From soenke.zehle at web.de Sun Nov 2 15:39:33 2003 From: soenke.zehle at web.de (Soenke Zehle) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 11:09:33 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] Saving Seeds Subjects Farmers to Suits Over Patent Message-ID: <000b01c3a129$6abeb500$fe78a8c0@szbqkbao9nnomh> [via BIO-IPR docserver] ________________________________________________________ TITLE: Saving Seeds Subjects Farmers to Suits Over Patent AUTHOR: Adam Liptak PUBLICATION: New York Times DATE: 2 November 2003 URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/national/02SEED.html ________________________________________________________ New York Times | 2 November 2003 SAVING SEEDS SUBJECTS FARMERS TO SUITS OVER PATENT By Adam Liptak Tupelo, Miss., Oct. 30 - Homan McFarling has been farming here all his life, growing mostly soybeans along with a little corn. After each harvest, he puts some seed aside. "Every farmer that ever farmed has saved some of his seed to plant again," he said. In 1998, Mr. McFarling bought 1,000 bags of genetically altered soybean seeds, and he did what he had always done. But the seeds, called Roundup Ready, are patented. When Monsanto, which holds the patent, learned what Mr. McFarling had sown, it sued him in federal court in St. Louis for patent infringement and was awarded $780,000. The company calls the planting of saved seed piracy, and it says it has won millions of dollars from farmers in lawsuits and settlements in such cases. Mr. McFarling's is the first to reach a federal appeals court, which will consider how the law should reconcile patented food with a practice as old as farming itself. If the appeals court rules against him, said Mr. McFarling, 61, he will be forced into bankruptcy and early retirement. "It doesn't look right for them to have a patent on something that you can grow yourself," he said. Janice Armstrong, a Monsanto spokeswoman, said the company invested hundreds of millions of dollars to develop the seed. "We need to protect our intellectual property so that we can continue to develop the next wave of products," she said. Were farmers allowed to replant the seed, the company said in its appeals court brief, "Monsanto would effectively, and rapidly, lose control of its rights." That is because one bag of the patented seed can produce about 36 bags of seed for use in the next growing season. The number grows exponentially. By the third season, the single bag of seed could generate almost 50,000 bags. Ms. Armstrong said that there are about 300,000 soybean farmers in the United States, and that Monsanto has disputes with only about 100 of them a year. Most disputes are resolved quickly and informally, she said. Farmers here said the company's efforts to investigate the replanting of saved seeds have been intrusive, divisive and heavy-handed. "They hired the whole city of Tupelo's night police force," said Mitchell Scruggs, 54, who is a defendant in another saved-seed lawsuit. "They bought a lot across the street from me for surveillance. They're spending all this money on airplanes, helicopters, detectives, lawyers." "They told a federal judge that it wasn't a monetary issue," Mr. Scruggs said over the roar of three cotton gins at his farm here. "They wanted to make an example of me. They want to destroy me to show others what could happen to them." In this respect, the seed lawsuits resemble the record industry's actions against people who share music files on the Internet. There, too, the goal is not primarily to recover money from particular defendants but to educate the public, and perhaps to scare other potential offenders. Ms. Armstrong acknowledges that Monsanto must walk a fine line. "These people are our customers," she said, "and we do value them. But we also have to protect our intellectual property rights." Legal experts say Monsanto is likely to win its appeal, in part because Mr. McFarling signed a standard contract when he bought the seed. He said he did not read the contract at the time and it had never occurred to him, until Monsanto contacted him with a $135,000 settlement offer, that he had done anything unlawful. He had paid about $24,000 for 1,000 bags of seeds, including a "technology fee" of $6.50 per bag. The contract, which Monsanto calls a technology agreement, said buyers could use the seed "only for a single season" and could not "save any seed produced from this crop for replanting." One judge, dissenting in an earlier appeal that upheld an injunction against Mr. McFarling, wrote that the boilerplate contract did not give Mr. McFarling a fighting chance. "The terms printed on the reverse of the technology agreement are not subject to negotiation and Monsanto's billions of dollars in assets far exceed McFarling's alleged net worth of $75,000," wrote Judge Raymond C. Clevenger III of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The same court is hearing Mr. McFarling's second appeal. "Even an attorney reading the technology agreement might not understand that it purports to subject one to patent liability in Missouri," where Monsanto is based, Judge Clevenger continued. Someone versed in the specialized decisions collected in law books might have understood it, he wrote, "but we may presume that few feed stores stock the Federal Reporter on their shelves." Lawyers for the farmers here have worked hard to frame defenses that might work in court. Mr. Scruggs, for instance, promises to attack the validity of the patents themselves and to show that the company's practices amount to a violation of antitrust laws. Mr. Scruggs said that unlike Mr. McFarling, he did not sign the technology agreement. Even without it, though, legal experts said the case against him was strong. The idea that planting saved seed amounts to patent infringement, they said, follows inexorably from two United States Supreme Court decisions allowing patents for life forms. Monsanto's soybean seeds account for at least two-thirds of the American soybean harvest. The seeds are called Roundup Ready because they are resistant to a popular herbicide called Roundup, which is also a Monsanto product. Mr. McFarling and Mr. Scruggs have been forbidden by court orders to use Monsanto's products. They said that conventional seed was perfectly good, but that effective herbicides had become hard to find. Mr. Scruggs said the courts should find a way to weigh traditions almost as old as humanity against fostering high-technology innovations. "It's a God-given right that farmers were given when they were born to save these seeds," he said. "All we are is farmers trying to scrape a living out of this dirt." Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company From shamnadbasheer at yahoo.co.in Sun Nov 2 17:10:15 2003 From: shamnadbasheer at yahoo.co.in (=?iso-8859-1?q?Shamnad=20Basheer?=) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 11:40:15 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Commons-Law] Saving Seeds Subjects Farmers to Suits Over Patent In-Reply-To: <000b01c3a129$6abeb500$fe78a8c0@szbqkbao9nnomh> Message-ID: <20031102114015.21880.qmail@web8007.mail.in.yahoo.com> Lets see if ancient farming traditions can pose an effective challenge to IP rights (in much the same way as AIDS). I am not too optimistic about a win on this ground-as the court is likely to state that there was no compulsion to use monsanto's genetically engineered seeds but that one could have very well used the normal ones. Again, I dont see them winning by claiming invalidity of the patent-the patent looks to be a strong one-and the debate on the ethics of life form patenting in the US is almost a non-issue now (unless of course, it involves a human being). I would be very interested though in how the court tackles the antitrust argument though (assuming that there is some merit in it). regards-Shamnad Soenke Zehle wrote: [via BIO-IPR docserver] ________________________________________________________ TITLE: Saving Seeds Subjects Farmers to Suits Over Patent AUTHOR: Adam Liptak PUBLICATION: New York Times DATE: 2 November 2003 URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/national/02SEED.html ________________________________________________________ New York Times | 2 November 2003 SAVING SEEDS SUBJECTS FARMERS TO SUITS OVER PATENT By Adam Liptak Tupelo, Miss., Oct. 30 - Homan McFarling has been farming here all his life, growing mostly soybeans along with a little corn. After each harvest, he puts some seed aside. "Every farmer that ever farmed has saved some of his seed to plant again," he said. In 1998, Mr. McFarling bought 1,000 bags of genetically altered soybean seeds, and he did what he had always done. But the seeds, called Roundup Ready, are patented. When Monsanto, which holds the patent, learned what Mr. McFarling had sown, it sued him in federal court in St. Louis for patent infringement and was awarded $780,000. The company calls the planting of saved seed piracy, and it says it has won millions of dollars from farmers in lawsuits and settlements in such cases. Mr. McFarling's is the first to reach a federal appeals court, which will consider how the law should reconcile patented food with a practice as old as farming itself. If the appeals court rules against him, said Mr. McFarling, 61, he will be forced into bankruptcy and early retirement. "It doesn't look right for them to have a patent on something that you can grow yourself," he said. Janice Armstrong, a Monsanto spokeswoman, said the company invested hundreds of millions of dollars to develop the seed. "We need to protect our intellectual property so that we can continue to develop the next wave of products," she said. Were farmers allowed to replant the seed, the company said in its appeals court brief, "Monsanto would effectively, and rapidly, lose control of its rights." That is because one bag of the patented seed can produce about 36 bags of seed for use in the next growing season. The number grows exponentially. By the third season, the single bag of seed could generate almost 50,000 bags. Ms. Armstrong said that there are about 300,000 soybean farmers in the United States, and that Monsanto has disputes with only about 100 of them a year. Most disputes are resolved quickly and informally, she said. Farmers here said the company's efforts to investigate the replanting of saved seeds have been intrusive, divisive and heavy-handed. "They hired the whole city of Tupelo's night police force," said Mitchell Scruggs, 54, who is a defendant in another saved-seed lawsuit. "They bought a lot across the street from me for surveillance. They're spending all this money on airplanes, helicopters, detectives, lawyers." "They told a federal judge that it wasn't a monetary issue," Mr. Scruggs said over the roar of three cotton gins at his farm here. "They wanted to make an example of me. They want to destroy me to show others what could happen to them." In this respect, the seed lawsuits resemble the record industry's actions against people who share music files on the Internet. There, too, the goal is not primarily to recover money from particular defendants but to educate the public, and perhaps to scare other potential offenders. Ms. Armstrong acknowledges that Monsanto must walk a fine line. "These people are our customers," she said, "and we do value them. But we also have to protect our intellectual property rights." Legal experts say Monsanto is likely to win its appeal, in part because Mr. McFarling signed a standard contract when he bought the seed. He said he did not read the contract at the time and it had never occurred to him, until Monsanto contacted him with a $135,000 settlement offer, that he had done anything unlawful. He had paid about $24,000 for 1,000 bags of seeds, including a "technology fee" of $6.50 per bag. The contract, which Monsanto calls a technology agreement, said buyers could use the seed "only for a single season" and could not "save any seed produced from this crop for replanting." One judge, dissenting in an earlier appeal that upheld an injunction against Mr. McFarling, wrote that the boilerplate contract did not give Mr. McFarling a fighting chance. "The terms printed on the reverse of the technology agreement are not subject to negotiation and Monsanto's billions of dollars in assets far exceed McFarling's alleged net worth of $75,000," wrote Judge Raymond C. Clevenger III of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The same court is hearing Mr. McFarling's second appeal. "Even an attorney reading the technology agreement might not understand that it purports to subject one to patent liability in Missouri," where Monsanto is based, Judge Clevenger continued. Someone versed in the specialized decisions collected in law books might have understood it, he wrote, "but we may presume that few feed stores stock the Federal Reporter on their shelves." Lawyers for the farmers here have worked hard to frame defenses that might work in court. Mr. Scruggs, for instance, promises to attack the validity of the patents themselves and to show that the company's practices amount to a violation of antitrust laws. Mr. Scruggs said that unlike Mr. McFarling, he did not sign the technology agreement. Even without it, though, legal experts said the case against him was strong. The idea that planting saved seed amounts to patent infringement, they said, follows inexorably from two United States Supreme Court decisions allowing patents for life forms. Monsanto's soybean seeds account for at least two-thirds of the American soybean harvest. The seeds are called Roundup Ready because they are resistant to a popular herbicide called Roundup, which is also a Monsanto product. Mr. McFarling and Mr. Scruggs have been forbidden by court orders to use Monsanto's products. They said that conventional seed was perfectly good, but that effective herbicides had become hard to find. Mr. Scruggs said the courts should find a way to weigh traditions almost as old as humanity against fostering high-technology innovations. "It's a God-given right that farmers were given when they were born to save these seeds," he said. "All we are is farmers trying to scrape a living out of this dirt." Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company _______________________________________________ commons-law mailing list commons-law at sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online.Post your profile. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20031102/c209404f/attachment.html From soenke.zehle at web.de Mon Nov 3 03:06:11 2003 From: soenke.zehle at web.de (Soenke Zehle) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:36:11 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] For HaidaBucks cafe, a bittersweet win Message-ID: <001701c3a189$56f45330$fe78a8c0@szbqkbao9nnomh> [via protecting knowledge] http://www.canada.com/victoria/timescolonist/columnists/story.asp?id=8849A44A-EE17-436F-9F3E-C4E785E8E536 For HaidaBucks cafe, a bittersweet win A future in franchises? Jack Knox Victoria Times Colonist Sunday, November 02, 2003 MASSET - Coming soon to a location near you: A HaidaBucks franchise. Maybe. Having faced down the giant Starbucks coffeeopolis in a trademark tussle, the owners of the little cafe in the Queen Charlotte Islands are thinking of branching out. They're talking to a West Virginia business consultant about franchising, capitalizing on this spring's well-publicized fight with the coffee giant. There have been expressions of interest from Toronto, the Okanagan, Vancouver, even -- ahem -- Seattle, Starbucks' corporate and spiritual home. But expressions of interest and $1.75 will buy you nothing more than a cup of HaidaBucks coffee. In the meantime, there's still the matter of the $8,000 legal bill the Masset cafe rang up before Starbucks backed down. "We're struggling," says Willis Parnell, 37, one of the eatery's four owners. Sure, the fuss generated a big Internet-based souvenir trade and a flood of curious tourists this summer, but HaidaBucks remains a little cafe teetering on the edge of the world. Starbucks is balking at paying the $8,000, so now the owners want to recover the money through small-claims court. "We just want to get it over with," says Parnell. Starbucks, having stepped in a knee-high public relations cow pie, must wish it had never begun. "We consider this matter closed and we don't have any additional comment," a Starbucks spokeswoman said Wednesday. This all goes back to 1999, when the four partners -- three of them Haida, the other married to a Haida woman -- opened the cafe in tiny Masset (pop. 1,500) at the very tippy-top of the islands they call Haida Gwaii. Parnell says the name reflects "who we are and where we reside." But then somebody from Starbucks came across a website carrying a photo of the HaidaBucks building, the cafe's circular logo above the door. In March, HaidaBucks got a rocket of a letter from a Vancouver law firm, telling it to change its name. Litigation followed. The owners refused to change, arguing that HaidaBucks, a full-service cafe, is hundreds of kilometres from the nearest Starbucks and looks nothing like one. When word of the lawsuit came out, HaidaBucks hit the headlines around the world. The BBC called for an interview from the U.K. "We were getting e-mails from England and Australia," says Parnell. An hour and a half down the road in Queen Charlotte City, Chubbie's Coffee Shop announced it would change its name to ChubbieBucks in solidarity. Way off in West Virginia, Lane Baldwin -- the consultant who is looking into the franchising idea -- waded in with a website (www.haidabuckscafe.com) that skewers Starbucks with some serious sarcasm. This wasn't good news for Starbucks. The company may make a consistently good cup of coffee, but it also depends on maintaining the cachet of a hip, smart, progressive outfit. That's a tall order when a company grows gargantuan -- and with 7,225 outlets worldwide and reported consolidated net revenue of $4.1 billion for the year ended Sept. 28, Starbucks is in danger of tilting into McDonald's territory. It doesn't want to become a symbol of corporate imperialism. That may be one reason Starbucks' website proudly states its commitment to corporate social responsibility: conservation in coffee-growing countries, neighbourhood cleanups, ethical investment policies, community literacy projects. It does not mention beating up the Indians. In midsummer, Starbucks declared victory in a manner befitting Saddam's information officer, saying HaidaBucks had made the necessary changes and the case was closed. Parnell says no changes were made, other than a different version of the logo appearing on the website. He acknowledges the publicity has had an upside. "It's been very good for our business. The tourists were all flocking here. "We probably sold 2,000 T-shirts." Plus 300 ceramic mugs and 200 of the stainless steel variety. "It's that David and Goliath scenario." Still, that doesn't mean HaidaBucks is booming, he says. The owners all work elsewhere -- Parnell runs the local recreation centre -- which means money that could be going into their pockets goes to pay employees instead. He's hoping something will come out of the franchising idea, a chain of cafes with a Haida theme -- a menu with halibut soup, perhaps -- emerging. But on this day the reality was he was in the kitchen of his Masset home, caring for two ailing daughters, aged two and three, cute and coughing. So much for big business. Down at HaidaBucks, customer Dick Grosse sucks on a mocha, just like he does every week when he and his buddies gather. "We thought it was a waste of time," he says when asked about Starbucks' suit. "We're in the middle of nowhere here." Not so far away that Starbucks could avoid the fallout, though. "I don't think they realized it would get that bad," says Grosse, wearing one of those HaidaBucks T-shirts. "It just got a lot bigger than they thought." Jack Knox is a columnist with the Victoria Times Colonist From Vaibhav at AnandAndAnand.com Mon Nov 3 12:46:44 2003 From: Vaibhav at AnandAndAnand.com (Vaibhav Vutts) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 12:46:44 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Saving Seeds Subjects Farmers to Suits Over Pat ent Message-ID: <313D5899403ED611906E0003470CECAC143254@TRANTOR> This case is very similar to Percy Schmeiser case ( a farmer in Canada) which also involved the Round-up Seeds. After much fighting Percy was able to garner a huge public support, but that did not change the stance of the court. I am really interested to know how the court is going to deal with anti-trust issue inteh present situation. On other issues Monsanto has the upper hand Regards Vaibhav Anand & Anand K-47, Kailash Colony New Delhi - 110 048 Phones: +91-11-51635900-7 Mobile: 9810618390 Fax: +91-11-51635908 - 9 __________________________________________________ Information contained in this mail is confidential and proprietary. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, then please note that any review, copying, or dissemination of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited. Further, we request you to notify us immediately by return email and delete all copies of this communication those are in your possession -----Original Message----- From: Shamnad Basheer [mailto:shamnadbasheer at yahoo.co.in] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 5:10 PM To: Soenke Zehle; commons-law at mail.sarai.net Subject: Re: [Commons-Law] Saving Seeds Subjects Farmers to Suits Over Patent Lets see if ancient farming traditions can pose an effective challenge to IP rights (in much the same way as AIDS). I am not too optimistic about a win on this ground-as the court is likely to state that there was no compulsion to use monsanto's genetically engineered seeds but that one could have very well used the normal ones. Again, I dont see them winning by claiming invalidity of the patent-the patent looks to be a strong one-and the debate on the ethics of life form patenting in the US is almost a non-issue now (unless of course, it involves a human being). I would be very interested though in how the court tackles the antitrust argument though (assuming that there is some merit in it). regards-Shamnad Soenke Zehle wrote: [via BIO-IPR docserver] ________________________________________________________ TITLE: Saving Seeds Subjects Farmers to Suits Over Patent AUTHOR: Adam Liptak PUBLICATION: New York Times DATE: 2 November 2003 URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/national/02SEED.html ________________________________________________________ New York Times | 2 November 2003 SAVING SEEDS SUBJECTS FARMERS TO SUITS OVER PATENT By Adam Liptak Tupelo, Miss., Oct. 30 - Homan McFarling has been farming here all his life, growing mostly soybeans along with a little corn. After each harvest, he puts some seed aside. "Every farmer that ever farmed has saved some of his seed to plant again," he said. In 1998, Mr. McFarling bought 1,000 bags of genetically altered soybean seeds, and he did what he had always done. But the seeds, called Roundup Ready, are patented. When Monsanto, which holds the patent, learned what Mr. McFarling had sown, it sued him in federal court in St. Louis for patent infringement and was awarded $780,000. The company calls the planting of saved seed piracy, and it says it has won millions of dollars from farmers in lawsuits and settlements in such cases. Mr. McFarling's is the first to reach a federal appeals court, which will consider how the law should reconcile patented food with a practice as old as farming itself. If the appeals court rules against him, said Mr. McFarling, 61, he will be forced into bankruptcy and early retirement. "It doesn't look right for them to have a patent on something that you can grow yourself," he said. Janice Armstrong, a Monsanto spokeswoman, said the company invested hundreds of millions of dollars to develop the seed. "We need to protect our intellectual property so that we can continue to develop the next wave of products," she said. Were farmers allowed to replant the seed, the company said in its appeals court brief, "Monsanto would effectively, and rapidly, lose control of its rights." That is because one bag of the patented seed can produce about 36 bags of seed for use in the next growing season. The number grows exponentially. By the third season, the single bag of seed could generate almost 50,000 bags. Ms. Armstrong said that there are about 300,000 soybean farmers in the United States, and that Monsanto has disputes with only about 100 of them a year. Most disputes are resolved quickly and informally, she said. Farmers here said the company's efforts to investigate the replanting of saved seeds have been intrusive, divisive and heavy-handed. "They hired the whole city of Tupelo's night police force," said Mitchell Scruggs, 54, who is a defendant in another saved-seed lawsuit. "They bought< BR>a lot across the street from me for surveillance. They're spending all this money on airplanes, helicopters, detectives, lawyers." "They told a federal judge that it wasn't a monetary issue," Mr. Scruggs said over the roar of three cotton gins at his farm here. "They wanted to make an example of me. They want to destroy me to show others what could happen to them." In this respect, the seed lawsuits resemble the record industry's actions against people who share music files on the Internet. There, too, the goal is not primarily to recover money from particular defendants but to educate the public, and perhaps to scare other potential offenders. Ms. Armstrong acknowledges that Monsanto must walk a fine line. "These people are our customers," she said, "and we do value them. But we also have to protect our intellectual property rights." Legal experts say Monsanto is likely to win its appeal, in part because Mr. McFarling signed a standard contract when he bought the seed. He said he did not read the contract at the time and it had never occurred to him, until Monsanto contacted him with a $135,000 settlement offer, that he had done anything unlawful. He had paid about $24,000 for 1,000 bags of seeds, including a "technology fee" of $6.50 per bag. The contract, which Monsanto calls a technology agreement, said buyers could use the seed "only for a single season" and could not "save any seed produced from this crop for replanting." One judge, dissenting in an earlier appeal that upheld an injunction against Mr. McFarling, wrote that the boilerplate contract did not give Mr. McFarling a fighting chance. "The terms printed on the reverse of the technology agreement are not subject to negotiation and Monsanto's billions of dollars in assets far exceed McFarling's alleged net worth of $75,000," wrote Judge Raymond C. Clevenger III of the United States C ourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The same court is hearing Mr. McFarling's second appeal. "Even an attorney reading the technology agreement might not understand that it purports to subject one to patent liability in Missouri," where Monsanto is based, Judge Clevenger continued. Someone versed in the specialized decisions collected in law books might have understood it, he wrote, "but we may presume that few feed stores stock the Federal Reporter on their shelves." Lawyers for the farmers here have worked hard to frame defenses that might work in court. Mr. Scruggs, for instance, promises to attack the validity of the patents themselves and to show that the company's practices amount to a violation of antitrust laws. Mr. Scruggs said that unlike Mr. McFarling, he did not sign the technology agreement. Even without it, though, legal experts said the case against him was strong. The idea that planting saved seed amounts to patent infringement, they said, follows inexorably from two United States Supreme Court decisions allowing patents for life forms. Monsanto's soybean seeds account for at least two-thirds of the American soybean harvest. The seeds are called Roundup Ready because they are resistant to a popular herbicide called Roundup, which is also a Monsanto product. Mr. McFarling and Mr. Scruggs have been forbidden by court orders to use Monsanto's products. They said that conventional seed was perfectly good, but that effective herbicides had become hard to find. Mr. Scruggs said the courts should find a way to weigh traditions almost as old as humanity against fostering high-technology innovations. "It's a God-given right that farmers were given when they were born to save these seeds," he said. "All we are is farmers trying to scrape a living out of this dirt." Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company _______________________________________________ commons-law mailing list commons-law at sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online. Post your profile. From shamnadbasheer at yahoo.co.in Mon Nov 3 18:39:39 2003 From: shamnadbasheer at yahoo.co.in (=?iso-8859-1?q?Shamnad=20Basheer?=) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:09:39 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Commons-Law] Saving Seeds Subjects Farmers to Suits Over Pat ent In-Reply-To: <313D5899403ED611906E0003470CECAC143254@TRANTOR> Message-ID: <20031103130939.28066.qmail@web8007.mail.in.yahoo.com> With one critical difference though-the percy case had the added dimension of seeds finding their way into percy's field, courtesy the wind (since percy's field was quite close to fields using the roundup canola seeds). A set of different issues, ranging from the defence of "innocent infringement" (possibly?) to even an "implied license" theory could lie a at the heart of this dispute. percy lost his case before two lower courts, but i understand that the case is now before the supreme court of canada. Lets wait and watch how they decide. The answer, at the end of the day, could well be blowing in the wind.... regards-shamnad Vaibhav Vutts wrote: This case is very similar to Percy Schmeiser case ( a farmer in Canada) which also involved the Round-up Seeds. After much fighting Percy was able to garner a huge public support, but that did not change the stance of the court. I am really interested to know how the court is going to deal with anti-trust issue inteh present situation. On other issues Monsanto has the upper hand Regards Vaibhav Anand & Anand K-47, Kailash Colony New Delhi - 110 048 Phones: +91-11-51635900-7 Mobile: 9810618390 Fax: +91-11-51635908 - 9 __________________________________________________ Information contained in this mail is confidential and proprietary. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, then please note that any review, copying, or dissemination of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited. Further, we request you to notify us immediately by return email and delete all copies of this communication those are in your possession -----Original Message----- From: Shamnad Basheer [mailto:shamnadbasheer at yahoo.co.in] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 5:10 PM To: Soenke Zehle; commons-law at mail.sarai.net Subject: Re: [Commons-Law] Saving Seeds Subjects Farmers to Suits Over Patent Lets see if ancient farming traditions can pose an effective challenge to IP rights (in much the same way as AIDS). I am not too optimistic about a win on this ground-as the court is likely to state that there was no compulsion to use monsanto's genetically engineered seeds but that one could have very well used the normal ones. Again, I dont see them winning by claiming invalidity of the patent-the patent looks to be a strong one-and the debate on the ethics of life form patenting in the US is almost a non-issue now (unless of course, it involves a human being). I would be very interested though in how the court tackles the antitrust argument though (assuming that there is some merit in it). regards-Shamnad Soenke Zehle wrote: [via BIO-IPR docserver] ________________________________________________________ TITLE: Saving Seeds Subjects Farmers to Suits Over Patent AUTHOR: Adam Liptak PUBLICATION: New York Times DATE: 2 November 2003 URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/national/02SEED.html ________________________________________________________ New York Times | 2 November 2003 SAVING SEEDS SUBJECTS FARMERS TO SUITS OVER PATENT By Adam Liptak Tupelo, Miss., Oct. 30 - Homan McFarling has been farming here all his life, growing mostly soybeans along with a little corn. After each harvest, he puts some seed aside. "Every farmer that ever farmed has saved some of his seed to plant again," he said. In 1998, Mr. McFarling bought 1,000 bags of genetically altered soybean seeds, and he did what he had always done. But the seeds, called Roundup Ready, are patented. When Monsanto, which holds the patent, learned what Mr. McFarling had sown, it sued him in federal court in St. Louis for patent infringement and was awarded $780,000. The company calls the planting of saved seed piracy, and it says it has won millions of dollars from farmers in lawsuits and settlements in such cases. Mr. McFarling's is the first to reach a federal appeals court, which will consider how the law should reconcile patented food with a practice as old as farming itself. If the appeals court rules against him, said Mr. McFarling, 61, he will be forced into bankruptcy and early retirement. "It doesn't look right for them to have a patent on something that you can grow yourself," he said. Janice Armstrong, a Monsanto spokeswoman, said the company invested hundreds of millions of dollars to develop the seed. "We need to protect our intellectual property so that we can continue to develop the next wave of products," she said. Were farmers allowed to replant the seed, the company said in its appeals court brief, "Monsanto would effectively, and rapidly, lose control of its rights." That is because one bag of the patented seed can produce about 36 bags of seed for use in the next growing season. The number grows exponentially. By the third season, the single bag of seed could generate almost 50,000 bags. Ms. Armstrong said that there are about 300,000 soybean farmers in the United States, and that Monsanto has disputes with only about 100 of them a year. Most disputes are resolved quickly and informally, she said. Farmers here said the company's efforts to investigate the replanting of saved seeds have been intrusive, divisive and heavy-handed. "They hired the whole city of Tupelo's night police force," said Mitchell Scruggs, 54, who is a defendant in another saved-seed lawsuit. "They bought< BR>a lot across the street from me for surveillance. They're spending all this money on airplanes, helicopters, detectives, lawyers." "They told a federal judge that it wasn't a monetary issue," Mr. Scruggs said over the roar of three cotton gins at his farm here. "They wanted to make an example of me. They want to destroy me to show others what could happen to them." In this respect, the seed lawsuits resemble the record industry's actions against people who share music files on the Internet. There, too, the goal is not primarily to recover money from particular defendants but to educate the public, and perhaps to scare other potential offenders. Ms. Armstrong acknowledges that Monsanto must walk a fine line. "These people are our customers," she said, "and we do value them. But we also have to protect our intellectual property rights." Legal experts say Monsanto is likely to win its appeal, in part because Mr. McFarling signed a standard contract when he bought the seed. He said he did not read the contract at the time and it had never occurred to him, until Monsanto contacted him with a $135,000 settlement offer, that he had done anything unlawful. He had paid about $24,000 for 1,000 bags of seeds, including a "technology fee" of $6.50 per bag. The contract, which Monsanto calls a technology agreement, said buyers could use the seed "only for a single season" and could not "save any seed produced from this crop for replanting." One judge, dissenting in an earlier appeal that upheld an injunction against Mr. McFarling, wrote that the boilerplate contract did not give Mr. McFarling a fighting chance. "The terms printed on the reverse of the technology agreement are not subject to negotiation and Monsanto's billions of dollars in assets far exceed McFarling's alleged net worth of $75,000," wrote Judge Raymond C. Clevenger III of the United States C ourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The same court is hearing Mr. McFarling's second appeal. "Even an attorney reading the technology agreement might not understand that it purports to subject one to patent liability in Missouri," where Monsanto is based, Judge Clevenger continued. Someone versed in the specialized decisions collected in law books might have understood it, he wrote, "but we may presume that few feed stores stock the Federal Reporter on their shelves." Lawyers for the farmers here have worked hard to frame defenses that might work in court. Mr. Scruggs, for instance, promises to attack the validity of the patents themselves and to show that the company's practices amount to a violation of antitrust laws. Mr. Scruggs said that unlike Mr. McFarling, he did not sign the technology agreement. Even without it, though, legal experts said the case against him was strong. The idea that planting saved seed amounts to patent infringement, they said, follows inexorably from two United States Supreme Court decisions allowing patents for life forms. Monsanto's soybean seeds account for at least two-thirds of the American soybean harvest. The seeds are called Roundup Ready because they are resistant to a popular herbicide called Roundup, which is also a Monsanto product. Mr. McFarling and Mr. Scruggs have been forbidden by court orders to use Monsanto's products. They said that conventional seed was perfectly good, but that effective herbicides had become hard to find. Mr. Scruggs said the courts should find a way to weigh traditions almost as old as humanity against fostering high-technology innovations. "It's a God-given right that farmers were given when they were born to save these seeds," he said. "All we are is farmers trying to scrape a living out of this dirt." Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company _______________________________________________ commons-law mailing list commons-law at sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online. Post your profile. _______________________________________________ commons-law mailing list commons-law at sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online.Post your profile. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20031103/f7392e75/attachment.html From soenke.zehle at web.de Mon Nov 3 18:49:58 2003 From: soenke.zehle at web.de (Soenke Zehle) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:19:58 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] New and Improved: GMOs Now Without Child Labor Message-ID: <009401c3a20d$a3553210$fe78a8c0@szbqkbao9nnomh> Looks like its easier to get a 'this product was made without child labor' label than a 'this-product-contains-GMO' label...sz [via gmwatch] This follows on from the scandal exposed earlier this year of around 17,000 children being used by Monsanto, and their Indian subsidiary Mahyco, in hazardous forms of child labour in cotton seed production in India. Children were working 13 hours a day forless than 40 Eurocents (Rs. 20) but were repeatedly being exposed to poisonous pesticides during their work. They were also getting no education. More than 11,000 children work under similar conditions for the multinationals Syngenta (Swiss), Advanta (Dutch-British) and Proagro (owned by Bayer from Germany). http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/2003/Monsanto-Unilever-Child-Labour17may03.htm Monsanto, it seems, has now been shamed into acting. Ranjana Smetacek of Monsanto India seems to have committed the company to rapid reform. "We consider this our responsibility," she has said, even though the company's president Hugh Grant is still ducking and diving on the issue. --- http://www.indiatogether.org/2003/oct/chi-cropmnc.htm No children on the farm Following allegations of wide-spread child labour in their business activities, foreign and Indian agri-business firms pledge to reform themselves. An update from The India Committe of the Netherlands. October 2003 - Seed multinationals Monsanto, Emergent Genetics, Hindustan Lever, Syngenta, Advanta and Proagro (a subsidiary of Bayer) as well as some big Indian seed companies, have agreed to co-operate with the MV Foundation in Andhra Pradesh - Magsaysay award winner Dr Shantha Sinha is the group's general secretary - to eliminate child labour from the cotton seed industry. The companies will come up with a concrete proposal shortly. This was the outcome of a meeting between the companies and the MV Foundation (MVF) in September in Hyberabad. The outcome is a real breakthrough in view of the ongoing debate on the issue. The companies who were present are all members of the 'Association of Seed Industry (ASI). The annual assembly of ASI also passed a resolution on September 13th 'to pro-actively discourage directly and through its members the practice of child labour in hybrid cotton seed production and further take effective steps along with other stakeholders towards eradication of this evil from the hybrid cotton seed industry'. These developments took place four to five months after the publication of a report on child labour in hybrid cotton seed production by the India Committee of the Netherlands (ICN). It was revealed that almost 250,000 children under fourteen years of age, mainly girls, work on hybrid cotton farms in Andhra Pradesh for long hours under hazardous conditions. Dr. Shantha Sinha , secretary of the MV Foundation and chairperson of the meeting, wrote to ICN: "'all companies recognised that children are being employed in the farms to which they have sub-contracted seed production. They also recognise that it is part of their corporate social responsibility to correct the situation"'. She told Global Ethics Monitor: "all of them agreed for the first time they were responsible, which was a very big gain." Swiss seed multinational Syngenta, after having met MVF in June 2003, had agreed to contact other seed majors to set up a joint monitoring effort in collaboration with the MV Foundation. Paswan Malik, head of Syngenta Seeds India, said that the formation of the group in September 'was an admission on behalf of the companies that they had responsibility for the actions of their contractors'. Also Ranjana Smetaceck, spokeswoman of Monsanto India, stated while referring to the joint meeting: "'We consider this our responsibility as everyone else would around the table". She added that it is a 'pretty realistic target' to eradicate child labour from the Indian hybrid cotton seed production in the coming six months. However, President Hugh Grant of Monsanto writes in a letter of September 18 2003 to the Washington-based International Labour Rights Fund that, being a minority owner of the Indian company Mahyco, they 'encourage Mahyco to discourage inappropriate child labour practices'. No reference is made to Monsanto's participation in the meeting in Hyderabad. Unilever and Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL) - its Indian subsidiary that markets several popular brand-name products, e.g. Close-Up, Surf, and Lipton - have rejected the accusation of using child labour in hybrid cotton seed production. Unilever stated that it made sure that its suppliers complied with the agreement not to use child labour. Both HLL and 'Paras' (in which HLL now has a 26% share) were present in Hyderabad. It was agreed in the meeting on 7th of September that the Association of Seed Industry would set up a Child Labour Eradication Group, including a representative from every company, that will conduct internal monitoring. This group will also co-operate with MV Foundation and others to design a collaborative work plan and facilitate external monitoring. According to Dr. Sinha's communication to ICN, this would include giving lists of farmers contracted by companies to MVF and monitoring of child labour through their local Child Rights Protection Committees. In addition training programmes, exposure visits and public meetings are envisaged. The MV Foundation also has a long and successful experience in mobilising communities against child labour and preparing working children to enter full-time formal education. During the last twelve years around 250,000 children have thus been withdrawn from work and entered into schools. MVF's view that 'no child should work and every child should be in full-time education' has also become the policy of the government Andhra Pradesh. In March 2004 there will be a new meeting of companies and MV Foundation together to take stock of the progress made. The India Committee of the Netherlands, Amnesty International Netherlands, Novib/Oxfam Netherlands and FNV Mondiaal will continue to monitor the results of the agreement reached with the MV Foundation and the resolution of the Association of Seed Industry. Gerard Oonk, The India Committee of the Netherlands October 2003 The India Committee of the Netherlands (ICN) is an independent NGO which informs the public in the Netherlands about India and how social, economic and political developments in the West influence the daily lives of millions of Indians. ICN's website is at http://www.indianet.nl From soenke.zehle at web.de Mon Nov 3 18:51:27 2003 From: soenke.zehle at web.de (Soenke Zehle) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:21:27 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] Crop Failure? Talk to Your Psychiatrist Message-ID: <009501c3a20d$a3cad740$fe78a8c0@szbqkbao9nnomh> [via gmwatch] GM Industry and Science BUSY EXPLOITING HUNGER By Devinder Sharma In the past four months, hundreds of farmers in Karnataka, ironically the hub of GM industry, have taken the fatal route to escape the pangs of hunger and the growing humiliation that comes along with crop failures. Unable to understand the ground realities, the Karnataka government has been thinking of sending psychiatrists to talk to farmers. The Andhra Pradesh government too has followed this misplaced vision. At the same time, in the past few months and for that matter a trend that continues from a couple of years, a few educated entrepreneurs in the Karnataka's Capital, Bangalore, have suddenly become the darlings of the state exchequer. Many foreign companies, most of them unable to operate in the hostile environment against GM crops in the west, have moved shop to Bangalore. Invariably, they all come with the promise of higher crop yields, nutritional crops, and with the underlying thrust of eradicating hunger. It isn't therefore surprising to see Bangalore hosting five-star conclaves every month or so and that too in the name of fighting hunger. None of the delegates, and I repeat none of them, have ever stepped out of the hotels to even visit and meet the families of those who laid down their lives essentially to sustain flawed policies, including the misplaced emphasis on crop biotechnology. The biotech epidemic has now spread wide. Karnataka is not the only state to have doled out state largesse to a handful of industrialists and business houses. If the recent surveys and reports in BioSpectrum is any indication, many other state governments are queuing with red carpet. Isn't it surprising that the same politicians who were once despised by the industrialists have now become their comrades in arm? Isn't it surprising that the same elite class that once blamed the 'politician-engineer-contractor' nexus for siphoning off the state funds, is now merrily part of the new age trio that comprises the 'politician-industry-scientist'? Industrialists are not alone. Let us examine the dubious role of agricultural scientists, part of the new age tribe. "When was the last time you had organised a national conference on farmers suicides?" I asked a group of distinguished agricultural scientists participating in a recent national seminar on the need for a strong regulatory mechanism for GM crops at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi. "When was the last time you had organized a meeting on the shameful paradox of plenty that continues to plague the country - millions living in abject hunger while the mountains of foodgrains rot in the open?" The resulting silence is deafening. In 2002-03, nearly 17 million tonnes from the unmanageable food surplus has been diverted for exports, and that too at a price that was actually meant for people living below the poverty line. Another six million tones were released for the trade at the same price. A year back, the country had a staggering food surplus of 62 million tones, stacked in the open and faced with the vagaries of the weather. A report of the Standing Committee of Parliament had estimated that the government was spending Rs 62,000 million every year to maintain these food stocks. If every bag of grain in the godowns was to be put in a row, it would stretch to the moon and back. Agricultural scientists have refrained to debate on this criminal apathy. GM industry too has very conveniently ducked this uncomfortable question. Both have instead joined hands to pry open whatever little that remains of the state exchequer. Aided and abetted by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), continue to organize seminars/workshops/conferences in league with the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Indian Council of Agricultural Research and the Tata Energy Research Institute on topics like the role of biotechnology in fighting hunger. If hunger at the time of plenty is a crime, if fighting hunger was a national priority, would not a more humanitarian task be addressed by coming out with recommendations on how to utilize the rotting food surpluses, on how to make the surplus food stocks reach those who need it most, on how to ensure that every citizen in the country is well fed? Shouldn't the politician-industry-scientist trio impress upon the government the folly of spending Rs 62,000 million in storing the grains and not spending the same amount on its distribution? Couldn't the industry come forward to help the nation fight the scourge of mankind? After all, there is no shortage of food. Precious resources are instead being diverted from poverty and hunger eradication to laying out an adequate regulatory mechanism (even if it is only on paper) so to welcome the genetic engineering industry from the United States and Europe - an industry, which is actually on the run. State governments are making available prime land, massive resources and tax-holidays, hoping that the sunrise industry will come to its rescue at the time of general elections. Agricultural scientists, knowing that the state has no money to even pay the monthly salaries, have found an alternate job opening to sustain their own livelihood. In the last few months, Monsanto, the torch bearer of the GM industry, has pulled out of Europe; cut up to 9 per cent of its global workforce, reported a $188 million loss; paid $600 million in compensation to 20,000 residents of Anniston, Alabama; seen a big drop in share value and now pulled out of Pharmaceutical Crops. In Britain, in what is seen as a major blow to the industry, Bayer Crop Sciences, a key GM crop developer, has decided to halt trials of genetically modified plants. Bayer was the last company carrying out GM trials in the UK. In recent months, more than 20,000 people in Britain had turned out in meetings and 37,000 people had filled in questionnaires in response to a nation wide debate, aptly called "GM Nation?" In an overwhelmingly clear verdict, 98 per cent of them rejected the introduction of GM crops, a majority of them were in fact hostile to the idea. In New Zealand, some 9,000 protestors had marched through the streets of Auckland, some call it the biggest demonstration since the Vietnam war, to show the government the groundswell of public opinion against GM crops. Far way in Brazil, the state of Parana, which declared itself a transgenics-free territory, has held some 800 trucks - some of them from Paraguay - carrying genetically modified soy. The biggest-ever scientific research trials, and that too carried by the British government science agencies, have established what was widely known and feared: GM crops do an irreparable damage to wildlife and biodiversity. Cross-pollination between GM plants and their wild relatives is inevitable and could create hybrid superweeds resistant to the most powerful herbicides. The results of the research trials, which too were rigged, were so obvious that scientists were actually unable to hide them any longer. Why did I say rigged, is because it subsequently became known that researchers had used a highly toxic chemical on the non-GM maize crop, while the GM crop was treated just once with another chemical, so allowing weeds and insects to thrive. And two years later after the controversy shrouding the contamination of maize - one of the world's most important food crops -- in its centre of origin in Mexico broke, the Mexican government (and also the scientific community) have now acknowledged that Mexico's traditional maize crop is contaminated with DNA from GM maize despite a government prohibition on the planting of GM seeds. The contamination is much widespread than what was earlier reported. Isn't it therefore worrying that despite the known facts, the Department of Biotechnology has given a green signal for research on GM corn in India? The hype that is being created through the gullible media is based more or less on lies. The Independent, London (Oct 12, 2003) screams: "Ministers knew of the environmental dangers, but the tests were designed not to focus on this." Wasn't the same prescription followed for the tests on Bt cotton in India? And as European Union Environment Commissioner, Margot Wallstrom, said: "They tried to lie to people, they tried to force it upon people ...So I hope they have definitely learned a lesson from it and especially when they now try to argue that this will try to solve the problems of starvation in the world. It will solve starvation among shareholders, but not the developing world unfortunately." In India too, spearheaded by the Department of Biotechnology, a massive disinformation campaign has been launched. The reason is simple: stakes are so high that if India rejects the faulty technology there will be no safe haven for the discredited industry. And India, which has traditionally accepted, and that too with a lot of respect, almost all kinds of rubbish from the western countries - be it cow dung, toxic wastes, obsolete industrial technology, sub-standard automobiles, cattle feed in the name of food commodities, no eyebrows are raised in accepting an unwanted technology, which comes with the more acceptable and emotional tag of removing hunger. In reality, neither the politicians, nor the industry and not even the agricultural scientists are actually interested anymore in fighting hunger. Under such circumstances, more and more state governments will follow the trend initiated by Andhra Pradesh -- build up a cadre of psychiatrists to advise farmers not to commit suicide. # From shamnadbasheer at yahoo.co.in Tue Nov 4 01:02:06 2003 From: shamnadbasheer at yahoo.co.in (=?iso-8859-1?q?Shamnad=20Basheer?=) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 19:32:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Commons-Law] Re: patents and antitrust In-Reply-To: <009501c3a20d$a3cad740$fe78a8c0@szbqkbao9nnomh> Message-ID: <20031103193206.58419.qmail@web8007.mail.in.yahoo.com> yet another indication that there is a growing awareness that antitrust may be the way forward in terms of tackling the evils of excessive monopolization brought about by IP. IP practitioners of course arent too happy-a severe cut in business is apprehended, should anitrust considerations begin informing these ticklish issues. Shamnad FTC’s patent initiative earns cool response Sam Mamudi,Washington DC and Ingrid Hering,London - 02 November 2003 A new report by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sparked controversy, with many intellectual property lawyers alarmed by the agency’s plans to intervene more in patent matters. The report, released on October 28, stems from a series of hearings held by the FTC and Department of Justice last year. Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Intellectual Property Law Association two days after the report was released, FTC chairman Timothy Muris warned that FTC analysis of IP matters will increase in the future. “One component of our mission is to bring a competition perspective to other government areas,” said Muris. “Because more antitrust issues are raising IP issues, we are increasing our expertise. Our involvement in IP is on a pretty steep upward curve.” Among the measures Muris announced were: more filing of court briefs by the FTC in patent cases; occasionally asking the head of the US Patent and Trademark Office to review patents; and creating a panel to work with both antitrust agencies and the Office on issues where IP and antitrust intersect. Muris stressed that the FTC is concerned that patents of questionable validity can slow innovation and raise costs for consumers. Arguing that the standard of proof for invalidating a patent should be the same as the standard used in granting one, the report suggests a new procedure where the burden of proof is the “preponderance of the evidence” rather than “clear and convincing” evidence. The recommendation is part of a package of regulatory and legislative measures to improve patent quality. “The FTC has some good objectives to see better and stronger patents and weed out weaker ones but it really does not understand how to achieve it,” said Harold Wegner, IP partner with Foley & Lardner in Washington DC. Echoing the sentiments of many practitioners, Wegner added: “The FTC is naïve to think that we should change the clear and convincing standard concerning the validity of a patent. To the extent that there would never be a clear title to patents even after many years with late challenges, this may create a disincentive to investment.” But Wegner said that other suggestions in the report would be broadly supported, such as improving Office funding, publishing patent applications 18 months after filing, and having a stronger test for enhanced damages for wilful infringement. David Balto, an antitrust partner with White & Case in Washington DC, described the report as “a balanced approach to making the patent system and protecting IP more sensible”. The most valuable aspect was a call to the Office to consider the competition aspects of the decisions it makes, explained Balto: “I think the greatest accomplishment of this report is illuminating the debate about how the scope of IP rights impacts competition and the incentive to innovate generally.” The FTC’s recommendations also include a further review of patents after they have been granted, and that competition concerns be considered in extending patent protection to new technologies. But despite the antitrust bar’s enthusiasm, the IP community was less than impressed with the report. Voicing a widely-held view among practitioners, one managing partner of a leading Washington DC IP law office told MIP Week: “I’m willing to bet anything that in six months time this report will be gathering dust somewhere, and will be completely forgotten.” Last week’s report will be followed early next year by a joint report from the FTC and Justice Department, which will make similar recommendations for antitrust law in relation to intellectual property. To read the report, please click here. Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online.Post your profile. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20031103/15503094/attachment.html From auskadi at tvcabo.co.mz Wed Nov 5 21:53:52 2003 From: auskadi at tvcabo.co.mz (Martin Hardie) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 18:23:52 +0200 Subject: [Commons-Law] Mozambique Open Source Message-ID: <200311051823.52468.auskadi@tvcabo.co.mz> Dear friends at Sarai Just a little note to let you know as a result of the UNIDO workshop held in Maputo, Mozambique last week in which our friends at Meraka (the Sth African OS Centre) helped out, the FLOSSers here in Mozambique are trying to get themselves a little organised. A preliminary site has been started which we expect to grow over the next few weeks. Stay tuned. http://mzoss.value-4u.net/ Regards Martin -- :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: http://openflows.org/~auskadi/ "Mind you, I am not asking you to bear witness to what you believe false, which would be a sin, but to testify falsely to what you believe true - which is a virtuous act because it compensates for lack of proof of something that certainly exists or happened."Bishop Otto to Baudolino From soenke.zehle at web.de Tue Nov 11 14:48:20 2003 From: soenke.zehle at web.de (Soenke Zehle) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:18:20 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] FWD - BIO-IPR Resource Pointer Message-ID: <002301c3a834$c0588ba0$fe78a8c0@szbqkbao9nnomh> I am not sure if this has been fwded to the list, apologies if it has. The material is collected and distributed (but not archived) by GRAIN, one of the 'transnational' NGOs most active (along with ETC, perhaps) on bio-ipr issues. I have relied on GRAIN material extensively for my own stuff, they reliably identify some of the most relevant pubs. sz BIO-IPR resource pointer ________________________________________________________ NEWS CLIPS Judy Steed, "Seeds of conflict", Toronto Star, 10 November 2003. (Percy Schmeiser vs. Monsanto reaches Canada's Supreme Court early next year. It's a 21st Century case study of technology.) http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1068419407653&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851 Megan Lindow, "Reaping New Meds From Old Cures", Wired News, 8 November 2003. http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,61090,00.html?tw=wn_techhead_1 Kristy Hemmingsen, "Is your wheat legal?", Country World News, East Texas Edition, 6 November 2003. (Syngenta is suing farmers for illegal sales under the US Plant Variety Protection Act.) http://www.countryworldnews.com/Editorial/ETX/2003/et1106wheat.htm Tamar Kahn, "SA, India to strengthen ties", Business Day, Johannesburg, 22 October 2003. (South Africa is planning to sign a number of bilateral agreements with India covering biotechnology, IT and safeguarding indigenous knowledge.) http://allafrica.com/stories/200310220324.html Gonzalo Argandoña, "Working with local scientists 'could stem biopiracy'", SciDev.Net, 22 October 2003. http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=readnews&itemid=1063&language=1 Frank Senge Kolma, "PNG, Malaysia to enhance trade ties", The National, Boroko, 27 October 2003. (Malaysia and Papua New Guinea plan to cooperate on biotechnology and biodiversity in the context of their trade and investment relations.) http://www.thenational.com.pg/1027/nation3.htm PAPERS & REPORTS John King and Paul Heisey, "Ag Biotech Patents: Who is Doing What?", Amber Waves, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, November 2003. http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/November03/DataFeature/ IPR Helpdesk, "The EC Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions", briefing paper, European Commission, DG Enterprise, Alicante, 3 November 2003, 7 pp. (Provides an up-to-date and country by country "state of play" regarding national implementation of the EU's life patenting directive.) In German and in English. http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/controlador.jsp?seccion=documentos&cuerpo=cuerpoSubsecFichaDoc&idFicha=0000001087&len=en Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, "OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2003", OECD, Paris, October 2003. (Data on indicators of the "knowledge-based economy" including biotechnology and patenting.) http://www.oecd.org/sti/scoreboard The papers from the WIPO-UPOV Symposium on Intellectual Property Rights in Plant Biotechnology organised by the World Intellectual Property Organisation and the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, Geneva, 24 October 2003, are online. http://www.upov.int/en/documents/Symposium2003/index1.htm Rajeswari Kanniah, "TRIPS, farmers' rights and food security: the issues at stake", Consumers International Regional Office Asia Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, October 2003, 33 pp. To request a copy, contact mailto:consint at ciroap.org Graham Dutfield and Florian Leverve, "Bioprospecting and Intellectual Property Protection", IPR Helpdesk, European Commission, DG Enterprise, Alicante, no date but announced in October 2003, 29 pp. http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/controlador.jsp?seccion=documentos&cuerpo=cuerpoSubsecFichaDoc&idFicha=0000002896&len=en "Genetically Engineered Crop and Animal Farmer Protection Act of 2003", a bill filed in the US House of Representatives (HR 2918) in July 2003 seeks to limit the terms of contracts that seed companies selling genetically modified crops impose on farmers. Would outlaw the corporate practice of prohibiting farmers from saving seed from their harvest or charging them a fee for it. HTML: http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr2918.html PDF: http://www.thecampaign.org/HR2918.pdf _________________________________________________________ ABOUT THIS LISTSERVER -- BIO-IPR is an irregular listserver put out by Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN). Its purpose is to circulate information about recent developments in the field of intellectual property rights related to biodiversity & associated knowledge. BIO-IPR is a strictly non-commercial and educational service for nonprofit organisations and individuals active in the struggle against IPRs on life. HOW TO PARTICIPATE -- To get on the mailing list, send a blank message to mailto:join-bio-ipr at titan.sparklist.com. To contribute material for posting, please send it to mailto:grain at baylink.mozcom.com. A note with further details about BIO-IPR is sent to all subscribers. ABOUT GRAIN -- For general information about GRAIN, please visit our website http://www.grain.org. From lawrenceliang99 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 12 10:05:57 2003 From: lawrenceliang99 at yahoo.com (Lawrence Liang) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:35:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Commons-Law] S'pore passes sweeping anti-hacker laws Message-ID: <20031112043557.2214.qmail@web13605.mail.yahoo.com> The Indian IT act is significantly inspired by the singapore law, hope we dont follow suit on this one lawrence S'pore passes sweeping anti-hacker laws By Staff, CNETAsia Wednesday, November 12 2003 9:04 AM SINGAPORE--The Computer Misuse Act passed on Monday, leading to concerns that the new and wide-ranging powers given to the government might lead to civil rights infringements. According to reports in the local press, the new law allows the government to empower any person or organization to take pre-emptive action based on 'credible information' against computer terrorism. This in effect means that persons can be held by the police even before they commit a computer crime. The definition of computer terrorism includes threats to a computer system that could jeopardize national security, essential services, defence or foreign relations. Some parliamentary representatives raised concerns over the new act, warning that the wide-ranging and open-ended provisions were necessary, they could become "an instrument of oppression itself", reported the Singapore daily, the Straits Times. Senior Minister of State Ho Peng Kee said in response that the government did not detail the measures that the minister can take because of the fast changing nature of computer threats and that the broad definitions would give the security agencies latitude to decide what actions to take. Ho said that MPs should not worry about abuse, and that law-abiding citizens did not need to worry about their privacy. Fewer checks and balances The MPs' questions point to the question of executive discretion, Straits Times daily writer Tan Tarn How said in a commentary. While the Misuse Act was passed by the Singapore parliament and will be applied by the Singapore courts, it is the executive branch of government that carries out and enforces the Act. Given the broad provisions of the Misuse Act, the executive branch has a great deal of leeway and unclear boundaries to its powers. He set out what he saw as the Singapore government's argument: "it would be too cumbersome to refer the details to Parliament, and it would be more efficient to allow the executive to change the rules as circumstances which require amendments to be made evolve." Singapore has a reputation for strict political control. The country has positioned itself as an IT hub for Asia, with the electronics sector accounting for nearly half of all manufacturing activities. There is a growing emphasis on higher-end IT services, together with education, medicine and biotechnology. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree From monica at sarai.net Wed Nov 12 21:59:09 2003 From: monica at sarai.net (Monica Narula) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:59:09 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] entertaining site license Message-ID: comrades this is the license you get when you open the eyebeam website (subtitle - distributed creativity, CC site - with some reservations) http://cordova.asap.um.maine.edu/~wagora/w-agora/list.php?bn=distributedcreativity_eyelaw also some other interesting links at the end. best M ELECTRONIC END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR VIEWING ILLEGAL ART EXHIBIT WEBSITE AND FOR USE OF LUMBER AND/OR PET OWNERSHIP NOTICE TO USER: BY METABOLIZING YOU ACCEPT ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, USE OF YOUR HOME AND CAR BY THE AUTHORS OF THIS AGREEMENT. This Website End User License Agreement accompanies the Web Pages and related explanatory materials ("Crap"). The term "Crap" also shall include any upgrades, modified versions, or repaintings of the Website licensed to you by either The Prince of Wales, a sentient washing machine, or my old Rabbi (the one who used profanity). Please read this Agreement carefully. At the end, you will be asked to accept this agreement and provide this Website with a warm, lingering, creepy hug. If you do not wish to accept this Agreement, simply click the "I do not accept" button while forcefully shoving your computer off the back of your desk ("Card Table"). Upon your acceptance of this Agreement, this Website grants to you a nonexclusive license to use this Website or your own Shoes ("The Dressy Ones"), provided that you agree to the following: 1. Use of the Website. 1.1 You may use this Website on a hard disk or other storage device. On a scrap of drywall with a Sharpie, install and use the Website on a file server or a tomato server for use on a network or a VHS copy of the motion picture "Network" or for the purposes of (i) permanent installation onto the small of your back at the base of your spine via a tattoo or other storage devices or (ii) for providing the illusion of working while at work (using the following methods of deception: looking intently at the screen, moving the mouse, and typing decisively on the keyboard); and make backup copies of the Website for later printing and spreading out in an alley to make a nice bed. 1.2 You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Website, including copies for commercial distribution, as long as each copy that you make and distribute contains this Agreement and is created in one of the following media: carved out of ice, as in an ice sculpture centerpiece; smeared in mustard on the side of a white or off-white panel van; or taught to a parrot who is then condemned to fly the earth for eternity, incessantly repeating the mantra of this Website. 2. Copyright and Trademark Rights. The Website is owned by its authors ("the Elks Clubs of America") and its suppliers. Its structure, organization, and code are the valuable trade secrets of the Freemasons, probably. The Website is also protected by United States Copyright Law and a group of big, scary goons who will happily beat you until you're ejecting teeth like a winning slot machine. Use of any trademark does not give you any rights of ownership in that trademark, jackass. Except as stated above, this Agreement does not grant you any intellectual property rights in the Website. Got it, fucko? 3. Restrictions. You agree not to modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the inner motivations, dreams, aspirations, or weird, possibly sexual fantasies of the Website. 4. No Warranty. The Website is being delivered to you AS IS and we make no warranty as to its use or performance. WE DO NOT AND CANNOT WARRANT THE PERFORMANCE OR RESULTS YOU MAY OBTAIN BY USING THE WEBSITE. LOOK, WHEN THIS WEBSITE GOES ALL CRAZY AND DESTROYS YOUR COMPUTER, KILLS YOUR PET, SLEEPS WITH YOUR SIGNIFICANT OTHER, DIGS UP ALL YOUR OLD POETRY AND LAUGHS AND LAUGHS, THEN CALLS UP YOUR FRIENDS AND READS THEM ALL THOSE REALLY EMBARRASING PARTS OUT OF YOUR JOURNAL, LIKE WHEN YOU SAID YOU WERE "DESTINED FOR BEAUTY" OR SOME SHIT LIKE THAT, WE MAKE NO GUARANTEES AND WILL SIMPLY JOIN WITH EVERYONE AND LAUGH AT YOUR SORRY ASS, BECAUSE DAMN, THERE'S NO FREAKING WARRANTY HERE. GET IT? NO WARRANTY. NONE. AT ALL. 6. Notice to Government End Users. The Software and Documentation are "Real Bitchin'," as that term is defined at 48 C.F.R. §2.101, consisting of "Real Bitchin' (formerly 'Radical' items)" and as such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. §12.212 or 48 C.F.R. §227.7202, as applicable. Or maybe 56 C.Fsomething something. 7. Oh, and these things, too: §§§§. Consistent with 48 C.F.R. §12.212 or 48 C.F.R. §§227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4, as applicable, as well as §R2-D2 and §JOHNNY 5, locked in a beautiful metallic embrace of everlasting robot love. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR ACCEPTANCE OR DECLINE OF THE FOREGOING AGREEMENT BY CLICKING ON THE APPROPRIATE BUTTON BELOW. I Agree |I do not agree by Jason Torchinsky http://www.illegal-art.org/ http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/ -- Monica Narula Sarai, CSDS 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110 054 www.sarai.net From soenke.zehle at web.de Thu Nov 13 03:00:07 2003 From: soenke.zehle at web.de (Soenke Zehle) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:30:07 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] Worth a Try? Don't-Support-GMOs- Letter to Gates Message-ID: <003401c3a964$25c420a0$fe78a8c0@szbqkbao9nnomh> Just got this, you probably followed the politics-of-foundations-controversy triggered by Gates' donation to the CGIAR. What do you think? Got to meet Shiva last week, she is a powerful speaker after all, and I have also been very intrigued by Mae-Wan Ho's stuff on horizontal gene transfer in particular and the work of Science in Society more generally, and both (see below) seem to think that this is worth a try...I'd be curious about BG's response, sz --- EMERGING PARTNERSHIP: MONSANTO & GATES For whose benefit??? Dear friends, The Gates Foundation is donating $25m for research to combat malnutrition using Genetic Engineering. David Fleming, Director of Global Health Strategies at the Gates Foundation said, "Vitamin and mineral deficiencies, which contribute to the deaths of millions of children each year, can be easily prevented by adding just a few key nutrients to staple foods." We need to put an end to this emerging partnership that will only support Monsanto morally and financially. Please submit your signature to oppose this act and circulate this letter. We plan to send the letter by next week!!! If you want to sign-on, please send your contact details (including your country) to the email address below. PLEASE specify if it is an individual or organizational endorsement that you are making. Your signature will be included at the end of the letter. Stop_Gates at yahoo.com Dear Bill and Melinda Gates, Your generosity for supporting initiatives in education, world health and population, and community has gained worldwide recognition. However, your recent announcement that you are donating $25m for research in GM food nutrition is based on some fallacious premises and will work against your stated mission and world-wide interest. Your investment ignores scientific evidence on the actual and potential risks of GMO and the benefit of superior alternatives (The Case for a GM Free Sustainable World, Independent Science Panel on GM). Citizens worldwide have shown a preference for alternatives such as biodiversity-based organic agriculture. Your contribution is thus NOT working for a safe and healthy nutrition, but is working AGAINST science and democracy. We are strongly urging you to withdraw your $25m to support a failing genetic engineering industry that is making false claims on improving nutrition The claim that Genetic Engineering is improving nutrition is scientifically flawed. GM potato is claimed to contain 45% more protein than traditional potatoes. The protein content of the ordinary potato is 1.6 grams per 100 grams. That is still nothing compared to 14.7gms of protein in100gm in Amaranth, or in peas (24.1 gm/100gm) or lentils (25.1 gm/100gm). According to Ramesh Bhat and S. Vasanthi of the National Institute of Nutrition at Hyderabad, to meet the RDA (Recommended Daily Allowance) for protein from GM potatoes alone, the children would need to consume 1.5 kg of potatoes per day! The infamous Golden Rice would never solve Vitamin A deficiency because it only contains 30 microgram of Vit. A per 100 grams of grain. It is far more inferior compared to carrots (217-434 mcg/100mg), spinach (600mcg) or radish leaves (750mcg). In fact, one would have to consume 9 kg of cooked rice everyday to reach the RDA. Whereas eating 2 carrots a day would more than satisfy the recommendation. Evidence from around the world, again and again confirms the failure of GM crops to deliver their promises. In 2002, the first commercial planting of Bt cotton in India was wiped out while non-GM varieties performed well, leaving GM planting farmers facing serious financial losses. A recent report from the UK field experiment clearly proved that GM crops significantly reduce wildlife, and they also find that contamination through pollination is many times higher than it was anticipated. (The Farm Scale Evaluations of spring-sown genetically modified crops, UK). Scientific evidences all point the uncertainty and instability of genetic engineering. Moreover, no research has been conducted to determine the long-term effect of GM crops on our health and the ecosystem. By supporting GM food, the industries and agencies that are pushing it undemocratically, you are threatening the choice of citizens around the world to have safe food. Only four countries are growing genetically modified crops, with the US accounting for over 75%. And across the world, only one company, Monsanto, accounts for 93% of GM crops grown. Most people still firmly reject this technology. More than 35 countries, including the entire European Union have taken precautionary steps by restricting the growing and importation of GM foods, and requiring labeling of all foods with genetically modified ingredients. Many regions and cities around the world have even banned or imposed a moratorium on GMOs. Your funding of GM, in effect, is creating a subsidy for Monsanto and undermining people's choice. By investing in GM food, you are increasing farmers' dependency on corporate agribusiness, threatening food security and biodiversity. Because of this dependency, many farmers are locked into high debts and as a result, farmer suicides, especially in developing countries, are increasing at an alarming rate. There are no socio-economic benefit in GM crops because of the expensive seed costs and royalties (Field Work: Weighing up the Costs and Benefits of GM Crops Strategy Unit of the Cabinet Office, UK). Instead of working for the interest of public good, you are favoring the interests of corporate agribusinesses. Millions of farmers around the world have demonstrated that they can produce sufficient nutritious food in a sustainable manner, without GMOs. 208 sustainable agriculture projects in 52 developing countries have shown productivity increases from 50 to 100%. (Reducing Food Poverty by Increasing Agriculture Sustainability in Developing Countries, J. N. Pretty et al.). If you really care about improving the health and nutrition of 3rd world communities we urge you to use your money to directly support small farmer-centered programs for biodiversity conservation and agro-ecology. Signed, Vandana Shiva, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology. Mae-wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society (I-SIS) Caroline Lucas, Member of the European Parliament, Green Party, UK Brian Tokar, Institute for Social Ecology Beth Burrows, Edmonds Institute Philip L.Bereano, University of Washington Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy Californians for GE Free Agriculture Center for Ethics and Toxics (CETOS) Organic Consumers Asssociation ---------------------------------- Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism PO Box 72 Tel: 001 (775) 574-0248 Nixon, NV 89424 Fax: 001 (775) 574-0345 www.ipcb.org ipcb at ipcb.org From sunil at mahiti.org Fri Nov 14 12:13:56 2003 From: sunil at mahiti.org (Sunil Abraham) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 06:43:56 +0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] SCO Targets Torvalds, Stallman Message-ID: <1068792235.782.6.camel@myBox> http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/2003/11/13/cz_dl_1113sco.html SCO Targets Torvalds, Stallman Daniel Lyons, 11.13.03, 11:28 AM ET NEW YORK - The legal battle between SCO Group and IBM is taking another ugly lurch forward. On Nov. 11, the same day that Forbes reported that IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ) had sent subpoenas to investors and analysts who supported SCO (nasdaq: SCOX - news - people )--and a day in which SCO shares suffered a 10% drop--SCO fired back, telling the court it would issue subpoenas to Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux free operating system kernel, and Richard Stallman, president of the Free Software Foundation. SCO won't say what it hopes to accomplish with the subpoenas. A SCO spokesman says he doesn't even know which subpoenas, if any, have been served. Torvalds says he got his Wednesday evening. Stallman says he hasn't received one yet. In addition to Torvalds and Stallman, SCO told the U.S. District Court in Utah it would issue subpoenas to Transmeta (nasdaq: TMTA - news - people ), a chip-design company that employs Torvalds; the Open Source Development Lab, where Torvalds currently works, on leave from Transmeta; software maker Novell (nasdaq: NOVL - news - people ); and Digeo, maker of Linux-based TV set-top boxes. SCO's move comes as part of the lawsuit it filed last March, claiming IBM put derivative code from Unix System V, an operating system for which SCO holds copyrights, into Linux, the free operating system kernel developed collaboratively by programmers around the world. SCO is seeking $3 billion in damages from IBM and hopes to collect license fees from companies that use Linux. Denying SCO's charges, IBM has filed counterclaims and launched an aggressive attack on SCO, a company based in Lindon, Utah, that had 2002 sales of $64 million. Oddly enough, on Nov. 11, SCO Executive Vice President Christopher Sontag complained to Forbes about IBM's decision to send subpoenas to investors and analysts who supported SCO. Sontag called the move "an attempt to bully and intimidate" and said IBM was engaged in "legal gamesmanship." So why didn't Sontag mention that, uh, SCO itself was about to target Torvalds and Stallman with subpoenas? SCO's spokesman says Sontag and Darl McBride, SCO's chief executive, did not know that SCO's lawyers were planning the move. But the "Who's on first?" act is tough to swallow since it turns out SCO notified IBM of its plans to seek discovery from these parties more than a month ago, on Oct. 5. And SCO told the court about its plans at 4:34 P.M. on Nov. 11, only hours after Sontag spoke to Forbes. "I have to think that SCO's management knew they were going to subpoena the biggest names in the free software and open-source movement. Torvalds and Stallman? Come on, they knew," says Brian Ferguson, an intellectual property attorney at McDermott, Will & Emery, a Washington, D.C., law firm, who has been following the case. Ferguson says it's no surprise that SCO wants to talk to Torvalds. He's the Finnish programmer who created the Linux operating system kernel 12 years ago and who oversees the process by which new features are added to Linux. Torvalds received a subpoena during dinner Wednesday night and says now he'll need to hire a lawyer. "Do you know any good lawyers in this area?" he asked via e-mail. "Just kidding." Stallman is another obvious candidate for SCO's legal hit men. Not only did he write much of the code that makes up the GNU/Linux operating system, but in 1989 he created the GNU General Public License under which Linux and many other free software programs are distributed. SCO has challenged the validity of the GPL. Stallman says the Boston-based Free Software Foundation, which he founded in 1985, has nothing to do with SCO's lawsuit. "SCO is suing IBM for violating a contract. We don't even know what the contract said. In terms of the resolution of that lawsuit, the Free Software Foundation is entirely uninvolved," he says. Stallman's GNU/Linux operating system is not the target of SCO's suit. Linux, the program SCO is targeting, is not an operating system, but only the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system, which could run using a different kernel. "I am concerned about long-term entrenched confusions such as referring to a version of our GNU OS as 'Linux' and thinking that our work on free software was motivated by the ideas associated with 'open source.' These confusions lead users away from the basic issue: their freedom. By comparison, the events involving SCO are transitory and almost trivial," Stallman says. A spokesman for OSDL in Beaverton, Ore., said the organization received a subpoena on Wednesday. OSDL, which employs Torvalds, is a nerve center for Linux development, where programmers are developing new versions of Linux aimed at high-end computers. As of late Wednesday, Novell, in Provo, Utah, had not been served with a subpoena, but a spokesman said the company would not be surprised to get one. Novell once owned the copyrights to Unix System V and last week announced an agreement to acquire SuSE Linux, a top Linux distributor. Transmeta and Digeo spokespeople said they didn't know if their companies have received subpoenas or why SCO would target them. What's the point of hassling people who make chips and set-top boxes? Don't ask SCO's top execs. They don't know anything about this stuff, remember? -- Sunil Abraham, sunil at mahiti.org http://www.mahiti.org MAHITI Infotech Pvt. Ltd.'Reducing the cost and complexity of ICTs' 314/1, 7th Cross, Domlur Bangalore - 560 071 Karnataka, INDIA Ph/Fax: +91 80 4150580. Mobile: 98455 12611 "If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw From sunil at mahiti.org Fri Nov 14 12:18:45 2003 From: sunil at mahiti.org (Sunil Abraham) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 06:48:45 +0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Hackers defense: The computer did it Message-ID: <1068792525.782.8.camel@myBox> http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/10/28/hacker.defense.reut/index.html SAN FRANCISCO, California (Reuters) -- Prosecutors looking to throw the book at accused computer hackers have come across a legal defense expected to become even more widespread in an era of hijacked PCs and laptops that threatens to blur the lines of personal responsibility: the computer did it. In one case that was being watched as a bellwether by computer security experts, Aaron Caffrey, 19, was acquitted earlier this month in the United Kingdom on charges of hacking into the computer system of the Houston Pilots, an independent contractor for the Port of Houston, in September 2001. Caffrey had been charged with breaking into the system and crippling the server that provides scheduling information for all ships entering the world's sixth-largest port. Although authorities traced the hack back to Caffrey's computer, he said that someone must have remotely planted a program, called a "trojan," onto his computer that did the hacking and that could have been programmed to self-destruct. In two other cases, British men were accused of downloading child pornography but their attorneys successfully argued that trojan programs found on their computers were to blame. In all three cases, no one has suggested that the verdicts were anything other than correct. Some legal and security experts say the trojan defense is a valid one because computer hijacking occurs all the time and savvy hackers can easily cover their tracks. "I've seen cases where there is a similar defense and it could work or not work based on corroborating evidence" such as how technical the defendant is, said Jennifer Stisa Granick, clinical director of the Sanford Law Center for Internet and Society. It is relatively easy to trace a hack back to a particular computer, but proving that a specific person committed the crime is much more difficult, she and others said. Someone other than the computer owner could use the machine, either by gaining physical access or remotely installing trojan software that was slipped onto the computer via an e-mail sent to the computer owner or downloaded from a malicious Web site, they said. "On the one hand, this is 100 percent correct that you can not make that jump from computer to keyboard to person," said Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer at Counterpane Internet Security based in Cupertino, California. "On the other hand, this defense could [be used] to acquit everybody. "It makes prosecuting the guilty harder, but that's a good thing," he added. Mark Rasch, former head of the U.S. Department of Justice computer crime unit, agreed. "The more difficult problem is people could actually go to jail for something they didn't do" as a result of trojan programs, said Rasch, chief security counsel for computer security provider Solutionary. "If I want to do something illegal I want to do it on someone else's machine." But Dave Morrell, a computer consultant for the Houston Pilots who worked with the FBI after the attack, said the defense also opened the door to hackers. "It sets a precedent now in the judicial system where a hacker can just claim somebody took over his computer, the program vanished and he's free and clear," he said Michael Allison, chief executive of computer forensics firm Internet Crimes Group in Princeton, New Jersey, said experts should have been able to prove if there had been a trojan on the computer in question. The defense is likely to become more widespread especially given the increasing use of "spyware" programs that can be used by hackers to steal passwords and essentially eavesdrop on a computer user, experts said. "The emergence of spyware will only enhance these claims," said Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa Law School in Canada. "We're going to have to sort through the level of responsibility a person has for operating their own computer." The trojan defense has not yet been put to the test in the United States. -- Sunil Abraham, sunil at mahiti.org http://www.mahiti.org MAHITI Infotech Pvt. Ltd.'Reducing the cost and complexity of ICTs' 314/1, 7th Cross, Domlur Bangalore - 560 071 Karnataka, INDIA Ph/Fax: +91 80 4150580. Mobile: 98455 12611 "If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw From paivakil at yahoo.co.in Thu Nov 20 00:23:01 2003 From: paivakil at yahoo.co.in (Mahesh T. Pai) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:23:01 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] RMS on Software in schools. Message-ID: <20031119185301.GA1904@nandini> An interesting quote from Richard M. Stallman. >From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/schools.html Why schools should use exclusively free software by Richard Stallman There are general reasons why all computer users should insist on free software. It gives users the freedom to control their own computers--with proprietary software, the computer does what the software owner wants it to do, not what you want it to do. And it gives users the freedom to cooperate with each other, to lead an upright life. These apply to schools as they do to everyone. But there are special reasons that apply to schools. First, free software can save the schools money. Even in the richest countries, schools are short of money. Free software gives schools, like other users, the freedom to copy and redistribute the software, so the school system can make copies for all the computers in all the schools. In poor countries, this can help close the digital divide. This obvious reason, while important, is rather shallow. And proprietary software developers can eliminate this disadvantage by donating copies to the schools. (Watch out!--a school that accepts this offer may have to pay for future upgrades.) So let's look at the deeper reasons. School should teach students ways of life that will benefit society as a whole. They should promote the use of free software just as they promote recycling. If schools teach students free software, then the students will use free software after they graduate. This will help society as a whole escape from being dominated (and gouged) by megacorporations. Those corporations offer free samples to schools for the same reason tobacco companies distribute free cigarettes: to get children addicted (1). They will not give discounts to these students once they grow up and graduate. Free software permits students to learn how software works. When students reach their teens, some of them want to learn everything there is to know about their computer system and its software. That is the age when people who will be good programmers should learn it. To learn to write software well, students need to read lots of software and write lots of software. They need to read and understand real programs that people really use. They will be intensely curious to read the source code of the programs that they use. Proprietary software rejects their thirst for knowledge; it says, "The knowledge you want is a secret--learning is forbidden!" Free software encourages everyone to learn. The free software community rejects the "priesthood of technology", which keeps the general public in ignorance of how technology works; we encourage students of any age and situation to read the source code and learn as much as they want to know. Schools that use free software will encourage those who are gifted in software to advance. The next reason is even deeper than that. We expect schools to teach students basic facts, and useful skills, but that is not their whole job. The most fundamental mission of schools is to teach people to be good citizens and good neighbors--to cooperate with others who need their help. In the area of computers, this means teaching them to share software. Elementary schools, above all, should tell their pupils, "If you bring software to school, you must share it with the other children." Of course, the school must practice what it preaches: all the software installed by the school should be available for students to copy, take home, and redistribute further. Teaching the students to use free software, and to participate in the free software community, is a hands-on civics lesson. It also teaches students the role model of public service rather than that of tycoons. All levels of school should use free software. (1). RJ Reynolds tobacco company was fined $15m in 2002 for handing out free samples of cigarettes at events aimed at children. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/features/health/tobaccotrial/usa.htm. Copyright 2003 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved. -- +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://in.geocities.com/paivakil +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ From thehindu at web1.hinduonnet.com Sat Nov 22 12:15:42 2003 From: thehindu at web1.hinduonnet.com (thehindu at web1.hinduonnet.com) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:15:42 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Article from The Hindu: Sent to you by Mahesh T. Pai Message-ID: <200311220645.hAM6jgBa023314@web1.hinduonnet.com> ============================================================= This article has been sent to you by Mahesh T. Pai ( paivakil at yahoo.co.in ) ============================================================= Source: Opinion - Leader Page Articles    The free software option By C. Rammanohar Reddy The UNCTAD report suggests that there are many advantages to be had if the developing countries seriously explore the use of free or open source software as against the proprietary licence-to-use software. INDIA AS the back office capital of the world is the new mantra that is being chanted for the country's entry into the league of developed countries. The rapid growth of Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) contracts to India is behind this mantra. The more perceptive observers point out that while there are many high-profile BPO activities that have moved to India, only a very small proportion of the businesses that can be out-sourced have been contracted out, and, of that, an even smaller fraction has come to India. The larger question, however, is if India can really ignore manufacturing altogether and pin its future hopes so much on servicing the rest of the world. The answer is "no"; services like BPO can make an important contribution to India's GDP but they cannot replace the potential of manufacturing. The obsession with software exports in general and increasingly with the BPO segment, has had an unfortunate side-effect. "Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) for development," which was much talked about in the late 1990s, has now been reduced to an empty slogan. There are no doubt a number of e-governance initiatives in the States, but if we are talking about a serious attempt at using IT for development, then that effort is largely absent. Of course, the fundamental problem is that the basic infrastructure necessary for this purpose is not yet in place. In spite of a rapid increase in tele-density over the past 18 months, the telecom infrastructure is woefully inadequate. And while internet use keeps growing rapidly, the population of internet users (estimated at 7 million in 2001) in India is far too small to speak about using phones, computers and the Net for development. Any serious attempt at harnessing the power of the new technologies must begin with expanding the infrastructure. Here, while there is at least an awareness of the gaps in telecom and the cost of computer hardware, there is very little acknowledgement of the demands that software in its various forms can make on users. A new United Nations publication, "E-commerce and Development Report 2003" of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development offers important insights into the kind of software that developing countries can use if they are serious about bridging the "digital divide". The UNCTAD report suggests that there are many advantages to be had if the developing countries seriously explore the use of free or open source software (FOSS, also referred to as FLOSS, or Free Libre or Open Source Software) as against the proprietary licence-to-use software that now dominates the IT sector in the developing countries. Free software, as a popular slogan of the FOSS community describes it, is "`free' as in `free' speech and not as in `free' beer". What marks out FOSS is that because the code — the hundreds of thousands of lines of instructions that make up the software — is available to the larger computer programmer community, it is constantly improved upon, modified, tested and the problems removed. This is not possible in the use of proprietary software, where users are dependent on the licensors of the product. Users have no choice but to turn to the software "proprietors" for correcting the smallest flaws. Worldwide, the growth of open source software has been remarkable in recent years. But in spite of the fact that India is home to perhaps thousands of programmers who have contributed to the development of FOSS, whose best-known product is the Linux/GNU operating system, it is yet to be taken very seriously by either the Government or the corporates. Universities do use FOSS on a fairly widespread basis and the odd State Government has explored the possibility of using open source software, but this software is still not considered a reliable mainstream product. But reliable and mainstream FOSS already is. UNCTAD reports some statistics, which establish how deeply entrenched FOSS products have become in many areas. One, Apache, the open source software which runs on web servers, now has a market share of 63 per cent, more than twice that of Microsoft products. Two, GNU/Linux has a 30 per cent share in the operating system used on web servers, while the proprietary Windows ha! s a 50 per cent market share. Three, 40 per cent of large U.S. corporations and 65 per cent of comparable Japanese firms are reported to use GNU/Linux in some form or the other. FOSS products have also proved themselves in the market. In a survey last August, the 20 web servers which had the longest uninterrupted uptime (without a breakdown) in the world were, in all but one case, running on FOSS operating systems. Since FOSS is non-proprietary software, the initial cost of acquisition is considerably less than proprietary software. However, while the saving on upfront costs can be a major incentive in developing countries, this is not the only cost to be taken into account. What is relevant is the total cost of ownership (TCO), which consists of the cost of acquisition, training, deployment, maintenance, repair and upgradation. UNCTAD's cautious assessment is that the "jury is out" on where FOSS stands on the total cost of ownership for, while the upfront costs are considerably less the training and deployment outlays can be as high as in proprietary software. Yet with FOSS suffering from fewer bugs and less downtime, the savings on maintenance costs will be considerable. For governments in developing countries with limited IT budgets, savings on costs — even just on upfront costs — can be a significant factor in aiding the spread of ICT. However, as the UNCTAD report points out there are a number of other advantages of special relevance in developing countries. The availability of the source code of FOSS facilitates involvement of a large domestic programmer community in repair and maintenance activity. This contributes to skill development at home. Overall, to quote the UNCTAD report, "The availability of source code makes it possible to use in-house expertise to fix bugs or change configurations, as well as to hire external support from a competitive market that anyone can enter. What seems clear is that FOSS can help a business or a public institution avoid getting into a vicious circle of hardware and software upgrades, and changes in data formats that require investing in new licence fees and significant retraining and can pro! voke major down time." And "the use of free software means that installation, training, support, and maintenance can be flexibly contracted out to a range of local suppliers competing on quality and price." Governments of a number of developing countries have already decided in greater or lesser degree to turn to FOSS. China, Brazil and South Africa are the most well-known examples. In addition to the advantages of cost and reliability, the increased security provided by the use of FOSS is a factor that has prompted a growing number of developing countries to turn to this software. No Government has as yet decided to make a 100 per cent shift, but the explicit policy directions given in national and regional governments to use open source software is a pointer to which way the wind is blowing. Governments in the advanced countries — including the U.S. — are also increasingly using FOSS because of its advantages in costs, reliability and security. In the developed countries, FOSS is close to replacing proprietary software in the "back offices", but on the desktop it is still the latter which has almost a complete dominance. The non-availability of a wide range of applications for the individual user and a perceived difficulty in initial installation of the FOSS operating system have held back the spread of open source software in homes. However, it is just a question of time before the spreading use in offices leads to adoption at home. A new problem that has emerged is that a few U.S.-based companies selling FOSS operating system software have been slapped with suits for alleged infringement of intellectual property rights. This has created some uncertainty about the future of the core operating system. With commercial interests having a strong stake in arresting the development of FOSS, it is inevitable that every possible attempt will be made to halt the spreading use of open source software. This, however, need no! t come in the way of developing country governments switching to FOSS. Next month, the U.N.-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society will discuss the many options possible to use ICT for development. The use of FOSS as an option to save costs, develop IT skills and facilitate the adoption of open standards will hopefully figure prominently on the WSIS agenda. Copyright: 1995 - 2002 The Hindu Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the consent of The Hindu From jeebesh at sarai.net Sat Nov 29 20:55:16 2003 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:55:16 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] open access source for Law Message-ID: <200311292055.16539.jeebesh@sarai.net> > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 06:50:48 +0000 (GMT) > From: > Subject: Fwd: Central versus institutional > Friends: > > There is an open access source for Law (SSRN). > Please read on. > > Arun > > --- Bernie Black wrote: > > Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 04:12:25 +0000 > > > From: Bernie Black > > > > > Subject: Central versus institutional > > self-archiving > > To: > > SEPTEMBER98-FORUM at LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG > > > > I think it is an open question whether centralized > > or distributed archiving > > will dominate. Maybe both can coexist. A good > > copyright agreement ought > > to allow both. Then SSRN can pursue its > > centralized > > > strategy, and > > individual authors/schools can pursue distributed > > strategies. The bet of > > the law reviews, and the for-profit peer-review > > journals as well, is that > > distributed archiving is not a threat (which is > > why > > > they allow posting to a > > personal web page), but centralized archiving such > > as SSRN provides is. > > > > As long as authors keep sufficient copyright, they > > can use one, the other, > > or both. That's my goal here. > > > > Bernie **************************************************************** > > Professor Bernard S. Black tel: > > 650-725-9845 > > > Stanford Law School fax: > > 650-725-0684 > > Stanford CA 94305 home: > > 650-854-6574 > > bblack at stanford.edu cell: > > 650-218-0626 > > papers on SSRN at: http://ssrn.com/author=16042 **************************************************************** ________________________________________________________________________ > Want to chat instantly with your online friends? > Get the FREE Yahoo! > Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk ________________________________________________________________________ Download Yahoo! Messenger now for a chance to win Live At Knebworth DVDs http://www.yahoo.co.uk/robbiewilliams ------------------------------------------------------- -- Jeebesh Bagchi Sarai/CSDS 29 Rajpur Road Delhi 110054 Ph: 91 11 23960040 From sunil at mahiti.org Sun Nov 30 19:47:17 2003 From: sunil at mahiti.org (sunil abraham) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:47:17 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] open access source for Law In-Reply-To: <200311292055.16539.jeebesh@sarai.net> References: <200311292055.16539.jeebesh@sarai.net> Message-ID: <1070201837.911.27.camel@box> Here is an extract of a mail from Dr. Arunachalam on the licenses for open access. Dear Sunil: You are right. Freedom 3. You don't modify someone else's research paper. If you want to advance or modify or point out an error, you write another paper! Freedom 4. You may redistribute the original or just alert the people to the archives so others can download the original. You may read Stevan Harnad's writings on this subject. He is known for his clarity and prodigious output. I am marking a copy of this correspondence to him. Best wishes. Arun --- sunil abraham wrote: > Dear Dr. Arunachalam, Yes, I did read you mails with great access. And I agree with you that here are many parallel between the open access and open source movement. However I am newbie as far as open access is concerned so please forgive my ignorance. I need a clarification on the degree of freedom afforded in by license. According to me: Freedoms available in Open Access and Free Software 1. Freedom of use 2. Freedom of study Freedoms available only in Free Software 3. Freedom to modify 4. Freedom to redistribute original and original + modifications for free or for a fee Please confirm if this is true. If the Open Access project provides all 4 freedoms I will devote time vehemently evangelising for it. Otherwise the GPL seems to be a better license for the collaborative production of knowledge. Thanks, Sunil -- Sunil Abraham, sunil at mahiti.org http://www.mahiti.org MAHITI Infotech Pvt. Ltd.'Reducing the cost and complexity of ICTs' 314/1, 7th Cross, Domlur Bangalore - 560 071 Karnataka, INDIA Ph/Fax: +91 80 4150580. Mobile: 98455 12611 "If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw