Democratizing Law-Making Through Open Collaboration
Collaborative Law Making
CLaM stands for Collaborative Law Making. The CLaM Initiative attempts to engineer a shift from "representative" to "direct" democracy by enhancing public participation in the framing of laws. It builds on the "collaborative" and "open" approach popularised by "open source" software and other initiatives such as Wikipedia. To this end, it seeks to build an online model of collaborative participation to help with the framing of laws/policies.A core team would initially administer and manage this platform. Over time, it is hoped that others (any member of the public) could also run their own policy/legislative proposals on the CLaM platform. Also, the initial focus would be on intellectual property laws/policies pertinent to India, since this falls within the area of expertise of the current team administering this model. After a while, we hope to scale up the project to encompass the entire gamut of laws/policies.
The current core team proposes to identify areas in the current legal regime that require change. The proposed change is then articulated in the form of a proposal, giving as many details (including references and reading) as possible. This initial proposal is then thrown open for public participation, where any interested member of the public could either comment generally on the proposal or specifically edit it to their liking, giving reasons etc.
Currently on CLaM
CLaM Debates
New!
In order to qualify as a Patent Attorney in India among other things, the person has to clear viva voce comprising of 100 marks. Prof. Shamnad Basheer, Shan Kohli and Sai Vinod, the proposers of the motion contented that
(a) Legality of Viva Voce
In order to qualify as a Patent Attorney in India among other things, the person has to clear viva voce comprising of 100 marks. Prof. Shamnad Basheer, Shan Kohli and Sai Vinod, the proposers of the motion contented that
- The requirement of a viva voce is unconstitutional, inherently subjective and entails significant administrative and other costs. Hence it should be done away with.
- Alternatively, assuming that the viva is held legally valid in principle, the present structure of the viva is arbitrary and unconstitutional. And should therefore be changed.
- The detailed proposal of the motion on Legality of Viva Voce can be found here.
- Participate in our debate on Debatepedia! click here
(b) Transparency and Reform in the Workings of the Post-Grant Opposition Mechanism
Post grant oppositions to patents under Section 25 (2) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 have been on the rise. The current procedure is shrouded in secrecy and is replete with troubling instances of conflict and lack of objectivity. Unless reforms are not urgently executed there is a high risk of several decisions of the Patent Office being set aside by High Courts which eventually would cause a great waste of time and national resources. Also, this would increase the workload significantly and detrimentally impact the growing confidence that the public and the IP community have come to repose in the Indian Patent Office.
Concerned about the abysmal state of affairs, Prof. Shamnad Basheer and Mr. Prashant Reddy on behalf of the several members of the IP community have filed a petition before the Controller General of Patents, Mr. P. H. Kurian highlighting the inadequacies and recommendations therewith.
- Discussion Forum containing the draft petition can be found here
- Participate in our debate on Debatepedia! here
Previously on CLaM
Copyright (Amendment) Bill (2010)
The Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010 proposes to bring promising changes to the Indian Copyright Act, 1957
. We at CLaM have undertaken to identify various issues and propose necessary changes on related aspects.Suggestions to Reform the Copyright Board
[+]Amendment to Copyright Act Relating to Authors of Underlying Cinematographic Work
[+]Amendment to Copyright Act Relating to Fair Dealing Exception for Personal Use
[+]Amendment to Copyright Act Relating to Copyright Societies
[+]Amending the Copyright Act to Secure Access for the Disabled
[+]Instructions
To view the Problem Statement and Proposed Amendment, you need not be a registered user. However, in order to actively collaborate/participate in the framing of this law, we strongly encourage you to register.
Please log in
(if you are an existing user), or register (if you are a new user - it's simple and free). Once you register, you can comment on, and make direct edits to the Draft Provision. The idea behind this platform is to democratize law making by enabling as many people to participate in the making of laws that are likely to impact our society.Editing Policy
To edit the draft provision, you need to log in
(if you are an existing user), or register (if you are a new user - it's simple and free).We have divided the draft provision into editable parts for convenience. To edit a particular part of the provision, click on the
symbol corresponding to that part. And if you do edit the provision, please leave a short note in the Comments section explaining the change you made. This will help other users track the edit history of the draft provision.We encourage you to be forthright in making alterations. This is what the Wiki format is for. Even if something goes wrong, since all prior versions of the provision are saved in Page History, you will not do any irreparable damage.
But at the same time, please give some thought to the following questions before making an edit:
- Have you read the Problem statement and familiarized yourself with the context?
- Have you thought about the change carefully, and will it really improve the provision?
- If you have an alteration in mind, should you perhaps float it in the Comments section to identify potential weaknesses and loopholes, before you edit the provision itself?