Conclusion It would be an extreme understatement to suggest that the technology industry has reached a state of clear consensus on what

constitutes the ideal IPR Policy. A single example from the author's experience will demonstrate how elusive a goal such a state of universal enlightenment could prove to be. Not long ago, I spoke separately with two in-house attorneys from the same company, on the same day, relating to the IPR policies of two different consortia. In each case, the lawyer to whom I spoke was adamant in his contention that his company could not, and would not, join any SSO with an IPR policy that included the language in question. The problem was, of course, that the language under discussion in each case was essentially the same, while the positions taken by the two attorneys were completely opposite. The good news is that awareness of the issues at stake in IPR policies has risen remarkably, in part due to the fact that several high-profile cases involving standard setting abuse have been recently litigated. While this increased attention has brought more stakeholders into the discussion, and therefore has slowed the process of achieving consensus, that same dialogue has served to make those participating in these discussions better versed regarding common IPR policy concerns, as well as better acquainted with the compromise terms upon which these concerns are most likely to be resolved. Notwithstanding this relative progress, it will likely remain a challenge for each SSO to craft an IPR policy that all of its members can live with, and which can still facilitate the achievement of standard setting goals. While the process of promulgating a robust policy can hardly be described as recreational, it is a task that cannot be avoided by any new consortium that wishes to recruit members. Similarly, every existing SSO that has not reviewed its IPR policy in recent years would be well advised to subject its process and rules to a critical analysis, with the goal of purging it of ambiguities and to bring it up to date with current member expectations.

For an existing consortium, tackling an overhaul of current policies will inevitably be a challenge. But for the members of a new consortium, there is an advantage for tackling the process while their numbers are few, and consensus is therefore more easily achieved. Thus, the virtue of facing up to a rather thankless chore early on will be rewarded by an easier path to a successful

conclusion. Those who shrink from that chore will inevitably face a much more difficult task down the road. The emergence of the Internet has caused policymakers, legislators, rights holders, content creators, businesses, content users and others to rethink the way intellectual property should operate in a modern inter-connected society. The range of new technologies and the speed of innovation raises intellectual property issues: domain names are often inextricably linked with trademark issues; and the ease with which digital technologies allow for copying and distribution challenges copyright law enforcement. Intellectual property is currently at the center of an international debate in many different forums regarding how to reconcile the potential of the Internet with traditional intellectual property approaches, including how to stop unlawful transactions on the Internet. Two principal approaches have emerged: involving Internet intermediaries in enforcement and using Internet technical measures to prevent access to unauthorised content. The outcomes of this debate may have serious implications for the Internet and Internet use if decisions are taken that adversely effect the proper functioning of the Internet and individuals' ability to access and use the Internet unmonitored. started this paper with a question - is the system of intellectual property rights, with which we are all familiar, the best way to stimulate innovation? The gist of what I have had to say is that the answer is maybe. In a sense, this is not a surprising conclusion: it is just too hard to be sure what the best policy is in almost every setting in which this question comes up. At a more sensible level, however, maybe is an answer pregnant with possibilities. Most of these arise from two different types of observations: first, that intellectual property rights systems can inhibit innovation, or at least distort it in particular directions; and second, that competition and innovation are not inimical.

For me, as a competition policy practitioner, the argument that competition stimulates innovation is an important one, for it suggests that competition policy is not necessarily in conflict with the use of intellectual property rights to stimulate innovation. At a practical level, this argument seems to me to have two implications. First, it seems clear that one ought to regard restrictive licensing practices as just what they are: namely, restrictive practices. In this, as in many other areas of anti-trust, the rule of reason ought to apply. That is, such practices should be evaluated in the context of the benefits which they might or might not bring to consumers, in both the short and also the long run. Second, anything that substantially lessens, or adversely affects, competition in a particular market is, or should at least potentially be regarded as, a threat to innovation. And, finally, the need to stimulate innovation is the one thing that both competition policy and intellectual property rights have in common.

CONCLUSION
A statement of purpose (SOP) is always helpful in fixing targets and goals because fulfillment of a purpose is satisfying. We have to have an SOP to develop a pool of well informed and trained human resource, deploy sufficient facilities (hardware and software) and, create and promote an enabling environment for generating, protecting and managing intellectual property for progress of science, technology and arts leading to growth of trade and industry and well being of the society. People say that Rome was not built in a day. Any physical process, including development, has to absorb some finite time before taking a shape. We have made a good start by rising to the occasion and putting in place some very useful systems and policies. It is the beginning and we have to go a long way!

Conclusion In conclusion, while competition authorities need to ensure the co-existence of competition policy and intellectual property laws, they need not overlook the fact that the objectives of the two policies, though complementary, can also be conflicting, in which case there could be harm to society in terms of reduced welfare. Although putting exemption clauses in competition laws to cater for IPRs is a noble idea, the exemption should ensure that it leaves room for competition

authorities to carefully implement a rule of reason approach, on a case by case basis, to ensure that the innovation objective, which is the basis for IPRs, does not result in practices that are in violation to the competition laws. It will also be equally important that in the drafting of the IPRs in countries with competition laws, some references also be made to corresponding competition provisions to ensure co-existence.

CONCLUSIONS
The concept of intellectual property rights is a boon to the modern society as it not only prevents people from taking undue benefits from other peoples works but also gives them an incentive to create and innovate. It is almost impossible to imagine the present world without these rights where there would be no system to protect the works of creators and authors and anyone could copy anything without any acknowledgement to the creator! The intellectual property rights form the very backbone of the modern, industrial society.

CONCLUSION:The WIPO treaty & several related international agreements are promised on the notion that the protection of intellectual property rights are essential for maintain economic growth. The WIPO intellectual property handbook gives two reasons for intellectual property laws: One of to give statutory expression to moral and economic rights of creators in their creations and the rights of the pubic in access to those creations. The second is to promote, as a deliberate act of Govt. policy, creativity and the dissemination and approximation of its results and to encourage fair trading which would contribute to economic and social development.