Certainly, many reports were far from accurate going against the debates reported at: http://164.100.24.208/today/tdailydeb.htm

It may be a spectacular success after all! Not only, that, it *might* include an *important* amendment touching upon computer programs, that we should wait to hear from authoritative sources.

Meanwhile, a little food for thought:

I just had the chance to read the following document published at http://cpim.org/upa/2004_patents.pdf

<quote> Left Parties on Amendments to the Indian Patent Act Dec 20, 2004

The Group of Ministers had made available to us the draft Patent (Third) Amendment Bill for our consideration and suggestions. We were told about the predicament faced by the Government: The Patents Act 1970 had already been substantially altered and diluted by the two amendment bills enacted by the previous NDA government. There was also the so-called deadline of TRIPs to be observed. And hence the need to push through the Third amendment bill as proposed. Either the reasoning or the conclusions of the Government did not convince us. Nevertheless, we tried to understand the compulsions of the Government and limit our suggestions to the absolute minimum that is needed to be done to safeguard the national interest...

Draft Patents Bill 2003 ======================= Clause 3(k) and (ka)

(k) a computer programme per se other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware; (ka) a mathematical method or a business method or algorithms;

Amendment Suggested =================== Clause 3(k)

(k) a mathematical method or a business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms; Clause (ka) be deleted

Comments of Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion =======================================================

This issue has been discussed by the JPC during the 2nd Amendment to the Patents Act. The proposed changes are more in the nature of a classification, due to confusing interpretations that have arisen. Section 3 of the Act contains details of items which are not inventions within the meaning of the Act and hence, are not patentable. This section also provides, inter alia, that "a mathematical or computer programmes per se or algorithms" are not patentable. However, this provision has been subject to confusing interpretations, (such as whether 'per se' applies only to computers programme, or also to mathematical or business methods. Also, whether technical applications of computer programmes are patentable or not). Given the emerging opportunities in the software sector and growing Indian strength in information technology, it is necessary to clarify the provisions in Section 3 (k) so as to allow patenting of a computer programme only in case it has technical applicatioos in combination with hardware. Software alone is already protected under copyright laws. It is also proposed to clarify that a mathematical or business method or algorithm will not be patentable. The Department of Information Technology has suggested the incorporation of such a clarification which is now proposed to be included. The GoM has considered this issue and noted that the proposed clarification is in the larger national interest.

Reply to Comments by Deptt. of Industrial Policy and promotion ============================================================== Draft Bill reduces the scope of what is not patentable in the area of computer programmes. This is not in the interest of the software industry in India. To the contray, it could promote the interests of monopolies like Microsoft. If the qualification per se is creating confusion, the same may be deleted from the original Clause 3 (k) of the present Act, without any other Amendments.

</quote>

I came to know about the above, just this morning from the cpim.org website. On 21st, the very same amendment was independently suggested for another reason:

The best justification for the amendment sought is this:

"Under the TRIPS agreement, "computer programs" shall be protected by copyrights. In this context "per se" is a meaningless qualification, and the amendment would make our law fully TRIPS compliant."

The fact that US issues patents for software merely means that the US is violating TRIPS and India should complain to the WTO against the practice, claiming heavy damages for the violation. If India succeeds with this amendment, our friends in Europe would be too happy to follow suit. It would put considerable pressure on US to modify their law."

If Section 3(k) reads "a mathematical or business method or computer program or algorithms", it should be a very, very important success, far beyond having the proposed changes alone dropped.

We have now fulfilled all our so called "International Obligations"

India *should* complain to the WTO against the US practice of "software patents" that are a serious trade barrier in US.

Meanwhile, we should prepare a letter thanking all the people who have made this possible.