This article examines the patentability of human genes by evaluating where the balance should lie between the protection of private rights and public access for the promotion of further innovation and public health. The author investigates this issue by providing a comparative study on the approaches adopted in India and the United States – two highly divergent nations that offer unique contrasts in a comparative analysis of their patent regimes. The outcome of the appraisal discerns a potential convergence in the Indian and US approaches on certain aspects of human gene patent-eligibility. This interesting result reveals that contrary to intuition, the differences in the state of economic, technological and patent law developments are not necessarily inimical to the prospect of adopting a common approach on certain facets of patent law, such as, those relating to the patent-eligibility of isolated genes. Moreover, the differences in the respective constitutional mandates do not inevitably constrain these two regimes to adopt dissimilar approaches to the legal treatment of issues, at least, in the context of specific aspects of human gene patenting. The article concludes by presenting that the Indian and US approaches on the patent-eligibility of isolated genomic DNA provides the better balance between granting private rights without jeopardising public access and represents a desirable departure from the current international practices.
A comprehensive ten year study of damages awarded by the Delhi High Court in trademark infringement cases reveals the remarkable extent to which the quantum of damages can be correlated to the presence of certain factual criteria. It brings into sharp focus exactly how far the reasoning behind awarding and quantifying damages – often the biggest takeaway and most powerful deterrent in trademark infringement cases – has been rendered an afterthought. Commencing with a critical commentary on the headline damages payouts by the Delhi High Court in 1, I break down the significant statistical outcomes of damages awarded based on key criteria, including aggravating and mitigating factors considered and litigant profile, in 2. I then employ these findings in 3 as the basis for a proposed basic minimum checklist for quantifying damages in such cases going forward – an area where judicial reasoning has been strikingly and disappointingly thin in the past decade.
This article analyses the proposed WIPO Treaty for Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (“Broadcast Treaty”) and argues that (a) The need for the Broadcast Treaty has not been fully established and b) even if there were such a need for the Broadcast Treaty (purportedly to help counter signal piracy), the proposed draft of the treaty deviates from this approach towards a ‘rights-based’ approach, creating a ‘paracopyright’ regime, potentially creating chilling effects on legitimate end uses of copyrightable material.
The Internet has evolved from a network of computers to a global social phenomenon. Once a medium that offered access only to a few, the smartphone and mobile network revolution has thrown it open to a much wider and more varied audience. In the process it is transforming itself from a place where people exchange information to a place where people conduct business as well. The convenience provided by online business transactions – e-commerce – is the reason why more and more users are turning to the Internet for their buying and selling. This is not only changing the face of retailing and rewriting the rules of the game but also throwing up new challenges to the legal, policy-making and taxation fraternity at a pace that they are ill-equipped to deal with. This paper presents some of the major conceptual characteristics of e-commerce and the legal and taxation challenges that arise therefrom. It then suggests the approach that could be adopted for tackling these legal and taxation issues.
The underlying values inherent in the creation of bitcoins are those of decentralization and accessibility. The horizontal power structure is an integral part of bitcoins’ architecture – this paper seeks to find a feasible alternative to status quo in order to preserve these characteristics. First, we look at the harms of monopolies and how the concentration of bitcoins is exceptionally harmful to its continued existence. Second, we expose the inadequacies of the existing regulatory frameworks, and discuss how status quo militates against the foundational ideology of bitcoin as a non-institutional cryptocurrency. Third, we undertake a comparative study of the existing regulatory regimes to identify legal and regulatory issues surrounding bitcoins. Finally, we propose a solution to the concern of centralization by discussing the relationship between law, code and the market, and discussing existing coded solutions that may be further improved upon to prevent such monopoly.