Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/will-real-ip-policy-stand-up-shamnad-basheer-4676049/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/will-real-ip-policy-stand-up-shamnad-basheer-4676049/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/will-real-ip-policy-stand-up-shamnad-basheer-4676049/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/will-real-ip-policy-stand-up-shamnad-basheer-4676049/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27997,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: &amp;ldquo;The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All of this raises the question: What exactly are these &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi&amp;rsquo;s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards &amp;mdash; an incredulous stretch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased &amp;mdash; this year&amp;rsquo;s Special 301 report records with glee India&amp;rsquo;s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an &amp;ldquo;IP think tank&amp;rdquo;, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India&amp;rsquo;s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen &amp;mdash; what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The government speaking in two tongues &amp;mdash; to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other &amp;mdash; has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The writer is founder of SpicyIP&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 6 May, 2015, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/will-real-ip-policy-stand-up/&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;will-real-ip-policy-stand-up-shamnad-basheer-4676049&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4676049,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 27997,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;generic medicine,generic medicines,TRIPS,WTO,Patented Medicines,patents,IPRs,Intellectual Property Rights&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Indian Express

Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.

Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: &amp;ldquo;The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;All of this raises the question: What exactly are these &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi&amp;rsquo;s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards &amp;mdash; an incredulous stretch.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased &amp;mdash; this year&amp;rsquo;s Special 301 report records with glee India&amp;rsquo;s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an &amp;ldquo;IP think tank&amp;rdquo;, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India&amp;rsquo;s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen &amp;mdash; what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The government speaking in two tongues &amp;mdash; to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other &amp;mdash; has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The writer is founder of SpicyIP&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27997,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: &amp;ldquo;The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All of this raises the question: What exactly are these &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi&amp;rsquo;s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards &amp;mdash; an incredulous stretch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased &amp;mdash; this year&amp;rsquo;s Special 301 report records with glee India&amp;rsquo;s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an &amp;ldquo;IP think tank&amp;rdquo;, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India&amp;rsquo;s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen &amp;mdash; what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The government speaking in two tongues &amp;mdash; to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other &amp;mdash; has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The writer is founder of SpicyIP&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 6 May, 2015, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/will-real-ip-policy-stand-up/&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;will-real-ip-policy-stand-up-shamnad-basheer-4676049&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4676049,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 7 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 27997
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;generic medicine,generic medicines,TRIPS,WTO,Patented Medicines,patents,IPRs,Intellectual Property Rights&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Indian Express

Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.

Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: &amp;ldquo;The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;All of this raises the question: What exactly are these &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi&amp;rsquo;s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards &amp;mdash; an incredulous stretch.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased &amp;mdash; this year&amp;rsquo;s Special 301 report records with glee India&amp;rsquo;s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an &amp;ldquo;IP think tank&amp;rdquo;, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India&amp;rsquo;s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen &amp;mdash; what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The government speaking in two tongues &amp;mdash; to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other &amp;mdash; has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The writer is founder of SpicyIP&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/will-real-ip-policy-stand-up-shamnad-basheer-4676049.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express

Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.

Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &ldquo;global&rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.<br /></em><br />Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &ldquo;global&rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: &ldquo;The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.&rdquo;<br /><br />All of this raises the question: What exactly are these &ldquo;global&rdquo; standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by &ldquo;global&rdquo; standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark.<br /><br />To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi&rsquo;s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards &mdash; an incredulous stretch.<br /><br />Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased &mdash; this year&rsquo;s Special 301 report records with glee India&rsquo;s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an &ldquo;IP think tank&rdquo;, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters.<br /><br />The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India&rsquo;s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous.<br /><br />Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law.<br /><br />Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate.<br /><br />The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but.<br /><br />On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices.<br /><br />Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen &mdash; what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another.<br /><br />The government speaking in two tongues &mdash; to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other &mdash; has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up?<br /><br /><em>The writer is founder of SpicyIP<br /></em><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27997,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: &amp;ldquo;The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All of this raises the question: What exactly are these &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi&amp;rsquo;s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards &amp;mdash; an incredulous stretch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased &amp;mdash; this year&amp;rsquo;s Special 301 report records with glee India&amp;rsquo;s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an &amp;ldquo;IP think tank&amp;rdquo;, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India&amp;rsquo;s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen &amp;mdash; what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The government speaking in two tongues &amp;mdash; to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other &amp;mdash; has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The writer is founder of SpicyIP&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 6 May, 2015, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/will-real-ip-policy-stand-up/&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;will-real-ip-policy-stand-up-shamnad-basheer-4676049&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4676049,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 27997,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;generic medicine,generic medicines,TRIPS,WTO,Patented Medicines,patents,IPRs,Intellectual Property Rights&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Indian Express

Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.

Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: &amp;ldquo;The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;All of this raises the question: What exactly are these &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi&amp;rsquo;s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards &amp;mdash; an incredulous stretch.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased &amp;mdash; this year&amp;rsquo;s Special 301 report records with glee India&amp;rsquo;s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an &amp;ldquo;IP think tank&amp;rdquo;, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India&amp;rsquo;s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen &amp;mdash; what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The government speaking in two tongues &amp;mdash; to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other &amp;mdash; has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The writer is founder of SpicyIP&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27997,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: &amp;ldquo;The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All of this raises the question: What exactly are these &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi&amp;rsquo;s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards &amp;mdash; an incredulous stretch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased &amp;mdash; this year&amp;rsquo;s Special 301 report records with glee India&amp;rsquo;s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an &amp;ldquo;IP think tank&amp;rdquo;, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India&amp;rsquo;s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen &amp;mdash; what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The government speaking in two tongues &amp;mdash; to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other &amp;mdash; has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The writer is founder of SpicyIP&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 6 May, 2015, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/will-real-ip-policy-stand-up/&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;will-real-ip-policy-stand-up-shamnad-basheer-4676049&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4676049,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 7 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 27997
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;generic medicine,generic medicines,TRIPS,WTO,Patented Medicines,patents,IPRs,Intellectual Property Rights&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Indian Express

Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.

Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: &amp;ldquo;The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;All of this raises the question: What exactly are these &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi&amp;rsquo;s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards &amp;mdash; an incredulous stretch.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased &amp;mdash; this year&amp;rsquo;s Special 301 report records with glee India&amp;rsquo;s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an &amp;ldquo;IP think tank&amp;rdquo;, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India&amp;rsquo;s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen &amp;mdash; what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The government speaking in two tongues &amp;mdash; to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other &amp;mdash; has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The writer is founder of SpicyIP&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/will-real-ip-policy-stand-up-shamnad-basheer-4676049.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express

Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.

Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &ldquo;global&rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.<br /></em><br />Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &ldquo;global&rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: &ldquo;The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.&rdquo;<br /><br />All of this raises the question: What exactly are these &ldquo;global&rdquo; standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by &ldquo;global&rdquo; standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark.<br /><br />To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi&rsquo;s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards &mdash; an incredulous stretch.<br /><br />Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased &mdash; this year&rsquo;s Special 301 report records with glee India&rsquo;s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an &ldquo;IP think tank&rdquo;, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters.<br /><br />The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India&rsquo;s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous.<br /><br />Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law.<br /><br />Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate.<br /><br />The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but.<br /><br />On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices.<br /><br />Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen &mdash; what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another.<br /><br />The government speaking in two tongues &mdash; to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other &mdash; has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up?<br /><br /><em>The writer is founder of SpicyIP<br /></em><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f7b514c46d7-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27997,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: &amp;ldquo;The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All of this raises the question: What exactly are these &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi&amp;rsquo;s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards &amp;mdash; an incredulous stretch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased &amp;mdash; this year&amp;rsquo;s Special 301 report records with glee India&amp;rsquo;s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an &amp;ldquo;IP think tank&amp;rdquo;, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India&amp;rsquo;s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen &amp;mdash; what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The government speaking in two tongues &amp;mdash; to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other &amp;mdash; has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The writer is founder of SpicyIP&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 6 May, 2015, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/will-real-ip-policy-stand-up/&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;will-real-ip-policy-stand-up-shamnad-basheer-4676049&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4676049,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 27997,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;generic medicine,generic medicines,TRIPS,WTO,Patented Medicines,patents,IPRs,Intellectual Property Rights&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Indian Express

Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.

Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: &amp;ldquo;The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;All of this raises the question: What exactly are these &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi&amp;rsquo;s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards &amp;mdash; an incredulous stretch.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased &amp;mdash; this year&amp;rsquo;s Special 301 report records with glee India&amp;rsquo;s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an &amp;ldquo;IP think tank&amp;rdquo;, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India&amp;rsquo;s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen &amp;mdash; what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The government speaking in two tongues &amp;mdash; to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other &amp;mdash; has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The writer is founder of SpicyIP&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27997,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: &amp;ldquo;The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All of this raises the question: What exactly are these &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi&amp;rsquo;s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards &amp;mdash; an incredulous stretch.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased &amp;mdash; this year&amp;rsquo;s Special 301 report records with glee India&amp;rsquo;s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an &amp;ldquo;IP think tank&amp;rdquo;, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India&amp;rsquo;s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen &amp;mdash; what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The government speaking in two tongues &amp;mdash; to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other &amp;mdash; has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The writer is founder of SpicyIP&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 6 May, 2015, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/will-real-ip-policy-stand-up/&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;will-real-ip-policy-stand-up-shamnad-basheer-4676049&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4676049,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 7 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 27997
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;generic medicine,generic medicines,TRIPS,WTO,Patented Medicines,patents,IPRs,Intellectual Property Rights&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Indian Express

Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.

Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: &amp;ldquo;The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;All of this raises the question: What exactly are these &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by &amp;ldquo;global&amp;rdquo; standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi&amp;rsquo;s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards &amp;mdash; an incredulous stretch.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased &amp;mdash; this year&amp;rsquo;s Special 301 report records with glee India&amp;rsquo;s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an &amp;ldquo;IP think tank&amp;rdquo;, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India&amp;rsquo;s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen &amp;mdash; what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The government speaking in two tongues &amp;mdash; to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other &amp;mdash; has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The writer is founder of SpicyIP&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/will-real-ip-policy-stand-up-shamnad-basheer-4676049.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express

Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.

Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &ldquo;global&rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.<br /></em><br />Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &ldquo;global&rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: &ldquo;The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.&rdquo;<br /><br />All of this raises the question: What exactly are these &ldquo;global&rdquo; standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by &ldquo;global&rdquo; standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark.<br /><br />To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi&rsquo;s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards &mdash; an incredulous stretch.<br /><br />Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased &mdash; this year&rsquo;s Special 301 report records with glee India&rsquo;s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an &ldquo;IP think tank&rdquo;, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters.<br /><br />The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India&rsquo;s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous.<br /><br />Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law.<br /><br />Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate.<br /><br />The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but.<br /><br />On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices.<br /><br />Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen &mdash; what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another.<br /><br />The government speaking in two tongues &mdash; to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other &mdash; has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up?<br /><br /><em>The writer is founder of SpicyIP<br /></em><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 27997,
		'title' => 'Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express<br />
<br />
<em>Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.<br />
</em><br />
Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &ldquo;global&rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: &ldquo;The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
All of this raises the question: What exactly are these &ldquo;global&rdquo; standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by &ldquo;global&rdquo; standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark.<br />
<br />
To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi&rsquo;s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards &mdash; an incredulous stretch.<br />
<br />
Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased &mdash; this year&rsquo;s Special 301 report records with glee India&rsquo;s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an &ldquo;IP think tank&rdquo;, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters.<br />
<br />
The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India&rsquo;s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law.<br />
<br />
Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate.<br />
<br />
The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but.<br />
<br />
On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices.<br />
<br />
Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen &mdash; what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another.<br />
<br />
The government speaking in two tongues &mdash; to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other &mdash; has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up?<br />
<br />
<em>The writer is founder of SpicyIP<br />
</em><br />
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 6 May, 2015, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/will-real-ip-policy-stand-up/',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'will-real-ip-policy-stand-up-shamnad-basheer-4676049',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 4676049,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 27997,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer',
	'metaKeywords' => 'generic medicine,generic medicines,TRIPS,WTO,Patented Medicines,patents,IPRs,Intellectual Property Rights',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Indian Express

Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.

Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &ldquo;global&rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.<br /></em><br />Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &ldquo;global&rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: &ldquo;The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.&rdquo;<br /><br />All of this raises the question: What exactly are these &ldquo;global&rdquo; standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by &ldquo;global&rdquo; standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark.<br /><br />To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi&rsquo;s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards &mdash; an incredulous stretch.<br /><br />Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased &mdash; this year&rsquo;s Special 301 report records with glee India&rsquo;s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an &ldquo;IP think tank&rdquo;, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters.<br /><br />The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India&rsquo;s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous.<br /><br />Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law.<br /><br />Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate.<br /><br />The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but.<br /><br />On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices.<br /><br />Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen &mdash; what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another.<br /><br />The government speaking in two tongues &mdash; to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other &mdash; has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up?<br /><br /><em>The writer is founder of SpicyIP<br /></em><br /></div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 27997,
	'title' => 'Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express<br />
<br />
<em>Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.<br />
</em><br />
Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &ldquo;global&rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: &ldquo;The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
All of this raises the question: What exactly are these &ldquo;global&rdquo; standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by &ldquo;global&rdquo; standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark.<br />
<br />
To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi&rsquo;s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards &mdash; an incredulous stretch.<br />
<br />
Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased &mdash; this year&rsquo;s Special 301 report records with glee India&rsquo;s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an &ldquo;IP think tank&rdquo;, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters.<br />
<br />
The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India&rsquo;s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law.<br />
<br />
Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate.<br />
<br />
The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but.<br />
<br />
On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices.<br />
<br />
Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen &mdash; what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another.<br />
<br />
The government speaking in two tongues &mdash; to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other &mdash; has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up?<br />
<br />
<em>The writer is founder of SpicyIP<br />
</em><br />
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 6 May, 2015, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/will-real-ip-policy-stand-up/',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'will-real-ip-policy-stand-up-shamnad-basheer-4676049',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 4676049,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 7 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 27997
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer'
$metaKeywords = 'generic medicine,generic medicines,TRIPS,WTO,Patented Medicines,patents,IPRs,Intellectual Property Rights'
$metaDesc = '
-The Indian Express

Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.

Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &ldquo;global&rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express<br /><br /><em>Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property.<br /></em><br />Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to &ldquo;global&rdquo; IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: &ldquo;The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.&rdquo;<br /><br />All of this raises the question: What exactly are these &ldquo;global&rdquo; standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by &ldquo;global&rdquo; standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark.<br /><br />To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi&rsquo;s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards &mdash; an incredulous stretch.<br /><br />Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased &mdash; this year&rsquo;s Special 301 report records with glee India&rsquo;s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an &ldquo;IP think tank&rdquo;, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters.<br /><br />The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India&rsquo;s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous.<br /><br />Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law.<br /><br />Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate.<br /><br />The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but.<br /><br />On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices.<br /><br />Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen &mdash; what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another.<br /><br />The government speaking in two tongues &mdash; to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other &mdash; has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up?<br /><br /><em>The writer is founder of SpicyIP<br /></em><br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Will Real IP Policy Stand up? -Shamnad Basheer

-The Indian Express Government has been speaking in two tongues on intellectual property. Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his desire to see India adhere to “global” IP standards. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) was quick to latch on to this, noting in its latest Special 301 report: “The United States also welcomes April 2015 statements made by Prime Minister Modi recommending that India align its patent laws with international standards and encourages India to expeditiously undertake this initiative.” All of this raises the question: What exactly are these “global” standards? If it is the WTO-TRIPS standard, the only real global IP standard in existence today, then India is already compliant. But if, by “global” standards, the prime minister means those prescribed by big pharmaceuticals and their host countries (the US and the EU) then we are way off the mark. To add to the confusion, a few months ago, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had affirmed that there was no way India would budge under US pressure and change its law. More recently, she attempted to project Modi’s statement as meaning that India is already compliant with international standards — an incredulous stretch. Double talk notwithstanding, the Americans appear appeased — this year’s Special 301 report records with glee India’s efforts at improving its IP image. The USTR appears particularly pleased with the government constituting an “IP think tank”, which has been mired in controversy domestically, owing to allegations that some of its members were picked on the basis of their links to the ruling dispensation, not for their expertise in IP-related matters. The USTR has also commended the general drift of the draft IP policy published by the think tank. For the most part, however, the Special 301 report this year simply rehashes what was said in previous years: that the US is unhappy with India’s patent regime particularly because of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act and our rather stellar success in curbing the vice of evergreening. And that in the realm of copyright and trademark enforcement, India needs to do a lot better, particularly since the estimated losses to the national economy from counterfeiting and piracy is a whopping $4.26 billion, a figure arrived at by the International Chamber of Commerce. Given the difficulty of valuing something as intangible as intellectual property, a problem that routinely causes our judges to skirt the issue of IP damages, the fact that industry associations are able to assign figures with such accuracy is miraculous. Unfortunately, as in previous years, the USTR got it wrong in a couple of places. It admonishes Indian law for shortcomings that it does not suffer from. The report notes that India does not offer adequate protection for trade secrets and shelters them only through contract law. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our courts have invoked the common law of trade secrecy and breach of confidence to protect trade secrets when appropriate. The report is also replete with powerful paradoxes. It lauds the constitution of our IP think tank as the example of a transparent process when it has been anything but. On a positive note, the report should be praised for its policy recommendation on one issue. As in previous years, it rightly notes that India cannot have its cake and eat it too. On one hand, India takes a strong stand on access to medicine when it comes to calibrating the extent of IP rights. On the other, it imposes some of the highest tariffs for incoming medicines and medical devices. Overall, the Special 301 report appears milder in tone than in previous years. This could be because of the diplomatic gains made by Modi. Whether the cosy camaraderie with the US will ultimately swing Indian IP law in favour of American business interests remains to be seen — what one says in a public display of diplomatic affection is one thing; what goes on behind closed doors during policymaking is quite another. The government speaking in two tongues — to appease a trading partner on one hand, and a domestic constituency on the other — has complicated matters. Will the true IP policy please stand up? The writer is founder of SpicyIP