"Indian parliament deleted the section from the patents bill regarding the software patents as left parties prevailed over the Government on the issue. This may be a major victory for free software foundation(FSP) which has been lobbying hard against the bill."

"India is fast turning into one of the world's development powerhouses, and they're getting there by challenging the idea that they should have western-style copyright and patent rules (the US spent its first century as a "pirate nation" that didn't honor foreign copyrights and patents). This marks a decisive moment in Indian history: the US, Europe, and other nations' IT industries are crippled by the need to pay monopoly rents to patent-crooks like Acacia; India's IT companies can get away scott-free.'

"The primary rationale for Intellectual Property protection is, first and foremost, to promote societal development by encouraging technological innovation. The legal monopoly granted to IP owners is an exceptional departure from the general principle of competitive markets as the best guarantee for securing the interest of society. The rationale for the exception is not that extraction of monopoly profits by the innovator is, of and in itself, good for society and so needs to be promoted. Rather, that properly controlled, such a monopoly, by providing an incentive for innovation, might produce sufficient benefits for society to compensate for the immediate loss to consumers as a result of the existence of a monopoly market instead of a competitive market. Monopoly rights, then, granted to IP holders is a special incentive that needs to be carefully calibrated by each country, in the light of its own circumstances, taking into account the overall costs and benefits of such protection.
Should the rationale for a monopoly be absent, as in the case of cross-border rights involving developed and developing countries, the only justification for the grant of a monopoly is a contractual obligation, such as the TRIPS agreement, and nothing more. In such a situation it makes little sense for one party, especially the weaker party, to agree to assume greater obligations than he is contractually bound to accept. This, in short, is what the developed countries have sought to do so far in the context of WIPO. The message of the Development Agenda is clear: no longer are developing countries prepared to accept this approach, or continuation of the status quo."