12 minute read
Conclusion
Regulatory Sovereignty in India: Indigenizing CompetitionTechnology Approaches, ISAIL-TR-001
professionals, since their proficiency is connected with their cultural intelligence and design thinking approaches. 12. The Ministries in charge and the Government bodies need to understand that their job is not to look to the West & create or replicate redundancy from foreign regulatory instruments, but to understand, innovate & suggest policy conundrums, maybe through the PIP approach via IKS.
Advertisement
Conclusion
We consider that this is a foundational technical report, so, the recommendations are not based on providing direct solutions. We therefore consider that based on the same, further reports on the same subject-matter and other sub-issues related, with their policy approaches rendered upon, can be put into judicious use for a sense of research enquiry. We firmly seek the role of Indic Knowledge Systems, and also suggest that Indian approaches in policy must largely and all-comprehensively reflect Indian realities. We do not suggest a one-size-fits-all or a puritan/reductionist approach, because that undermines the Indian polity and society per se, and so the indigenous and local demands that come up with alongside. Hence, we will intend to come up with further models to suggest on decolonisation, dispute resolution mechanisms, shaping knowledge economy approaches and even asserting better competition policy conundrums, considering disruptive technologies (and even artificial intelligence) as a separate and distinctive sector.
References
Christley, Ron. 2020. A Human-Centered Approach to AI Ethics: A Perspective from Cognitive Science. [ed.] Markus D. Dubber, Frank Pasquale and Sunit Das. The Oxford Hanbook of Ethics of AI. s.l. : Oxford University Press, 2020. Douzinas, Costas. 2019. The Radical Philosophy of Rights. s.l. : Routledge, 2019. Brownsword, Roger. 2018. Law and Technology: Two Modes of Disruption, Three Legal MindSets, and the Big Picture of Regulatory Responsibilities. Indian Journal of Law and Technology. 2018, Vol. 14, 1. Abhivardhan, et al. 2021. 2020 Handbook on AI and International Law. Prayagraj : Indian Society of Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2021. UNESCO. 2021. draft Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. UNESCO. [Online] June 2021. [Cited: 3 September 2021.] https://en.unesco.org/artificial-intelligence/ethics. Supreme Court of India. 2000. SC Sharma & Ors v Union Of India & Ors. Civil Writ Petition No. 3654 of 1996. New Delhi, India : Supreme Court of India, 2000. —. 1989. Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta ... vs V.R. Rudani & Ors. 1989 AIR 1607. s.l. : Supreme Court of India, 1989. IANS. 2021. Unicorns flipping to avoid Indian regulations. IANS Live. [Online] 29 August 2021. [Cited: 6 September 2021.] https://ianslive.in/news/unicorns_flipping_to_avoid_indi an_regulations-809854/BUSINESS/5. Rajagopalan, Shruti. 2021. The judiciary mustn’t violate the separation of powers. Livemint. [Online] 18 January 2021. [Cited: 6 October 2021.] https://www.livemint.com/opinion/columns/the-
146
Regulatory Sovereignty in India: Indigenizing CompetitionTechnology Approaches, ISAIL-TR-001
judiciary-mustn-t-violate-the-separation-of-powers11610985519267.html. Roy, Anna. 2021. Approach Document for India: Part 2 Operationalizing Principles for Responsible AI. NITI Aayog. [Online] August 2021. [Cited: 6 October 2021.] https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/202108/Part2-Responsible-AI-12082021.pdf. PRS India. 2021. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. PRS Legislative Research. [Online] 25 February 2021. [Cited: 7 October 2021.] https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-informationtechnology-intermediary-guidelines-and-digital-mediaethics-code-rules-2021. Supreme Court of India. 2011. Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Another. (2010) 10 SCC 744. 2011. Couldry, N. and Mejias, U. A. 2019. Data Colonialism: Rethinking Big Data’s Relation to the Contemporary Subject. Television & New Media. 2019, Vol. 20, 4. Cohen, Julie E. 2018. The Biopolitical Public Domain: The Legal Construction of the Surveillance Economy. Philosophy & Technology. 2018, Vol. 31, 2. Srnicek, N. and De Sutter, L. 2017. Platform Capitalism. Cambridge, UK : Malden MA, 2017. Zuboff, Shoshana. 2015. Big Other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Civilization. Journal of Information Technology. 2015, Vol. 30, 1. Zuboff, Soshana. 2014. Response to Mathias Döpfner: Dark Google. FAZ.NET. [Online] 2014. [Cited: 14 October 2021.] https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/thedigital-debate/shoshanna-zuboff-dark-google12916679.html. Pinto, Renata Avila. 2018. DIGITAL SOVEREIGNTY OR DIGITAL COLONIALISM? Sur.conectas.org. [Online] 2018. [Cited: 12 October 2021.]
https://sur.conectas.org/en/digital-sovereignty-ordigital-colonialism/. Couldry, N. and Meijas, U. A. 2020. The Costs of Connection: How Data Are Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism. Social Forces. 2020, Vol. 99, 1. Anderson, J. 2014. The Dangerous Absurdity of the Secret “Cuban Twitter. The New Yorker. [Online] 2014. [Cited: 14 October 2021.] https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/thedangerous-absurdity-of-the-secret-cuban-twitter. Dean, J. 2020. Neofeudalism: The End of Capitalism? LA Review of Books. [Online] 2020. https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/neofeudalism-theend-of-capitalism/.
Alaimo, Cristina and Kallinikos, Jannis. 2016.
Computing the Everyday: Social Media as Data Platforms. The Information Society. 2016, Vol. 33, 4. Fuchs, Christian. 2017. Digital Labour and Karl Marx. London : Routledge, 2017. Scholz, Trebor, [ed.]. 2013. Digital Labor: The Internet as Playground and Factory. New York : Routledge, 2013. Reidenberg, Joel. 1998. Lex Informatica: the formation of information policy rules through technology. Texas Law Review. 1998, Vol. 76, 3. Kwet, M. 2019. Digital colonialism: US empire and the new imperialism in the Global South. Race & Class. 2019, Vol. 60, 4. Stallman, R. 2018. Who does that server really serve? Gnu.org. [Online] 5 June 2018. [Cited: 14 October 2021.] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-serverreally-serve.en.html. Pierce, D. 2018. Want to see the future? Look at the chips. Wired. [Online] 8 January 2018. [Cited: 12 October 2021.] https://www.wired.com/story/qualcomm-moves-beyondmobile.
148
Regulatory Sovereignty in India: Indigenizing CompetitionTechnology Approaches, ISAIL-TR-001
Sullivan, J. 2008. Why free software and Apple’s iPhone don’t mix. Free Software Foundation. [Online] 30 July 2008. [Cited: 12 October 2021.] https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/why-freesoftware-andapples-iphone-dont-mix. Arvidsson, Adam. 2016. Facebook and Finance: On the Social Logic of the Derivative. Theory Culture & Society. 2016, Vol. 33, 6. Levy, Karen. 2015. The Contexts of Control: Information, Power, and Truck-driving Work. The Information Society. 2015, Vol. 31, 2. CBS. 2021. Facebook Whistleblower Frances Haugen: The 60 Minutes Interview. YouTube. [Online] 60 Minutes, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Lx5VmAdZSI. Kelly, K. 2016. The Inevitable: Understanding the 12 Technological Forces That Will Shape Our Future. New York, New York : Viking, 2016. Vertesi, J. 2014. My Experiment Opting Out of Big Data Made Me Look Like a Criminal. Time. [Online] 2014. [Cited: 13 October 2021.] https://time.com/83200/privacy-internet-big-data-optout/. Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York : Alfred Knopf, 1999. —. 2002. Rationality and Freedom. Cambridge, MA and London, England : Harvard University Press, 2002. Quijano, Aníbal. 2007. Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality. Cultural Studies. 2007, Vol. 21. Thompson, Ben. 2014. The State of Consumer Technology at the End of 2014. Stratechery by Ben Thompson. [Online] 16 December 2014. https://stratechery.com/2014/state-consumertechnology-end-2014/. Exposure Labs. 2020. The Dilemma. The Social Dilemma. [Online] 2020. https://www.thesocialdilemma.com/thedilemma/.
Goldhill, Olivia. 2018. Machines know when someone’s about to attempt suicide. Quartz. [Online] 2018. https://qz.com/1367197/machines-know-whensomeones-about-to-attempt-suicide-how-should-we-usethat-information. Oren, O., Gersh, B. J. and Bhatt, D. L. 2020. Artificial intelligence in medical imaging: switching from radiographic pathological data to clinically meaningful endpoints. Lancet Digit Health. 2020, Vol. 2, 9.
Committee for the study of the digital platforms,
Stigler Center. 2019. Market Structure and Antitrust subcommittee Report. George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State and The University of Chicago Booth School of Business. [Online] 2019. Sen, Jaydip. 2010. Ubiquitous Computing: Potentials and Challenges. Ubiquitous Computing. 2010. Paine, Rachael. 2017. The social and political challenges of the ubiquitous computing era. Yes&. [Online] 2017. https://academics.design.ncsu.edu/yesand/2017/03/30/t he-social-and-political-challenges-of-the-ubiquitouscomputing-era/. O'Donnell, Catherine. 2011. New study quantifies use of social media in Arab Spring. University of Washington. [Online] 2011. https://www.washington.edu/news/2011/09/12/newstudy-quantifies-use-of-social-media-in-arab-spring/. Supreme Court of India. 2005. Brahm Dutt v. Union of India. 2005 (1) TMI 410. 2005. US Supreme Court. 1958. Northern Pacific Railway Co. v United States and Others. 356 U.S. 1(1958). 1958. Supreme Court of India. 2011. Neeraj Malhotra v. Deustche Post Bank Home Finance Ltd. and others. (2011) 106 SCL 62 (CCI). s.l. : Supreme Court of India, 2011. —. 2013. Rangi International Ltd. v. Nova Scotia Bank and Others. (2013) 7 SCC 160 . 2013. —. 1979. Mahindra & Mahindra v. Union of India. (1979) 2 SCC 529. 1979.
150
Regulatory Sovereignty in India: Indigenizing CompetitionTechnology Approaches, ISAIL-TR-001
—. 1977. TELCO v. Registration Tribunal. (1977) 2 SCC 55. 1977. —. 1986. Sodhi Transport Company v. State of Uttar Pradesh. (1986) 1 SCR 939. 1986. Dessemond, EbruGökçe. 2019. Restoring Competition in “winner-took-all” digital platform markets . UNCTAD Research Paper No. 40. s.l. : UNCTAD, 2019. Russo, F. and Stasi, M. L. 2016. Defining the Relevant Market in the Sharing Economy. Internet Policy Review. 2016, Vol. 5, 2. Singh, S. and Mukherjee, S. 2020. Insights into Platform Markets and Abuse of Dominance: Innovation versus Competition in India. Paper presented at the CCI National Conference on Economics of Competition Law, New Delhi, India. 2020. Kaushik, A. 2019. Working Paper on Competition Law and Digital Economy: Identifying Emerging Challenges. Working Paper No. 52, Centre for WTO Studies. 2019. Bhattarcharjea, A. 2018. Predatory Pricing in Platform Competition: Economic Theory and Indian Cases. [ed.] A. Bharadwaj, V. H. Devaiah and I. Gupta. Multi-Dimensional Approaches Towards New Technology: Insights on Innovation, Patents and Competition. 2018. Wismer, S. and Rasek, A. 2017. Note on Market Definition in Multi-sided Markets. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. [Online] 2017. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/ publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DAF/COMP/ WD%282017%2933/FINAL&docLanguage=En. Competition Commission of India. MCX Stock Exchange Ltd. v. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. & Ors. Case No. 13 of 2009 (CCI). s.l. : Competition Commission of India. Raychaudhuri, T. 2019. Predatory Pricing and Market Determination in Non-Traditional Markets: An analysis of recent cases decided by the Competition Commission of India. National Law Conclave on Law as an instrument of
Social Transformation: Issues, Challenges and Emerging Trends, University of North Bengal, West Bengal, India. 2019. Seth, Sanmit. 2020. What’s blocking the chain? India Business Law Journal. [Online] 2020. https://law.asia/smart-contracts-blockchain-technology/. Sarin, Anirudh. 2018. India: Legal Issues Pertaining To Internet Of Things (IOT). Mondaq. [Online] 2018. https://www.mondaq.com/india/privacyprotection/691560/legal-issues-pertaining-to-internet-ofthings-iot. Subramaniyan, Chandrika. 2019. Why India must amend its Information Technology Act in the age of Artificial Intelligence. IEEE. [Online] 2019. https://site.ieee.org/indiacouncil/files/2019/12/p116p120.pdf. Rajya Sabha, Parliament of India. 2020. Report of the Adhoc Committee of the Rajya Sabha to Study the Alarming Issue of Child Pornography on Social Media and its Effect on Children and Society at Large. Rajya Sabha, Parliament of India. [Online] 3 February 2020.
European Parliamentary Research Service. 2021.
Liability of online platforms. European Parliament. [Online] 2021.
Government notifies Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021. Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. [Online] 25 February 2021. Rao, Dipak and Singh, Sana. 2019. Internet of things –Indian legal perspective. China Business Law Journal. [Online] 2019. https://law.asia/internet-of-things-indianlegal-perspective/. NITI Aayog. 2021. Responsible AI: Approach Document for India. 2021. S, Shanti. 2021. Behind SUPACE: The AI Portal Of The Supreme Court of India. Analytics India Magazine. [Online]
152
Regulatory Sovereignty in India: Indigenizing CompetitionTechnology Approaches, ISAIL-TR-001
29 May 2021. https://analyticsindiamag.com/behindsupace-the-ai-portal-of-the-supreme-court-of-india/. Abhivardhan. 2021. Applying AI As An Asset To Justice Administration In India. Analytics India Magazine. [Online] 2021. https://analyticsindiamag.com/applying-ai-as-anasset-to-justice-administration-in-india/. Government of India. 2010. Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance. E-Governance Standards, Government of India. [Online] 2010. http://egovstandards.gov.in/sites/default/files/Policy%2 0on%20Open%20Standards%20for%20e-Governance.pdf. Henquriez, Maria. 2020. The top 10 data breaches of 2020. Security Magzine. [Online] 2020. https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/94076-thetop-10-data-breaches-of-2020. Sunder, Sushruth. 2018. India economic survey 2018: Farmers gain as agriculture mechanisation speeds up, but more R&D needed. The Financial Express. [Online] 29 January 2018.
World Bank Finance and Private Sector Development Unit and South Asia Region And the World Bank
Institute. 2005. India and the Knowledge Economy: Leveraging Strengths and Opportunities. 2005. SiliconIndia. 2021. Why India lacks Interest in Research? siliconindia. [Online] 2021. https://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/www.siliconind ia.com/shownews/why-india-lacks-interest-in-researchnid-95507-cid-100.html. Nanda, Prashant K. 2019. India has far fewer researchers than China, US, says think tank. Livemint. [Online] 27 November 2019. Press Trust of India. 2017. Indian Varsities not Best Globally Because of Lack of Basic Research. Hindustan Times. [Online] 2017. Parishwad, Rajesh. 2019. India’s Doctorate Dillema. Chemistry World. [Online] 2019.
Kalra, Shyna. 2019. High student intake, lack of ‘quality’ teachers lead to staff shortage at IITs. The Indian Express. [Online] 2019. EPW Engage. 2019. IIT Reforms: Improving International Rankings are Not Enough. Economic and Political Weekly. [Online] 2019. Wait But Why. 2015. The Artificial Intelligence Revolution: Part 1,. [Online] 2015. Saraogi, Varsha. 2019. How the tech city of Bangalore became the Silicon Valley of India - Elite Business. Elite Business Magazine. [Online] 2019. Khurana, Kanika. 2020. International Literacy Day 2020: Andhra Pradesh worst, Delhi 2nd best – State wise literacy rate in India. Times Now. [Online] 2020. Whitney, Melissa. 2019. How to improve technical expertise for judges in AI-related litigation. Brookings. [Online] 2019. Newport, Cal. 2016. Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World. s.l. : Brown Book Group, 2016. Sharma, Dinesh. 2011. Rise, fall and rise of IBM in India. Business Today. [Online] 2011. /corporate/story/ibmindia-george-fernandes-history-in-india-22907-2011-0617. World Economic Forum. 2020. Private or public: What’s really driving technological innovation? World Economic Forum. [Online] 2020. Sloane, Paul. 2015. Why Are Private Companies More Innovative Than Public Companies? Business2Community. [Online] 6 October 2015. Fountain, J. 2001. Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Brookings Institution Press. [Online] 2001. Dixit, Avinash K. 2004. Lawlessness and Economics: Alternative Modes of Governance. s.l. : Princeton University Press, 2004.
154
Regulatory Sovereignty in India: Indigenizing CompetitionTechnology Approaches, ISAIL-TR-001
Susskind, Richard. 2010. The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services. s.l. : Oxford University Press, 2010. Barral-Viñals, Immaculada. 2014. Electronic Mass Procurement by Means of “Web Technology: Basic Options in Its Regulation. ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law. 2014, Vol. 20. Reiling, D. 2009. Technology for Justice. How Information Technology Can Support Judicial Reform. s.l. : Leiden University Press, 2009. Cordella, A. 2012. A Public Value Perspective for ICT Enabled Public Sector Reforms: A Theoretical Reflection. Government Information Quarterly. 2012, Vol. 29, 4. Kallinikos, J. 2005. The Order of Technology: Complexity and Control in a Connected World. Accounting, management, and information technologies. 2005, Vol. 15, 3. Lanzara, G. F. 2009. Building Digital Institutions: ICT and the Rise of Assemblages in Government. [ed.] F. Contini and G. F. Lanzara. ICT and Innovation in the Public Sector. s.l. : Palgrave, 2009.
Steelman, D. C., Goerdt, J. and Mcmillan, J. E. 2000.
Caseflow Management. The Hart of Court Management in the New Millennium, National Center for State Courts, . Williamsburg : s.n., 2000. Harlow, C. and Rawlings, R. 2020. Proceduralism and Automation: Challenges to the Values of Administrative Law. [ed.] E. Fisher and A. Young. The Foundations and Future of Public Law. 2020. Planning Commission of India. 2017. Report of the Working Group on Consumer Protection, (Vol. II, Subgroup Report, Planning Commission, Government of India, 2012-17). 2017. Supreme Court of India. 2005. Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (II) v. Union of India. (2005) 6 SCC 344. 2005. —. 2013. K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. (2013) 5 SCC 226. 2013. —. 2010. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CherianVarkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (2010) 8 SCC 24. 2010.
—. 2018. M/S Emaar Mgf Land Limited v. Aftab Singh & Anr. 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2771. 2018. —. 1995. Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. CCE . (1995), Supp (4) SCC 541. 1995. Anurag, Akshay. 2020. Evading Competition law disputes through Arbitration. Arbitration Workshop. 2020. Supreme Court of India. 2003. Salem Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India. (2003) 1 SCC 49. 2003. Teitz, Louse Ellen. 2004. Providing Legal Services for the Middle Class in Cyberspace: The Promise and Challenge of On-line Dispute Resolution. Fordham Law Review. 2004, Vol. 70. Bush, Thomas. 2018. Arbitration in Antitrust cases. Freeborn. [Online] 2018. Kim, Rieu and Jung, Hyuk. 2021. Time for Class Action Arbitrations in Korea? . Kluwer Arbitration Blog. [Online] 2021. Himachal Pradesh High Court. 2000. Harnam Singh v. Purbi Devi. AIR 2000 HP 108. 2000. High Court of Justice. 2015. Reid v Buckinghamshire NHS Trust . [2015] EWHC B21. 2015.
Crémer, J., Montjoye, Y. and de Schweitze, A. 2019.
Competition Policy for the Digital Era. s.l. : European Commission, 2019.
