Author: Lokesh Vyas

[Swaraj Paul Barooah and Lokesh Vyas] The IP Reveries series is an experimental ‘fun’ series set in an imaginary classroom where we are using a dialogue format to raise questions and discussions around IP that traditionally don’t find a place to get voiced either due to long standing assumptions, or due to being seen as ‘too trivial’ to discuss in more formal settings. … in this class, we will ruminate on the “R i.e. Right” in IPR to suss up some (non)sense around it and see if the so-called ‘IP rights’ are really righteous or some other rhetoric ruse.

[Lokesh Vyas] … while the ‘property’ image of IP has become a part of our legal consciousness, the nature of user interests is unclear. Some courts and academics describe them as (Human/Fundamental) ‘rights’ (e.g. see 2021’s draft on Permitted Uses and its notes), at the international level they are called/negotiated/lobbied as limitations or/and exceptions (L&Es) (e.g. here), some call them freedoms or privileges (e.g. see). Each of these terms can have a different understanding and scope. Generally, limitations possess a broader scope than exceptions but nowadays are mentioned together and sometimes used interchangeably. Nonetheless, in our legal imagination, they remain inferior to/narrower than the concerned norm or statute. Rights prima facie provide a stronger force and create a legal relationship of duty with others. But in the era of right-inflation where everything is understood as ‘right’, they appear conflicting, and ultimately are balanced out by each other!

[Lokesh Vyas and Swaraj Paul Barooah] The IP Reveries series is an experimental ‘fun’ series set in an imaginary classroom where we are using a dialogue format to raise questions and discussions around IP that traditionally don’t find a place to get voiced either due to long standing assumptions, or due to being seen as ‘too trivial’ to discuss in more formal settings. The series is authored by Lokesh Vyas and myself in equal measure. For an introduction to this new IP Reveries series, please check the introduction post here. Classes I and II brief – In the first two classes, we tickled the term ‘IPR’ and assessed what is actually so ‘intellectual’ in “Intellectual Property Rights”. Today, we will look at the ‘P’ (i.e. property) part of IPR and check if it can get us something else.

[Lokesh Vyas and Swaraj Paul Barooah] I What’s in a name! In the last class, we essayed to examine the term IPR and saw how wide this umbrella opens. Given that the term “I.P.R.” is often the beginning of misunderstandings about the subject, the next few classes will seek to unravel the subconscious framework that these comprising words may have for the actual subject. The idea behind focusing on this theme is that while these considerations are almost never explicitly discussed in judgments or academic theory, to say that they haven’t played a strong role in the rhetorical narrative and understanding of “IPR” in the public consciousness would be a hasty conclusion. Indeed, this term was specifically ‘chosen’ to replace the term ‘monopoly’ or ‘privilege’ which had an unpleasant ring. (see text accompanying footnote 13 here). This class will start by digging into the term ‘Intellectual’ (‘I’) and seeing what it entails.

[Lokesh Vyas and Swaraj Paul Barooah] Intellectual Property Rights – a fascinating ‘subject’ that inadvertently touches upon so many aspects of our day to day life, whether we’re conscious of it or not. A few decades ago, even most lawyers wouldn’t have been able to clearly explain what a patent is. Fast forward to today, and while there’s still plenty of misunderstanding – patents, copyrights, trademarks, inventions, innovations, 4th industrial revolution, etc have all become buzzwords! Simultaneously, the ever growing division between “pro-IP” and “anti-IP” people have polarised views to such a large extent that it has become increasingly difficult to question another’s position, without being forced into a camp – a theme Shamnad touched upon frequently. Is there space for a genuine discussion around the whats, whys, whens and hows underlying the IP system? For asking questions such as – why does “pro-IP” often get translated to ‘easy grant of patents’ instead of ‘a better IP system’? Is IP a rule or an exception, in a free-market society? What implications do the colonial origins of the IP regime have in a post-colonial world, if any? What type of incentives do people look for, and what trade-offs can we make to give those incentives? What role does IP play in the larger ‘knowledge economy’? And for that matter – where does one even ask these questions? Legal academia desires formal strait-jacketed, peer-reviewed answers, not open-questions, with variable perspective-based answers (especially if they in turn give rise to further questions!). And classrooms often do not have time or mind-space to allow for wandering discussions, when they have a time-bound syllabus to teach.