Create, Copy, Disrupt: India's Intellectual Property Dilemmas
| Author | Yogesh Pai |
| Published date | 01 September 2016 |
| Date | 01 September 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/2277401720160107 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
CREATE, COPY, DISRUPT: INDIA’S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY DILEMMAS
Prashant Reddy T. and Sumathi Chandrashekaran, Oxford University Press
(India), 2017, Pages – 400, Rs. 850.
Yogesh Pai*
The term Intellectual Property (IP) invokes myriad reactions depending on how
one perceives the utility of innovation, economic growth and the role of markets.1
That IP is a kind of ‘monopoly’ we often love to hate, in my opinion, can best
summarise the current fault lines in the policy debate on this subject.2 Of course,
there is no single overarching approach to address the IP conundrum. But it appears
that every soul who has encountered this term has an unusually strong opinion
of its actual and potential impact. There are good reasons to have an opinion on
anything, provided they are grounded in facts and reason. This is more so in an era
where scholars have alleged that ‘faith’ rather than reason or evidence governs the
current policy discourse on IP.3 Also, how far these polarised opinions have actually
contributed to any constructive dialogue on the role and limits of IP is far less clear
in the Indian context. At least, the quality of scholarly debate in India reveals that
there is a need for a systematic and deeper study of IP’s dierent dimensions.4
One perennial concern among IP scholars and enthusiasts has been the lack
of a comprehensive historical, political and evolutionary account of IP law and
policy in India.5 Reddy and Chandrashekaran’s new work titled “Create, Copy,
∗ Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Director, Centre for Innovation, Intellectual Property and
Competition, National Law University Delhi.
1 Innovation-IP and equality debate is very well captured in a recent dialogue among IP scholars in
the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (2016). See generally, Elizabeth Kregor, ‘Innovation
and Inequality: Conservative and Libertarian Perspectives’ (2016) 39 Harvard Journal of Law &
Public Policy 39; John McGinnis, ‘How Innovation Make Us More Equal’ (2016) 39 Harvard
Journal of Law & Public Policy 47; Richard Epstein, ‘Innovation and Inequality: The Seperability
Thesis’ (2016) 39 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 1.
2 The proper basis for IP has always remained controversial. If there is one unied narrative of IP,
it is the theory of dierentiation for competition. See, Nuno Pires de Carvalho, ‘Toward a Unied
Theory of Intellectual Property: The Dierentiating Capacity (and Function) as the Thread that
Unites all its Components’ (2012) 15(4) The Journal of World Intellectual Property 251.
3 Mark Lemley, ‘Faith-Based Intellectual Property’ (2015) 62 UCLA Law Review 1328.
4 For instance, a draft paper by Arpan Banerjee on the working of the MHRD chairs at several
National Law Universities reveals very little research outputs. Draft paper on le with the author.
5 There are several reasons for this situation. IP policy in India in its post-independence era was
To continue reading
Request your trial