New and improved 3D bio-printing technologies combined with an improved understanding of cell biology and materials science set the stage for the next medical revolution where the mainstream use of 3D bio-printing of functional biological organs seems to be within our grasp. The legal structures regulating this technology, therefore, must strike a careful balance between innovation and accessibility to state-of-the-art healthcare. Conventional wisdom currently makes two mutually contradictory assertions. The first assertion is that patent law does not provide adequate protection to 3D bio-printed inventions; this negatively hinders the development of such inventions. The second assertion is that patent law unduly expands the scope of patentability, particularly in the biotechnology field. As it happens, when applied to 3D bio-printing, such a simplistic dichotomy of patent law as being either ineffective or over-protective is overstated and positively unhelpful. To date, much of the discussion regarding 3D bio-printing focuses on whether or not a 3D printed organ is patent eligible. This article goes further than this by raising a number of distinct, though interrelated, issues. As an introduction, this article discusses the current state of patent law regarding the protection of 3D bio-printed inventions, whether patent law is an enabler or a prohibitor of 3D bio-printed inventions, and whether the phrase " markedly different, " as coined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Diamond v. Chakrabarty means similarity or difference, in a trademark kind of way. Areas of conflict between 3D bio-printing technologies and patent law are discussed. Patent categorization of an important example technology, that of 3D printing on a patient's body, is considered. This leads to the closely related issue of whether technology provides therapeutic, cosmetic or surgical intervention. Assuming a 3D-printed organ to be patent eligible, whether a healthcare provider should be held strictly liable for claimed defects in the " man-made " organ that is printed under its control and used in medical procedures " within " its premises, is investigated. In an era where the field of bio-printing is often described as developing a " disruptive technology " and where 3D bio-printing is developing into machines that are capable of performing sophisticated tasks, it is important to address not only how such technologies will affect the patent regime, but also what role, if any, patent law should play in the regulation and use of this emerging technology.

Market economies are based on free competition, which can include copying. Yet intellectual property protection in the United States prohibits copying in certain circumstances to incentivize innovation and creativity. New breeds of digital works are challenging our historical application of intellectual property law. These include certain categories of software programs as well as digital manufacturing files. These new works look deceptively like works from a previous era and thus, courts might languorously treat them as they have older works. This would be a mistake. This Article analyzes these works in terms of existing intellectual property doctrine and constructs a normative framework for channeling the works among the different intellectual property regimes and, in some cases, away from intellectual property protection altogether.

This article is a useful tool for both Asian and European readers as regards some of the state-of-the-art technologies revolving around the Internet of Things (‘IoT’) and their intersection with cloud computing (the Clouds of Things, ‘CoT’) in both the continents. The main legal issues will be presented, with a focus on intellectual property, consumer protection, and privacy. India and the United Kingdom are selected because they are at the forefront of the IoT innovation in their respective countries. The IoT is an expanding and heterogeneous universe encompassing all Things which are capable of connectivity and are equipped with sensing and actuating capabilities. One can find Things in very diverse sectors, from agriculture to manufacturing, retail, healthcare, leisure, domotics, urban development, etc. Therefore, not only is providing an exhaustive and static definition of the IoT nearly impossible (or at least pointless), but also the endeavour of providing a complete picture of the phenomenon would be a cumbersome path towards failure. Consequently, I will give account only of the highlights of the IoT in India and the United Kingdom. In India, the IoT will be analysed through the prism of net neutrality, smart cities, manufacturing, computer-related inventions, and a recent bill on the surveillance aspects of the world’s largest biometric database (Aadhaar). In turn, I will look at the British context by analysing some (quasi) regulatory acts with a focus on privacy and consumer protection. One last caveat. When it comes to new technologies, one tends to be either ‘apocalyptic’ or ‘integrated’. Either the technology will save us all by leveraging a revolution leading to a disruptive innovation, or it will destroy our lives and the world will go to the dogs. I take a middle position and believe that through education, collective awareness, and soft law, one will be able to keep the human being at the centre of innovation, to unite people rather than divide them, to empower them and alleviate discrimination and poverty. What is important is neither should one delegate to technology nor to rely entirely on government: if the IoT is to actually become a revolution, it will do so due to the commitment of each and every one of us who will contribute to create the Internet of Citizens. PLEASE CITE AS: Guido NOTO LA DIEGA, The Internet of Citizens. A lawyer’s view on some technological developments in the United Kingdom and India, in Indian Journal of Law & Technology, 2017, 12(1), 53-104.

Abstract Intangibles such as intellectual property rights are an increasingly important source of value for businesses today. This increasing importance has significance for the uses of intangibles by companies and the mechanisms and behaviors by which companies extract value from intangibles. The manners in which holders of intellectual property rights wield such rights can play an important role in shaping the effective functioning of intellectual property frameworks.

The first target of today’s global commercial and military espionage, trade secrets, are the only form of intellectual property protection to be based on the necessity of nondisclosure and secrecy rather than on the paradigm of publicity and exploitability, with the obvious consequence that where confidentiality ends, no trade secret factually exists anymore. As such, current judicial remedies to trade secret thefts simply miss the point, treating trade secrets as rights which can be restored, rather than as assets that once stolen, are lost forever. Moreover, trade secrets often represent the “backbone” of a country’s development: an invaluable strategic advantage for entire industrial systems, innovation environments, and national economies. Whereas a trade secret theft occurring within domestic borders transfers exploitability rather than causing damage to the economic ecosystem of the country concerned, international trade secret thefts may jeopardize states’ economy and public security alike. For these reasons, the only way to protect trade secrets by law is through ensuring that their secrecy is reasonably safe by means of compulsory cybersecurity and cyber-hygiene standards to be complied with by their owners. When it comes to this specific form of IP, the only protection is afforded with prevention: injunctions and compensations can work as remedies for other IP rights’ misappropriations and misexploitations, but do nothing to restore the peculiarity of a trade secret which is, indeed, its secrecy. Not only should companies be compelled to adopt and implement reasonable sector-specific IT security measures and procedures, but licensing agreements including know-how should feature a specific cybersecurity clause to be carefully negotiated. The new cybersecurity regimes of world powers like China seem to capture this problem, and to (involuntarily?) provide useful tools for addressing it beyond the schemes of intellectual property or tort (confidentiality) laws. Regrettably, other countries in the Pacific region appear to keep the belief that trade secret thefts are a private affair of the breached companies, which should seek redress via traditional judicial channels. This is to be deemed an outdated, misleading, shortsighted and ineffective approach.