 |
| Image from here |
Pursuant to my last post, I received the annexures that CSIR had forgotten to send me along with its RTI reply which I had blogged about over here. The information contained in the annexures is not the information that I had asked for under the RTI Act and this information is nothing but yet another attempt to mislead me.
I had asked for licensing revenues from CSIR’s patents but was provided instead with a list of ‘lab-wise extra-budgetary resources generated during the period of 2002-03 to 2011-12 (Rs. in crores)’. According to this list, which can be accessed over here & here, CSIR has reportedly generated close to Rs. 4,402.265 crores in extra-budgetary resources.
So what does the term ‘extra-budgetary resources’ mean? Well, I sent CSIR an email asking them what it means but I never received a reply. In any case I compared the list of licensed patents, that CSIR had provided me earlier and compared it to the present list and came to the conclusion that ‘extra-budgetary resources’ definitely does not refer to revenues from patent licensing as there is almost no co-relation between both lists. Some of the labs are showing revenues even in those years when they licensed no patents. My guess is that the list includes earnings from all sources which were not initially allotted through its annual budget. This would include contract research from the private sector and the public sector. My guess is that most of the Rs. 4,402.265 crores was earned ‘in-house’ i.e. through government projects and grants and not through patent licensing. It is highly unlikely that a lab such the National Aeronautics Laboratory (NAL) would have earned Rs. 501 crores in the last 10 years through private sector contracts. I for one am interested in knowing the work that CSIR did to earn this money. So I ask the question once again – Why is CSIR going out of its way to hide the revenues it has earned from patent licensing?
Its hiding it because there might be nothing to show! Especially under its new "leadership" which, from what I have heard and read, is no leadership - rather a power hungry "dictatorship!" See page 2 of this article where CSIR and Dr. B's method of working has been highlighted in not so glowing terms!
ReplyDeleteIt is very common with the offices to give the misleading information, when they are not able to give the correct information, being caught with pants down. This is with the IP Offices as well. In one case I asked for the information about the details of the mark (giving the identification of the mark) being advertised from time to time in the Journal (it has been advertised more than once without the earlier publication being cancelled) and whether any of the earlier advertisement was cancelled and if any opposition(s) was/were filed etc. AT least two oppositions have been filed, one at the previous advertisement of the mark in the Journal and another when it was re-advertised. The information has been given as if I was asking about the general procedure of advertisement and cancellation of advertisement. At the same time the information that has been given with respect to the opposition (second) is about the service of TM-6 only and that the procedure would follow while the case had matured for final hearing and even the hearing had been fixed.
ReplyDeletePrashant,
ReplyDeleteHow can you expect CSIR to expose itself in mishandling tax-payer money and creating something that has no commercial value? Wonder what was the need of securing and filing patents when the value of their patent portfolio as of date may have no commerical value not even the amount they spent securing and filing patents.
I am sure if proper inquiry is made there will surely be a considerable scam.