[Ilugc] Fwd: [ILUG-BOM] report on the stake holders meeting
knura at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 25 21:25:30 IST 2008
This is in reference to Bharathi Subramaniam's post on Stake holder meet
in Chennai 28/Aug/08.
FYI - Dr. Nagarjuna's note from the Mumbai Stake holder's meet (held on
The important point to note - there is going to be a special stake
holders meeting to hear all views on software patents. It will be held
in Bangalore (date TBA on the ministry's web portal
-- Arun Khan
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: [ILUG-BOM] report on the stake holders meeting
Date: Friday 08 Aug 2008
From: "Nagarjuna G." <nagarjun at gnowledge.org>
To: "The Linux-Delhi mailing list"
<ilugd at lists.linux-delhi.org>, "GNU/Linux Users Group, Mumbai, India"
<linuxers at mm.glug-bom.org>
I attended the stake holders meeting in Mumbai at the Patent's office.
The room was full of people, more than 80 people attended the meet. Of
which about 30 were interested in the software issue. the rest of them
are interested mostly in bioinformatics, chemical processes etc.
What gave me solace is that this is not an attempt to modify the law.
So, status quo exists. software patents per se are not possible in
India. However. what the office is doing is it prepared a draft of a
Manual helping the inventors in how to apply for a patent. In that
manual, there is an attempt to suggest how to exploit the 'per se' and
apply for software patents in combination with hardware.
Due to several questions on this issue raised by several of us, and also
due to written feedback submitted by quite a few others in Delhi meet,
they are organizing a stake holders meeting in Bangalore later (in the
coming three to four months period) where they are going to settle all
the doubts and listen all the points of view.
The date of bangalore meeting is not yet announced. Meanwhile, chennai
and kolkatta meetings are still going to be held before the bangalore
meeting. It is a good idea to send our supporters to both these places,
so that the officers must see that there is sufficient opposition to
More information about the ilugc