Law and Justice

Posts Tagged ‘Traditional’

As a professional the chances are good you demand better for yourself when it comes to your work wear. No matter what profession you choose, you demand you work wear works as hard as you do. With Dickies whites you will find that you get all you expect and more. Dickies understands what it means to be a professional with a professional’s need for perfection.

You did not get to where you are today by accepting second best. Dickies has a reputation hard-earned through almost a century of superior work wear and exceptional service. When you choose Dickies whites you are choosing the one company in the work wear industry by which all others are measured.

With all that Dickies offers, what makes Dickies whites so special?

Tradition, tradition, tradition! Dickies brings you traditional styles and designs updated to be constructed from the modern materials available today. This innovation solution has made Dickies whites a highly sought after category of professional work wear perfect for medical or healthcare workers but also for anyone needing professional whites.

What are some of the popular styles of Dickies whites available?

1. The Dickies white dress is everything you would imagine for a nurse dress. This nurses dress is the classical short, modest nurse dress made popular in the earlier years of medical work wear. The v-neck is collared professional with the short sleeves offering a comfortable feel to your professional apparel. This is a classic where Dickies whites are concerned.

2. The Dickies white skirt is another popular piece of work wear offered by Dickies. This is obviously designed with the woman in mind, and fall at or slightly above the knee for a professional look that is a bit sassy. There is nothing as compatible with other Dickies tops that this Dickies white skirt. You can have it all when you choose Dickies!

3. The Dickies seamless drawstring cargo pants are an innovative creation by Dickies. With so many years in the work wear industry, you would and should expect the best in innovative thinking. These cargo pants offer the spacious benefits of other cargo pants with the benefits of being seamless. The secret to these seamless pants is simply amazing adding to the astounding design afforded by all Dickies apparel.

4. The Dickies Johnny collar top is a beautiful classical and traditional additional to what Dickies has to offer. This Dickies whites is a wonderful addition to any wardrobe. The stylish collar means you will have a favorite when it comes to professional looks with a comfortable fit. Yes, Dickies simply offers you the best in designs and fashions. This is truly evident with this Dickies Johnny collar top.

As a leader in the medical apparel industry, Dickies whites offer you more. No matter what your professional, you will soon discover why Dickies is the leader in work wear for the professional man or woman. You get more with each purchase you make, and you are guaranteed a lifetime of wonderful use. With Dickies you can just expect more because Dickies knows you expect the best for you and your busy professional career.

More Dickies whites at http://www.embroidered-uniforms-corporate-apparel.com/dickies-medical-uniforms-scrub-dickies-whites-c-18_106_164.html

Developed from experience gained over the centuries and adapted to the local culture and environment, Traditional Knowledge/Traditional medicinal practices were transmitted orally from generation to generation. It tends to be collectively owned and takes the form of stories, songs, folklore, proverbs etc. attached to cultural values, beliefs, rituals, community laws and local language.

Research in Traditional Medicines shall be encouraged for the better understanding of the mechanism of action of drugs being used, chemical reactions happening during its processing by the body, active principles responsible for the particular action of the drug and the identification of the molecules responsible for toxicity reduction etc. The potential portfolios of research include standardization of various drugs, modifications in the ‘form’ and ‘route’ of drug administration, enhancement of shelf-life of the drug, quality standards of drug production, and innovations in processing, packaging, storage, transport, delivery etc. There is no bar on the researchers to take out a patent on the substantially improved version of Traditional Knowledge or on development of new drugs based on Traditional Medicine principles.

However misappropriation of Traditional Knowledge by private business outfits has become quite rampant nowadays, owing to the vulnerability of it being “passed off” as inventions. Though “Intellectual Property” does not include “knowledge” in the strict sense, plenty of patents have already been taken on Traditional Knowledge (Especially Traditional Medicines). Of course, there are a few sagas of successful revocation of some of those patents, but at the cost of exchequer. 

The patent Examiners are not left with any choice other than granting a patent on an “invention” reaching his table “in the form of a document”, if it “fits to his logic” that it is an industrial innovation and not in the public domain. Many Corporate establishments pass off “Traditional Knowledge” as if it is an invention made by them and many a times it is easy for them to get through the formalities since such knowledge is not sufficiently codified and made available to the Examiner in a searchable database. In the recent past, CSIR India has been engaged with creating a traditional knowledge digital library (TKDL), a database that will serve as “prior art” against any move to register patents based on Traditional Knowledge. ‘Prior art’ is meant to encompass everything that has been published, presented or otherwise disclosed to the public on the date of patent (the prior art includes documents in foreign languages disclosed in any format in any country of the world).

India’s Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) contains approximately 2.08 lakh formulations based on Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha and Yoga. The formulations have been transcribed in five international languages viz. English, French, German, Spanish and Japanese with the objective of preventing misappropriation of Traditional Medical Knowledge at the International Patent Offices. India has already shared the TKDL with European Patent Office (EPO) and USPTO on an agreement that EPO and USPTO shall utilize the database for search and examination only and shall not make any third party disclosure except for the purpose of giving a copy of the printout to the inventor/applicant as citation. The Access Agreement signed with these patent offices unequivocally mentions that TKDL is a “prior art”. I wonder how ‘confidentiality’ can be maintained if TKDL is treated as a ‘prior art’.

While the codification of Traditional Knowledge in to Digital Libraries and sharing it with patent offices is a viable solution to direct misappropriation, it is feared that such digital libraries may serve as a platter for capitalists looking for private appropriation of improvements on such traditional knowledge that is not accessible otherwise. Of Course, TKDL is the right strategy to prevent the direct misappropriation of Traditional Knowledge already in public domain and known to a large cross-section of people (wound healing property of turmeric for example). However, it is learnt that the concept of TKDL is being extended (in combination with “Prior Informed Consent” and “Access and Benefit Sharing” tools) to enable codification of community-owned Traditional Knowledge also. In the latter case, it is a clear injustice to those communities, if TK of this nature is shared with patent offices. 

It is hard for the Patent offices to keep the contents of TKDL secret from third parties, since no patent could be denied without disclosing the coded TK associated with the invention to the claimant. Patent Examiner can limit the scope of a patent claim on TK (or reject it altogether), only if he/she gives the relevant extract from TKDL to the inventor to show that it is a “prior art”. Fraudsters may file patent applications purely on conceptual grounds (which would look like as if they had performed the invention), only to see that they could fetch the authentic information on a TK practice/product.

It is debatable whether TKDL stops Bio-piracy or facilitates it.Instead of TKDL, a “Traditional Knowledge Docketing System” (TKDS) [something like Management Information System (MIS)] may be created and maintained by authorities. TKDS shall contain the location at which the Traditional Knowledge is available, the community that possesses the TK,a short description of nature of TK and the PROTOCOLset by the communities/TK holders for providing access to such Traditional Knowledge. TK communities shall be educated about their entitlements on the TK and they shall be empowered to negotiate their due share of monetary benefits in commercializing the TK owned by them. However documentation of the TK in public domain may be done in national interest (In the form of TKDL). This shall be laid open to public.

As the Concepts like “Prior Informed Consent”, “Access and Benefit Sharing” etc. have proven to be the wrong tools to make the Knowledge in the custody of Traditional Practitioners available for further research while upholding their interests. A sui generis legislation for the protection of Traditional Knowledge is the need of the hour.

Suigeneris legislation for “rights” on Traditional Knowledge : Kerala’s IPR Policy Imperative

IPR Policy of Kerala underscores that the Government is very much concerned about protecting its rich traditional wealth comprising of Traditional knowledge practices, Tribal medicines, Ayurveda practices and biodiversity. The Policy released on 27th June 2008, finds that the possible solution could be to acknowledge the deemed rights for the Traditional Knowledge holders and make them aware of their rights. The policy document proposes to commit all traditional knowledge, including traditional medicines, the practice of which sustains livelihoods of many, to the realm of “Knowledge Commons” and not to the “Public Domain”. “Knowledge Commons” refer to the knowledge, which is the collectively produced sphere of ideas and which is left unencumbered for the greater benefit of all.

The ownership is attributable to the State/Crown, given the fact that TK is an accumulated traditional wealth and the long kept preserve of its practitioners, tribal communities and families, wherein all of them act as deemed “trustees” of the State/Crown. Hence, the intention of the proposed legislation is ‘not exactly the creation of rights on TK’, but assigning some of the rights (not all the rights) owned by the State to those “deemed trustees”, in return of their willingness to put the TK to the realm of “Knowledge Commons”

Knowledge in digital form offers unprecedented access to information through the Internet but at the same time is subject to ever-greater restrictions through intellectual property legislation, over-patenting, licensing, overpricing, and lack of preservation. As per the latest reports, many of the Digital Libraries are now on their way to becoming ‘Knowledge Commons’. The “Knowledge Commons” will be a vibrant, user-centred learning facility integral to the academic lives of students. The Commons will integrate scholarly resources, information technology, software, expertise, instruction and study space.

While the Policy envisages proprietary rights on traditional knowledge, all the right holders will be deemed to be holding their rights under a “Commons License”, wherein the right holders shall permit others the use of the knowledge in their possession for non-commercial purposes. It is further stipulated that any development made using this knowledge licensed under the above obligation should be put back to the realm of “Knowledge Commons”, say “Traditional Knowledge Commons”, and hence denying the scope of patenting thereof.

The fundamental concept of “Creative Commons” [some rights reserved and not all rights reserved] has been adopted in Kerala IPR Policy to shape the concept of “Commons License”, as it moots utilization of the Knowledge for non-commercial purposes. To quote Lawrence Lessig, founder of Creative Commons, it is “a culture in which creators get to create only with the permission of the powerful, or of creators from the past”. “Creative Commons” provide free tools that let authors, scientists, artists, and educators to easily mark their creative work with the freedoms they want it to carry. It permits to copy, distribute and transmit the work or to adapt the work only for non-commercial purposes. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs the original work.

Though the concept of “Commons License” envisaged by the Policy is based on the fundamental concept of “Creative Commons” employed by open source advocates, its scope varies significantly from that of “Creative Commons License”. This “Commons License” shall not be confused with the seasoned free software concepts (or open source) and “Creative Commons” licenses like GNU GPL, LATEX etc. which mostly applies to “Expressions” protectable under “Copyright”. Specific provisions for such “Traditional Knowledge Commons License” will have to be worked out to ensure free, non-commercial reproduction and codification of the Traditional Knowledge. It has to be a kind of “deemed licence” which immediately applies on the user of TK, the moment he decides to employ it for any purpose. The provisions of the deemed license are to be laid down in the legislation to ensure free, non-commercial reproduction and codification of the Traditional Knowledge.

According to the policy document, the custodians/preservers of the TK (viz. tribal community, family etc) will be acknowledged as the right holders, but they are obliged to subject the TK possessed by them for the non-commercial purposes of all. Hence the knowledge is revealed for documentation, and enabling further research thereof. However these right holders can license the TK under their possession to others for commercial purposes on negotiated terms and conditions in accordance with the provisions of “Commons Licence”. In respect of such TK, where it is the livelihood of numerous practitioners strewn across Kerala, the State will be deemed to have rights over such Traditional Knowledge. Even though State holds the ownership on such TK, all the actual practitioners of this TK will have an autonomous license for right of commercial use from the State. But these Licensees are not empowered to sub-license this right of commercial use to anybody else, and right for transferring licenses will solely be enjoyed by the State.

Creation of rights and obligations necessitates a Governing Mechanism for acknowledging the right holders, enforcing the rights and recommending legal action against the violators of the rights and “Common License”. Therefore the Policy advises to constitute a body called Kerala Traditional Knowledge Authority (KTKA), with which the right holders will have to be registered. KTKA will give general notice to the public, regarding all applications being made to it by practitioners in order to invite Public for bringing to the attention of KTKA, any disputations of applicant’s claims or challenges to claims of uniqueness, prevalence of similar practice in more than one location or community etc. After scrutinizing all such cases of disputes and after resolving the issue of ownership/possession, that KTKA would finally register a community/group/individual as “Knowledge Custodian” of such unique set of TK practices.

It is also important that the stake holders be made aware of protecting the rights conferred to them from potential usurpation. Therefore all such stake holders would be advised to join together and form “Knowledge Societies”. ‘Traditional Knowledge Users’ Co-operatives” also will be encouraged in the legislation

Though the Policy envisages putting the developments made on TK back to the realm of “Knowledge Commons”, path breaking inventions like development of a new drug molecule or the process thereof which involves substantial developmental cost need not form part of the “Knowledge Commons” in the strict sense even if TK may form the basis of its origin. The ultimate aim of the legislation is not to protect the financial interests of the TK holders, but the benefit of the Society at large, as in the case of the fundamental concept of PATENTS. Patents bestow monetary reward for revealing technological innovation along with accolades for the inventor. Grant of patent for inventions attracts investment because the commercial exploitation of the invention is possible to its fullest extent during the term of patent. The policy does not support extending “trade secret” protection to TK and the State is totally against creation of monopoly over knowledge. Hence Kerala IPR Policy envisages the ways and means for revealing TK for the greater benefit of Society.

Constitutional sanctity of the proposed legislation

While there is no bar on Kerala State in having a policy on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) to proclaim its stand with respect to its culture, geography, people, Biodiversity etc., constitutional sanctity of a legislation based on the Policy is debatable as IPR is a union subject. However it is imperative that we have to find ways and means to get around this constitutional law bottle neck and to push this legislation through. I have the following arguments regarding the constitutional sanctity of the proposed legislation

1) The words like “Traditional Knowledge”, “Intellectual Property”, “Biodiversity” etc. did not find specific mention anywhere under Union list, and the Entry 49 is limited to: “Patents, inventions and designs; copyright; trade-marks and merchandise marks” [The application of ‘pith and marrow’ rule may limit this scope]. 

2) The ownership of TK may be attributed to the State/Crown, given the fact that TK is an accumulated traditional wealth and the long kept preserve of its practitioners, tribal communities and families, wherein all of them act as deemed “trustees” of the State/Crown. So Traditional Knowledge is very well a “treasure trove” (Item No. 44 of State list), where the State has power to legislate.

3) Item No. 26 of State List can be used to regulate Trading of “Knowledge”. Item No. 64 provides for enforcement of punitive mechanisms.

4) Item No. 7 (Contracts) of Concurrent list and Item No. 6 (Transfer of Property) also is relevant. 

5) Article 300A covers intellectual property also. Article 304(b) and Article 19(6) gives added advantage to treat TK as a Property and hence regulate its Trading

6) The proposed legislation does not intend to touch the patent Act at all, it being a Union Subject. But a few provisions in Biodiversity Act (made using the residual powers of Central Government) needs to be supplemented with additional provisions, but employing the provisions of Articles 258A and 258 (2).

7) There is support of State directives under Article 38, 39 (b) and 39(c)

Above all, the proposed legislation is ‘not exactly for creating rights on TK’, but for assigning those rights to those “deemed trustees”, in return of their willingness to put the TK to the realm of “Knowledge Commons”

Incoming search terms:

If there’s one truth in operating a successful, profitable law firm, it’s this: you have to make more than you spend. In order to achieve this, you need clients cycling through your practice on a continuous basis; both new and repeat alike. While that’s obvious enough to see, making it happen is often another story.

Law firm marketing isn’t that much different than marketing any other kind of service business. With that in mind, you set about the task of getting the word out about whom you are, where you can be found and what services you offer. You place ads in local papers, several popular magazines, on the radio and even a few late night television spots. The consummate law firm marketing plan. Much money and time have been invested and anticipation is high. Then it happens: nothing.

Maybe it’s just a time factor. Give it a little more time and you’ll start to see some real results from all your time and money invested in advertising. But today is just like yesterday and after a while there are no real expectations that tomorrow will be any different. Many of your colleagues are doing well. You went to law school with some of them and know first hand they are no smarter than you. What is it they know that you don’t? What is it in their law firm marketing plan that sets them apart from you?

Traditional advertising is one of the least effective forms of law firm marketing. Unfortunately, most lawyers equate marketing with advertising. The result is that you have wasted money and have no new prospective clients to show for it. Here are three major reasons why advertising in the traditional sense does not work.

1. It does not move people along in the sales cycle. It’s only effective in the first stage when the client is getting to know you. It will not increase your likability or sense of trustworthiness.

2. Frequent advertising is too costly for most budgets. In his book “Guerilla Marketing Attack,” Jay Levinson discusses a study conducted on advertising research quoted here in part: “Following a year-long study, researchers concluded that a law firm marketing message must penetrate the mind of a prospect a total of nine times before that prospect becomes a customer.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that for every three times you expose your prospect to your marketing message, it gets missed or ignored two of those times. So you’ve got to put out the good word about your company a total of 27 times in order to make those nine impressions.”

3. Most ads are often poorly designed or written, even to the point of being boring instead of influencing your target market.

With so many other forces vying for the time and attention of your target audience, advertisements live and die by the quality of the ad and the offer it extends. Most law firms list their services or give a couple “reasons” why they are the better law firm. Neither of which does anything to distinguish them from other lawyers in the same practice area.

There are certain advertising strategies you must remember when conducting any form of law firm marketing. For example, the size of your budget must be adequate to meet the demand. Be sure you have a large enough budget to expose your marketing message to your ideal target market. You need to be able to do this repeatedly over the course of the year using the same advertising medium.

In other words, if your advertising medium of choice is the radio, your budget should allow for weekly advertising on the same radio station for a full year. If this is out of your budget range, reduce the size of your market, increase your ad budget or change your advertising medium to a less expensive one.

For example, if you plan to advertise weekly in a local paper, but the largest one in the area is beyond your present budget, start with the weekly suburban paper instead.

What does all this mean? Focus your law firm marketing efforts on methods that actually work. Don’t waste your time and budget on marketing that is not designed to produce the right results. Focus on your target audience, the best way for you to reach them and the most attractive way to present your services in order to keep them.

Incoming search terms: