.
Article 4 manages Most-Favored-Nation Treatment. Under the procurement of this
article, as to the security of IPR, any point of preference, support, benefit or safety
allowed by a part country to the nationals of some other nation might be concurred
promptly and unequivocally to the nationals of all other part countries, with the exception
of a couple of exemptions said in this article.

Authorization of IPR
The Agreement was not just went for giving least gauges to ensuring IPR however it was
likewise gone for giving the authorization of the same. The Agreement gives least
guidelines to the implementation of IPR that permits right holders to secure their true
blue interests through common court or managerial procedures. It is not required for a
WTO part country to build up exceptional or separate courts for IPR, or uniquely
apportion assets, similar to labor, uncommon authorization workplaces, and so forth for
IPR implementation. Part III of the Agreement on Enforcement of IPR sets out the
commitments of part countries to build up managerial and legal components through
which IPR holders can look for viable assurance of their interests. The general
commitment of part countries to give implementation instruments requires that
authorization methodology ought to be accessible under their national law in order to
allow compelling activity against any demonstration of encroachment of IPR secured by
the Agreement, including quick solutions for avert encroachments and cures which
constitute an obstacle to further encroachments. Part countries are committed to
guarantee that requirement methodology are "reasonable and impartial", and "not
pointlessly confused or exorbitant, or involve nonsensical time limits or unjustifiable
deferrals."

With respect to common managerial strategies and cures, the Agreement accommodates
approach rights for both the litigant and griping parties. The tenets of the Agreement give
that both sides ought to have the chance to present and challenge confirm, and that
satisfactory therapeutic measures ought to be accessible.

The Agreement licenses part countries to avoid the award of orders in circumstances
including necessary licenses and different employments.

The Agreement commits part countries to make procurement for the requesting of brief
and successful temporary measures to counteract passage of encroaching merchandise
into channels of business and protect proof against such encroaching products and their
brokers. This implies the IPR holder ought to be qualified for look for a brief activity
against the encroachment, regardless of whether the gathering claimed to act in an
encroaching way can be told and offered chance to be listened.

As for Border Measures, the Agreement requires part countries to permit certain right
holders to forestall discharge by traditions powers of encroaching merchandise into
dissemination particularly, as for fake trademarks and pilfered copyright products.

The Agreement additionally accommodates certain Criminal Measures (punishments) for

trademark duplicating and copyright robbery on a business scale.

Obtaining and Maintenance of IPR

Part IV of the Agreement manages obtaining and upkeep of IPR. It gives that part
countries are committed to apply sensible techniques and customs regarding the gift or
upkeep of IPR that enlistments will be attempted inside a sensible timeframe, and that
administration mark enrollments will be subjected to the same essential Paris Convention
systems as trademark enrollments. The systems by which IPR are conceded or prevented
are from claiming incredible enthusiasm to candidates, those contradicting applications
and the populace that uses the topic of such IPR. The Agreement gives restricted
direction around there.

Debate Settlement and Prevention

Part V of the assention manages question settlement and aversion. Article 63 sets up the
straightforwardness necessities. Under these prerequisites there is a commitment with
respect to part countries to distribute or generally make accessible legitimate messages,
for example, laws and legal choices. The procurements identified with question
settlement and avoidance are represented by the TRIPS gathering. The Article 63 builds
up a commitment to inform laws and controls to the TRIPS Council or to World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for the regular register, which contains an
aggregation of laws and directions, last legal choices, and so on relating to the
Agreement, ought to that be settled on. Part countries are committed to outfit relevant
standards or choices, or adequate insights about them, at the solicitation of part countries
who sensibly trust their rights might be influenced. Secret data is qualified for security.
Every part country is required to be set up to supply, because of a composed solicitation
from another part country, the data in regards to Law, decisions, Judicial choices and
authoritative decisions relating to the topic of the Agreement (the accessibility, scope,
obtaining, implementation and counteractive action of the misuse of IPR).

Article 64 manages the debate settlements. The Articles XXII and XXIII of GATT 1994
as depicted and connected by the Dispute Settlement Understanding (WTO's strategy for
determining the exchange fights) additionally apply to discussions and the settlement of
question under the Agreement aside from as generally particularly gave. Article XXIII of
the GATT 1994 accommodates three sorts of reason for activity (an arrangement of truths
adequate to legitimize a privilege to sue) in GATT debate settlement: "infringement",
"non-infringement" and "circumstance".

The prerequisites of TRIPS

TRIPS require part states to give solid assurance to licensed innovation rights. For
instance, under TRIPS:

Copyright and Related Rights

Copyright ensures artistic works and different types of works that constitute articulation
of thoughts, such as painting, and so on. Under the procurement of Article 10, Computer
Programs, whether in source or question code, are ensured as scholarly works under the
Berne Convention (1971). The term of assurance for such sort of works under the
Agreement is ascertained in light of the life of a characteristic individual. Term of
assurance for copyright is at the very least up to 50 years from date of end of logbook
year of making of such a work.
The related rights with respect to insurance of entertainers, makers of phonograms
(Sound Recordings) and TV associations said in Article 14 allows the makers of
phonograms the privilege to approve or preclude the immediate or aberrant propagation
of their phonograms. These rights concede the TV associations the rights to restrict the
obsession, the propagation of obsessions, and the rebroadcasting by remote method for
shows, and in addition the correspondence to general society of TV telecasts of the same.
Article 9 says that the Copyright must be allowed naturally, and not based upon any
"custom, for example, enrollments, as indicated in the Berne Convention.

Trademark
Assurance ought to be given for no under seven years.

Geological Indications
Under the procurements of the Agreement, a part country can restrict other part countries
from the utilization of any assignment or presentation of any merchandise that shows or
proposes that those products begin from a geological region other than the genuine spot
of starting point in a way which deceives the general population. The term of security for
Geographical Indication is endless.
Industrial Designs
Part countries need to accommodate the insurance of autonomously made mechanical
outlines that are new or unique. Part countries may give that outlines are not new or
unique in the event that they don't fundamentally vary from known plans or mixes of
known configuration highlights. Part countries may give that such security won't stretch
out to outlines directed basically by specialized or practical contemplations. The term of
security for mechanical plans is 10 years from the formation of the modern configuration.

Lay-out Designs For Integrated Circuits

Under the procurements of the Agreement, part countries are obliged to give insurance to
the format plans (geographies) of incorporated circuits as per the Treaty on Intellectual
Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits. The part countries need to accommodate
insurance of at least 10 years from the date of recording of use for lay-out outlines, be
that as it may, part countries may restrain the term of assurance up to fifteen years from
the date of formation of the lay-out configuration.

Patents
Article 27 of the Agreement manages patentable topic. The patentable topic as indicated
by the Agreement constitutes any innovations, whether items or procedures, in all fields
of innovation, gave that they are new, include an imaginative stride and are fit for modern
application. Be that as it may, the part countries may bar from patentability, symptomatic,
helpful and surgical strategies for the treatment of people or creatures. Further, plants and
creatures other than smaller scale living beings, and basically organic procedures for the
generation of plants or creatures other than non-natural and microbiological procedures
may likewise be rejected from patentability. Under the procurements of the Agreement
the part countries need to give security to plant assortments either by licenses or by a
compelling sui generis framework or by any mix thereof. The term of insurance
accessible is typically a quarter century from the documenting date of the patent
application.
Under procurements of Article 21 of the Agreement, part countries may give constrained
special cases to the selective rights gave by a patent, gave that such exemptions don't
nonsensically struggle with an ordinary misuse of the patent and don't absurdly partiality
the real interests of the patent proprietor, making note of the honest to goodness interests
of outsiders.

Article 31 of the Agreement has procurements for permitting the award an obligatory
permit for pharmaceuticals by the administration of a part country without the assent of
the patentee in certain conditions. Obligatory permit might be assigned especially in
taking after conditions:

• Normally the individual or organization applying for a permit needs to have

attempted to arrange an intentional permit with the patent holder on sensible business
terms. Just if that fizzles can a necessary permit be issued, and

• Even when a necessary permit has been issued, the patent proprietor needs to get
installment; the TRIPS Agreement says "the right holder might be paid satisfactory
compensation in the circumstances of every case, considering the monetary estimation of
the approval", yet it doesn't characterize "sufficient compensation" or "financial worth".

Theories of Intellectual property

The twenty-first century will be the century of information, in fact the twenty-century of
the acumen. A country's capacity to make an interpretation of learning into riches and
social great through developments will decide its future. In this way developments hold
the way to the creation and additionally handling of learning. Thus issues of era,
assessment, insurance and misuse of protected innovation would turn out to be
fundamentally vital everywhere throughout the world.

A few scholars start with the hypothesize that a man who works upon assets that are
either un-claimed or "held in like manner" has a characteristic un-property right to the
products of his or her endeavours - and that the state has an obligation to regard and
authorize that common right. These thoughts, beginning in works of John Locke, are
broadly thought to be particularly relevant to the field of licensed innovation, where the
related crude materials (actualities and ideas) do appear in some sense to be "held in like
manner" and where (scholarly) work appears to contribute so imperatively to the
estimation of the completed item. As of late, a developing number of legitimate scholars
have endeavoured either to comprehend this intricate field or to propose courses in which
it ought to be transformed. Some draw motivation from the work of the Kant and Hegel,
from which they infer the recommendations:-

(i) That private property rights are vital as per the general inclination of some major
human needs or interests and

(ii) That policymakers ought to in this manner endeavour to choose the arrangement
of privileges that most conduces to human prospering.

From these outlooks, licensed innovation rights might be supported either on the ground
that they shield from assignment or adjustment antiquities through which creators and
craftsmen have communicated their "wills" or on the ground that they make social and
financial conditions helpful for inventive scholarly movement, which thusly is critical to
human.
A third gathering takes the perspective that property rights as a rule - and protected
innovation rights specifically - can and ought to be formed to encourage the
accomplishment of an equitable and appealing society. Researchers who work this vein
ordinarily draw motivation from a mixed group of political and lawful scholars, including
Jefferson, the early Marx, the Legal Realists, and the different advocates (antiquated and
present day) of established republicanism.

The reason of the last - and most well known - of the methodologies is the commonplace
utilitarian rule that an administrators reference point when moulding property rights
ought to be the best great of the best number. At the end of the day, he ought to
endeavour to choose an arrangement of privileges that:-

(a) Induces individuals to act in ways that increment socially profitable products and
administrations and

(b) circulates those products and administrations in the style that expands the net joys
individuals harvest from them,

Licensed innovation can be described as the property in thoughts or their appearance. It is

a formation of the brain, for instance, a mechanical advancement, a lyric, or an outline. It
ensures the privileges of people and organizations that have changed their thoughts into
property by conceding rights to the proprietors of those properties.54

Theories of intellectual property are defined by many theorists. Broadly these theories
can be discussed under following heads:-
The Utilitarian theory
This theory state that by protecting IP laws, society benefits in the long run. Professor
William Fisher55 said that he first task in developing a utilitarian theory of intellectual
property is translating the Benthamite ideal of the "greatest good of the greatest number"
54
http://www.slideshare.net/chaswals/llm-lecture-ipr-concept-and-theories-compatibility-mode
55
Theories of Intellectual Property
into a more precise and administrable standard.  Most contemporary writers select for this
purpose either the "wealth-maximization" criterion, which counsels lawmakers to select
the system of rules that maximizes aggregate welfare measured by consumers' ability and
willingness to pay for goods, services, and conditions,56 or the "Kaldor-Hicks" criterion,
under which one state of affairs is preferred to a second state of affairs if, by moving
from the second to the first, the "gainer" from the move can, by a lump-sum transfer,
compensate the "loser" for his loss of utility and still be better off.57
And to improve social welfare, this theory further stated three ways:-
1. Incentive Theory. The first and most regular of the three methodologies are all
around delineated by William Nordhaus' great treatment of patent law. Nordhaus
was essentially worried with deciding the ideal term of a patent, however his
examination can be connected all the more for the most part. Every expansion in
the term or quality of licenses, he watched, invigorates an expansion in innovative
movement. The resultant additions to social welfare incorporate the marked down
present estimation of the shopper surplus and maker surplus connected with the
dissemination of the scholarly items whose creation is in this way affected. In the
meantime, in any case, social welfare is decreased by such things as bigger
managerial expenses and bigger deadweight misfortunes connected with the
higher costs of scholarly items that would have been made even without the
upgraded motivating force. In a perfect world, patent term or quality ought to be
expanded up to the point where the minimal advantages rise to the negligible
expenses.58

56
See Richard Posner, Economic Analysis of Law (3rd ed., Boston: Little, Brown, 1986), pp. 11-15.
57
See Nicholas Kaldor, "Welfare Propositions in Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of
Utility," Economic Journal, 69 (1939): 549-52.
58
Among the lessons that Nordhaus derived from his analysis are that “commodities that have lower
elasticity of demand have higher optimal [patent] lives” and that “patents for industries having more
progressive (or easier) invention should have shorter lives.”  Ibid., p. 79.
A wide array of essays in both the patent and copyright fields attempt to refine or apply the general
approach developed by Nordhaus.  See, for example, Pankaj Tandon, “Optimal Patents with Compulsory
Licensing,” Journal of Political Economy, 90 (1982): 470-86; Richard Gilbert and Carl Shapiro, “Optimal
Patent Protection and Breadth,” RAND Journal of Economics, 21 (1990): 106-12; Paul Klemperer, “How
Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?,” RAND Journal of Economics, 21 (1990): 113-30; Landes
and Posner, “Economic Analysis of Copyright Law”; William Fisher, "Reconstructing the Fair Use Doctrine,"
at 1698-1744; S. J. Liebowitz, "Copying and Indirect Appropriability:  Photocopying of Journals," Journal of
Political Economy, 93 (1985), 945; A. Samuel Oddi, “Beyond Obviousness: Invention Protection in the
Twenty-First Century,” American University Law Review, 38 (1989): 1097, at 1101-2, 1114-16; and Frederic
 2. Optimizing Patterns of Productivity.  Many years ago, Harold Demsetz argued
that the copyright and patent systems play the important roles of letting potential
producers of intellectual products know what consumers want and thus
channeling productive efforts in directions most likely to enhance consumer
welfare.59
3. Rivalrous Inventions. The last approach is identified with yet discernable from the
second. Its goal is to take out or lessen the propensity of licensed innovation
rights to cultivate duplicative or ungraceful imaginative action. The establishment
for this methodology was laid by a gathering of market analysts, drove by Yoram
Barzel, who in the course of the most recent three decades have investigated the
routes in which rivalry among firms muddles the effect of the patent framework
upon imaginative movement. This assortment of writing has sharpened legitimate
scholars to three phases in the imaginative procedure at which financial waste can
happen. To begin with, the pot of gold spoke to by a patent on a spearheading,
monetarily profitable creation may bait a wastefully extensive number of persons
and associations into the race to be the first to achieve the development being
referred to. Second, the race to build up a lucrative change on a current innovation
may create a comparative scramble for comparable reasons at the "auxiliary"
level. At last, firms may attempt to "design around" innovations protected by their
adversaries – that is, to grow practically identical however non-encroaching
advances – endeavors that, albeit discerning from the point of view of the
individual firm, speak to a misuse of social assets. Uplifted familiarity with these
dangers has provoked lawful researchers to look for conceivable changes of
protected innovation law – or of related teachings, for example, antitrust law –
that would relieve the dissemination of assets at these different locales.
Consequently, this hypothesis centre is on the best way to adjust the social expenses and
advantages connected with giving legitimate impact to IP laws and standards. Part of

M. Scherer, Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance (2nd ed., Chicago: Rand McNally,
1980), pp. 439-58.  The history of this perspective is traced in Gillian K. Hadfield, "The Economics of
Copyright:  An Historical Perspective," Copyright Law Symposium (ASCAP), 38 (1992): 1-46.

59
See Harold Demsetz, "Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint," Journal of Law and Economics,
12 (1969): 1.
licensed innovation rights in empowering the generation of socially important works
conundrum American law, for instance, the protected procurement whereupon the
copyright and patent statutes rest demonstrates that the reason for those laws is to give
motivating forces to inventive scholarly endeavors that will advantage the general public
on the loose. The United States Supreme Court, while interpreting the copyright and
patent statutes, has over and over demanded that their essential target is instigating the
generation and scattering of works of the brains. References to the significance of
remunerating creators and innovators for their work are just about as basic. Advocates of
authoritative augmentations of copyright or patent assurance routinely make contentions
like: "Our American culture is established on the rule that the person who makes
something of worth is qualified for appreciate the rewards for so much hard work." The
United States Supreme Court regularly utilizes a comparable vocabulary. For instance,
Justice Reed finished his sentiment in Mazer v. Stein with the grave articulation:
"Conciliatory days gave to . . . imaginative exercises merit rewards proportionate with the
administrations rendered."

The labor theory

This theory is not perfectly clear whether it is supporting the intellectual property laws or
not. This theory is about property rights given by John Locke.60 He expressed his views in
the book “Two Treatises of Government”.61 And they are:-
1) "Natural reason" lets us know that men have "a privilege to their Preservation,"
and the main practicable route in which they can maintain themselves is by separately
"appropriating" materials important to give them sustenance and haven.
2) Religious commitment strengthens the previous recommendation. God did not
simply give the Earth to man in like manner, yet "ordered" him to "repress" it – that is,
"enhance it for the advantage of Life" – which man can do just by both working upon it
and appropriating the products of that work.
3) Intuitions with respect to self-proprietorship point in the same bearing. Every
individual obviously has "a Property in his own particular Person," including the "Work

60
English philosopher and physician(1632-1704).
61
Published : December 1689.
of his Body, and the Work of his Hands." It appears to be just regular that whatever he
blends that Labor with ought to have a place with him also.
4) The good estimation of work fortifies the prior knowledge. God gave the World to
"the Industrious and Rational, not to the Fancy or Covetousness of the Quarrelsom and
Contentious." It is therefore fitting that the previous obtain, through their work, title to
what they work upon.
5) A feeling of proportionality and decency additionally figures in the request. The
majority of the estimation of things helpful to men gets not from the estimation of the
crude materials from which they are made, however from the work exhausted on them. It
is in this way not "so Strange" that, while figuring out if proprietorship ought to be doled
out to the laborer or the group, the individual "Property of work ought to have the
capacity to over-equalization the Community of Land."62
6) Finally, Locke relies throughout the chapter on an imagery of productive
transformation.  By laboring upon unclaimed land or other resources, the worker changes
them from wild to domestic, from raw to cultivated, from chaotic to ordered, from
pointless to purposeful.  The self-evident desirability of that transformation supports a
reward for the worker.63

This theory lacks in explaining “intellectual labor”, and the problem of proportionality.
As Robert Nozick64 asks “If I pour my can of tomato juice into the ocean, do I own the
ocean?”

Personality theory
The identity hypothesis is portrayed by Fisher as defending property rights "when and
just when they would advance human thriving by securing or cultivating crucial human
needs or interests." Here, also, indeterminacy rules: in what manner would we be able to

62
Ibid., Sections 38, 40-43.
63
See Ryan, Property and Political Theory, at 22 ff.
64
American philosopher(1938-2002).
distinguish the necessities or interests to be advanced? Fisher distinguishes four such
needs or interests fitting for protected innovation: security, singular self-
acknowledgment; personality; and consideration. Be that as it may, there is no
concurrence on the best way to apply to them. Case in point, is assurance of competitive
advantages "vital" to secure interests of protection? Some say "yes" (a privilege of
security stretches out to the opportunity to uncover to a constrained friend network
without the trepidation that it will be revealed to the whole world), while others say "no"
(since most prized formulas are possessed by enterprises, that don't have the "individual
elements" that protection is expected to ensure). 65

Social planning theory

The last hypothesis has less of a set up establishment ("a diverse group of political and
legitimate scholars" from Jefferson to the present). Called "social arranging hypothesis",

65
http://jiplp.blogspot.in/2014/03/theories-of-intellectual-property-is-it.html
it varies from utilitarian hypothesis in that it tries to go past the idea of "social welfare" to
a much more extensive vision of society adjusted by licensed innovation. An illustration
given is Neil Netanel's perspective of copyright as planning to serve "a vigorous,
participatory, and pluralist common society," where "unions, houses of worship, political
and social developments, metro and neighborhood affiliations, schools of thought, and
instructive organizations" proliferate. The issue with this hypothesis is that does not, and
can't, accomplish concession to what are the objectives that such "social arranging" tries
to accomplish. All things considered, it too is lacking.66

Criticism

66
http://jiplp.blogspot.in/2014/03/theories-of-intellectual-property-is-it.html
Contention against licensed innovation rights and specifically, licenses is that it makes
counterfeit lack through an imposing business model on different items (which infers a
confined yield and higher costs). For example, from its foundation in 1875, the US
organization AT and T 1875, gathered licenses so as to guarantee its restraining
infrastructure on phones. It backed off the presentation of radio for around 20 years. In
any case, it can be contended that licenses and copyrights are not imposing business
models since restraining infrastructure is the utilization of power to oblige others in the
utilization of what might "without such law be interested in all," while developments and
so forth couldn't be said to exist before their creation.

Free Software Foundation organizer Richard Stallman contends that, in spite of the fact
that the term licensed innovation is in wide utilize, it ought to be dismisses through and
through, on the grounds that it "deliberately contorts and befuddles these issues, and its
utilization was and is advanced by the individuals who pick up from this perplexity." He
guarantees that the expression "works as a catch-all to irregularity together dissimilar
laws [which] started independently, develop in an unexpected way, cover distinctive
exercises, have diverse guidelines, and raise diverse open approach issues" and that it
makes an "inclination" by mistaking these imposing business models for responsibility
for physical things, comparing them to "property rights". Stallman advocates alluding to
copyrights, licenses and trademarks in the solitary and cautions against abstracting
divergent laws into an aggregate term.

Lawrence Lessiq, alongside numerous other duplicate left and free programming
activists, have censured the suggested relationship with physical property (like area or a
vehicles). They contend such a similarity falls flat on the grounds that physical property
is for the most part rivalrous while scholarly works are non-rivalrous (that is, whether one
makes a duplicate of a work, the delight in the duplicate does not counteract pleasure in
the first)

A few faultfinders of protected innovation, for example, those in the free culture
development point at Intellectual imposing business models as hurting wellbeing,
avoiding advance, and profiting concentrated interests to the burden of the masses and
contend that the general population interest is hurt by ever sweeping syndications as
Copyright augmentations, programming licenses and business strategy Patents .

The panel on monetary, social and social Rights (CESCR) perceives that "contentions
may exist between the admiration for and execution of current protected innovation
frameworks and other human rights". It contends that licensed innovation has a tendency
to be administered by monetary objectives when it ought to be seen principally as a social
item; with a specific end goal to serve human prosperity, protected innovation
frameworks must regard and adjust to human rights laws.

As indicated by the Committee, when frameworks neglect to do as such they hazard

encroaching upon the human right to sustenance and wellbeing, and to social support and
experimental advantages.

Some libertarian faultfinders of Intellectual property have contended that permitting

property rights in thoughts and data makes fake lack and encroaches on the privilege to
possess substantial property.

The Stephan Kinsella utilizes the accompanying situation to contend this point:
Envision the time when men lived in hollows. One brilliant person—lets call him Galt-
Magnon—chooses to assemble a log lodge on an open field, close to his products,
certainly, this is a smart thought, and others notice it. They normally mirror Galt-
Magnon, and they begin constructing their own lodges. Be that as it may, the principal
man to concoct a house, as per IP promoters, would have a privilege to keep others from
building houses all alone land, with their own logs, or to charge them an expense on the
off chance that they do fabricate houses.

It is plain that the pioneer in these illustrations turns into a fractional proprietor of the
substantial property (e.g., land and logs) of others, due not to first occupation and
utilization of that property (for it is as of now claimed), yet because of his thinking of a
thought. Plainly, this principle goes against the primary client homesteading standard,
subjectively and unfoundedly superseding the very homesteading decide that is at the
establishment of all property rights.

Other feedback of licensed innovation law concerns the inclination of the insurances of
protected innovation to extend, both in term and in extension. The pattern has been
toward longer copyright assurance (raising fears that it might some time or another be
everlasting. What's more, the engineers and controllers of things of licensed innovation
have tried to bring more things under the insurance. Licenses have been allowed for
living beings, (and in the US, certain Living life forms have been patentable for over a
century) and hues have been trademarked.67

Alternative Model
Lets now discuss some scenario where there is no protection given to intellectual
property rights, what would happen than. Let’s see.

The Libertarian Utopia Model

A captivating examination in the field licensed innovation rights is the origination of a
world where no controls or laws to secure protected innovation exist. All manifestations
of the brain, for example, creations, scholarly works, advancements are unreservedly
open and can be used by anybody. Any libertarian scholars, for example, Kinsella trust
that any foundation or contention, for example, the topic of protected innovation rights
which endeavors to legitimize or requires the proceeded with presence of the state is
erroneous. In the event that something must be done or secured by the state, then it stands
to (libertarian) reason that, that something ought not be done or ensured by any means.
They trust that it is unquestionable that anything that one produces, with their own hands
and/or with their own particular capital as a team with their innovative personality, is
their selective property. Be that as it may, once such things are prepared to be sold, they

67
http://www.slideshare.net/chaswals/llm-lecture-ipr-concept-and-theories-compatibility-mode
ought to be liable to the opposition of the free market, unencumbered by cases of licensed
innovation rights; to permit the innovator of a gadget to crush rivalry in the commercial
center is to permit him to putrefy in average quality, while somebody more quick witted
could have enhanced the development, profiting everybody.

Benjamin Tucker proposed that property emerged as a method for tackling clashes inside
society, which were created by lack. In the universe of human reality, all products were
rare, and that actuality prompted an unavoidable rivalry among people for their
utilization. For instance, since two people couldn't utilize the same seat in the same way
in the meantime, it was important to figure out who ought to utilize the seat. The idea of
property determined this issue. Licensed innovation can't exist on the grounds that a
thought is not property; it is not rare. The very foundation of property came to fruition
with the end goal of doling out rare merchandise to people. A thought in my mind is my
property, since it is a piece of my brain. Be that as it may, the moment a man expresses it,
the following individual to hear it likewise possesses the thought, as it is currently a
portion of their brain. We may both "own" the thought without reducing it in both of our
brains.

The libertarian conflict is that the business sector will locate a cheerful medium between
makers shielding their items from duplicating and the buyers doing the replicating. For
instance, while innovation gives approaches to trump IP laws, it likewise makes more
approaches to ensure the manifestations of authors and craftsmen. To secure their
product, organizations ought to conceal their source codes; much like Microsoft does to
keep different organizations from delivering Windows. To keep shoppers from
duplicating programming to offer away to companions or to offer, they ought to utilize
innovation that makes it difficult to "privateer" the product or a document. They ought to
utilize innovation that does not permit the proprietor of a CD to make a MP3 out of a
track, or conceivably, permit the download of a melody in a configuration that permits
just exchange, not duplication.
All the world's items are designed according to something that preceded. From garments
to structures to, yes, composing, there is dependably a forerunner. To deny somebody the
privilege to enhance another's creation, showed in the previous' close to home property, is
to conflictingly bolster protected innovation rights over genuine and individual property
rights,

In spite of the fact that the above framework in principle appears to be perfect, to
authorize it in actuality would be an impressive assignment. We should perceive that laws
(in this setting property law) are the consequence of an ethical agreement among
individuals. Licensed innovation laws did not advance in nature; individuals living in a
common society bit by bit merged to them. So if most of the general population did not
endorse of these laws they would not exist.

Also, as we have found before, the business sector has concocted approaches to deny
theft and impersonations. In any case, with the quickly blasting innovation, people would
work around them and devise approaches to copy which at last would prompt turmoil,
and the general public would eventually depend on an arrangement of implementing
protected innovation rights (legitimately or by shared assent).

At last, it is wrong to contend that the shortage of substantial property is the sole
clarification for property rights and as impalpable property is in wealth, there is no
premise for securing a licensed innovation. The inclination to possess property is intrinsic
in man as it gives security and a feeling of personality, which is unquestionable.

In addition despite the fact that thoughts all things considered may not be limited,
progressive thoughts that can be meant gainful solid works are, and subsequently should
be watched.

Subsequent to assessing the above contentions the conclusion we have come to is that an
arrangement of licensed innovation rights are advocated the length of they don't disregard
another's parallel right to protected innovation. Albeit reasonably, the advancement of
such a framework is an overwhelming undertaking because of its different intricacies. It
is critical to understand that there are no obvious, simple responses for this level headed
discussion.

This verbal confrontation is prickly in light of the fact that two essential standards
conflict: legitimate insurance for immaterial works clashes with the free expression and
trade of thoughts. IP debate have constantly included exchange off between these two
crucial standards.

Along these lines the best arrangement is to minimize the open door expense of the
exchange off. A framework whereby an individual is secure in the information that his
licensed innovation might be ensured without encroaching on another person's
entitlement to his protected innovation. One of the frameworks that can accomplish this
goal to a substantial degree is the utilization of copyrights rather than licenses, which was
initially proposed by Murray N Rothbard.

The offended party must demonstrate that the litigant stole the formers creation by
repeating it and offering it himself infringing upon his or another person's agreement with
the first dealer. However, in the event that the litigant autonomously lands at the same
creation, the offended party has no copyright benefit that could keep the respondent from
utilizing and offering his items. However, patent then has nothing to do with certain
burglary. It gives an elite benefit on its first creator, and in the event that any other person
ought to, freely, imagine the same or comparable item, the last would be suspended by
power from utilizing it as a part of generation.

This doesn't appear to be generally as two people may autonomously think of the same
development that requires gigantic ventures and one and only can get a patent because of
a few reasons, for example, auspicious bid, political campaigning or whatever other
unplanned element. This is reasonable neither on the purchaser nor on the maker. Firstly
by limiting the measure of yield and subsequently higher costs and furthermore on the off
chance that one maker acquires the patent then the other can't create. Subsequently
licenses appear to be exceptionally preposterous in such manner.

The Rothbardian Solution

Licenses and copyrights are both property rights in developments. In any case, there is a
vital contrast in their legitimate implementation. On the off chance that a creator or a
writer trusts his copyright is encroached and he makes lawful move, he should
demonstrate that the respondent had "access" to the encroached work. On the off chance
that the litigant produces something indistinguishable to the offended parties work by
unimportant chance, there is no encroachment. Copyrights as such, have their premise in
understood robbery.

In this manner as an answer the patent assurance now acquired by the designer could be
accomplished in the free market by a kind of copyright insurance. In the free market, the
designer could check the copyright status on his item and any individual who purchases
the item does it on the condition that he would not imitate and offer such a machine for
benefit. The patent is contrary with the free market to the degree that it goes past the
copyright. The man, who has not purchased the machine and has autonomously landed at
the same development, will in a free market be flawlessly ready to utilize and offer his
creation. In this manner this would augment a copyright-sort of assurance to the topic of
licenses also.

Along these lines, contends Rothbard: assume that Brown forms a superior mousetrap
and offers it generally, however stamps every mousetrap "copyright Mr. Chestnut." What
he is then doing is offering not the whole property right in every mousetrap, but rather the
privilege to do anything with the mousetrap but to offer it or an indistinguishable
duplicate to another person. The privilege to offer the Brown mousetrap is held in
ceaselessness by Brown.
The Rothbardian framework determines the civil argument in regards to licensed
innovation rights to a huge degree as it fulfils the Moral Desert hypothesis while
determining the protests to it.

In any case this framework has inalienable defects, which are not applied yet rather relate
to its requirement. Some of these blemishes are as per the following:-

It doesn't entirely characterize what qualifies as "replicating." For occasion, a man can
get the specific bit of work, modify exceptionally unimportant parts of it, and after that
offer in the business sector. It is exceptionally hard to separate between a change and a
simple modification of the first work. In addition, Rothbard advocates the copyright to
exist in ceaselessness that is uncalled for as despite the fact that it is for the most part
assumed that thoughts and protected innovation are not rare, but rather thoughts that
emerge into beneficial items or procedures are few. In this manner interminable
copyrights radically decrease the extent of development and improvement of existing
thoughts.

It is extremely hard to demonstrate that a specific thought was stolen if there should be an
occurrence of infringement of a Copyright. Luckily, fitting and exact laws that are upheld
productively can beat all the above expressed issues.

The vast greater part of the scholars who have endeavored financial examinations of
licensed innovation have depended, unequivocally or certainly, on the "Kaldor-
Hicks"criterion (otherwise called the "riches amplification" model or "potential pareto
predominance") which advises legislators to choose an arrangement of principles that
boosts total welfare measured by buyer's capacity and ability to pay for products and
administrations. They differ forcefully, in any case, concerning the ramifications of that
standard in this field.
India and the IPR

In this chapter we will discuss about the history and current legislative of intellectual
property in India.

History of Copyright law in India

Copyright law in India can be followed back to 1847 amid the East India Company's
administration. Indian copyright Act of 1847 was gone by Governor-General of India
insisted the relevance of English copyright law to India. As indicated by the 1847
demonstration, the term of copyright was for the lifetime of the creator in addition to
seven years after death. Be that as it may, for no situation could the aggregate term of
copyright surpass a time of forty-two years. The administration could concede an
obligatory permit to distribute a book if the proprietor of copyright, upon the passing of
the writer, declined to permit its production. The demonstration of encroachment
involved in a man's unapproved printing of a copyright work for (or as a piece of
endeavor of) "offer contract, or exportation", or "for offering, distributed or presenting to
deal or contract". Suit or activity for encroachment was to be established in the "most
noteworthy nearby court practicing unique common locale." The Act gave particularly
that under an agreement of administration copyright in "any reference book, survey,
magazine, periodical work or work distributed in a progression of books or parts" should
vest in the "proprietor, projector, distributer or conductor." Infringing duplicates were
considered to be duplicates of the proprietor of copyrighted work. Vitally, dissimilar to
today, copyright in a work was not programmed. Enrollment of copyright with the Home
Office was compulsory for the requirement of rights under the Act. Be that as it may, the
Act likewise particularly held the subsistence of copyright in the creator, and his
entitlement to sue for its encroachment to the degree accessible in law other than the
1847 Act.

In 1914, the then Indian assembly sanctioned another Copyright Act which just amplified
most partitions of the United Kingdom Copyright Act of 1911 to India. It did, in any
case, make a couple of minor changes. To start with, it presented criminal assents for
copyright encroachment (segments 7 to 12). Second, it adjusted the extent of the term of
copyright; under segment 4 the "sole right" of the creator to "deliver, replicate, perform
or distribute an interpretation of the work might subsist just for a time of ten years from
the date of the primary production of the work." The creator, notwithstanding, held her
"sole rights" if inside the time of ten years she distributed or approved production of her
work an interpretation in any dialect in appreciation of that dialect.68

The 1914 Act was continued with minor adaptations and modifications till it was
replaced by the Copyright Act, 1957.69

68
http://nostalgicmans.blogspot.in/2009/01/history-of-copyright-in-india.html
69
The Copyright Act, 1957 came into force on 21-01-1958, vide Notification No. SRO 269, Gazette of India,
Ext. Part II, s. 3(ii), p.167.
History of patent law in India
The principal enactment in India identifying with licenses was the Act VI of 1856. The
goal of this enactment was to energize innovations of new and helpful fabricates and to
incite creators to reveal mystery of their developments. The Act was thusly canceled by
Act IX of 1857 since it had been authorized without the endorsement of the sovereign.

Crisp enactment for giving 'elite benefits' was presented in 1859 as Act XV of 1859. This
enactment contained certain adjustments of the prior enactment, to be specific, gift of
selective benefits to valuable innovations just and expansion of need period from 6 to 12
months. The Act barred shippers from the meaning of creator. The 1856 Act depended on
the United Kingdom Act of 1852 with specific flights including permitting chosen ones
to make application in India furthermore taking earlier open use or distribution in India or
United Kingdom with the end goal of learning oddity.

The Act of 1859 gave assurance to innovation just and not for outlines while United
Kingdom had been shielding plans from 1842 onwards. To evacuate this lacuna, the
'Examples and Designs Protection Act' (Act XIII) was gone in 1872. This Act revised the
1859 Act to incorporate any new and unique example or outline or the use of such
example to any substance or article of assembling inside the significance of 'new
produce'. The Act XV of 1859 was further revised in 1883 by XVI of 1883 to acquaint a
procurement with ensure curiosity of the innovation, which preceding making application
for their security were revealed in the Exhibitions of India. An effortlessness time of 6
months was accommodated recording such applications after the date of the opening of
such Exhibition. In 1888, new enactment was acquainted with solidify and correct the
law identifying with development and plans in similarity with the changes made in the
UK law.

In 1911, the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, (Act II of 1911) was acquired
supplanting all the past enactments on licenses and plans. This Act brought patent
organization under the administration of Controller of Patents interestingly. This Act was
altered in 1920 to accommodate going into proportional game plans with UK and
different nations for securing need. In 1930, further alterations were made to consolidate,
between alia, procurements identifying with award of mystery licenses, patent of
expansion, utilization of creation by Government, forces of the Controller to correct
register of patent and increment of term of the patent from 14 years to 16 years. In 1945,
another correction was made to accommodate documenting of temporary determination
and accommodation of complete detail inside nine months.

After Independence, it was felt that the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911 was not
satisfying its goal. It was discovered alluring to sanction complete patent law attributable
to significant changes in political and financial conditions in the nation. In like manner,
the Government of India constituted a board of trustees under the Chairmanship of
Justice (Dr.) Bakshi Tek Chand, a resigned Judge of Lahore High Court, in 1949, to audit
the patent law in India keeping in mind the end goal to guarantee that the patent
framework is helpful for the national interest.

The Committee presented its interval report on fourth August, 1949 with proposals for
counteractive action of abuse or mishandle of patent right in India and for revisions to
segments 22, 23 and 23A of the Patents and Designs Act, 1911 on the lines of the United
Kingdom Acts of 1919 and 1949. In view of the suggestions of the Committee, the 1911
Act was revised in 1950 (Act XXXII of 1950) in connection to working of creations and
mandatory permit/renouncement.

In 1952, an alteration was made to give mandatory permit in connection to licenses in

appreciation of sustenance and solutions, bug spray, antiseptic or fungicide and a
procedure for delivering substance or any innovation identifying with surgical or
corrective gadgets, through Act LXX of 1952. The mandatory permit was likewise
accessible on notice by the Central Government. In light of the proposals of the
Committee, a bill was presented in the Parliament in 1953 (Bill No.59 of 1953). Be that
as it may, the bill slipped by on disintegration of the Lok Sabha.
In 1957, the Government of India selected Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar Committee to
inspect the topic of modification of the Patent Law and prompt government in like
manner. The report of the Committee, which involved two sections, was submitted in
September, 1959. The initial segment managed general parts of the patent law and the
second part gave nitty gritty note on the few conditions of the passed bill of 1953. The
initial segment additionally managed wrongs of the patent framework and arrangement
with proposals as to the law. The board of trustees suggested maintenance of the patent
framework, in spite of its inadequacies. This report prescribed significant changes in the
law which framed the premise of the presentation of the Patents Bill, 1965. This bill was
presented in the Lok Sabha on 21st September, 1965, which, in any case, slipped by.

In 1967, a changed bill was acquainted which was alluded with a Joint Parliamentary
Committee and on the last suggestion of the Committee, the Patents Act, 1970 was
passed. This Act revoked and supplanted the 1911 Act so far as the licenses law was
concerned. Be that as it may, the 1911 Act kept on being pertinent to outlines. The vast
majority of the procurements of the 1970 Act were brought into power on twentieth
April, 1972 with the distribution of the Patents Rules, 1972.

This Act stayed in power for around 24 years till December 1994 with no change. A law
affecting certain adjustments in the Act was issued on 31st December 1994, which
stopped to work following six months. In this way, another mandate was issued in 1999.
This law was later supplanted by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 that was brought
into power reflectively from first January, 1995. The second revision to the 1970 Act was
made through the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 38 0f 2002). This Act came into
power on twentieth May, 2003 with the presentation of the new Patents Rules, 2003 by
supplanting the prior Patents Rules, 1972. The third revision to the Patents Act, 1970 was
presented through the Patents (Amendment) Ordinance, 2004 with impact from first
January, 2005. This Ordinance was later supplanted by the Patents (Amendment) Act,
2005 (Act 15 Of 2005) on fourth April, 2005 which was brought into power from first
January, 2005.70
70
http://www.metastudio.org/Science%20and%20Ethics/file/readDoc/535a76367d9d331598f49e2d/
34_Hb_on_IPR.pdf
First patent in the history of India
The foundation of Intellectual Property Rights in India can actually be traced back to 28
February 1856, when the first legislation was introduced to grant what was then termed
as “exclusive privileges for the encouragement of inventions of new manufactures”.
On 3 March 1856, a civil engineer and inventor named George Alfred DePenning, of
Calcutta, India, filed a petition for grant of exclusive privileges under this Act for his
invention, which he called “An Efficient Punkah-Pulling Machine”. This petition was the
first to be filed under this Act, and was officially numbered as No.1 of 1856.71

71
http://www.depenning.com/history.htm
 Drawing of the Punkah-Pulling Machine

73

Patent No.1 of 185674

History of trademark law in India

India's statutory Trademarks Law goes back to 1860. Before 1940 there was no official
trademark Law in India. Various issues stir on encroachment, law of going off and so on
and these were tackled by use of area 54 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and the
enlistment was clearly arbitrated by getting an announcement with regards to the
responsibility for trademark under Indian Registration Act 1908.
72
Photo Courtesy, http://www.depenning.com/patent.htm
73
Photo Courtesy, http://www.depenning.com/patent.htm
74
First Indian Patent to be registered under Act VI of 1856.
To beat the previously stated challenges the Indian Trademarks Act was gone in 1940,
this compared with the English Trademarks Act. After this there was an expanding
requirement for more security of Trademarks as there was a noteworthy development in
Trade and Commerce.

The substitution to this demonstration was the Trademark and Merchandise Act, 1958.
This Act was to accommodate enrollment and better security of Trademarks and for
aversion of the utilization of deceitful imprints on stock. This Law likewise empowers the
enlistment of trademarks so that the proprietor of the trademark gets lawful right to the
restrictive utilization of the trademark. The goal of this demonstration was simple
enlistment and better security of trademarks and to forestall extortion.

The cancelation of the Trademarks and Merchandise Act offered ascend to the Trademark
Act 1999; this was finished by the Government of India so that the Indian Trademark
Law is in consistence with the TRIPS commitment on the suggestion of the World Trade
Organization. The object of the 1999 Act is to present the assurance to the client of the
trademark on his merchandise and endorse conditions on securing, and legitimate
solutions for authorization of trademark rights.

Current laws governing Intellectual Property Rights in India

Following are the laws currently relating to the governance of intellectual property in
India.
For Patent
The Patents Act, 19707576
The Patent (Amendment) Act, 199977
The Patent (Amendment) Act, 200278
The Patent (Amendment) Act, 200579
The Patents Rules, 2003,80
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Patents Procedure) Rules, 2010
The Patents (Appeals and Applications to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board)
Rules, 2011

For Copyright
The Copyright Act, 1957,81
The Copyright Rules, 1958
International Copyright Order, 1999

For Trademark
The Trade Marks Act, 1999,82
The Trade Marks Rules, 2002,
The Trade Marks (Applications and Appeals to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board)
Rules, 2003
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Procedure) Rules, 2003

For Geographical Indication

75
Act No. 39 OF 1970
76
As Amended By the Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999.
77
Came into force from 01-01-1995.
78
Came into force from 20-05-2003.
79
Came into effect from 01-01-2005.
80
Conferred by Section 159 of the Patents Act
81
Act No. 14 of 1957
82
Act No. 32 OF 1999 & Act No. 25 OF 2001
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 199983
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules, 2002

For Design
The Designs Act, 200084
The Designs Rules, 2001

For Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Design

The Semiconductors Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 200085
The Semiconductors Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Rules, 2001

For Biological Diversity

The Biological Diversity Act, 200286
The Biological Diversity Rules, 2004

For Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmer Rights

The Protection of Plant varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 200187
The Protection of Plant varieties and Farmers Rights’ Rules, 2003

Economic development of India

India GDP over the years

83
Act No. 48 OF 1999
84
Act No. 16 OF 2000
85
Act No. 37 OF 2000
86
Act No. 18 OF 2003
87
Act No. 53 OF 2001
Let’s have a look at the GDP (Gross domestic product) of India over the years, ranging
from 1991 when India economy opened its gate for globalization till now.

India's GDP (2004-05 series)

12

10 9.489.579.32
8.598.91
7.97 8 7.97
8 7.29
6.68 7.05 6.72 6.69
6.39
6 5.365.68 5.39
4.3 4.15 4.474.74
3.88
4

2 1.43

0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4
1 -9 2-9 3-9 4-9 5-9 6-9 7-9 8-9 9-0 0-0 1-0 2-0 3-0 4-0 5-0 6-0 7-0 8-0 9-1 0-1 1-1 2-1 3-1
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
1 9 19 1 9 19 1 9 19 19 1 9 19 2 0 2 0 20 2 0 20 2 0 2 0 20 2 0 20 20 2 0 20 2 0

GDP (Gross domestic product) indicate a country growth in terms of monetary value of
all goods and services produced during a year. From the above chart we can see India’s
growth history over a period of around 23 years. From just 1.43% growth in 1991-92,
India touched a high of 9.57% GDP in year 2006-07 and currently is at 4.74% at the year
2013-14. Even in the recession in the year 2008-09 and afterwards India managed to
grow 6.72% in the year 2008-09, and steadily kept a pace of 8.59% and 8.91% growth in
the year 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. For the next three years India GDP dip a bit
but still India managed to grow at 6.69%, 4.47% and 4.74% in the years 2012-12, 2012-
13 and 2013-14 respectively. But this growth rate is at the prices of 2004-05. When we
compare last 4 years at the prices of 2011-12, the GDP will increase. So to have a true
story of India’s GDP let’s take a look at the chart below where India’s GDP is calculated
at the 2011-12 price series.
 India's GDP (2011-12 series)
8 7.6
7.2
7 6.6

6 5.6

0
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

As we can see that if we take 2011-12 prices to compare India GDP, the GDP % is
increased slightly from the 2004-05 prices.

According to 2004-05 prices, India GDP was 4.47% in 2012-13 and is increased to 5.6%
if we take 2011-12 price series, similarly India GDP in 2013-14 is 4.74% according to
2004-05 prices and is 6.6% at 2011-12 prices. In year 2014-15 and year 2015-16 India’s
GDP is 7.2% and 7.6% respectively.

But why I’m giving this data? I’m giving this data as an indicator of economic
development of India over the years. India became a member of WTO on 1st January
1995, and implemented all the mandatory requirements of TRIPS by 1st January 2005.
And in this period India GDP was 7.29% in 1995-96 which touched a all time high of
8.00% in 1999-00 and was at 7.05% in 2004-05. After the mandatory requirements of
TRIPS India GDP touched a high in the year 2005-06 at 9.48% and in the year 2006-07 at
9.57%, and now since the last four is at 5.6%, 6.6%, 7.2% and 7.6% in the years 2012-13,
2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively.

By these chart’s we can analyse that India is steadily going in the range of 7% and 8%
GDP growth rate. But this growth rate is achieved by many factors. All together
connecting this growth rate solely to Intellectual property till now will be wrong. We
need to compare others data also to reach that conclusion. One factor of India GDP
constant growth rate can be attributed to the increase in the per capita income of the
people of India. First let’s have a look at the GDP per capita income of India.

GDP per capita (INR) 2004-05 series

45000
39270
40000
33987
35000 30805
36249
30000 26629 33446
22491 23607 28639
25000
19927 20734
17505 25116
20000 16308 23095
22178
15000 19548
16736 18487
10000 15748

5000
0
9 2 93 94 9 5 96 97 9 8 99 00 0 1 02 03 0 4 0 5 06 0 7 0 8 09 1 0 1 1
9 1- 92- 93- 9 4- 95- 96- 9 7- 98- 99- 0 0- 01- 02- 0 3- 0 4- 05- 0 6- 0 7- 08- 0 9- 1 0-
19 1 9 1 9 19 1 9 1 9 19 1 9 1 9 20 2 0 2 0 20 20 2 0 20 20 2 0 20 20

As you can see from the chart above, India’s GDP per capita income went on rising from
Rs.15,748 in the year 1991-92 to Rs.39,270 in the year 2010-11. Now let’s see the GDP
per capita income of last four years. i.e. 2011-12 to 2014-15.
 GDP per capita (INR) 2011-12 series
120,000

98,983
100,000 90,688
80,879
80,000 72,394

60,000

40,000

20,000

0
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

GDP per capita rises suddenly if we take base as 2011-12 series. It was Rs.72,394 in the
year 2011-12 and kept on increasing to Rs.80,879 in the year 2012-13, to Rs. 90,688 in
2013-14 to Rs.98,983 in the year 2014-15.

This growth in per capita GDP is despite the increase in population. As GDP per capita is
calculated by dividing the GDP with the population of a country, So when population
increases, it have a negative effect on the GDP, but despite the increase in the population,
(India’s population in year 1991 was 84,64,21,039(around eighty four crore) which
increased to 121,08,54,977(around one hundred twenty one crore) in the year 2011,
India’s GDP per capita increased each year. This shows that increase in the GDP was
more than the increase in the population and that’s the reason GDP kept increasing over
the years.

By above discussion we now know that India’s economy is developing at a study range
of around 7% GDP. But can this growth story of India’s economy can solely be attributed
due to intellectual property? We cant at this point of time, right now neither confirm
neither deny this proposition. We have to take some other factor into consideration also.
Inflow of FDI in India over the years

FDI (foreign direct investment) is an investment made by a company or institution or

entity or person based in one country into a company or institution or entity based in
another country. FDI inflow is regulated by the rules of a country and that is the reason
every country has different rules for FDI. Even single countries have sector wise different
rules to allow inflow in its country. FDI inflow in a country indicates its strong economy
and others countries belief in that particular country. The more FDI in a country, the
more chances of economic growth of that country.

Now let’s have a look at the inflow of FDI in India from the year 2000 till 2015 and try to
analyze what this data means.

FDI flows into India (Amount US$ million)

50000 46556
44877
45000 41873
40000 37745
34843 34847 36046
34298
35000
30000
25000 22826

20000
15000
8961
10000 6130 5035 6051
4029 4322
5000
0
2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014-
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

From the above chart we can see that there is constant growth of FDI flows into India
over the years. In the year 2000-01 where total inflows was at US$ 4029 million, it
doubled by the year 2005-06 to US$ 8961 million. By the time India implemented all the
mandatory requirement of TRIPS in the year 2005, and with India’s economy going at
good rate, FDI show huge inflow in India. It increased 500% to US$ 41873 million in the
year 2008-09 despite the fact that there was recession in 2008. After 2008 there was a fall
in the inflow of FDI for the next two years, which was US$ 37745 million in the year
2009-10 and was US$ 34847 million in the year 2010-11. In the year 2011-12 with
India’s economy improving FDI again roses to US$ 46556. Following this next two years
FDI dips a bit to US$ 34298 million and to US$ 36046 million in the years 2012-13 and
2013-14 respectively. Currently it stands at US$ 44887 million in the year 2014-15.

Now we can say by the above data that India economy is growing constantly. Its GDP is
growing at constant rate despite the fact that its population is also increasing, which can
result in decrease in GDP. Inflow of FDI is also increasing showing sign of belief of
other countries in India’s economy.

India life expectancy

Economically India is improving but before linking intellectual property to its growth, I
want to add human development factor also. Let’s take a look at the life expectancy of
India over the period of time.

80

70 66.5
62.5
59.7
60 55.7
49.3
50
42.3
Male
40
Female
All
30

20

10

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Life expectancy of India was 42.3 years in the year 1960 which now in the year 2010
stood at 66.5 years. But the question here is does life expectancy of a country is also a
indicator of economic growth? The answer by me is yes, it is.
Because if u analysis the factors behind the increase or decrease in life expectancy of a
country you will always find the reason associated to intellectual property somehow. Due
to lots of research and invention many life saving drugs are manufactured which helps in
saving many people life. Small pox, Guinea worm, Polio all are eradicated from India.
But can this was possible if there was no protection to innovators and no incentives to
research. Absolutely No. Intellectual property rights have enabled this only. Even the
infantancy rate is increased due to the availability of medicine at the time of birth of
child. All this was possible because protection was given to scientist, and their fruit of the
labour was protected. They were encouraged to find new medicine and new treatment.
So, it can be said that increase in the life expectancy is due to the protection of
intellectual rights especially in the field of science and pharmaceuticals.

Now let’s see the situation of patents, trademarks, designs and geographical indication in
India since the last five years, so we can see that is there any growth in these intellectual
properties.

Patents

Let’s have a look at the patent application filed in the last five years.

Patent Applications
50000
45000 43197 43674 42951
39400
40000
34287
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
As you can see from the chart that patent application filed every year in increasing which
shows that companies are investing huge in its research and development department. In
the year 2009-10 where the application filed were at 34,287, it was at 39400, 43197,
43674 and 42951 in the year 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 respectively.

Though these are application filed data, if we compare how many patent were granted,
refused and abandoned, the data will be :-

Year 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Filed 34,287 39,400 43,197 43,674 42,951
Examined 6,069 11,208 11,031 12,268 18,615
Granted 6,168 7,509 4,381 4,126 4,227
Disposal of 11,339 12,851 8,488 9,027 11,411
request for
examination.
(Granted + refused
+ abandoned)

By looking at the table we can clearly see that actual granted patents were 6168 in the
year 2009-10 and 7509, 4381, 4126, 4227 in the year 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and
2013-14 respectively.

Now let’s see from which specific areas these patent were applied from.

First let’s see the list of top 5 applicants in the field of Information Technology in the
year 2013-14.

Sl. Name of Company Application

No. filed
1. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. 169
2. SAMSUNG R&D INSTITUTE INDIA- BANGALORE 84
 PVT. LTD.
3. INFOSYS 83
4. SAMSUNG INDIA SOFTWARE OPERATION PVT. 66
LTD.
5. WIPRO LIMITED 59
6. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 59
(COLLECTIVE)

These data was for the year 2013-14, where TCS occupied the top slot and Infosys and
Wipro were third and fifth position respectively. This data is important because TCS,
Infosys and Wipro are Indian IT companies and generating lots of employment and
revenue for India. The growth of these companies is classical example of how protection
of intellectual property rights helps a economy grows.

Now let’s see the top Indian applications for patent in the field of Scientific and Research
& Development Organization in the year 2013-14.

Sl. Name of Scientific and Research & Development Application

No. Organization. filed
1. COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL 267
RESEARCH
2. DEFENCE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 116
ORGANISATION (DRDO)
3. INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL 71
RESEARCH
4. DEPARTMENT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY, GOVT. OF 34
INDIA
5. JUBILANT LIFE SCIENCES LTD. 29
6. G H R LABS AND RESEARCH CENTRE 26
7. HETERO RESEARCH FOUNDATION 17
8. CENTER FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ADVACED 17
 COMPUTING
9. INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH 14
10. INIDAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION 12

Scientific research and development helps a country in many ways. MARS mission by
our organization ISRO, was the cheapest mission which was able to send its satellite in
the space with the least expense. Can we have explored the moon, if there was no
provision for scientific research? So increase in patent in this field is really important for
our whole planet so we can have idea of our universe and can helps in exploring our
universe.

Even patent are filed by universities and institution these days. Now we will have a look
at the top Indian applications for patent by institutes and Universities in the year 2013-14.

Sl. Name of University or Institution Application

No. filed
1. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (Collective) 342
2. AMITY UNIVERSITY 92
3. SAVEETHA SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, 74
SAVEETHA UNIVERSITY
4. BHARATH UNIVERSITY 37
5. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE 32
6. G.H. RAISONI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING 27
7. SIDDAGANGA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 24
8. SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR 20
MEDICAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
9. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA 15
10. SASTRA UNIVERSITY 13
10. RAJARAMBAPU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 13
This data is very important because it shows us that institutions and universities are also
encouraging its students and faculties to innovate and get their work patented. This is a
glory sign for the future because these students later have potential to become scientist,
entrepreneurs and innovators.

Now we will have a look at the different fields of technology from where patent
application comes. Following is a pie chart for the year 2000-2014 which indicates the
different fields of patent applications.

Patent Application

Pharmaceuticals
19.91 Organic fine chemistry
25.71 Computer Technology
Biotechnology
Basic material chemistry
Digital Communication
IT methods for management
2.06 Medical technology
18.1 Chemical engineering
2.19
materials, metallugry
2.45
Others
2.77
3.59
5.03 14.31
3.88
88

From the above pie chart, it is clear that around 1/5th of the total patent application in the
period 2000-2014 were from the pharmaceuticals industry. It is obvious as with increase
in the diseases, with new kinds of virus, bacteria originating and new forms of disease
coming, pharmaceuticals industry has to be on its toe to cater the demand of medicines in
all the fields. Many types of cancers, aids, diabetics are spreading and companies have to
come up with the medicines for all these. Still lots of research has to be done in these
fields as many disease vaccine has not till now be developed. With 18.1%, organic fine
chemistry a part of the life science industry filed patent applications. These are used in
many fields like chemical manufacturing, LED Encapsulants, OLED panels,

88
WIPO statistical database. Last updated 12/2015.
semiconductor resist materials, medical products, organic acid, solvents, organic acid
anhydrides, ketene or diketene derivatives, amines etc.

With 14.31% computer technology comes third in terms of application field. Many things
now days are done by the computers, and many programs are innovated to complete
those works for institution, governments etc.

Rest some important fields are 5.03% for biotechnology, 3.88% for basic material
chemistry, 3.59% for digital communication, 2.77% for IT methods for management,
2.45% for medical technology, 2.19% for chemical engineering’s, 2.06 % for materials
and rest 25.71% for others field.

Now let’s see how many patents are in force in India from the period of 2005 till 2014.

Patents in Force
60000

49272
50000 47224
45103
41361 42991
40000 37334

29688 30822
30000

20000 16419 17066

10000

0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 89

So as in 2005 there was 16419 patent in force in India. As patents are protected for a
specific period of time and enter into public domain after the expiry of the time, it is not
necessary that patent in force will keep on increasing over the period of time. That is the
reason from the above chart that from 2005 till 2010 patent in force kept on increasing
from 16419 in 2005 to 47224 in 2010. It was 17066 in 2006 and was 29688, 30822 and

89
WIPO statistical database. Last updated 12/2015.
37334 in the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 respectively. After some decline in 2011 to
41361 which was the result of some earlier patent going into public domain, it kept
increasing in the next three years from 42991 in the year to 45103 in the year 2013 and
49272 in the year 2014.

Designs

Let’s have a look at the application filed and designs registered from the year 2004-05 to
2013-14.

Application filed and Designs registered

10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

From the above chart, designs filed in the year 2004-05 were 4017 and registration was
done for 3728. Similarly designs filed in the year 2005-06 were 4949 and registration was
done for 4175. For the next years application filed were 5521, 6402, 6557, 6092 7589,
8373 and 8337 for the years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and
2012-13 respectively. And registration was granted for 4250, 4928, 4772, 6025, 9206,
6590 and 7252 for the years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and
2012-13 respectively. Currently in the year 2013-14, application for designs were filed
for 8533 designs and granted for 7178 designs.
And now lets see the trends of Indian and foreign filing of designs.

Year Filed Registered

Indian Foreign Indian Foreign
2004-05 3093 924 3166 562
2005-06 3407 1542 3439 736
2006-07 3584 1937 2877 1373
2007-08 3873 2529 3026 1902
2008-09 4308 2249 2985 1787
2009-10 4267 1825 3552 2473
2010-11 5095 2494 6369 2837
2011-12 5292 3081 4162 2428
2012-13 5428 2909 4662 2590
2013-14 5530 3003 4330 2848

In case of foreign applicants, U.S.A leads with 536 numbers of applications. Second is
Japan with 390 applications, and third place goes to Germany who filed 356 applications.
Fourth and fifth places were occupied by Sweden and Netherland respectively with 160
and 147 applications.

Designs in force: - At the end of financial year 2013-14 there were 44,903 registered
designs in force in India.

Trademarks

The following table will provide details about trademark registration in India with
comparison of financial year 2012-13 and 2013-14. The filing trend indicate that number
of application filed for registration of trademarks increased from 1,94,216 in the year
2012-13 to 2,00,005 in the year 2013-14. The following table contains number of
application filed, examined and registered.
 Sl. No. Activities 2012-13 2013-14
1. Application filed for Registration 1,94,216 2,00,005
2. Number of Application advertised in the 74,871 67,796
Trade Marks Journal
3. Number of trademark registered 44,361 67,876
4. No. of post examined applications 25,375 36,880
disposed otherwise than registration (by
refusal, abandonment, and withdrawal)
5. No. of marks in respect of which 24,828 32,202
registration was renewed.
6. No. of requests for recordal of post 14,078 19,856
registration changes in registered
trademarks (including assignments)
disposed
7. Certificates issued u/s 45(1) of the 1,284 3,825
Copyright Act of 1983

Now let’s see trend of application filing by Indian and Foreign applicants.

Year Indian Applicants Foreign applicants Total

2009-10 1,34,403 7,540 1,41,943
2010-11 1,67,701 11,616 1,79,317
2011-12 1,69,602 13,986 1,83,588
2012-13 1,79,436 14,780 1,94,216
2013-14 1,84,140 15,865 2,00,005

These trends indicated that around 7% of the total applications came from foreign
applicants and remaining 93% came from Indian applicants.
And if we further divided these trademark applications into different categories under
trademark, we will see that device marks constitutes around 72.12% and word mark type
of trademark was around 27.87% of total filings.

Type of Marks 2012-13 2013-14

Device Marks 1,41,301 1,44,239
Word Marks 52,865 55,744
Number Marks 20 9
Letter Marks 10 13
Total 1,94,216 2,00,005

Now we will have a look at the trends in trademark application in the last five years.

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Filed 1,41,943 1,79,317 1,83,588 1,94,216 2,00,005
Examined 25,875 2,05,065 1,16,263 2,02,385 2,03,086
Registered 54,814 1,15,472 51,735 44,361 67,796

Geographical Indications

First let us see how many geographical indication applications were filed over the years.

Year No. of Applications filed

2003-04 6
2004-05 29
2005-06 16
2006-07 33
2007-08 37
2008-09 44
2009-10 40
2010-11 27
2011-12 148
 2012-13 24
2013-14 75

A total number of 215 geographical indications have been registered till 31st March, 2014
in India out of 479 application of geographical indication filed.

And if we see the breakup of geographical registration applications as per goods defined
in Sec.2 (f) of the Geographical Indication Act, 1999, the result are in the following pie
chart.

17 5

48
Handicraft (including textiles)
Agricultural
Manufactured
Foodstuff
145

So, out of total 215 geographical indication registered, 145 belongs to Handicraft which
also include Textiles, 48 belongs to Agricultural, 17 belongs to Manufactured and 5
belongs to Foodstuff as per the definition of Goods defined under Sec.2(f) of GI Act,
1999.

Now, let’s see trends of all Intellectual property in India. The following table contains the
trends of last five years from 2009-10 to 2013-14 in respect of filing of intellectual
property applications in India is shown below.
 Applications 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Patent 34,287 39,400 43,197 43,674 42,951
Design 6,092 7,589 8,373 8,337 8,533
Trade mark 1,41,943 1,79,317 1,83,588 1,94,216 2,00,005
Geographical 40 27 148 24 75
Indication
Total 1,82,362 2,26,333 2,35,306 2,46,251 2,51,564

There has been a constant growth in the application filings in the intellectual property in
India over the last 5 years. In 2009-10, all application filings were at 1,82,362 which
increased to 2,51,564 in the year 2013-14.

Now let’s see the revenue generated by these IP in the year 2012-13 and 2013-14.

Year 2012-13 (Rs.) 2013-14 (Rs.)

Patents 170,47,84,657 188,27,65,864
Designs 1,29,32,740 1,33,73,044
Trademarks 110,45,00,000 122,50,00,000
GI 8,77,750 6,49,990
Total 282,30,95,147 312,17,88,898

If we take 2013-14 as base year and see how much each intellectual property rights has
generated revenue than, the pie chart will be like this.
 GI
0%

Trademarks
39%

Patents
60%

Designs
0%

Patents generally yield 60% of total revenue in intellectual property, while trademark
contribute 39% and remaining 1 % include both designs and geographical indications.

It is said that there are three major factors that is leading to economic growth of India.
First is FDI, second is growing per capita income of India and third is growth of
companies (especially information and technology, pharmaceuticals and
biotechnologies.) in India. We have discussed FDI and per capita income before in this
chapter, now we will discuss growth of some of major Indian companies, which have
resulted in generation of huge revenues and employment in India. Let’s now discuss each
of these sectors and companies that are associated with these.

Infosys

The first company which helped Indian economy a lot in these years is Infosys in the
field of information and technology. It was founded on 2nd July 1981 by Narayan Murthy
and others founding members and its head quarter is situated at Bangalore, India. As of
March 2016, the number of employees in the company was 194,04490. Its balance sheet at
the end of March 2016 was as follows:-

Revenues US$ 9.501 billion

Operating income US$ 2.375 billion
Profit US$ 2.052 billion
Total assets US$ 11.378 billion
Total equity US$ 9.324 billion

It filed for 79 patent applications in the financial year 2014, whereas in financial year
2013, it had filed 97 patents, out of which 87 were granted. In 2011-12 it had filed for
153 patents, while in 2010-11 it had filed 91 patent applications.

TCS

Tata consultancy services (TCS) is the India’s largest information technology company in
terms of revenues. It was founded by J.R.D. Tata in the year 1968, and its headquarters
are in Mumbai, India. Currently as on March 2016, it employs 3,53,84391 peoples. Its
balance sheet as on March 2016 is:-

Revenues US$ 16.54 billion

Operating income US$ 4.38 billion
Profit US$ 3.70 billion
Total assets US$ 13.76 billion
Total equity US$ 11.10 billion

TCS was ranked number one IT Service provider for Manufacturing in Europe, Middle
East and Africa by International Corporation in 2014.92 TCS has filed for 443 patents in

90
www.infosys.com
91
www.tcs.com
92
http://www.mbaskool.com/fun-corner/top-brand-lists/13408-top-10-it-companies-in-india-2015.html?
start=9
2013-14 and 33 out of these were granted. Till the end of 2013-14, TCS has filed a total
of 1,746 patent applications, out of which 114 have been granted.

Wipro

Wipro is the third largest information technology company in India after TCS and
Infosys. It was founded on 29 December 1945 by Mohamed Hasham Premji and its
headquarters are in Bangalore, India. As in 2016, it had employed 172,91293 peoples. Its
balance sheet as on March 2016 is:-

Revenues US$ 7.735 billion

Operating income US$ 1.463 billion
Profit US$ 1.348 billion
Total assets US$ 10.94 billion
Total equity US$ 7.070 billion

Wipro had filed 200 patent applications in the year 2013-14, whereas in 2012-13 they had
filed for 53 patents.

Others

Apart from the top 3 information technologies companies I have discussed above, there
are many more IT companies which are helping in the development of India. Some of
them are, HCL, Tech Mahindra, Mind tree, Mphasis, Cyient, Rolta, and Oracle etc.

Now let’s see the top 10 IT companies in India94 .

Rank Company Market Capitalization (As

on 16 January 2016)
1. TCS Rs.4,46,006 Crore
2. Infosys Rs.2,61,897 Crore
3. WIPRO Rs.1,34,257 Crore

93
www.wipro.com
94
http://listz.in/top-10-it-companies-in-india.html
 4. HCL Technologies Rs.1,18,051 Crore
5. Tech Mahindra Rs.50,299 Crore
6. Oracle Rs.30,589 Crore
7. MindTree Rs.12,910 Crore
8. Mphasis Rs.9,659 Crore
9. Hexaware Rs.6,682 Crore
10. TATA ELXSI Rs.5,558 Crore

Now let’s discuss some of top pharmaceuticals companies.

Sun Pharmaceutical

Sun pharma is an Indian origin multinational company, which was founded in 1981 by
Dilip Shangavi. Its headquarters are in Mumbai, India. It is the largest pharmaceutical
company in India in terms of market capitalization. As on March 2016 its total workforce
was of 52,700 peoples.95 In 2014, it became the largest pharmaceutical company in India
after it acquisition of Ranbaxy Company. The company offers medicines in the field of
cardiology, neurology, diabetology, gastroenterology, and psychiatry. Its financials as on
March 2016 are as follows:-

Revenue US$ 1.606 trillion

Operating Income US$ 665 billion
Net Income US$ 550 billion
Total Assets Rs. 1,55,000 Crore

Its top brands include Revital, Volini, Chericof cough syrup, Pepfiz, Garlic pearls, Olesan
oil.

Lupin

95
www.sunpharma.com
Lupin was founded by Dr. Desh Bandhu Gupta in the year 1968. Its headquarter is
situated in Mumbai, India. Currently it is having more than 15000 employees.96 Its
revenue in the year 2014-15 was US$ 2.06 billion. And its profit was US$ 393 million.

It’s Research & development program has over 1400 scientist. Its top brand include
Gluconorm (Anti-Diabetic drugs), Tonact (Cardiovascular), Rablet (Gastro-intestinal),
and Budamate (Anti-Asthma).

Dr. Reddy’s laboratories

Dr. Reddy’s laboratories was founded in 1984 by Kallam Anji Reddy. It’s headquarter is
situated in Hyderabad, India. According to its financial statement in March 2015, its total
strength of employees is 20,373. And its finances as in 2015 were:-

Revenue US$ 148.2 billion

Operating Income US$ 25.74 billion
Net Income US$ 22.17 billion
Total Assets US$ 194.8 billion
Total equity US$ 111.3 billion

Others

If we see top 10 pharmaceuticals companies in India97 including the top 3 we already

have discussed above the list would be like this.

Rank Company Market Capitalization (As

on 16 January 2016)
1. Sun Pharma Rs.1,89,139 Crore
2. Lupin Rs.76,613 Crore
3. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Rs.50,102 Crore
4. Cipla Rs.48,788 Crore

96
www.lupin.com
97
http://listz.in/top-10-pharma-companies-in-india.html
 5. Aurobindo Pharma Rs.47,578 Crore
6. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Rs.31,541 Crore
7. Divi’s laboratories Rs.28,609 Crore
8. Glaxosmithkline Rs.26,954 Crore
9. Glenmark Rs.23,410 Crore
10. Torrent Pharma Rs.22,392 Crore

Now let’s see data about Bio-technologies companies

Bio-technological and pharmaceutical sector are almost same. Some says they both are
sisters to each others. Many companies have bio-technological as a branch in
pharmaceutical companies. USA pharmaceuticals company research budget is much
more than Indian pharmaceuticals companies. On an average, Indian companies budget is
around 5% to 10% of their revenues but USA companies can have around 40% of their
revenues as budget on research & development.

The top bio-technologies companies as on November 201598 in India are:-

Rank Name of Company

1. Serum Institute of India
2. Panacea Biotech Ltd.
3. Biocon Ltd.
4. Novo Nordisk
5. SIRO Clinpharm
6. Novozymes South Asia
7. Shantha Biotech
8. Indian Immunologicals
9. GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
10. Wockhardt Ltd.

98
http://top10companiesinindia.co.in/top-10-biotechnology-companies-in-india/
Green Revolution in India

The best example of how technology helps a economy was the green revolution. In the
world and in India it helped in the increasing of the food grains production and making
India self- sufficient in food grains. The use of high-yielding varieties (HYVs) seeds with
use of fertilizers and new methods of irrigation, India was able to increase its production
per hectare of land. The main development was in the production of wheat and rice. Later
India adopted IR8, a variety of rice seed which resulted in increase of rice production by
up to 10%in comparison of traditional rice seeds.

Let’s see a chart of wheat production in India from the start of green revolution till now.

India Wheat Production (in 1000MT)

100000
88940
90000
80804
80000 76369

70000
60000
49850
50000
40000 31830
30000
20093
20000
10320
10000
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015

As we can see at the start of green revolution India wheat production was at 10320
(1000MT), which rose to 88940 (1000MT), a jump of over 800%. This was due to
technology transfer.

Now let’s see rice production in India after the starting of green revolution.
 India Rice production (in 1000MT)
120000

100000
100000 95980
84980
80000 74291

60000 53631
42225
40000 34639

20000

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015

As we can see at the start of green revolution India rice production was at 34639
(1000MT), which rose to 100000 (1000MT), a jump of over 300%.

White Revolution in India

Like green revolution, white revolution also changed India dairy sector. This revolution
was named operation flood, and was implemented in three phase. First phase was from
1970-80, second was from 1981-85 and third phase was from 1986-96. It transformed
India from the milk- deficient nation to milk-surplus nation. In 1998, India was the world
largest milk producer in the world. This project by National Dairy Development Board
(NDDB), made dairy farming largest rural employment, and the dairy industry became
self-sustaining industry.

Now from the charts let’s see first the milk production in India over the years
 Milk Production (in 1000MT)
160000 147000
140000
117000
120000

100000
79250
80000

60000 53500

40000 31200
22040
20000

0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015

As we can see from the chart that the milk production in the year 1970 was 22040
(1000MT), which rose to 147000 (1000MT) in the year 2015, an increase of whopping
around 700%.

Now let’s have a look at butter production in India over the years.

Butter Production (in 1000MT)

6000
5035
5000
4162
4000

3000

1950
2000

970
1000 588
428

0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015
As we can see from the chart that the butter production in the year 1970 was 428
(1000MT), which rose to 5035 (1000MT) in the year 2015, an increase of whopping
around 1100%.

Now let’s have a look at milk powder production in India over the years.

Milk Powder Production (in 1000MT)

600
540

500

400 380

300

200 150

100 72
33
7
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015

As we can see from the chart that the milk powder production in the year 1970 was 7
(1000MT), which rose to 540 (1000MT) in the year 2015, an increase of whopping
around 7700%.
Future with IP

Now let’s discuss some of the patent that are registered and whose commercialization use
will be in near future. These gadgets will help us in many ways and will make our life
more comfortable. These are the future of technology.

Google Self-Driving Car

How about going in a car that you don’t have to drive! Welcome to the future of driver
less car. These cars will run by computers and you don’t have to waste your energy by
driving. If all the cars are run by computers and there is no chance of human error, there
could be possibility of no accidents at all. Human loss, economy loss would be saved if
this becomes possibility in near future.

Below is a photo of Google self drive car.

99

99
Public Domain
Supersonic air travel

In future, technologies will be developed where planes will travel faster than the speed of
the sound. And this possibility can be true as early as 2020. After the retirement of
Concorde100 in 2003, there was need of aero planes that can run faster than the speed of
sound, that is safer to travel, that whose sound level are also under control.

Aerion Corporation with collaboration with Airbus group is planning to make a 20 seater
supersonic aero plane and plan to commence its first flight in 2021.

101

Airbus in July 2015 was awarded a patent for an extraordinary concept aircraft. This
plane named Concorde-2 will not run like other aircrafts while taking off, it will climb
100
British airways supersonic airliner
101
Photo credit: Aerion Corporation.
vertically like a space rocket and than will fly. Its top speed will be Mach 4.5. (Around
5,512km/hr). Time between London to San Francisco will be reduced to just three hours,
which currently takes eleven hours.

102

Immortality

102
Photo credit: Airbus Corporation.
Scientist are working hard to make medicine that can modify our genetic genes so that we
may become immortals or can live up to 1000 years or more.103 This is a dream of
everyone to not die and be immortals. Full immortality may not be possible but we can
extend our living time here, may be up to 1000 years or more. Who knows what future
science is storing for us, so hang in there for another 100 or more years, immortality is
just round the corner.

Medicine for all diseases

Though immortality may not happen soon in near future, but one thing that can be certain
is finding cures of every disease possible. HIV aids, cancer, diabetes, paralysis, these are
the disease for which medicine is available but cure is not fully achievable. Many peoples
dies because of theses disease, if in near future if scientist are able to find medicines for
all of these, than peoples would be benefited a lot, and causes of unnatural death can be
minimized.

Robots

For helping persons in their household works, or helping persons in their workplace or
even replacing humans from the workplace, future will be of robots. And it depends on
humans how much work they wanted to take from robots and how much they want to be
dependent on them. But one thing I will comment here, that beware while using these
robots in every part of your life, as you may never know, when you become fully
dependent on them for everything. And what will happen if you become emotionally
attached to them? Well that requires a new topic for research.

Space travel
103
http://www.livescience.com/6967-hang-25-year-wait-immortality.html
You keep hearing news that in near future peoples will be able to settle on moon. There
are mission by many countries to explore the possibilities of life on mars. Many
companies are offering tour package to go in space and come back. All this is possible by
new technologies of aircraft that are economical, can travel faster and further. One
company that is promoting space travel is Virgin galactic. Below is the photo of
Whiteknight Two, one of its spacecraft that will take people to space.

104

3D models Organs

The scientist are developing certain technologies where through three-dimensional

machine, they can create body organs and can implant them in the human body. Though
this is in the initial stage, but with time it will also be achieved, just imagine machines
that are producing human organs! That will be the ultimate success of scientist in the
field of medicine.

104
Image courtesy: www.virgingalactic.com
Illuminating Cement

Just imagine you are going on a highway, and there are no street lights, the road itself is
giving you light by shining in the night by the power of solar energy it gained in the day.
This will be the future in cement industry. Researchers are making a kind of cement that
will provide light in the night. This will save lots of electricity as there will be no use of
street light.

Conclusion
In my thesis I have discussed about the role of Intellectual property and the economic
growth of India. Firstly I have discussed about the origin of intellectual property and
then about the types of intellectual property and why they need to be protected. From the
Paris Convention for the protection of Industrial property, 1893 to the Berne convention
for the protection of Literary and Artistic works, 1886. Later I have discussed about
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and lastly to the mandatory
requirement of TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual property Rights).

Next I have discussed about the theories governing to Intellectual property rights such as
The Utilitarian theory, The Labor theory, Personality theory and The Social Planning
theory. Along with these theories I have also review the literature of some alternative
theory models such as The Libertarian Utopia Model and The Rothbardian Solution.

Later I shifted my thesis towards India, while discussing the history of copyright law,
patent law, and trademark law in India. Than I have mentioned current legislation
governing intellectual property rights in India.

And lastly my main topic of thesis about economic development of India, with studies of
different fields of companies, the green revolution and the white revolution.

At this point in my conclusion of the thesis I can say that the hypothesis which I have put
at the start of my research is achieved. There is ample discussion in the thesis which says
that IPR have resulted in the economic development of India. And it can help any country
if IP rights are protected and promoted.

Look where the world was 20 or 30 years ago, and where it is now. From normal light
bulb to now led bulb, from bulky desktop computers to sleek tablets, from landline to
mobile phones, from normal phones to smart phones, from the 56kbps internet speed to
15Gbps speed, from 2G to 4G, from Bharat stage 1 to Bharat stage 4 (stage 5 & 6 to
achieved by 2020), from normal cars to automatic and hybrid cars, from local cable with
10 channels to DTH box with over 400 channels, from normal old bulky black & white
televisions to sleek and slim led TV, from normal resolution to full HD to ultra HD
resolution, from normal sound to Dolby Digital to Dolby Atmos, from normal coal train
engine to electric engine, the list goes on & on.
But ask yourself, will this would have been possible without the protection of intellectual
property, without encouraging innovations, the answer would be no.

The united nation understand the power of development that can be achieved by trade and
made a intergovernmental body named The United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD) in as early as 1964 to discuss issues of trade, investment and
development. This shows the significance that every trade activity is associated with
development.

Though still there are some challenges also with IP with reference to development. First
is that this development is not reaching to the last person standing in the queue. Some
researchers are arguing that the benefits of protection of IP rights are more to rich peoples
than to poor people. I somehow agree with this point but this is not because of the IP only
it is because of the lack of will of the people who are sitting in the government
organization. There mismanagement and lack of expertise is the main reason of this. Still
issues are to be sort out of economic disparities between people and importantly of
farmer suicide. Still after so much of advancement if any body is committing suicide
because of economic factors that is a shame for IP.

India recent mission to mars in which it send a satellite in the mars orbit by cheapest
resources till now, its own GPS system by successfully sending 7 satellite in the space,
whereas most developed countries need 20 satellite to have their GPS, is a indicator that
India is becoming strong in the field of science research also, which was not earlier.

All this discussion is the proof that economic development of India is the result of
protection & promotion it gave to intellectual property rights.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jennings, Jeremy and Kemp-Welch, Tony. “The century of the Intellectual: From
Dreyfus to Salman Rushdie”, Intellectuals in Politics, Routledge: New York (1997)

WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use. Chapter 2: Fields of
Intellectual Property Protection WIPO 2008.

“The Wizard of Menlo Park” The Franklin institute.

Richard Posner, Economic Analysis of Law (3rd ed., Boston: Little, Brown, 1986).

Nicholas Kaldor, "Welfare Propositions in Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of

Utility," Economic Journal, 69 (1939).

William D. Nordhaus, Invention, Growth, and Welfare: A Theoretical Treatment of

Technological Change (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1969).

Harold Demsetz, "Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint," Journal of Law and

Economics, 12 (1969).

Two Treatises of Government, by John Locke

Yoram Barzel, “Optimal Timing of Innovations,” Review of Economic and Statistics, 50

(1968).

Partha Dasgupta, “Patents, Priority and Imitation or, The Economics of Races and
Waiting Games,” Economics Journal 98 (1988).

Partha Dasgupta and Joseph Stiglitz, “Uncertainty, Industrial Structure and the Speed of
R&D,” Bell Journal of Economics, 11 (1980)

Drew Fundenberg, Richard Gilbert, Joseph Stiglitz, and Jean Tirole, “Preemption,
Leapfrogging, and Competition in Patent Races,” European Economic Review 77 (1983).

Michael L. Katz and Carl Shapiro, “R & D Rivalry with Licensing or

Imitation,” American Economic Review 77 (1987).

Steven A. Lippman and Kevin F. McCardle, “Dropout Behavior in R. & D. Races with
Learning,” RAND Journal of Economics 18 (1987).
Glenn C. Loury, “Market Structure and Innovation,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 93
(1979).

M. Scherer, “Research and Development Resource Allocation Under Rivalry,” Quarterly

Journal of Economics, 81 (1967).

Tandon, “Rivalry and the Excessive Allocation of Resources to Research,” Bell Journal

of Economics, 14 (1983).

Brian D. Wright, “The Resource Allocation Problem in R & D,” in The Economics of R
& D Policy 41, 50 (George S. Tolley, James H. Hodge & James F. Oehmke eds., 1985).

Louis Kaplow, “The Patent-Antitrust Intersection: A Reappraisal,” Harvard Law

Review, 97 (1984).

Edmund Kitch, “The Nature and Function of the Patent System,”Journal of Law and
Economics, 20 (1977).

Mark Lemley, “The Economics of Improvement in Intellectual Property Law,” Texas

Law Review, 75 (1997).

Mark F. Grady & J. I. Alexander, "Patent Law and Rent Dissipation," Virginia Law
Review, 78 (1992).

Robert Merges and Richard Nelson, "On the Complex Economics of Patent
Scope," Columbia Law Review, 90 (1990).

Annual Report of the Deptt. of Information Technology (DIT), Ministry of

Communications and IT (MoC & IT, Government of India 2004-05 (www.mit.gov.in)
and IPR Manuals published by its IPR Division on (i) Copyrights, (ii) Patents, (iii)
Designs and (iv) Report on Trademark and Domain Names.

Strategic Review 2004 and 2005, the IT Industry in India National Association of
Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM), New Delhi, India (www.nasscom.org).

Interim Economic Report On India Situation In November 2006 - Embassy Of

Switzerland Ref. No. 512.0-Dej-Nmo New Delhi, November 9, 2006
Banga, R. (2003b), “Impact of Government Policies and Investment Agreements on FDI
Inflows,” Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER),
Working Paper (116), November.

Chakraborti, A. (2001), “The Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment: Sensitivity

Analyses of Cross-Country Regressions,” Kyklos, 54 (1), pp. 89-113.

Guha, A., and Ray, A.S. (2002), “Multinational versus Expatriate FDI: A Comparative
Analysis of the Chinese and Indian Experience,” In T.N. Srinivasan, (ed.) Trade, Finance
and Investment in South Asia, New Delhi, Social Science Press.

Guha, A., and Ray, A.S. (2004), “India and Asia in the World Economy: The Role of
Human Capital and Technology,,International Studies, 41(3).

RBI (2007), Monthly Bulletin, March 12, Mumbai.

Lucas, R.E.B. (1993), “On the Determinants of Direct Foreign Investment: Evidence
from East and Southeast Asia,” World Development, 21 (3), pp.391-406.

Palit, A. (2006), ‘Role of Technological Capabilities in Enhancing FDI Flows in

Developing Asia-Pacific Economies,’ UN-ESCAP, ARTNeT Policy Brief, 9, November;
Bangkok.

UNCTAD (2005), World Investment Report, Statistical Annex, New York and Geneva.

Intellectual property and development, Lessons from recent economic research, By,
Carsten Fink & Keith E. Maskus

BENTLY, L. & SHERMAN, B. (1999) The Making of Modern Intellectual Property

Law, Cambridge Intellectual Property and Information Law

GILES, R. S. (1993) Are letters patent grants of Monopoly?, Western England Law
Review, p. 239

MACHULP, F. & PENROSE, E. (1950) The patent controversy in the Nineteenth

Century , The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 10 p. 1-29
 Websites

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-home.htm

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm

http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/edmmisc232add18_en.pdf

http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf

http://www.worldtradelaw.net/uragreements/tripsagreement.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1305585

http://www.unescap.org/tid/publication/techpub2188.pdf

http://www.ipproinc.com

https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/iptheory.pdf

http://encyclo.findlaw.com/1600book.pdf

http://paulohm.com/classes/ip07/maps/082907IP-Class2Game.pdf

http://ipjournal.law.wfu.edu/files/2009/09/article.9.104.pdf

http://law.stanford.edu/wpcontent/uploads/sites/default/files/event/265497/media/
slspublic/Expressive_Incentives_in_Intellectual_Property_1.pdf

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/the-theories-of-intellectual-property-
philosophy-essay.php

http://wikijuris.net/articles/fisher_theories_of_ip_2001

http://www.slideshare.net/chaswals/llm-lecture-ipr-concept-and-theories-compatibility-
mode
http://ejpe.org/pdf/3-1-br-6.pdf

http://www.makeinindia.com/policy/intellectual-property-facts

http://www.wipo.int

http://www.tifac.org.in/do/pfc/pfc.htm

http://www.metastudio.org/Science%20and%20Ethics/file/readDoc/
535a76367d9d331598f49e2d/34_Hb_on_IPR.pdf

http://nostalgicmans.blogspot.in/2009/01/history-of-copyright-in-india.html

http://www.depenning.com/patent.htm

http://www.depenning.com/history.htm

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/india/gdp-growth

http://www.mospi.nic.in/

http://statisticstimes.com/economy/gdp-growth-of-india.php

http://statisticstimes.com/economy/gdp-capita-of-india.php

http://statisticstimes.com/population/population-of-india.php

https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/bs_viewcontent.aspx?Id=2513

http://www.ris.org.in/sites/default/files/pdf/FDI_Book-Final.pdf

http://www.indiastat.com/industries/18/patents/204/stats.aspx

http://www.tradingeconomics.com

http://www.mospi.nic.in/

http://statisticstimes.com

https://www.rbi.org.in
http://www.ris.org.in/sites/default/files/pdf/FDI_Book-Final.pdf

http://www.indiastat.com

https://data.gov.in/catalog/applications-patents-filed

https://data.gov.in

http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/

http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/country_profile/profile.jsp?code=IN

http://statisticstimes.com/economy/gdp-capita-of-india.php

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1443577

http://www.ijhssi.org/papers/v2(2)/version-4/A220111.pdf

http://theindiaeconomyreview.org/article.aspx?aid=106&mid=5

http://dipp.nic.in/English/Publications/FDI_Statistics/SECTOR-WISE-INFLOWS.pdf

http://dipp.nic.in/English/Publications/FDI_Statistics/FINANCIAL-YEAR-WISE.pdf

http://dipp.nic.in/English/Publications/FDI_Statistics/2015/india_FDI_March2015.pdf

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/country-health-profile/india

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ip-india-releases-2014-statistics-qualcomm-leads-patent-
hitesh-sharma

http://ipindia.gov.in/cgpdtm/AnnualReport_English_2013_2014.pdf

http://www.ipindia.nic.in/

http://www.brandindiapharma.in

http://listz.in/top-10-pharma-companies-in-india.html

http://listz.in/top-10-it-companies-in-india.html
http://www.ibef.org

http://top10companiesinindia.co.in/top-10-biotechnology-companies-in-india/

http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?
country=in&commodity=wheat&graph=production (wheat production)

http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=in&commodity=milled-
rice&graph=production

http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?
country=in&commodity=butter&graph=production

http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?
country=in&commodity=milk&graph=production

http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=in&commodity=nonfat-dry-
milk&graph=production