Edited by Sahid, Team Member, LawDiktat.
The usage of Drones in India is catching up with that in other nations and gaining considerable momentum. India does not have a specific Act on Drones. However, Aircraft Act 1934 is the basic Act governing all the matters relating to civil aviation. Aircraft Act 1934 was amended recently in the year 2000 which is known as The Aircraft Amendment Act 2020. The Central Government therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by n 5, sub-section (2) of section 10 and sections 10A, 10B and 12A of the Aircraft Act, 1934 (22 of 1934), has made the ‘Drone Rules 2021’.
Section 2 of the Drone Rules 2021 defines:
‘Drone’ as an unmanned aircraft system.
‘Unmanned Aircraft system’ means an aircraft that can operate autonomously or can be operated remotely without a pilot on board.
The unmanned aircraft shall be categorised into the following three categories namely:
The classification of Drones is based on the maximum all-up weight including payload. They are classified as follows:
No person is allowed under the law to use and operate Drones without any valid license or certification from the Director General of Civil Aviation.
The Director General of civil Aviation under the Ministry of Civil Aviation or any entity authorised by the Director General may issue a certificate for operating Drones known as ‘Type Certificate’.
Any person willing to obtain a type certificate shall make an application on the form D-1 on the digital sky platform along with payment of prescribed fee and supporting documents. Also, the Drone shall be physically handed over to the Quality council of India which is the authorised testing entity of the Drones.
The Director General of civil aviation on satisfying itself with the report of the Testing Agency and other eligibility conditions shall issue a type certificate to the applicant.
There is no need to obtain a Type Certificate for the following types of Drones:
The Drones can be Imported to India and the process of Import shall be regulated by The Director General of civil Aviation under the Ministry of Civil Aviation or any entity authorised by the Director General.
The Registration of a Drone shall be done on the digital sky platform of Director General of Civil Aviation website. A unique identification number is allotted to each Drone on successful Registration.
The following steps are to be followed for obtaining certificate of Manufacture and Airworthiness (CMA)
The Airspace of India is divided into 3 zones for the purpose of operation of Drones. They are:
The Airspace map for Drone operations is so designed as to be programmatically accessible through a machine-readable Application Programming Interface and interactive so that unmanned aircraft system pilots shall be able to plot their proposed flight plan and easily identify the zone within which it falls so as to assess whether or not they need to make an application for prior approval. The Central Government from time to time update the changes related to status of an area within different zones of the airspace map on digital sky platform.
It is not required to take any permission to operate Drones in a Green Zone with an all-up weight up to 500kgs. However, the operation of drones in Red or Yellow zones requires the permission of operation from the nearest Air Traffic Controller authorities like the Indian Air Force, Airports Authority of India, Indian Navy, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited as the case may and Central Government or any entity authorized by the Central Government.
A Drone shall not be operated by any person other than a holder of a valid remote pilot licence enlisted on the digital sky platform.
An individual shall be eligible to obtain a remote pilot licence, if he–– (a) is not less than eighteen years of age and not more than sixty-five years of age; (b) has passed the class tenth examination or its equivalent from a recognised Board; and (c) has successfully completed such training as may be specified by the Director General, from any authorised remote pilot training organisation.
No remote pilot license shall be required for –– (a) operating a nano unmanned aircraft system; and (b) operating a micro unmanned aircraft system for non-commercial purposes.
With the introduction of the Drone Rules 2021, the Central Government’s initiative to promote Drone Industry is visible, however, it needs more liberalisation of policy to compete with international manufacturers and operators.
The Indian Space programme started in the year 1962 with setting up of Indian National Committee on space research (INCOSPAR) by the Father of the Indian space programme i.e., Dr. Vikram Sarabhai. Subsequently with the increasing space activities globally as a result of Cold War India became signatory to the under mentioned International treaties:
Further, the space activities in India have been governed by the Department of space which is headed by the Prime Minister of India.
India does not have any specific act on space, though it has got one of the biggest space organizations in the world i.e ISRO. The reason for not having a specific act till now is as follows:
However, with the increasing potential of the space programme, the willingness of the private sector to invest in India’s outer space, and with increasing missions to the moon and Mars, there has been a radical change in the Indian Space programme. The Space Activities Bill 2017 was introduced by the Indian Government to make a change in terms of the space policies of India. The draft bill has completed public and legal consultation and it has now been sent for further approvals.
ISRO was previously the Indian National Committee for Space Research (INCOSPAR). Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) is the space agency of India. The organization is involved in science, engineering, and technology to harvest the benefits of outer space for India and mankind. ISRO is a major constituent of the Department of Space (DOS), Government of India. The department executes the Indian Space Programme Primarily through various under-mentioned Centres or units within ISRO.
IN-SPACe (Indian National Space Promotion and Authorisation Centre) is a single-window nodal agency established to boost the commercialization of Indian space activities.
ANTRIX
As the commercial and marketing arm of ISRO, Antrix is engaged in providing Space products and services to international customers worldwide.
NSIL (New Space India Limited)
NSIL is the commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) with the primary responsibility of enabling Indian industries to take up high-technology space-related activities and is also responsible for the promotion and commercial exploitation of the products and services emanating from the Indian space program.
In the absence of any specific act on Space Indian space program is guided by the Rules made by the Department of Space along with related legislation and regulations of the Government of India. In addition, policies such as Remote Sensing Data Policy, SATCOM policy, Mapping policy, etc provide the relevant policy guidelines.
Authored by Venkatesh ANS, Legal Intern, LawDiktat
Edited by Sahid, Team Member, LawDiktat
]]>
FinTech is the combination of the terms ‘Technology’ and ‘Finance’. FinTech pertains to facilitation of Traditional Financial Services through advanced Technology methods. There is no single definition of the term ‘Fin Tech’. However, The Financial Stability Board (FSB) under the aegis of Bureau of Indian Standards defines FinTech as “Technology-enabled innovation in financial services that could result in new business models, applications, processes or products with an associated material effect on the provision of the financial services”. FinTech has now become essential to various sectors like Education, Retail, Insurance, Agriculture, Investment etc. Also, new technologies of Cryptocurrency and Bitcoin have made the Financial Technology Industry more important in the Economic Ecosystem. Some of the services offered by modern day Fintech Industry are:
The regulation of the FinTech Industry in India is largely disjoined due to the varied nature of goods and services provided by the Industry. Some of the examples of Regulatory Bodies in India are:
For Example: The FinTech Business related to Insuretechs, risk-free underwriting, on-the-spot purchasing related to various Insurance products are regulated by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI).
The legislations on FinTech in India encompass various laws that directly or indirectly impact the FinTech industry. The Insurance Act 1938 regulates the insurance sector in India and may impact FinTech companies offering insurance-related services. The Banking Regulation Act 1949 governs the functioning and regulation of banks in India, including those involved in FinTech activities. The Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) 1999 controls foreign exchange transactions, which are relevant to FinTech companies engaged in cross-border activities. The Information Technology Act 2000 addresses legal issues related to electronic transactions and digital signatures, impacting the operations of FinTech companies. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 aims to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing, which affects FinTech firms handling financial transactions. The Competition Act 2002 ensures fair competition in the market and may have implications for FinTech companies. The Government Securities Act 2006 regulates government securities, which are relevant to FinTech firms dealing with securities. The Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007 governs payment systems and includes provisions relevant to FinTech payment service providers. The Companies Act 2013 covers the incorporation, functioning, and governance of companies, including those operating in the FinTech sector. The Consumer Protection Act 2019 safeguards consumer rights, providing protection to users of FinTech services. It’s important to note that this list is not exhaustive, and there may be other legislations that impact the FinTech industry in India.
India has got various Tribunals as mentioned below to adjudicate on various matters related to FinTech and also to interpret various acts, rules and regulations on the subject.
Various Enforcement and Investigating Agencies are established under various acts to fight against various economic and FinTech crimes in India. Some of the premier Agencies are listed below:
FinTech Crimes are criminal activities that are carried out by Individuals or organizations to provide economic benefits through illegal methods. Although the FinTech industry always aims to disrupt current practices and do it fast, disruption can also create new opportunities for Fraud. The Regulators have noticed financial crimes related to the following:
For example, abusive activities have recently been identified as part of the video identification process and fraudsters were able to manipulate online job applications via the eBay platform so that the victims found themselves unknowingly in the middle of a bank account opening process. Thus, the applicants helped the fraudsters stay unrecognized and to misuse a newly opened bank account for money laundering activities.
It is to be noted that there exists no single window Legal redressal system to address FinTech Crimes in India. The nature and scope of Legal Redressal depends upon the Act/Regulation to it. The Financial sector is required to follow both generic norms related to the Information Technology Act 2000 as well as sesector-specificcts Every Legislation made on the subject does contain various provisions regarding Redressal of complaints and damages against FinTech crimes. Some of the examples of provisions contained to form such a Legal Redressal System against FinTech crimes are explained below:
Section 43A of the IT Act penalises body corporates who collect, process or store ‘sensitive personal data’, for being ‘negligent in implementation and maintaining reasonable security practices and procedures and thereby causing wrongful loss or wrongful gain to any person. The compensation payable under this section can be extended to five crore rupees.
The Act requires banking firms, financial institutions, and intermediaries to confirm the identification of clients, preserve records, and provide information to the Financial Intelligence Unit – India in a defined format (FIU-IND).
The Act attempts to regulate the activities of credit information companies and those notified as specified users of credit information.
The Foreign Exchange Management Act of 1999 (“FEMA”) and the rules and regulations issued thereunder control transactions involving foreign currency.
The Diversified nature of FinTech Transactions spreading over various industries and sometimes multi-industrial transactions make it difficult for the regulatory bodies to address and provide redressal systems to the rapidly growing FinTech crimes. Though there exists many Redressal mechanisms spread across various Acts, Regulations, and Rules it is felt that the current Redressal Systems are not adequate to curtail the rapidly growing FinTech crimes.
In order to enhance FinTech security, several recommendations have been proposed. One of the key areas of focus is the reformation of the Know Your Customer (KYC) process, taking into account the recent Supreme Court judgment on Aadhaar. This would ensure a more robust and secure customer identification process.
Another suggestion is the establishment of dedicated innovation teams within Public Sector Financial Services Companies. These teams would be responsible for fostering innovation and implementing secure FinTech solutions.
The use of Public Sector Blockchain for trade finance is also recommended, as it offers enhanced security and transparency in financial transactions. This technology can revolutionize the trade finance industry by reducing fraud and improving efficiency.
Re-engineering legal processes to adapt to the digital world is crucial for ensuring the security of FinTech transactions. This involves updating laws and regulations to address emerging challenges and protect the interests of users.
Promoting competitive neutrality in regulation is another recommendation. This means ensuring a level playing field for both traditional financial institutions and FinTech companies, preventing any undue advantage or disadvantage.
Regulation Technology (RegTech) is a key aspect of enhancing FinTech security. It involves leveraging technology to streamline regulatory compliance processes and improve oversight.
Greater coordination between various departments, regulatory bodies, and FinTech companies is vital. Collaboration and information-sharing can help identify and address security risks more effectively.
The sharing of valuable information on FinTech crimes among companies and regulatory bodies is also crucial. This can enable a proactive approach to combating financial crimes and enhancing security measures.
Implementing a Single Window System to address grievances related to FinTech crimes is recommended. This centralized system would provide a convenient and efficient platform for users to report and resolve any security-related issues.
To address data protection concerns in the financial sector, the formation of a Taskforce on data protection is suggested. This taskforce would focus on developing robust data protection frameworks and regulations.
Lastly, establishing Centers of Excellence in FinTech can foster research, innovation, and collaboration in the field. These centers would serve as hubs for knowledge-sharing and skill development, further strengthening FinTech security. By implementing these recommendations, the security of FinTech systems and transactions can be significantly enhanced, providing a safe and trustworthy environment for users and stakeholders.
Authored by Venkatesh ANS, Legal Intern, LawDiktat
Edited by Sahid, Team Member, LawDiktat
]]>Jurisdiction refers to the power of the court to render binding decisions. It may be territorial, pecuniary or subject matter related.[i] In India, territorial jurisdiction is still widely debated in the context of trademark or copyright infringement. The advent of the internet has given rise to new forms of intellectual property infringement like cyber piracy, domain name infringement including cybersquatting, unauthorized sale of e-books etc. Here, the traditional choice of law may seem inept if the conflict is extraterritorial.
The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 codifies the fundamental rules governing procedure, jurisdiction and authority of civil courts. Section 20 of the Code is a residuary provision to Sections 16-19 that deal with forum options.[ii] It provides two grounds to exercise territorial jurisdiction – (i) if the defendant resides/carries on business/personally works for gain in the territory (ii) if the cause of action arose there.
Sections 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and 62(2) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 provide an additional third ground, which is the area of residence/business of the plaintiff. The legislative purpose of these provisions was to allow the plaintiff to file suit at a forum of convenience. In furtherance of this, and with the rise in e-commerce, the judiciary has liberally interpreted provisions concerning jurisdictional requirements.[iii]
However, at times, plaintiffs misused the said sections to pull defendants to distant forums. In the case of Sanjay Dhalia[iv], the judicial decision aimed to curtail such mischief and scaled-down liberal interpretation. The court held that if there is a common jurisdiction as per Sections 134(2) and cause of action, the suit must be filed there. The situation has been clarified with an illustration- “… plaintiff is carrying on business at Mumbai and cause of action has arisen there. Plaintiff is having branch offices at Kanyakumari and Port Blair. If interpretation suggested by appellants is acceptable, mischief may be caused by the such plaintiff to drag a defendant to Port Blair or Kanyakumari.”[v]
In Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey[vi], the court contemplated solutions for four possible situations. First, when the plaintiff has only one office and the cause of action arose at a different place, the plaintiff can file at the place of office. Second, the plaintiff has one principal office and branches elsewhere. If the cause of action arose at the place of principal office, the plaintiff can sue at the place of principal office only. The third scenario is similar to the second, but the cause of action arose at the location of its branch. Here, the plaintiff can sue only at the place of its branch. Lastly, the cause of action arose at neither place of principal or branch offices. The plaintiff can file suit at the place of the principal office, not a place of a branch.
In today’s era of commercial transactions via the internet, there are situations where infringements (cause of action) happen on websites, and suits are filed in forums where neither parties have a physical presence.
In Banyan Tree Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. A Murali Krishna Reddy, it was held that the mere availability of a “passive” defendant’s website in the forum state without specifically targeting the consumers of such state does not grant jurisdiction. The plaintiff has to prove that the availability of the defendant’s website had a negative impact on his goodwill/reputation and that the transactions are real and not “trap” transactions.[vii]
In V Guard Industries Ltd v. Sukan Raj Jain & Anr., the court held that it had jurisdiction for the following reasons – (i) the defendant carried business in the place of forum using an e-commerce platform (ii) plaintiff had purchased defendant’s products at such place (iii) plaintiff can file suit in place of the branch office, as decided in the Ultra Home case. It was also noted that a “self-generated” sale cannot be construed as a trap sale.[viii]
In Bulgari Spa v. Notandas Gems Private Limited,[ix] the court has clearly distinguished between a mere interactive website and a commercially active one. The former only provides information whereas the latter permits purchase for consideration. For the former, jurisdiction exists only when it is proved that information has been accessed within the forum’s territory. For the latter, jurisdiction exists if transactions can be completed within territorial limits.
Indian courts favour a middle course approach between the ‘effects’ and ‘availment’ tests. The effects test establishes jurisdiction if the effects of the defendant’s acts are aimed at the forum state.[x] Purposeful availment is the situation where the defendant has taken deliberate efforts to avail the jurisdiction of the forum state.[xi] The theories such as ‘minimum contact’ and ‘target-based’ tests are more widely applied by forums in countries having strong intellectual property protection. Minimum contacts theory refers to the nonresident defendant’s associations with the forum state to determine the forum state’s jurisdiction.[xii] Target-based test (applied in the Banyan tree case) relies on whether the defendant had the intention to have commercial relations with consumers in that jurisdiction.[xiii]
In Tata Sons Ltd. V. Manu Kosari,[xiv] it was observed that with the emergence of cyberspace, domain names or internet sites qualify for protection as a trademark.[xv] The Zippo test is used for jurisdiction issues related to Internet domain names, where the defendant’s activities are treated as active/passive/interactive.[xvi]
At times, multiple jurisdictions may be involved as registration may be under one server, but there is an overlap of trademarks of entities of varied geographical locations. For this purpose, the ICANN ‘Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and Rules’[xvii] exists with an approved list of ‘Dispute Resolution Service Providers’[xviii]. In Arun Jaitley v. Network Solutions Private Ltd.[xix], the defendant was permanently restricted from using, advertising or promoting the domain name and was directed to handover the domain name to the plaintiff. The governing body under the ICANN was also required to block the domain name and transfer it to the plaintiff.[xx]
When digital copies are transmitted through the internet, there is a likelihood of copyright infringement across multiple countries. WIPO is the global forum for intellectual property services, policy, information and cooperation.[xxi] It conducted the ‘Hague Conference on Private International Law’ wherein signatory states consent to enforce decisions of the forums of co-signatories provided the forum was chosen by an agreement signed by the parties. Yet, litigation may be inflexible in contrast to Alternate Dispute Resolution mechanisms like arbitration which give parties the freedom to customize their disputes and offers jurisdictional neutrality.[xxii] WIPO has a specialized Arbitration and Mediation Center.
Our judiciary is actively evolving norms to deal with uncertainties in relation to the discussed issues. It is vital to view the matter from an international perspective for internet-related disputes. It may be beneficial for our judicial system to refer to the approaches applied by countries that firmly protect their intellectual property right holders. An effective judicial system is founded on regulations that clearly define principles of law and jurisdictional authority.
[i] Territorial Jurisdiction of Courts in India, (2013), https://www.lawsenate.com/publications/articles/territorial-jurisdiction-of-courts-india.pdf.
[ii] Isaac, Jithin Saji. “Redefining the jurisdiction clause under copyright and trade mark laws in India.” Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 10.1 (2015).
[iii] G Chakrabarty, S Dama, “Remedying mischief in deciding jurisdiction favouring the plaintiff in India” in Annotated Leading Trademark Cases in Major Asian Jurisdictions(1st edn, 2019).
[iv] Indian Performing Rights Society v. Sanjay Dalia & Anr on 1 July, 2015, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51545606/
[v] id. ¶ 24.
[vi] Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey, FAO (OS) 494/2015 & CM 17816/2015, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123737198/ (last visited Nov 27, 2022).
[vii] Paridhi Jain, Territorial Jurisdiction in Intellectual Property Disputes, Manupatra, https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Territorial-Jurisdiction-in-Intellectual-Property-Disputes (last visited Nov 27, 2022).
[viii] V Guard Industries Ltd V. Sukan Raj Jain &Anr, CS(COMM) 25/2021, decision dated July 5, 2021, Nishith Desai Assoc., https://www.nishithdesai.com/SectionCategory/33/IP-Hotline/12/66/IPHotline/4761/1.html (last visited Nov 27, 2022).
[ix] Bulgari Spa v. Notandas Gems Private Limited, I.A. 16751/2021, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/84705826/ (last visited Nov 27, 2022).
[x] S.S. Rana & Co. Advocates, Internet And The Determination Of Jurisdiction In The Case Of Trade Mark Infringement – Trademark – India, https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/708968/internet-and-the-determination-of-jurisdiction-in-the-case-of-trade-mark-infringement (last visited Nov 27, 2022).
[xi] Purposeful availment, https://itlaw.fandom.com/wiki/Purposeful_availment (last visited Nov 27, 2022).
[xii] Minimum Contacts, LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/minimum_contacts (last visited Nov 27, 2022).
[xiii] Kyra, Report: How ‘Targeting’ Establishes Jurisdiction in Trademark Usage on the Internet, International Trademark Association (2022), https://www.inta.org/report-how-targeting-establishes-jurisdiction-in-trademark-usage-on-the-internet/ (last visited Nov 27, 2022).
[xiv] 2001 PTC 432, (Del.)
[xv] K Thakur, S Sirkeck. “Dispute of Domain Name with Trademark: Jurisdictional Issue and Future Challenges.” 4 Indian J.L. & Just. 35 (2013)
[xvi] The Curious Case of ZIPPO Test – CyberPeace Corps, https://www.cyberpeacecorps.in/the-curious-case-of-zippo-test/ (last visited Nov 27, 2022).
[xvii] Overview of ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and Rules, https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/registrar/overview.html (last visited Nov 27, 2022).
[xviii] The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, as approved by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers on October 24, 1999; https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/providers-6d-2012-02-25-en
[xix] CS (OS) 1745/2009
[xx] S.Taslim, “Multi-territorial Intellectual Property Disputes over Cyber Space” SSRN 3328002, 2017.
[xxi] Inside WIPO, https://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/index.html (last visited Nov 27, 2022).
[xxii] S.Taslim, “Multi-territorial Intellectual Property Disputes over Cyber Space” SSRN 3328002, 2017.
Authored by Anupa A M, Legal Intern, LawDiktat.
Edited by Sahid, Team Member, LawDiktat.
Let us suppose you have an idea for writing a book, so you pen down a rough draft and try to get it published. The publisher, who wants to save the money they would need to pay you, takes your idea and makes another book on the same lines and publishes it as their product. Now, the question arises, since you didn’t have any tangible belonging stolen from you and only the idea of your book got stolen, how do you get remunerations for the damages done to you?
The answer to this question lies in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). IPR are a set of regulated rules and laws that intend to protect the intangible products of human ingenuity like distinct sounds, words, phrases, designs, inventions, etc. The outcome of the ‘mental labour’ of individuals finds protection under IP laws. Thus, due to the protection granted by IP laws, there comes a boost in development and research because the creators know that they get exclusive rights to production and the profits stemming from its sales.
Technology Transfer refers to a smooth flow of ideas, inventions, and discoveries to different entities who could further use them to make something new. The creators, protected under Intellectual Property Rights, grant both private and public users access to their IP for further development and research, which leads to new products and ideas.
Example: You manage to make a drug that cures Haemophilia (disorder stopping proper blood clotting). Now, technology transfer works in the way that you give access to the said drug to another researcher working on hemorrhages (blood loss) to ensure that their research gets a boost due to your cure. So, Technology Transfer creates a web of collaboration where one finds assistance from different individuals and entities in a similar field, and the primary goal becomes speedy research and development.
Technology Transfer has the following benefits:
More often than not, Research and Development is a cyclic process wherein the profits booked from the sale and commercialization of the previous research provide for the funding of its successor. Usually, universities and other entities invest in the research and development of numerous ideas, which enables major multinational companies to purchase these developments and save costs on internal Research and Development and roll the ball further by developing their unique technologies. The revenue gathered from such sales helps in funding the research and development and perfecting the older ones. Thus, Technology Transfer does facilitate the production of an ecosystem of its own.
Cost Efficiency is another advantage of Technology Transfer that we usually find overlooked. To understand this idea, let us look at an example. Suppose you wish to go from point A to Z, but since the distance is too great, you would be bound to make some pitstops for resting and gathering your energy. On these pitstops, you would get refreshments and replenish your vehicle’s fuel. Now, let us place this metaphor in the tech world.
One simply doesn’t make penicillin from the raw materials; prior to penicillin, someone had to make the components used in the drug, like a constant source of electricity, sulphuric acid, etc. These numerous components are the pitstops from our metaphor. So, the costs related to the research and development required for the production of sulfuric acid become needless for the research and development of penicillin. Thus, we find that we can skip the numerous pitstops altogether, and the length of the journey goes from A to Z to merely Y to Z since the previous steps were already completed by someone else.
The primary disadvantage of Technology Transfer comes from the human nature of being overly reliant on the product, i.e., since the machine/technology in question comes into existence through the collaborative efforts of numerous individuals and entities, its sustenance and maintenance would also require a collaborative effort. Failing to collaborate in the sustenance and maintenance of the technology, we would find that there would be a total breakdown of the ecosystem since an expert of the technology’s preceding invention wouldn’t know about the new technology and vice-versa.
Technology Transfer, prima facie, comes off as an extremely useful and efficient method of promoting research and development. However, one also ignores the outright problem that it would accompany itself, i.e., unemployment. Let us think from a different perspective: as of now, numerous individuals are working in the production of newer technology, and others working in the mass production of the present technology. So, what would happen if the progression of technological advancements increased exponentially? There are two possibilities that follow closely, namely:
Thus, letting technology and automation progress rapidly without assigning a substitute for the employment prospects of the individuals related to the field would, in all possibilities, lead to mass layoffs and firings.
Technology Transfer cannot get limited to a single step like granting access to one technology to another inventor. It consists of several stages through which one can ensure that efficient technology transfer and the protection of Intellectual Property go hand in hand. The six steps associated with the implementation of efficient technology transfer are:
Thus, to conclude, the concept of International Technology Transfer enables that the world of division and borders doesn’t end up limiting the pursuit of human developments and advancements and also ensures that the process of development for the underdeveloped areas attains a similar stature as their developed counterparts. The only aspect of International Technology Transfer that one needs to take into consideration is that the technology getting transferred is also suitable and cost-efficient for the receiver. For example, if an invention developed in India, and needs large amounts of human labour, gets transferred to the US, we would find the application of the said technology inapplicable since the labour costs in the US far exceed that of their Indian counterparts. This change in geographic location would make the usage of the tech moot due to the high costs that come with it. And on the other hand, any piece of technology that consumes enormous amounts of market shares and requires little to no manual labour would not be a suitable choice for India since it would further lead to an employment crunch.