India's CSIR patent approach still controversial
The August 17, 06 piece in the journal Nature on India as a patent factory is still stirring up controversy.
On the pro-patent side, hindustantimes notes outgoing CSIR director general RA Mashelkar thinks the criticism is unjustified. US patents, he says, are important as a key technology achievement index of the UNDP. “The fact that we are becoming smart about our intellectual property might be causing a high degree of discomfort to some,” he points out. On allegations that the Council is going for number over quality, he argues: “When people call us a patent factory, they should see that CSIR with 20,000 people and 38 labs is only producing about a 100 patents a year. The University of California alone produces over 400 a year.”
On the critical side: Says Knowledge Commission vice-president PM Bhargava: “Worldwide, only five per cent patents are commercialised. Are we being choosy enough to file foreign patents only after being reasonably certain about the exploitability of the inventions? I am also uncertain whether many of these patents are reproducible.”
Additionally: Society for Scientific Values president and former IIT Kharagpur director Professor KL Chopra says: “Several patents have been filed in the IITs and CSIR labs which do not necessarily have commercial potential. Patent filing is a costly process and should be done after stringent screening.”
Renowned NRI scientist Ananda Chakrabarty, who patented the world’s first living organism, says: “Simply submitting US patent applications to show India has so many patent applications is a losing proposition.” An IIT professor who is also a CSIR Bhatnagar Awards laureate is more blunt: “CSIR is wasting taxpayers’ money. I myself hold US patents and know it means nothing.”
The reality is that ca. 90% of U.S. patents are not commercialized and don't make money for the assignee. While those in India debate the merits of Mashelkar's philosphy, those in the United States are analyzing the new IBM policy of publishing patent applications on the internet and determining whether that policy will impact the patent quality issue.
On the pro-patent side, hindustantimes notes outgoing CSIR director general RA Mashelkar thinks the criticism is unjustified. US patents, he says, are important as a key technology achievement index of the UNDP. “The fact that we are becoming smart about our intellectual property might be causing a high degree of discomfort to some,” he points out. On allegations that the Council is going for number over quality, he argues: “When people call us a patent factory, they should see that CSIR with 20,000 people and 38 labs is only producing about a 100 patents a year. The University of California alone produces over 400 a year.”
On the critical side: Says Knowledge Commission vice-president PM Bhargava: “Worldwide, only five per cent patents are commercialised. Are we being choosy enough to file foreign patents only after being reasonably certain about the exploitability of the inventions? I am also uncertain whether many of these patents are reproducible.”
Additionally: Society for Scientific Values president and former IIT Kharagpur director Professor KL Chopra says: “Several patents have been filed in the IITs and CSIR labs which do not necessarily have commercial potential. Patent filing is a costly process and should be done after stringent screening.”
Renowned NRI scientist Ananda Chakrabarty, who patented the world’s first living organism, says: “Simply submitting US patent applications to show India has so many patent applications is a losing proposition.” An IIT professor who is also a CSIR Bhatnagar Awards laureate is more blunt: “CSIR is wasting taxpayers’ money. I myself hold US patents and know it means nothing.”
The reality is that ca. 90% of U.S. patents are not commercialized and don't make money for the assignee. While those in India debate the merits of Mashelkar's philosphy, those in the United States are analyzing the new IBM policy of publishing patent applications on the internet and determining whether that policy will impact the patent quality issue.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home