Aadhaar and the cobwebs

The Editorial, “Voluntarily mandatory” (The Hindu, Sept. 30, 2013), explaining what is voluntary and what is mandatory in the Aadhaar programme was very helpful. This is a point that was generally missed in public discussions of the programme.

         Instead of keeping the mandatory National Population Registration and the voluntary Unique ID Numbering separate, the UIDAI confused the people with the overt and covert support of a number of government agencies that they were a single programme. Many obviously believed that without the Aadhaar number they would miss various subsidies and services; that they would lose even their citizenship even if they possessed other identity proofs. The long queues in front of Aadhaar registration centres were formed by those who were evidently anxious about this threat. After the Supreme Court clearing the air and after spending thousands of crores of rupees, what the UIDAI will do next is worth watching.

NOTA, Mr. L.K.Advani and compulsory voting

A Letter to the Editor

NOTA and compulsory voting

Sir,

         In seeking to relate NOTA to compulsory voting as a “meaningful” requirement, Mr. Advani’s blog has completely missed its meaning. By allowing the right to reject, the Supreme Court has actually enlarged the choice of the voter. Mr. Advani wants to restrict it, ignoring the fact that democracy is all about voluntariness in political choices. Right to vote is an inalienable right vested in the voter, which includes also the right not to vote. Making it mandatory would give the establishment an opportunity to coerce the voters and punish the defaulters.

         That Mr. Advani has endorsed Mr. Modi’s idea is not surprising, for, both are products of an organization that upholds discipline, regimentation and uniformity in matter even of culture as virtues. There could be one more reason. The inspiration for launching the BJP in 1980 was the hope that the Hindus, being the majority community, would put the Party in power in perpetuity. Mr. Advani, perhaps, hopes now that at least when driven into the polling booths, a sufficiently large number of Hindus might always choose the ‘Hindutva’ party.

Who owns the alphabet?

Who owns the alphabet, of any language for that matter, but now, of English? Here is an interesting case.

Recently, Exxon Mobile filed a lawsuit Tuesday, 1 October, in the U.S. District Court in Houston, challenging the 21st Century Fox’s trademark registration and seeking an injunction against using the logo FXX. It also sought triple damages for the harm it suffered from the resulting confusion in the 'market'.

It complained that FXX, when contacted directly, refused either to stop using or to remove the interlocking FXX design. Hence the petition.

Among other things, it argued that it was likely to “cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive customers and potential customers.” It feared that, if not constrained, FXX might be mistaken for an affiliate of Exxon. In support, it cited some posts on the web, like "That FXX logo has to go, that is awful on a plate. Also, Exxon is going to be pissed.” A spokesman for ExxonMobil claimed that the “public associates the interlocking Xs with ‘Exxon’ and ‘ExxonMobil,’ and they represent a valuable part of our branding. ExxonMobil has protected its interlocking-X designs with numerous trademark registrations, and has been using its interlocking Xs both alone and as part of ExxonMobil’s distinctive family of ‘Exxon’ and ‘ExxonMobil’ marks for decades.”

FXX is an American TV network doing entertainment business, a David when compared.to the Goliath Exxon, which is world's richest oil company. A spokesperson of FXX asked whether a consumer ever approach FXX for oil or Exxon for a TV serial?

As David Sirota (a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, magazine journalist and the author of the books "Hostile Takeover," "The Uprising" and "Back to Our Future" E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com,), would put it: "Apparently if you are the world’s richest oil company used to making $104 million in profit every day, no lawsuit is too frivolous, expensive or downright hilarious when you are the plaintiff."

In essence, Exxon wants exclusive world rights to put two Xs next to each other. Lone X does not belong to it, Three or more Xs also are no problem, for now at least. Whether its lawsuit covers also the Xs in all other non-Latin alphabets, the mathematical symbol for multiplication or any symbol in any other script resembling X,  is not clear.

There already are logos containing double X, like that of Dos Equisll. As Sirota asks: 'what about the XX chromosome, and the roman numeral for 20, and any clothing companies that make T-shirts marked double extra large'.

According to Sirota, 'ExxonMobil’s suit instantly makes it a candidate for the list of the most famous intellectual property claims of all time.' Among instances he quotes are:

"- Spike Lee claiming exclusive ownership rights of his first name in a suit against Viacom’s Spike TV.

- Fox News being laughed out of court after claiming exclusive ownership of the phrase “fair and balanced.”

- Warner/Chappell Music arguing in court that the 120-year-old “Happy Birthday” song is its exclusive property.

- Huey Lewis suing Ray Parker Jr. over allegations that the latter’s “Ghostbusters” anthem resembled the former’s “I Want a New Drug.”

- Larrikin Music suing Men at Work for damages, based on the company’s claims that the music group’s flute in the song “Down Under” derives from a 75-year-old children’s song called “Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree.” The music company claiming the rights to the Kookaburra song didn’t file suit until 28 years after Men at Work’s hit was released. That’s when a television quiz show in Australia claimed there was a resemblance between the two tunes."

Whether intellectual property is protectable is a moot question. Even if we concede that stealing intellectual property is a serious crime, Sirota says that 'many of the aforementioned suits — including ExxonMobil’s — seem more than a bit absurd.' He reminds us that the U.S. Supreme Court has recently ratified the right of companies to claim patent protections for DNA. May be, as he says, in the brave new world of intellectual property, “absurd” is apparently in the eye of the beholder!

To put it mildly, the intellectual property right issue is a bit bizarre. If I buy a house, I can do whatever I want with it, but not if it is a book. I can buy a kidney, and it will become my exclusive property. Neither its donor nor the surgeon who transplanted it has no right over it. But, in the case of a book, even its printer/ publisher can own its intellectual property rights. An original work of art can be bought and owned exclusively, but not a book. One can understand the claim of IPR for the original manuscript as long it is not sold, but even after it is printed in thousands and sold, each of the copies also carry copy right! In that case, should not the author himself and the printer/publisher be sued first for forging copies of an original work?