From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Sat Oct 1 01:46:51 2005 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:16:51 -0400 Subject: [Commons-Law] Pubpat: SCOTUS Briefs on Patent Holders Stopping Competition Message-ID: <433D9D33.C3172F63@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: PUBPAT News: PUBPAT FILES BRIEFS WITH SUPREME COURT IN CASES INVOLVINGTHE EXTENT TO WHICH PATENT HOLDERS ARE ALLOWED TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:21:05 -0400 From: Public Patent Foundation To: PUBPAT News List PUBPAT FILES BRIEFS WITH SUPREME COURT IN CASES INVOLVING THE EXTENT TO WHICH PATENT HOLDERS ARE ALLOWED TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION NEW YORK -- September 30, 2005 -- The Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT") filed briefs with the United States Supreme Court this week in two separate cases involving the use of patents to destroy competition. The first brief, filed Wednesday with coauthors AARP and Consumer's Union, involves the leveraging of a patent through tying arrangements to retrain competition in markets for goods not covered by the patent. The second brief, filed today in support of the Federal Trade Commission, addresses the collusive settlement of a patent infringement lawsuit whereby a potential competitor agrees not to enter the market in exchange for a payment from the patent holder. “In two separate cases this term, the Supreme Court is being asked whether having a patent means you have free reign to destroy competition any way you see fit," said PUBPAT Executive Director, Dan Ravicher. "In one case you have a patent holder forcing people to buy something they don't want or need and in the other you have two pharmaceutical companies conspiring to share the profits from only one of them selling a drug instead of having to compete with one another. Such anti-competitive behavior disregards the fundamental American principle of a fair marketplace where consumers benefit from greater choice and lower prices." The joint AARP, PUBPAT and Consumer's Union brief, filed in the case Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., identified for the Court the growing trend in the pharmaceutical industry of so-called “combination” pills that combine a patent protected drug with another drug not covered by a patent that would otherwise be subject to full competition. By selling a patented drug only as part of a combination pill, pharmaceutical companies force patients to purchase their version of the unpatented drug, regardless of whether it is the safest or most effective version that is available to them. Today's brief, filed in Federal Trade Commission v. Schering-Plough Corp., highlighted for the court the fact that no patent gives its owner the right to exclude from the marketplace all products. As such, the lower court's assumption that a patent owner will be successful in asserting its patent against any given product was wrong and will, if left uncorrected, be harmful to America's competition-based economy. More information about PUBPAT's briefs to the United States Supreme Court, including complete copies of the briefs, can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/Educating_and_Advocating.htm. Contact: Jill Ratkevic, Bite Communications: (415) 365-0482; Jill.Ratkevic at bitepr.com. About PUBPAT: The Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT") is a not-for-profit legal services organization working to protect the public from the harms caused by the patent system, particularly the harms caused by wrongly issued patents and unsound patent policy. PUBPAT provides the general public and those specific persons or businesses otherwise deprived of access to the system governing patents, with representation, advocacy, and education. To be kept informed of PUBPAT News, subscribe to the PUBPAT News List by sending an email with "subscribe" in the subject line to news-request at pubpat.org. To be removed from the PUBPAT News List, send an email with "unsubscribe" in the subject line to news-request at pubpat.org. ### From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Sat Oct 1 21:48:25 2005 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 12:18:25 -0400 Subject: [Commons-Law] FSF Europe & Latin America Address to WIPO GA Message-ID: <433EB6D1.C0345D2A@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Statement of the Free Software Foundations Europe & Latin Americato the 2005 WIPO general assemblies Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 07:09:17 -0300 From: "Georg C. F. Greve" ,Georg C F Greve To: discussion at fsfeurope.org > http://fsfeurope.org/projects/wipo/statement-20050930.en.html Statement of the Free Software Foundations Free Software Foundation Europe Free Software Foundation Latin America towards the 2005 WIPO general assemblies Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Free Software Foundations Europe and Latin America, let me express my congratulations to you and your colleagues on your chairing this historic general assembly. The Free Software Foundations are globally active centres of expertise acting in a network of sister organisations based in India, Latin America, Europe and the United States of America. Our area of expertise are the issues raised by a digitised society and economy, questions which are addressed effectively by Free Software; as defined by the freedom of unlimited use for any purpose, the freedom to study, the freedom to modify and the freedom to distribute. Through the Free Software Foundation Europe the FSFs participated in all sessions of the Development Agenda IIM process and also followed the broadcasting treaty negotiations with great interest. Our comments relate to both activities. Mr Chairman, much has been said and written about the knowledge society that humankind is about to enter. Looking at the regulatory initiatives, one stumbles upon a paradox: While society is getting ready to unleash human creativity as it has never done before, regulatory proposals seek to create new barriers. The Broadcasting Treaty is a good example of such a new barrier for which the potential benefits and costs seem unequally matched in disfavor of humankind. The result of ignoring the wisdom of approaching crucial legal regulation can be seen in another area: software patents have been introduced without evaluation, and according to the findings of several renowned institutions we now have to realise that they are harmful to competition and stifle innovation. For your information: these institutions include Massachussetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the Boston University School of Law, Price Waterhouse Coopers, US Federal Trade Commission and Deutsche Bank Research. The situation has degenerated to the point that a vice president of IBM, Mr Wladawsky-Berger, likened software patents to weapons of mass destruction in a New York Times interview. Similar experiences seem possible with the Broadcasting Treaty. Erecting additional barriers and raising all barriers by introduction of criminal sanctions against commercial infringement at a time when humankind is still struggling to fully understand the implications of the digital age would be hasty and unwise. Mr. Chairman, the traditional toolset of WIPO revolves centrally around limited monopolies, such as Copyrights, Patents or Trademarks. These have often been treated on the basis that more is always better, an approach that ignores both Liebigs law of the minimum as well as Shelfords law of tolerance: Not only will increasing the dose of the non-limiting factor have no positive effect, an overdose can be toxic. Finding the proper balance between too little and too much is the challenge that lies before any regulation. Given the fundamental impact of all regulations made on WIPO level, wisdom would suggest a conservative approach: New regulations should only be introduced if scientific evidence and evidence from a public review period conclusively show it to have a positive effect. Old regulations should be reviewed periodically as to whether they are still up to the needs of the time, or whether they require adjustment. In the light of the wisdom of Liebig and Shelford, agreeing to the creation of a WIPO Research and Evaluation Office (WERO) would seem trivial, so would the search for alternative means of fostering creativity. As the secretariat and member states correctly pointed out repeatedly in the past: WIPO exists to promote creativity. At the time of its inception, most alternative means of fostering creativity were not yet concieved, in particular those related to digitalisation. Now that they exist, what would seem more natural for WIPO than exploring them? The discussions around the Development Agenda have proven to be most difficult, also because of procedural discussions, which indeed took the majority of the time spent in the IIM process. After these had been largely resolved, substantive discussion took place, cut short by the need to come to a formal outcome that could be presented to this general assembly. Not continuing what was begun, or changing from a horse to a mule midstream, as the honored Indian delegate so eloquently put it, would be wasting the time and effort spent on this initiative by all sides, North and South. For this reason we strongly support the notion of letting the IIM process finish what it began. Mr Chairman, Thank you for your attention. Statement by Mr. Georg C.F. Greve Free Software Foundation Europe, President _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion at fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Sat Oct 1 23:10:48 2005 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 13:40:48 -0400 Subject: [Commons-Law] Publishers want to invalidate first-sale doctrine Message-ID: <433ECA20.46FBB62D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Publishers want to invalidate first-sale doctrine Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 12:26:44 -0500 From: Stephen Compall To: Seth Johnson Background: First-sale doctrine essentially says that when you sell a book, you lose control over *that copy*. The owner of the copy is free to lend to others, sell to others, read to his or her children, etc. First-sale doctrine is not merely a court precedent; it is codified in U.S. law (17 USC 109). Having failed to circumvent the first-sale doctrine through DRM on ebooks, publishers want to take a more direct approach, by imposing on used-book marketplaces such as Amazon.com Marketplace. "The online transaction providers should pay a fee," says Richard Pine, a partner in New York literary agency InkWell Management LLC. "The commission should be paid directly to the publisher, who should pass through 100% of that income to the author." Full article follows: The Growing Market For Slightly Used Books In Latest Threat to Publishers, Readers Flock to Web to Buy Best-Sellers at Big Discounts By JEFFREY A. TRACHTENBERG Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL September 29, 2005; Page D1 Readers seeking E.L. Doctorow's new novel "The March," one of the best-reviewed books of the fall season, can buy the new novel at their neighborhood bookstore for $25.95 or on the Web for a few dollars less. Or they can seek out an even better bargain, like the $13.99 (plus shipping) deal offered earlier this week for a "read once gently" copy on Amazon.com Inc.'s Web site. The Internet is creating a new and fast-growing category in the book-selling market -- the barely-used book. An increasing number of consumers are snapping up used volumes online at invitingly cheap prices. These aren't yellowing copies of out-of-print titles but often unblemished copies of newly published books -- sometimes available just a few days after a book's official publication date. Today, any consumer armed with a title or an ISBN number can search the Internet for the lowest price and get one within minutes. At the same time, the Web sites that offer such books, such as Amazon, Abebooks Inc. and Alibris Inc., have made it painless for readers to resell them. A reader who owns "The March," for example, can sell it via Amazon just by clicking on the "Sell Yours Here" button to the right of the new-book listing. The process is so simple that even the most technologically befuddled person can follow it. Once the book sells, Amazon collects a commission of $0.99 plus 15% of the sale price from the seller. It then deposits the remainder in the seller's account and provides the address of the customer. The seller ships the book directly to the customer. Amazon's payment to the seller includes a pre-calculated credit toward shipping costs. In effect, Amazon and other online used-book sites, including eBay Inc., are creating a nation of amateur booksellers at a time when consumer book unit sales are flat or declining. "This is the new Internet reality, which is the cheaper the better," says Laurence Kirshbaum, chief executive of Time Warner Inc.'s book group. With Web sites displaying new and used titles together, he says, "you can see two prices side by side, and the discrepancy is enormous." Mr. Kirshbaum has reason to be concerned. There are currently 70 "new and used" copies of "The Widow of the South" -- one of Time Warner's biggest books of the fall -- for sale on Amazon. Although the novel carries a retail price of $24.95, there are several copies on Amazon described as "new" being offered for $16 or less. The issue is so contentious that several literary agents are calling for authors and publishers to find some way to share in the revenue created by the used-book market. "The online transaction providers should pay a fee," says Richard Pine, a partner in New York literary agency InkWell Management LLC. "The commission should be paid directly to the publisher, who should pass through 100% of that income to the author." Adds Ann Rittenberg, president of Ann Rittenberg Literary Agency Inc.: "I'd like to see the author getting 10% of a used book sale. I wouldn't have asked for this years ago, but it's so organized now that there should be a payment." A spokeswoman for Amazon says the company doesn't offer a commission and won't comment on what it may or may not do in the future. Until recently, publishers barely noticed used-book sales. Nobody knew how large the market was for used volumes, or whether it was growing or not. Certainly, there has always been a significant demand for used textbooks. But a new study conducted by InfoTrends Research Group Inc., a market-research firm in Weymouth, Mass., on behalf of the Book Industry Study Group, a trade association, has gone a long way towards quantifying demand for used titles. While the market's size is still modest -- about $600 million, or 2.8% of the $21 billion that readers spent on consumer books in 2004 -- it is growing at 25% annually. Jeff Hayes, group director for InfoTrends Research Group, suggests that it could reach $2.25 billion in U.S. sales by 2010, or 9.4% of a projected $23.9 billion in consumer book sales. Many in publishing worry that every sale of a used book in "new" condition will act as a substitute for an actual sale of a new book. Others are concerned that writers are losing out. "We want to make sure that authors receive the royalties they deserve," says Jane Friedman, CEO of News Corp.'s HarperCollins Publishers Inc., one of the country's largest publishers. "We'd also like Amazon to give some breathing room between the on-sale date of a new book and the sale of used copies." All these barely used books come from a variety of sources. Some are offered up by everyday readers. Some are undoubtedly review copies that publishers provide to critics. Professional booksellers also offer copies. "Booksellers acquire used books from consumers and pay as much as 30% to 40% off the retail price and then resell it for as much as 60% of the retail price, depending on condition," says Mr. Hayes. The new report doesn't make it clear how many newly published books are being sold as used books. Nor does anyone know how many dollars spent on used books would instead have been spent purchasing new books. One reason the used-book market is growing is that the experience of buying and selling such books has improved, according to Mr. Hayes. "In the past, you didn't hesitate to buy a new book," he says. "But if you only have to wait a week or two, you may decide to hold off and buy a used copy." Last week, Bethanne Patrick, who writes the Book Maven blog for Time Warner's America Online unit, says she bought a used copy of Zadie Smith's new novel "On Beauty" (dust-jacket price: $25.95) in very good condition for $14.50 on Amazon. "Why pay full price if I can get a hardly opened hardback copy online?" she says. From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Sun Oct 2 07:09:51 2005 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 21:39:51 -0400 Subject: [Commons-Law] Re: Publishers want to invalidate first-sale doctrine Message-ID: <433F3A67.BF9E857B@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: pho: Publishers want to invalidate first-sale doctrine Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:54:59 -0700 From: "Gordon Mohr (PHO)" To: pho at onehouse.com That article is imbalanced, only reporting on the phenomenon from the perspectives of publishers and author reps who think (quite possibly in error in error) that the practice is costing them profits. A more economically literate discussion of the interaction between the used and new book markets was in the NY Times last July, with Berkeley professor Hal Varian reporting on a recent study of online book sales. See: Reading Between the Lines of Used Book Sales By HAL R. VARIAN Published: July 28, 2005 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/technology/28scene.html?ex=1280203200&en=33765024cbf62d4c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss http://elfurl.com/visit.php?id=42k [Full article quoted below.] Specifically: - the existence of a strong used book market also makes people more willing to buy new books, at full price, because of confidence in their resale value - offering affordable used books can attract more customers to a bookseller, and result in more books, new and old, being purchased overall - a recent academic study suggests used book sales only slightly substitute for new book sales - the same study calculates the net social impact of used book sales as strongly positive, after weighing the benefits to consumers and sellers like Amazon against the potential losses to publishers and authors - Gordon http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/technology/28scene.html?ex=1280203200&en=33765024cbf62d4c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss # Economic Scene # # Reading Between the Lines of Used Book Sales # # By HAL R. VARIAN Published: July 28, 2005 # # THE Internet is a bargain hunter's paradise. Ebay is an easy # example, but there are many places for deals on used goods, # including Amazon.com . # # While Amazon # is best # known for selling new products, an estimated 23 percent of its # sales are from used goods, many of them secondhand books. Used # bookstores have been around for centuries, but the Internet has # allowed such markets to become larger and more efficient. And # that has upset a number of publishers and authors. # # In 2002, the Authors Guild and the Association of American # Publishers sent an open letter to Jeff Bezos, the chief # executive of Amazon.com, which has a market for used books in # addition to selling new copies. "If your aggressive promotion # of used book sales becomes popular among Amazon's customers," # the letter said, "this service will cut significantly into # sales of new titles, directly harming authors and publishers." # # But does it? True, consumers probably save a few dollars while # authors and publishers may lose some sales from a used book # market. Yet the evidence suggests that the costs to publishers # are not large, and also suggests that the overall gains from # such secondhand markets outweigh any losses. # # Consider a recent paper, "Internet Exchanges for Used Books," # by Anindya Ghose of New York University and Michael D. Smith # and Rahul Telang of Carnegie-Mellon. (The text of the paper is # available at ssrn.com/abstract=584401 # .) # # The starting point for their analysis is the double-edged # impact of a used book market on the market for new books. When # used books are substituted for new ones, the seller faces # competition from the secondhand market, reducing the price it # can set for new books. But there's another effect: the # presence of a market for used books makes consumers more # willing to buy new books, because they can easily dispose of # them later. # # A car salesman will often highlight the resale value of a new # car, yet booksellers rarely mention the resale value of a new # book. Nevertheless, the value can be quite significant. # # This is particularly true in textbook markets, where many books # cost well over $100. Judith Chevalier of the Yale School of # Management and Austan Goolsbee at the Chicago Business School # recently examined this market and found that college bookstores # typically buy used books at 50 percent of cover price and # resell them at 75 percent of cover price. Hence the price to # "rent" a book for a semester is about $50 for a $100 book. # # Ms. Chevalier and Mr. Goolsbee found that students were well # aware of industry practices and took resale value into account # when they bought books. (The study, "Are Durable Goods # Consumers Forward Looking? Evidence from College Textbooks," # is available at Mr. Goolsbee's Web site, # gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/austan.goolsbee/website # /.) # # Back to Amazon. Professors Ghose, Smith and Telang chose a # random sample of books in print and studied how often used # copies were available on Amazon. In their sample, they found, # on average, more than 22 competitive offers to sell used # books, with a striking 241 competitive offers for used best # sellers. The prices of the secondhand books were # substantially cheaper than the new, but of course the quality # of the used books (in terms of wear and tear) varied # considerably. # # According to the researchers' calculations, Amazon earns, on # average, $5.29 for a new book and about $2.94 on a used book. # If each used sale displaced one new sale, this would be a # less profitable proposition for Amazon. # # But Mr. Bezos is not foolish. Used books, the economists found, # are not strong substitutes for new books. An increase of 10 # percent in new book prices would raise used sales by less than # 1 percent. In economics jargon, the cross-price elasticity of # demand is small. # # One plausible explanation of this finding is that there are two # distinct types of buyers: some purchase only new books, while # others are quite happy to buy used books. As a result, the used # market does not have a big impact in terms of lost sales in the # new market. # # Moreover, the presence of lower-priced books on the Amazon Web # site, Mr. Bezos has noted, may lead customers to "visit our # site more frequently, which in turn leads to higher sales of # new books." The data appear to support Mr. Bezos on this point. # # Applying the authors' estimate of the displaced sales effect to # Amazon's sales, it appears that only about 16 percent of the # used book sales directly cannibalized new book sales, # suggesting that Amazon's used-book market added $63.2 million # to its profits. # # Furthermore, consumers greatly benefit from this market: the # study's authors estimate that consumers gain about $67.6 # million. Adding in Amazon's profits and subtracting out the # $45.3 million of losses to authors and publishers leaves a net # gain of $85.5 million. # # All in all, it looks like the used book market creates a lot # more value than it destroys. # # Hal R. Varian is a professor of business, economics and # information management at the University of California, # Berkeley. Seth Johnson wrote: > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Publishers want to invalidate first-sale doctrine > Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 12:26:44 -0500 > From: Stephen Compall > To: Seth Johnson > > Background: First-sale doctrine essentially says that when you > sell a book, you lose control over *that copy*. The owner of the > copy is free to lend to others, sell to others, read to his or > her children, etc. First-sale doctrine is not merely a court > precedent; it is codified in U.S. law (17 USC 109). Having > failed to circumvent the first-sale doctrine through DRM on > ebooks, publishers want to take a more direct approach, by > imposing on used-book marketplaces such as Amazon.com > Marketplace. > > "The online transaction providers should pay a fee," says Richard > Pine, a partner in New York literary agency InkWell Management > LLC. "The commission should be paid directly to the publisher, > who should pass through 100% of that income to the author." > > Full article follows: > > The Growing Market For Slightly Used Books > > In Latest Threat to Publishers, Readers Flock to Web to Buy > Best-Sellers at Big Discounts > > By JEFFREY A. TRACHTENBERG > > Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL > > September 29, 2005; Page D1 > > > Readers seeking E.L. Doctorow's new novel "The March," one of the > best-reviewed books of the fall season, can buy the new novel at > their neighborhood bookstore for $25.95 or on the Web for a few > dollars less. > > Or they can seek out an even better bargain, like the $13.99 > (plus shipping) deal offered earlier this week for a "read once > gently" copy on Amazon.com Inc.'s Web site. > > The Internet is creating a new and fast-growing category in the > book-selling market -- the barely-used book. An increasing number > of consumers are snapping up used volumes online at invitingly > cheap prices. These aren't yellowing copies of out-of-print > titles but often unblemished copies of newly published books -- > sometimes available just a few days after a book's official > publication date. > > Today, any consumer armed with a title or an ISBN number can > search the Internet for the lowest price and get one within > minutes. At the same time, the Web sites that offer such books, > such as Amazon, Abebooks Inc. and Alibris Inc., have made it > painless for readers to resell them. A reader who owns "The > March," for example, can sell it via Amazon just by clicking on > the "Sell Yours Here" button to the right of the new-book > listing. The process is so simple that even the most > technologically befuddled person can follow it. Once the book > sells, Amazon collects a commission of $0.99 plus 15% of the sale > price from the seller. It then deposits the remainder in the > seller's account and provides the address of the customer. The > seller ships the book directly to the customer. Amazon's payment > to the seller includes a pre-calculated credit toward shipping > costs. > > In effect, Amazon and other online used-book sites, including > eBay Inc., are creating a nation of amateur booksellers at a time > when consumer book unit sales are flat or declining. > > "This is the new Internet reality, which is the cheaper the > better," says Laurence Kirshbaum, chief executive of Time Warner > Inc.'s book group. With Web sites displaying new and used titles > together, he says, "you can see two prices side by side, and the > discrepancy is enormous." > > Mr. Kirshbaum has reason to be concerned. There are currently 70 > "new and used" copies of "The Widow of the South" -- one of Time > Warner's biggest books of the fall -- for sale on Amazon. > Although the novel carries a retail price of $24.95, there are > several copies on Amazon described as "new" being offered for $16 > or less. > > The issue is so contentious that several literary agents are > calling for authors and publishers to find some way to share in > the revenue created by the used-book market. "The online > transaction providers should pay a fee," says Richard Pine, a > partner in New York literary agency InkWell Management LLC. "The > commission should be paid directly to the publisher, who should > pass through 100% of that income to the author." > > Adds Ann Rittenberg, president of Ann Rittenberg Literary Agency > Inc.: "I'd like to see the author getting 10% of a used book > sale. I wouldn't have asked for this years ago, but it's so > organized now that there should be a payment." A spokeswoman for > Amazon says the company doesn't offer a commission and won't > comment on what it may or may not do in the future. > > Until recently, publishers barely noticed used-book sales. Nobody > knew how large the market was for used volumes, or whether it was > growing or not. > > Certainly, there has always been a significant demand for used > textbooks. But a new study conducted by InfoTrends Research Group > Inc., a market-research firm in Weymouth, Mass., on behalf of the > Book Industry Study Group, a trade association, has gone a long > way towards quantifying demand for used titles. > > While the market's size is still modest -- about $600 million, or > 2.8% of the $21 billion that readers spent on consumer books in > 2004 -- it is growing at 25% annually. Jeff Hayes, group director > for InfoTrends Research Group, suggests that it could reach $2.25 > billion in U.S. sales by 2010, or 9.4% of a projected $23.9 > billion in consumer book sales. > > Many in publishing worry that every sale of a used book in "new" > condition will act as a substitute for an actual sale of a new > book. Others are concerned that writers are losing out. "We want > to make sure that authors receive the royalties they deserve," > says Jane Friedman, CEO of News Corp.'s HarperCollins Publishers > Inc., one of the country's largest publishers. "We'd also like > Amazon to give some breathing room between the on-sale date of a > new book and the sale of used copies." > > All these barely used books come from a variety of sources. Some > are offered up by everyday readers. Some are undoubtedly review > copies that publishers provide to critics. Professional > booksellers also offer copies. "Booksellers acquire used books > from consumers and pay as much as 30% to 40% off the retail price > and then resell it for as much as 60% of the retail price, > depending on condition," says Mr. Hayes. > > The new report doesn't make it clear how many newly published > books are being sold as used books. Nor does anyone know how many > dollars spent on used books would instead have been spent > purchasing new books. > > One reason the used-book market is growing is that the experience > of buying and selling such books has improved, according to Mr. > Hayes. "In the past, you didn't hesitate to buy a new book," he > says. "But if you only have to wait a week or two, you may decide > to hold off and buy a used copy." > > Last week, Bethanne Patrick, who writes the Book Maven blog for > Time Warner's America Online unit, says she bought a used copy of > Zadie Smith's new novel "On Beauty" (dust-jacket price: $25.95) > in very good condition for $14.50 on Amazon. "Why pay full price > if I can get a hardly opened hardback copy online?" she says. ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is the Pho mailing list. Help? http://www.pholist.org/help.php From prashant at nalsartech.org Mon Oct 3 04:08:16 2005 From: prashant at nalsartech.org (Prashant Iyengar) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 15:38:16 -0700 Subject: [Commons-Law] DIT plans National Digital Library Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20051002153613.01e1fd20@mail.nalsartech.org> > >A congress of libraries > >September 30, 2005 > > http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1505836,0012.htm > >The government's move to create a national digital library (NDL) is >an excellent idea, if one that's been around for some time. The >department of information and technology (DIT) apparently proposes to >set up the NDL by integrating all information into a system that >would be accessible to everyone. So far only sundry departments of >state governments and the Centre have heeded the call of techno-gurus >to store information in digitised form on their computer servers, and >it makes a lot of sense to integrate all these into a single >accessible system that could be archived at will. This will involve >scanning over millions of books and manuscripts that currently line >the shelves of top university libraries, IITs, and research >institutions, besides book stores and archives, and making them >available at the mere click of a mouse. > >Digitising public data allows much more than just easier access to >users, as this data can be promptly shared and manipulated — a >prerequisite for e-governance. Having local area networks and kiosks, >for instance, could give people unprecedented access to government >facilities, as the Andhra Pradesh government's e-seva initiative — >which has successfully replaced most single utility services in the >state — proves. The vast reach of the internet notwithstanding, >there's so much information offline that could potentially be brought >online. It will be a big challenge to digitise all this data for >different formats — from PCs to palmtops, from watches to clothes — >and the new systems would have to be based on language-independent >paradigms to be really user-friendly. > >The NDL has the potential to become the storehouse of all the >knowledge and digital contents pooled by other digital library >initiatives — a virtual gateway to subcontinental libraries on >everything from science, arts and culture to traditional medicine and >palm leaves. That said, however, this unique resource accessible to >anyone in the world 24x7, without regard to socio-economic background >or nationality, shouldn't be allowed to sink under too many bells and >whistles. The government should be open to involving public-private >partnerships in deploying and running such systems to make it >successful. > > > > > > > > > >------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> >Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! >http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpgUKB/pzNLAA/cUmLAA/bR.olB/TM >--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > >The views are that of individuals. Neither moderator nor yahoo in anyway >subscribe by the views expressed. For beyond e-governance >http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/vision-india/ > >Yahoo! Groups Links > ><*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/India-egov/ > ><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > India-egov-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > ><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > From eye at ranadasgupta.com Sun Oct 2 11:26:15 2005 From: eye at ranadasgupta.com (Rana Dasgupta) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 11:26:15 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Scientific publishing Message-ID: <433F767F.5030002@ranadasgupta.com> Follow-up to another article i posted earlier about the move towards open availability of scientific information. R Scientific publishing The paperless library Sep 22nd 2005 From The Economist print edition Free access to scientific results is changing research practices IT USED to be so straightforward. A team of researchers working together in the laboratory would submit the results of their research to a journal. A journal editor would then remove the authors' names and affiliations from the paper and send it to their peers for review. Depending on the comments received, the editor would accept the paper for publication or decline it. Copyright rested with the journal publisher, and researchers seeking knowledge of the results would have to subscribe to the journal. No longer. The internet—and pressure from funding agencies, who are questioning why commercial publishers are making money from government-funded research by restricting access to it—is making free access to scientific results a reality. This week, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) issued a report describing the far-reaching consequences of this. The report, by John Houghton of Victoria University in Australia and Graham Vickery of the OECD, makes heavy reading for publishers who have, so far, made handsome profits. But it goes further than that. It signals a change in what has, until now, been a key element of scientific endeavour. The value of knowledge and the return on the public investment in research depends, in part, upon wide distribution and ready access. It is big business. In America, the core scientific publishing market is estimated at between $7 billion and $11 billion. The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers says that there are more than 2,000 publishers worldwide specialising in these subjects. They publish more than 1.2m articles each year in some 16,000 journals. This is now changing. According to the OECD report, some 75% of scholarly journals are now online. Entirely new business models are emerging; three main ones were identified by the report's authors. There is the so-called big deal, where institutional subscribers pay for access to a collection of online journal titles through site-licensing agreements. There is open-access publishing, typically supported by asking the author (or his employer) to pay for the paper to be published. Finally, there are open-access archives, where organisations such as universities or international laboratories support institutional repositories. Other models exist that are hybrids of these three, such as delayed open-access, where journals allow only subscribers to read a paper for the first six months, before making it freely available to everyone who wishes to see it. All this could change the traditional form of the peer-review process, at least for the publication of papers. The process is organised by the publisher but conducted, for free, by scholars. The advantages afforded by the internet mean that primary data is becoming available freely online. Indeed, quite often the online paper has a direct link to it. This means that reported findings are more readily replicable and checkable by other teams of researchers. Moreover, online publication offers the opportunity for others to comment on the research. Research is also becoming more collaborative so that, before they have been finalised, papers have been reviewed by several authors. This central tenet of scholarly publishing is changing, too. From hbs.law at gmail.com Mon Oct 3 11:48:16 2005 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:48:16 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Extracting gold from patents can bolster the bottom line Message-ID: <8b60429e0510022318m4f9ab8dbt5b70109717726b80@mail.gmail.com> Some news from the "other" side of the IP World... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Extracting gold from patents can bolster the bottom line By Kevin J. O'Brien International Herald Tribune SUNDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2005 BERLIN The Dutch brand Philips is found on millions of televisions, stereos and other electronic products in living rooms around the world. Almost as ubiquitous are the products of the French manufacturer Thomson, which is known for its televisions, professional video equipment and TV set-top boxes. Yet last year, these consumer electronics makers did not profit from making consumer electronics. Instead, Thomson got 75 percent of its operating earnings - 325 million of the total of 434 million, or $390 million of $522 million - by licensing its technology to other companies. Philips would have lost money on its consumer electronics business last year if not for 478 million in licensing income. Squeezed by low-cost Asian manufacturers, niche competitors like Apple Computer and ambitious interlopers like Samsung Electronics, the industry's historic leaders are increasingly dependent on selling ideas rather than products, and at profit margins that are far wider than in the cutthroat world of consumer gadgetry. "Intellectual property is playing an increasingly important role for our group," Rudy Provoost, head of Philips Consumer Electronics, said in an interview. "It's just a fact of life in our business now that you have to cultivate and protect IP." The question is whether the traditional approach of developing, owning and mining patents for revenue has a future in a world where copies and knockoffs are increasingly simple to make, license fees easy to avoid and a certain part of the next generation more comfortable with "sharing" than with owning. To be sure, the technology industry is still dominated by proprietary manufacturers like Sony, Philips and International Business Machines, which are more aggressive than ever in pursuing patents and patent infringement. This year, IBM is expected to file around 3,250 patents - the most of any company in the United States, said Robert Sutor, vice president for standards and open source at the company. Companies say they license as a way to stay ahead of the swift mimicry of new technologies and designs that can turn a sales sensation into an inexpensive commodity within months. That is one reason Thomson last year licensed the rights to its RCA brand to TCL, a Chinese company, and why it charges others for using its critical technologies in the MPEG-4 video compression and MP3 audio compression formats. "The so-called commoditization cycle - turning an innovation into a commodity - is in some cases shorter than a year," Jean-Charles Hourcade, chief technology officer at Thomson, said in an interview. "It is very difficult to base a strategy on pure product manufacturing any more." Today, Thomson is focusing on broadcast equipment and services. Compared with manufacturing, licensing promises lower risk and higher income. Thomson in 2004 kept 81 cents of every euro in licensing sales as profit, but only 10 cents of every euro from sales of broadcasting equipment and services. The French company's lawyers oversee enforcement of 45,740 corporate patents from 6,720 inventions, according to Thomson's 2004 annual report. Last year, Thomson filed 588 new patent applications and closed 878 licensing agreements with other companies. At Philips, licensing income rose 61 percent in 2004, to 478 million, as the company profited from its ownership of CD and DVD technologies, among others. The Dutch company made licensing a priority in 2002, when it created a 500-member department to exploit the value of its 100,000 patents, 22,000 trademarks, 11,000 design rights and 2,000 Internet domain names. "What you are seeing is that many global electronics companies, out of necessity, are turning to licensing to protect their investments," said Andy Morgan, an industry expert in London at the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers. Not all manufacturers are as aggressive as Philips and Thomson. Sony, for example, had sales from licensing of ¥31.4 billion, or $277 million, in the year that ended in March 2004 - less than 0.5 percent of the Japanese company's ¥7.16 trillion in total sales, said Yoshihide Nakamura, senior vice president in charge of intellectual property at Sony. While Philips and Thomson say licensing brings a welcome second source of income, some experts say the dual strategy is a sign of weakness. "Thomson has basically announced that they are no longer interested in being a consumer electronics company," said Jason Mauricio of Arete Research, a private research firm in London. "They have basically licensed out their TV screen business. That is the threat that faces Philips, Sony and all the rest." The most sustainable business strategies, Mauricio said, involve developing, making and selling products, rather than merely collecting royalties on patents that will eventually expire. Danny Rimer, a partner in London at Index Ventures, a fund company that has 750 million invested in technology companies, said businesses based solely on licensing had limited futures. "Most entrepreneurs view IP as a defensive mechanism and not as an opportunity for creating a business," Rimer said. "Companies having the greatest challenges adapting to the new world are banking on exploiting IP weaknesses." By releasing 500 software patents free to the public this year, IBM is wagering that it will earn more by letting outsiders innovate from its technology than it would by just collecting licensing fees, Sutor said. IBM's move prompted Sun Microsystems, Computer Associates International and Nokia to take similar action. As electronics makers bulk up their staffs of patent attorneys, some experts say consumers may end up suffering as lawsuit-prone corporations cast a chilling effect over small, independent inventors. In 1984, companies filed 19 infringement lawsuits for every 1,000 patents filed in the United States, said Dietmar Harhoff, a professor of copyright law at Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich; by 2000, the rate had nearly doubled, to 32 lawsuits per 1,000 patents. Some inventors, however, are quick to note that without copyright protection, they would have little incentive to innovate. Roland Moreno, a French inventor who said he had earned more than 100 million in royalties from his patent on the smart card, said, "Inventors need an incentive to create and should be rewarded for innovation." BERLIN The Dutch brand Philips is found on millions of televisions, stereos and other electronic products in living rooms around the world. Almost as ubiquitous are the products of the French manufacturer Thomson, which is known for its televisions, professional video equipment and TV set-top boxes. Yet last year, these consumer electronics makers did not profit from making consumer electronics. Instead, Thomson got 75 percent of its operating earnings - 325 million of the total of 434 million, or $390 million of $522 million - by licensing its technology to other companies. Philips would have lost money on its consumer electronics business last year if not for 478 million in licensing income. Squeezed by low-cost Asian manufacturers, niche competitors like Apple Computer and ambitious interlopers like Samsung Electronics, the industry's historic leaders are increasingly dependent on selling ideas rather than products, and at profit margins that are far wider than in the cutthroat world of consumer gadgetry. "Intellectual property is playing an increasingly important role for our group," Rudy Provoost, head of Philips Consumer Electronics, said in an interview. "It's just a fact of life in our business now that you have to cultivate and protect IP." The question is whether the traditional approach of developing, owning and mining patents for revenue has a future in a world where copies and knockoffs are increasingly simple to make, license fees easy to avoid and a certain part of the next generation more comfortable with "sharing" than with owning. To be sure, the technology industry is still dominated by proprietary manufacturers like Sony, Philips and International Business Machines, which are more aggressive than ever in pursuing patents and patent infringement. This year, IBM is expected to file around 3,250 patents - the most of any company in the United States, said Robert Sutor, vice president for standards and open source at the company. Companies say they license as a way to stay ahead of the swift mimicry of new technologies and designs that can turn a sales sensation into an inexpensive commodity within months. That is one reason Thomson last year licensed the rights to its RCA brand to TCL, a Chinese company, and why it charges others for using its critical technologies in the MPEG-4 video compression and MP3 audio compression formats. "The so-called commoditization cycle - turning an innovation into a commodity - is in some cases shorter than a year," Jean-Charles Hourcade, chief technology officer at Thomson, said in an interview. "It is very difficult to base a strategy on pure product manufacturing any more." Today, Thomson is focusing on broadcast equipment and services. Compared with manufacturing, licensing promises lower risk and higher income. Thomson in 2004 kept 81 cents of every euro in licensing sales as profit, but only 10 cents of every euro from sales of broadcasting equipment and services. The French company's lawyers oversee enforcement of 45,740 corporate patents from 6,720 inventions, according to Thomson's 2004 annual report. Last year, Thomson filed 588 new patent applications and closed 878 licensing agreements with other companies. At Philips, licensing income rose 61 percent in 2004, to 478 million, as the company profited from its ownership of CD and DVD technologies, among others. The Dutch company made licensing a priority in 2002, when it created a 500-member department to exploit the value of its 100,000 patents, 22,000 trademarks, 11,000 design rights and 2,000 Internet domain names. "What you are seeing is that many global electronics companies, out of necessity, are turning to licensing to protect their investments," said Andy Morgan, an industry expert in London at the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers. Not all manufacturers are as aggressive as Philips and Thomson. Sony, for example, had sales from licensing of ¥31.4 billion, or $277 million, in the year that ended in March 2004 - less than 0.5 percent of the Japanese company's ¥7.16 trillion in total sales, said Yoshihide Nakamura, senior vice president in charge of intellectual property at Sony. While Philips and Thomson say licensing brings a welcome second source of income, some experts say the dual strategy is a sign of weakness. "Thomson has basically announced that they are no longer interested in being a consumer electronics company," said Jason Mauricio of Arete Research, a private research firm in London. "They have basically licensed out their TV screen business. That is the threat that faces Philips, Sony and all the rest." The most sustainable business strategies, Mauricio said, involve developing, making and selling products, rather than merely collecting royalties on patents that will eventually expire. Danny Rimer, a partner in London at Index Ventures, a fund company that has 750 million invested in technology companies, said businesses based solely on licensing had limited futures. "Most entrepreneurs view IP as a defensive mechanism and not as an opportunity for creating a business," Rimer said. "Companies having the greatest challenges adapting to the new world are banking on exploiting IP weaknesses." By releasing 500 software patents free to the public this year, IBM is wagering that it will earn more by letting outsiders innovate from its technology than it would by just collecting licensing fees, Sutor said. IBM's move prompted Sun Microsystems, Computer Associates International and Nokia to take similar action. As electronics makers bulk up their staffs of patent attorneys, some experts say consumers may end up suffering as lawsuit-prone corporations cast a chilling effect over small, independent inventors. In 1984, companies filed 19 infringement lawsuits for every 1,000 patents filed in the United States, said Dietmar Harhoff, a professor of copyright law at Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich; by 2000, the rate had nearly doubled, to 32 lawsuits per 1,000 patents. Some inventors, however, are quick to note that without copyright [sic Patent] protection, they would have little incentive to innovate. Roland Moreno, a French inventor who said he had earned more than 100 million in royalties from his patent on the smart card, said, "Inventors need an incentive to create and should be rewarded for innovation." From monica at sarai.net Mon Oct 3 19:13:05 2005 From: monica at sarai.net (Monica Narula) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 19:13:05 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Call for Contributions to Sarai Reader 06: Turbulence Message-ID: CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO SARAI READER O6: TURBULENCE I. Introducing the Sarai Reader Sarai, (www.sarai.net) an interdisciplinary research and practice programme at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies invites contributions to Sarai Reader 06: Turbulence. We also invite proposals to initiate and moderate discussions on the themes of the Sarai Reader 06 on the Reader List (http://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list) with a view to the moderator(s) editing the transcripts of these discussions for publication in Sarai Reader 06. For an outline of the themes and concerns of Sarai Reader 06, see the Concept Outline below (section II). To know about the format of the articles that we invite, see 'Guidelines for Submissions' (sections III and IV) below. This year, the Sarai Reader has been invited to participate in the 'Journal of Journals' magazine project of Documenta 12. (see http://www.documenta12.de/documenta12/english/magazine.htm). Content from Sarai Reader 06 will be selected by the Sarai editorial collective to be published online on the Documenta 12 Magazine webpage. The Sarai Reader is an annual publication produced by Sarai/CSDS (Delhi). The contents of the Sarai Readers are available for free download from the Sarai website (http://www.sarai.net/journal/journal.htm) Previous Readers have included: 'The Public Domain', 2001; 'The Cities of Everyday Life', 2002; 'Shaping Technologies', 2003; 'Crisis/Media', 2004; and 'Bare Acts', 2005. The Sarai Reader series aims at bringing together original, thoughtful, critical, reflective, well-researched and provocative texts and essays by theorists, practitioners and activists, grouped under a core theme that expresses the interests of the Sarai in issues that relate media, information and society in the contemporary world. The Sarai Readers have a wide international readership. Editorial Collective: Jeebesh Bagchi, Monica Narula, Ravi Sundaram, Ravi Vasudevan, Awadhendra Sharan, Shuddhabrata Sengupta, (Sarai-CSDS, Delhi) + Geert Lovink (Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam) II. Turbulence The past decade has opened up a series of transformations that seem to define (cumulatively) the contemporary, even as they themselves defy definition by virtue of the speed and immediacy with which they have made themselves manifest. Every mythic moment has begotten its Faustian other; globalisation produced counter-globalisation, the crisis of the US empire was exposed on September 11th and the quagmire in Iraq, the world of Islam is torn apart by internal strife and humiliation, the global West makes way for global China. Sovereignty, that old pillar of the modern state, stands in ruins, along with all stable social theories of the world, citizenship, the university and liberal doctrines of rights. Property, the legal form of capital is under attack, not only from labour but also from the mode of circulation and re-production. The kingdom of Piracy threatens the kingdom of Property. Massacres, media events, commodity fetishisms, security analysts and scam artists all clog the airwaves and the internet. In this world of exhilaration, death and survival, new practices have sought to define themselves, refusing to fall within old redemptive modes. We want to invite the practitioners of these new practices, some of whom may be audacious even as others may be tentative, wherever in the world they may be located, whether in the domains of theory, research, contemporary art, media, information and software design, politics or commentary to join us in Sarai Reader 06. You are invited to contribute through essays, dialogues, arguments, interviews, photographs, image-text combinations, comics, art-works, diary entries, research reports, commentaries and manifestos that can evoke the idea of Turbulence in all its myriad dimensions. The Sarai Reader 6 uses 'Turbulence' as a conceptual vantage point to interrogate all that is in the throes of terminal crisis, and to invoke all that is as yet unborn. The Reader seeks to examine 'turbulence' as a global phenomenon, unbounded by the lines that denote national and state boundaries in a 'political' map of the world. We want to see areas of low and high pressure in politics, economy and culture that transcend borders; we want to investigate the flow of information and processes between downstream and upstream sites in societies and cultures globally; we want to witness surges and waves in ideas and practices as they crash against the shorelines of many dispersed locations. We want to inhabit moments of stillness and investigate the conditions that determine stasis, in the middle of a tremendous surge of movement. A rough and ready list of questions and concepts that Sarai Reader 06 wants to take on could be as follows: > How do we anticipate, recover from and remember moments of sudden >transformation? These moments could be anything from popular >uprisings, natural disasters, to an unexpected turn in a football >game. > Are there one, two, three, many globalizations? > Have the established categories of East and West, North and South >been thrown into confusion in the contemporary? > The earlier histories of the resolution of the crisis of property >are replete with violence. How does the current crisis of property, >in the wake of copy culture, play itself out? > Does the return of epidemics and natural disasters into our >consciousness imply the end of the grand modernist dream of immunity >from nature? > How do cities deal with the accumulation of complex infrastructural >uncertainty? What happens when urban chaos strikes back at urban >planning? > What does it mean to know and experience the pull of undercurrents >- in society, politics, the economy? How can we map the subterranean >tectonic shifts and displacements that occur in culture and >intellectual life? > What happens to the authority of the intellectual in the current >context of turbulence? How is the intellectual's authority eroded, >or sought to be shored up, when assailed by uncertainty, and the >rise of new networks of the generation and circulation of knowledge? > What does it take from us to tell stories, enact performances, make >images and record experiences in the wake of turbulence? > What are the histories of anxiety, exhilaration, dread, panic, >ecstasy, disorientation and boredom like? How can we begin to >narrate these histories? > How do we deal with the simultaneous pressures of knowing too much >or the anxiety of knowing too little about the world? > What does the consciousness of changing geo-political and economic >scenarios mean at the level of the street; how do we account for the >rise of 'Global China'? As in all Sarai readers we will feel free to innovate thematically. It is an invitation to an unconventional world of knowledge, and to unconventional producers of ideas. It is an invitation to be agile, mobile, versatile and flexible in forms of thought and creativity to navigate the tumult of the present moment. III. Guidelines for Submissions Word Limit: 1500 - 4000 words 1. Submissions may be scholarly, journalistic, or literary - or a mix of these, in the form of essays, papers, interviews, online discussions or diary entries. They could also be only image or image-text essays. All submissions, unless specifically solicited, must be in English. 2. Submissions must be sent by email as txt, or rtf, or MS Word document or Open Office attachments. Articles may be accompanied by black and white photographs or drawings submitted in the tif format. 3. We urge writers to follow the Chicago Manual of Style (CMS) in terms of footnotes, annotations and references. For more details about the CMS and an updated list of Frequently Asked Questions, see http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/cmosfaq.html For a 'Quick Reference Guide to the Chicago Manual of Style' especially relevant for citation style, see http://www.library.wwu.edu/ref/Refhome/chicago.html 4. All contributions should be accompanied by a three/four line text introducing the author, as well as an email address. 5. All submissions will be read by the Editorial Collective before the final selection is made. The editorial collective reserves the right not to publish any material sent to it on stylistic or editorial grounds. All contributors will be informed of the final decisions of the editorial collective. 6. Copyright for all accepted contributions will remain with the authors, but Sarai reserves indefinitely the right to place any of the material accepted for publication on the public domain in print or electronic forms, and on the internet. 7. Accepted submissions will not be paid for, but authors are guaranteed a wide international readership. The Reader will be published in print, distributed in India and internationally, and will also be uploaded in a pdf form on to the Sarai website. All contributors whose work has been accepted for publication will receive two copies of the Reader. IV. Where and When to send your Contributions Last date for submission: December 31st 2005. [Please write and send as soon as possible, preferably, latest by the 15th of November, 2005, a brief outline/abstract, not more than one page, of what you want to write about; this helps in designing the content of the Reader]. We expect to have the reader published by the end of February 2006. Please send in your outlines and abstracts, and images/graphic material to: 1. For articles to Shuddhabrata Sengupta (shuddha at sarai.net) 2. For proposals to moderate online discussions on the Reader List to Monica Narula (monica at sarai.net) 3. For images and/or graphic material to Monica Narula (monica at sarai.net) -- Monica Narula [Raqs Media Collective] Sarai:The New Media Initiative 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110 054 www.sarai.net www.raqsmediacollective.net From rai.shailesh at gmail.com Mon Oct 3 20:08:09 2005 From: rai.shailesh at gmail.com (S Rai) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 20:08:09 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: New and the first Law India blog - looking for contributors In-Reply-To: <1ac4948b0510030628h727813e1g34b9093f6e3e567b@mail.gmail.com> References: <91c189cd05092500433eb30adf@mail.gmail.com> <91c189cd050925093211ee2298@mail.gmail.com> <91c189cd050925102551b9908f@mail.gmail.com> <91c189cd0509251504483d03c0@mail.gmail.com> <91c189cd05092515107de1fb7c@mail.gmail.com> <91c189cd05092517022380881c@mail.gmail.com> <91c189cd0509251707ad5bbc@mail.gmail.com> <91c189cd0509251758440c9b5@mail.gmail.com> <91c189cd0509251759725d747b@mail.gmail.com> <1ac4948b0510030628h727813e1g34b9093f6e3e567b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <177e3ed00510030738w329d231fl977b379322420e6f@mail.gmail.com> From sjayasimha at vsnl.net Tue Oct 4 10:22:20 2005 From: sjayasimha at vsnl.net (Shreyas Jayasimha) Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 10:22:20 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: New and the first Law India blog - lookingforcontributors References: <91c189cd05092500433eb30adf@mail.gmail.com> <"91c189cd050925093211 ee2298"@mail.gmail.com> <91c189cd050925102551b9908f@mail.gmail.com> <"91c189cd0 509251504483d03c0"@mail.gmail.com> <91c189cd05092515107de1fb7c@mail.gmail.com> <91c189cd05092517022380881c@mail.gmail.com> <91c189cd0509251707ad5bbc@mail.gmail.com> <91c189cd0509251758440c9b5@mail.gmail.com> <"91c189cd0509251759725d 747b"@mail.gmail.com> <177e3ed00510030738w329d231fl977b379322420e6f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <010f01c5c89f$6a88e980$1a8941db@Shreyas> Dear Raj and others It is very heartening to see more blogs on Indian law. Here are some earlier blogs: http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.com/ http://humanrights-india.blogspot.com/ Cheers Shreyas Shreyas Jayasimha Advocate No.9, 2nd Main Road Vyalikaval Bangalore - 560 003 INDIA Tel: + 91 80 2344 2767 Fax: + 91 80 2356 6792 Mob: + 91 98 4435 4898 Email: sjayasimha at vsnl.net ************************************* This message and any attachment is confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient please telephone or e mail the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy or disclose this message or attachment to any other person. commons-law mailing list commons-law at sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20051004/9c3c8f6f/attachment.html From hbs.law at gmail.com Thu Oct 6 07:41:22 2005 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 07:41:22 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Blogging, Fact-Checking and Resources... Message-ID: <8b60429e0510051911p40de5aafu1a56c1c004370086@mail.gmail.com> Hi Everyone, Media companies have fat payrolls to gather news, fact-check them (mostly, though even NY Times lapses in this department). Indvidual bloggers do not have such resources. They provide value through their comments. That is their input is additional or secondary to the main news. Does that mean that news will always be the domain of corporations with resources such as news agencies, newspapers and television channels? Again, there is a need for an economic wrapper model to news. Any alternative ideas? Hasit Context: Slashdot Story....http://slashdot.org/articles/05/10/05/2344240.shtml?tid=109&tid=188&tid=97 "Ed Bott's blog states that in relation to a previously posted slashdot story "a hoax can spread just as fast as a genuine news story. That's the lesson from the bogus story published in an obscure UK business magazine yesterday that claimed Microsoft is about to unleash a new single-play DVD format. Paul Thurrott reprinted the story without giving credit to the original source. Bink.nu picked up the story from Paul and reprinted it verbatim. Techdirt commented on the original story, with attribution but without any fact-checking. So did John Walkenbach. The funny part? There's no truth to the story. None whatsoever. In fact, the original story sparked a flurry of e-mails around Microsoft as people in different groups tried to figure out where on earth this story came from. After the head-scratching stopped, a spokesmen told me, they concluded that the story was not true. "It appears to be confusing an existing feature within Windows Media DRM that allows for single-play of promotional digital material. This has been an option for content owners to use for some time for the Windows Media format - it does not apply to MPEG2 content found on DVDs." From vinay at nls.ac.in Thu Oct 6 12:56:00 2005 From: vinay at nls.ac.in (Vinay Aravind) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:56:00 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Breaking America's grip on the net In-Reply-To: <20051004045255.0DF1528D7AE@mail.sarai.net> References: <20051004045255.0DF1528D7AE@mail.sarai.net> Message-ID: <1667.202.54.243.148.1128583560.squirrel@202.54.243.148> Breaking America's grip on the net After troubled negotiations in Geneva, the US may be forced to relinquish control of the internet to a coalition of governments Kieren McCarthy Thursday October 6, 2005 The Guardian You would expect an announcement that would forever change the face of the internet to be a grand affair - a big stage, spotlights, media scrums and a charismatic frontman working the crowd. But unless you knew where he was sitting, all you got was David Hendon's slightly apprehensive voice through a beige plastic earbox. The words were calm, measured and unexciting, but their implications will be felt for generations to come. Hendon is the Department for Trade and Industry's director of business relations and was in Geneva representing the UK government and European Union at the third and final preparatory meeting for next month's World Summit on the Information Society. He had just announced a political coup over the running of the internet. Old allies in world politics, representatives from the UK and US sat just feet away from each other, but all looked straight ahead as Hendon explained the EU had decided to end the US government's unilateral control of the internet and put in place a new body that would now run this revolutionary communications medium. The issue of who should control the net had proved an extremely divisive issue, and for 11 days the world's governments traded blows. For the vast majority of people who use the internet, the only real concern is getting on it. But with the internet now essential to countries' basic infrastructure - Brazil relies on it for 90% of its tax collection - the question of who has control has become critical. And the unwelcome answer for many is that it is the US government. In the early days, an enlightened Department of Commerce (DoC) pushed and funded expansion of the internet. And when it became global, it created a private company, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) to run it. But the DoC retained overall control, and in June stated what many had always feared: that it would retain indefinite control of the internet's foundation - its "root servers", which act as the basic directory for the whole internet. A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it refused. The meeting "was going nowhere", Hendon says, and so the EU took a bold step and proposed two stark changes: a new forum that would decide public policy, and a "cooperation model" comprising governments that would be in overall charge. Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its representative hit back, stating that it "can't in any way allow any changes" that went against the "historic role" of the US in controlling the top level of the internet. But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world's governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce. But will this move mean, as the US ambassador David Gross argued, that "even on technical details, the industry will have to follow government-set policies, UN-set policies"? No, according to Nitin Desai, the UN's special adviser on internet governance. "There is clearly an acceptance here that governments are not concerned with the technical and operational management of the internet. Standards are set by the users." Hendon is also adamant: "The really important point is that the EU doesn't want to see this change as bringing new government control over the internet. Governments will only be involved where they need to be and only on issues setting the top-level framework." Human rights But expert and author of Ruling the Root, Milton Mueller, is not so sure. An overseeing council "could interfere with standards. What would stop it saying 'when you're making this standard for data transfer you have to include some kind of surveillance for law enforcement'?" Then there is human rights. China has attracted criticism for filtering content from the net within its borders. Tunisia - host of the World Summit - has also come under attack for silencing online voices. Mueller doesn't see a governmental overseeing council having any impact: "What human rights groups want is for someone to be able to bring some kind of enforceable claim to stop them violating people's rights. But how's that going to happen? I can't see that a council is going to be able to improve the human rights situation." And what about business? Will a governmental body running the internet add unnecessary bureaucracy or will it bring clarity and a coherent system? Mueller is unsure: "The idea of the council is so vague. It's not clear to me that governments know what to do about anything at this stage apart from get in the way of things that other people do." There are still dozens of unanswered questions but all the answers are pointing the same way: international governments deciding the internet's future. The internet will never be the same again. From vinay at nls.ac.in Thu Oct 6 15:30:19 2005 From: vinay at nls.ac.in (Vinay Aravind) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:30:19 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Commons-Law] EU attempts to intro software patents by the back door In-Reply-To: <20051006100007.E10DF28D741@mail.sarai.net> References: <20051006100007.E10DF28D741@mail.sarai.net> Message-ID: <3549.202.54.243.148.1128592819.squirrel@202.54.243.148> EU attempts to intro software patents by the back door The price of liberty is watching these pesky €urocrats By INQUIRER staff: Thursday 06 October 2005, 09:49 THE EUROPEAN UNION appears to be attempting to introduce more laws regulating software patents despite suffering a resounding defeat earlier this year. Gunter Verheugen, the EU industry commissioner, said a package of measures were decided to make the continent's industrial base stronger. In particular, according to the full text of a statement published here ( http://wiki.ffii.org/ComVerheugen051005En ), Verheugen points to a lack of protection on intellectual property within the EU. According to a PDF thrown up by the €urocrats recently, a EU community patent directive could well be in the offing in 2006. Florian Muller, who spearheaded a campaign against software patents in Europe successfully this year, told the INQ: "What we see here are two parallel initiatives: The community patent regulation would, based on the current draft, simply be a back-door approach to legalising software patents. "Software patents would come as a side effect of another regulation. Then there is that new Commission working paper which industry commissioner and Commission VP Verheugen presented. "While that working paper only says that the Commission plans to have a dialogue on such issues next year and mentions software patents as one area of concern, that type of announcement is often the first step to some legislative initiative that would follow a series of consultations." Muller claimed that the Commission has a culture of primarily listening to large corporations, and "if those cry loud enough, then the Commission might claim that there is a need for new legislation." µ From sunil at mahiti.org Sat Oct 8 17:48:34 2005 From: sunil at mahiti.org (Sunil Abraham) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 17:48:34 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] IHT op-ed: Imagine a world without copyright Message-ID: <1128773914.7249.111.camel@localhost.localdomain> -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Darius Cuplinskas Imagine a world without copyright By Joost Smiers and Marieke van Schijndel International Herald Tribune SATURDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2005 http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/07/opinion/edsmiers.php AMSTERDAM Copyright was once a means to guarantee artists a decent income. Aside from the question as to whether it ever actually functioned as such - most artists never made a penny from the copyright system - we have to admit that copyright serves an altogether different purpose in the contemporary world. It now is the tool that conglomerates in the music, publishing, imaging and movie industries use to control their markets. These industries decide whether the materials they have laid their hands on may be used by others - and, if they allow it, under what conditions and for what price. European and American legislation extends them that privilege for a window of no less than 70 years after the passing of the original author. The consequences? The privatization of an ever-increasing share of our cultural expressions, because this is precisely what copyright does. Our democratic right to freedom of cultural and artistic exchange is slowly but surely being taken away from us. It is also unacceptable that we have to consume cultural creations in exactly the way they are dished out to us, and that we may change neither title nor detail. We thus have every reason to ponder about a viable alternative to copyright. At the same time, a fascinating development is taking place before our very eyes. Millions of people exchanging music and movies over the Internet refuse to accept any longer that a mega-sized company can actually own, for example, millions of melodies. Digitalization is gnawing away at the very foundations of the copyright system. What might an alternative idea of copyright look like? To arrive at that alternative, we first have to acknowledge that artists are entrepreneurs. They take the initiative to craft a given work and offer it to a market. Others can also take that initiative, for example a producer or patron who in turn employs artists. All of these artistic initiators have one thing in common: They take entrepreneurial risks. What copyrights do is precisely to limit those risks. The cultural entrepreneur receives the right to erect a protective barrier around his or her work, notably a monopoly to exploit the work for a seemingly endless period of time. That protection also covers anything that resembles the work in one way or the other. That is bizarre. We must keep in mind, of course, that every artistic work - whether it is a soap opera, a composition by Luciano Berio, or a movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger - derives the better part of its substance from the work of others, from the public domain. Originality is a relative concept; in no other culture around the globe, except for the contemporary Western one, can a person call himself the owner of a melody, an image, a word. It is therefore an exaggeration to gratuitously allow such work the far-reaching protections, ownership title and risk-exclusion that copyright has to offer. One might ask whether such a protective layer is really necessary for the evolving process of artistic creation. Our proposal, which will entail three steps, will demonstrate that this is not the case. What then, do we think, can replace copyright? In the first place, a work will have to take its chances on the market on its own, without the luxurious protection offered by copyrights. After all, the first to market has a time and attention advantage. What is interesting about this approach is that this proposal strikes a fatal blow to a few cultural monopolists who, aided by copyright, use their stars, blockbusters and bestsellers to monopolize the market and siphon off attention from every other artistic work produced by artists. That is problematic in our society in which we have a great need for that pluriformity of artistic expression. How do we think this fatal blow could work? If the protective layer that copyright has to offer no longer exists, we can freely exploit all existing artistic expressions and adapt them according to our own insights. This creates an unpleasant situation for cultural monopolists, as it deprives them of the incentive to pursue their outrageous investments in movies, books, T-shirts and any other merchandise associated with a single cultural product. Why would they continue making these investments if they can no longer control the products stemming from them and exploit them unhindered? The domination of the cultural market would then be taken from the hands of the cultural monopolists, and cultural and economic competition between many artists would once again be allowed to take its course. This would offer new perspectives for many artists. They would no longer be driven from the public eye and many of them would, for the first time, be able to make a living off their work. After all, they would no longer have to challenge - and bow down to - the market dominance of cultural giants. The market would be normalized. Certain artistic expression, however, demands sizeable initial investments. This is the second situation for which we must find a solution. Think about movies or novels. We propose that the risk bearer - the artist, the producer or the patron - receive for works of this kind a one-year usufruct, or right to profit from the works. This would allow the entrepreneur to recoup his or her investments. It would still be an individual decision whether or not to make the large investments, for example, needed to make a movie, but no one would be granted rights to exploit that work for more than a year. When that period expired, anyone could do with the work as he or she pleased. The third situation for which we must conceive a solution is when a certain artistic creation is not likely to flourish in a competitive market, not even with a one-year usufruct. It may be the case that the public still has to develop a taste for it, but that we still find, from the perspective of cultural diversity, that such a work must be allowed to exist. For this situation it would be necessary to install a generous range of subsidies and other stimulating measures, because as a community we should be willing to carry the burden of offering all kinds of artistic expressions a fair chance. Cultural monopolists desperately want us to believe that without copyright we would have no artistic creations and therefore no entertainment. That is nonsense. We would have more, and more diverse ones. A world without copyright is easy to imagine. The level playing field of cultural production - a market accessible for everyone - would once again be restored. A world without copyright would offer the guarantee of a good income to many artists, and would protect the public domain of knowledge and creativity. And members of the public would get what they are entitled to: a surprisingly rich and varied menu of artistic alternatives. (Joost Smiers, the author of ''Arts Under Pressure: Promoting Cultural Diversity in the Age of Globalization,'' is a professor of political science of the arts at the Utrecht School of the Arts, the Netherlands. Marieke van Schijndel is a policy adviser and publicist; this article reflects her personal opinions.) -- Sunil Abraham, sunil at mahiti.org http://www.mahiti.org 314/1, 7th Cross, Domlur Bangalore - 560 071 Karnataka, INDIA Ph/Fax: +91 80 51150580. Mob: (91) 9342201521 UK: (44) 02000000259 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20051008/a60f7c69/attachment.bin From hbs.law at gmail.com Sat Oct 8 22:16:40 2005 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 22:16:40 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] 1. EU attempts to intro software patents by the back door (Vinay Aravind) Message-ID: <8b60429e0510080946k60635ea0w71242be213c94e96@mail.gmail.com> Hi All, I would like to learn from the European readers of this list as to when do they propose to remove all form of patents (why just software patents? let's make all technology free, particularly the patents owned by corporations such as Philips, Thompson, Infineon, ABB, Nestle, Hoechst, Bayer, Mercedez, BMW, Sanofi-Aventis and so on), all copyrights (wouldn't I love to make free copies of movies made by Roman Polanski, Gucci shoe designs, YSL dresses and of course how can I forget all their paintings and classical music). Regards, Hasit ======== On 10/7/05, commons-law-request at sarai.net wrote: > Send commons-law mailing list submissions to > commons-law at sarai.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > commons-law-request at sarai.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > commons-law-owner at sarai.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of commons-law digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. EU attempts to intro software patents by the back door > (Vinay Aravind) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:30:19 +0530 (IST) > From: "Vinay Aravind" > Subject: [Commons-Law] EU attempts to intro software patents by the > back door > To: commons-law at sarai.net > Message-ID: <3549.202.54.243.148.1128592819.squirrel at 202.54.243.148> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > EU attempts to intro software patents by the back door > > The price of liberty is watching these pesky €urocrats > > By INQUIRER staff: Thursday 06 October 2005, 09:49 > THE EUROPEAN UNION appears to be attempting to introduce more laws > regulating software patents despite suffering a resounding defeat earlier > this year. > > Gunter Verheugen, the EU industry commissioner, said a package of measures > were decided to make the continent's industrial base stronger. > > In particular, according to the full text of a statement published here ( > http://wiki.ffii.org/ComVerheugen051005En ), Verheugen points to a lack of > protection on intellectual property within the EU. > > According to a PDF thrown up by the €urocrats recently, a EU community > patent directive could well be in the offing in 2006. > > Florian Muller, who spearheaded a campaign against software patents in > Europe successfully this year, told the INQ: "What we see here are two > parallel initiatives: The community patent regulation would, based on the > current draft, simply be a back-door approach to legalising software > patents. > > "Software patents would come as a side effect of another regulation. Then > there is that new Commission working paper which industry commissioner and > Commission VP Verheugen presented. > > "While that working paper only says that the Commission plans to have a > dialogue on such issues next year and mentions software patents as one > area of concern, that type of announcement is often the first step to some > legislative initiative that would follow a series of consultations." > > Muller claimed that the Commission has a culture of primarily listening to > large corporations, and "if those cry loud enough, then the Commission > might claim that there is a need for new legislation." µ > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > > > End of commons-law Digest, Vol 27, Issue 7 > ****************************************** > From anivar.aravind at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 10:55:36 2005 From: anivar.aravind at gmail.com (Anivar Aravind) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:55:36 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: [wsfii-discuss] Imagine a World Without Copyright In-Reply-To: <57a935970510090436h7bd6a77dt@mail.gmail.com> References: <57a935970510090436h7bd6a77dt@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <35f96d470510092225u5e65141aq7d7f596016f2ffe7@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From ignou18 at sancharnet.in Sat Oct 8 22:27:09 2005 From: ignou18 at sancharnet.in (ignou18 at sancharnet.in) Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 22:27:09 +0530 (GMT+05:30) Subject: [Commons-Law] Re [bytesforall_readers] IHT op-ed: Imagine a world without copyright Message-ID: <33076518.1128790629432.JavaMail.nobody@ndl1pp2-a-fixed> Is copyright also related to intellectual property rights; which seems to be the buzzword today? Or is intellectual property rights some kind of an eyewash? Ananya Guha IGNIU,Shillong. --------Original Message ------- -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Darius Cuplinskas Imagine a world without copyright By Joost Smiers and Marieke van Schijndel International Herald Tribune SATURDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2005 http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/07/opinion/edsmiers.php AMSTERDAM Copyright was once a means to guarantee artists a decent income. Aside from the question as to whether it ever actually functioned as such - most artists never made a penny from the copyright system - we have to admit that copyright serves an altogether different purpose in the contemporary world. It now is the tool that conglomerates in the music, publishing, imaging and movie industries use to control their markets. These industries decide whether the materials they have laid their hands on may be used by others - and, if they allow it, under what conditions and for what price. European and American legislation extends them that privilege for a window of no less than 70 years after the passing of the original author. The consequences? The privatization of an ever-increasing share of our cultural expressions, because this is precisely what copyright does. Our democratic right to freedom of cultural and artistic exchange is slowly but surely being taken away from us. It is also unacceptable that we have to consume cultural creations in exactly the way they are dished out to us, and that we may change neither title nor detail. We thus have every reason to ponder about a viable alternative to copyright. At the same time, a fascinating development is taking place before our very eyes. Millions of people exchanging music and movies over the Internet refuse to accept any longer that a mega-sized company can actually own, for example, millions of melodies. Digitalization is gnawing away at the very foundations of the copyright system. What might an alternative idea of copyright look like? To arrive at that alternative, we first have to acknowledge that artists are entrepreneurs. They take the initiative to craft a given work and offer it to a market. Others can also take that initiative, for example a producer or patron who in turn employs artists. All of these artistic initiators have one thing in common: They take entrepreneurial risks. What copyrights do is precisely to limit those risks. The cultural entrepreneur receives the right to erect a protective barrier around his or her work, notably a monopoly to exploit the work for a seemingly endless period of time. That protection also covers anything that resembles the work in one way or the other. That is bizarre. We must keep in mind, of course, that every artistic work - whether it is a soap opera, a composition by Luciano Berio, or a movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger - derives the better part of its substance from the work of others, from the public domain. Originality is a relative concept; in no other culture around the globe, except for the contemporary Western one, can a person call himself the owner of a melody, an image, a word. It is therefore an exaggeration to gratuitously allow such work the far-reaching protections, ownership title and risk-exclusion that copyright has to offer. One might ask whether such a protective layer is really necessary for the evolving process of artistic creation. Our proposal, which will entail three steps, will demonstrate that this is not the case. What then, do we think, can replace copyright? In the first place, a work will have to take its chances on the market on its own, without the luxurious protection offered by copyrights. After all, the first to market has a time and attention advantage. What is interesting about this approach is that this proposal strikes a fatal blow to a few cultural monopolists who, aided by copyright, use their stars, blockbusters and bestsellers to monopolize the market and siphon off attention from every other artistic work produced by artists. That is problematic in our society in which we have a great need for that pluriformity of artistic expression. How do we think this fatal blow could work? If the protective layer that copyright has to offer no longer exists, we can freely exploit all existing artistic expressions and adapt them according to our own insights. This creates an unpleasant situation for cultural monopolists, as it deprives them of the incentive to pursue their outrageous investments in movies, books, T-shirts and any other merchandise associated with a single cultural product. Why would they continue making these investments if they can no longer control the products stemming from them and exploit them unhindered? The domination of the cultural market would then be taken from the hands of the cultural monopolists, and cultural and economic competition between many artists would once again be allowed to take its course. This would offer new perspectives for many artists. They would no longer be driven from the public eye and many of them would, for the first time, be able to make a living off their work. After all, they would no longer have to challenge - and bow down to - the market dominance of cultural giants. The market would be normalized. Certain artistic expression, however, demands sizeable initial investments. This is the second situation for which we must find a solution. Think about movies or novels. We propose that the risk bearer - the artist, the producer or the patron - receive for works of this kind a one-year usufruct, or right to profit from the works. This would allow the entrepreneur to recoup his or her investments. It would still be an individual decision whether or not to make the large investments, for example, needed to make a movie, but no one would be granted rights to exploit that work for more than a year. When that period expired, anyone could do with the work as he or she pleased. The third situation for which we must conceive a solution is when a certain artistic creation is not likely to flourish in a competitive market, not even with a one-year usufruct. It may be the case that the public still has to develop a taste for it, but that we still find, from the perspective of cultural diversity, that such a work must be allowed to exist. For this situation it would be necessary to install a generous range of subsidies and other stimulating measures, because as a community we should be willing to carry the burden of offering all kinds of artistic expressions a fair chance. Cultural monopolists desperately want us to believe that without copyright we would have no artistic creations and therefore no entertainment. That is nonsense. We would have more, and more diverse ones. A world without copyright is easy to imagine. The level playing field of cultural production - a market accessible for everyone - would once again be restored. A world without copyright would offer the guarantee of a good income to many artists, and would protect the public domain of knowledge and creativity. And members of the public would get what they are entitled to: a surprisingly rich and varied menu of artistic alternatives. (Joost Smiers, the author of ''Arts Under Pressure: Promoting Cultural Diversity in the Age of Globalization,'' is a professor of political science of the arts at the Utrecht School of the Arts, the Netherlands. Marieke van Schijndel is a policy adviser and publicist; this article reflects her personal opinions.) - -- Sunil Abraham, sunil at mahiti.org http://www.mahiti.org 314/1, 7th Cross, Domlur Bangalore - 560 071 Karnataka, INDIA Ph/Fax: +91 80 51150580. Mob: (91) 9342201521 UK: (44) 02000000259 From lawrence at altlawforum.org Mon Oct 10 12:10:50 2005 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:10:50 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] FW: [Reader-list] Indian blogger gets a (hilarious) legal notice from Arindam Chaudhuri's IIPM In-Reply-To: <1c8ca5cd0510090922w7a47d842o47608022a321de10@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry for cross posting, but the legal notice is indeed quite funny ------ Forwarded Message From: Albert Krishna Ali Reply-To: Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 21:52:28 +0530 To: Subject: [Reader-list] Indian blogger gets a (hilarious) legal notice from Arindam Chaudhuri's IIPM ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Dear all, Mumbai-based blogger Gaurav Sabnis has been served a legal notice, via email, by the Indian Institute of Planning and Managment: http://gauravsabnis.blogspot.com/2005/10/im-disconnecting-my-cable-connectio n.html Unknown bloggers have sprung up to 'attack' JAM editor Rashmi Bansal: http://youthcurry.blogspot.com/2005/10/lies-damned-lies-and-fake-blogs.html More details and a call to arms at: http://www.desipundit.com/2005/10/08/lies-damned-lies-and-fake-blogs/ _________________________________________ reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city. Critiques & Collaborations To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header. List archive: - ------ End of Forwarded Message From lawrence at altlawforum.org Mon Oct 10 17:42:54 2005 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:42:54 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Nalsar signs MOU with Microsoft Message-ID: Hi all This is very interesting, when I went to teach at Nalsar a year ago I was pleasantly surprised by the fact that all their systems were running on GNU Linux. But this raises some serious questions of institutional capture Microsoft had also sponsored a workshop in the national alw school a few years ago which was meant to train the lower judiciary in the evils of software piracy Lawrence =========== >From http://www.varindia.com/VNS/Oct5_1.htm Microsoft Corporation India has signed a 3-year Memorandum of Understanding with the prestigious National Academy of Legal Studies and Research University (NALSAR), Hyderabad, to implement the "Microsoft Intellectual Property Scholar Program". Under the aegis of this program, Microsoft aims to establish a Knowledge Bank in the area of Intellectual Property. Microsoft will select three "Microsoft Scholars" from the final year batch of the B.A. B.L. (Hons.) program at NALSAR, to undertake fundamental research and author papers on topics related to Intellectual Property (IP) rights. Research scholarships will be provided by Microsoft to these scholars and based on the research generated by them, a lecture series will be organized by NALSAR. Speaking on the occasion, Dr. Ranbir Singh, Vice-Chancellor, NALSAR, said, "As an institution which fosters a challenging and exciting intellectual environment, we are extremely excited about our new partnership with Microsoft. We are confident that our students will immensely benefit from the program and will be able to further the growth of Intellectual Property in the country." Under the terms of the MoU, NALSAR will make available to the Microsoft Scholars a dedicated study room, which was inaugurated by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India at the Dr. N. C. Banerjee Centre for Intellectual Property Law Studies. Relevant library and research resources will also be made available to the students, All software required in this computer facility for the Microsoft Research Scholars, will be provided free of cost, by Microsoft. The Professor of Intellectual Property at NALSAR, Professor V. K. Unni, will act as the resident administrator for the Microsoft Scholar Program in conjunction with the Legal and Corporate Affairs Department of Microsoft. An empowered project Review Committee comprising Dr. Ranbir Singh, VC, NALSAR, Shardul Shroff, Managing Partner, Amarchand Mangaldas, and Rakesh Bakshi, Legal and Corporate Affairs, Microsoft India, will be constituted to monitor the progress of the projects. From sunil at mahiti.org Mon Oct 10 19:48:16 2005 From: sunil at mahiti.org (Sunil Abraham) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:48:16 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Open Source Agreed In UN Information Society Summit Preparations Message-ID: <1128953897.8647.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=98&res=1280_ff&print=0 Encouragement for the use of free and open source software and open standards for science and technology has quietly worked its way into the draft texts being prepared for the November second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Such ideas have gained significant support in recent years as potentially low-cost, easy-access solutions for developing countries, but as they are put forward in the WSIS context they are balanced by stronger calls for proprietary approaches. The draft WSIS texts are lengthy and detailed, and intellectual property (IP) issues play a comparatively small role overall, but the stakes are high enough to draw top government IP officials and industry lobbyists to the meetings. Agreement on the issue was reached at the 19-30 September WSIS preparatory committee meeting held in Geneva. The provisions will be included in those forwarded to senior officials at the 16-18 November summit in Tunis. In the introductory chapter of the texts, called the “political chapeau” an agreement was reached on paragraph 21 after bolstering the neutrality of the reference to different types of software models. According to one participating official, proposed text referencing free and open source was put forward by the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries with the support of Canada, China, South Africa, and the Arab Group represented by Egypt. The text reflected regional agreements. The official said, “You could say we have the support of 3 billion people.” Modifications to make the language more technology neutral were sought by the United States, the source said. But informal charges that efforts were made to drop references to free and open source from the summit’s second phase could not be confirmed. At least one senior lobbyist from proprietary software maker Microsoft, Fred Tipson, made the trip from Washington. The US government had an extensive team of diplomats and technical experts, several of whom were shuttling back and forth to the nearby General Assembly of the UN World Intellectual Property Organisation. During the preparatory committee meeting, developing countries threatened to disagree if they perceived the modifications to throw the balance of the provision too far in the direction of proprietary models, an official said. But agreement appears to have been reached with only one notable modification: the addition of the phrase, “in ways that reflect the possibilities of different software models” after the reference to free and open source software. Paragraph 21 of the political chapeau now reads: “Our conviction that governments, the private sector, civil society, the scientific and academic community, and users can utilize various technologies and licensing models, including those developed under proprietary schemes and those developed under open-source and free modalities, in accordance with their interests and with the needs to have reliable services and implement effective programmes for their people. Taking into account the importance of proprietary software in the markets of the countries, we reiterate the need to encourage and foster collaborative development, inter-operative platforms and free and open source software, in ways that reflect the possibilities of different software models, notably for education, science and digital inclusion programs. (Agreed)” A side note is that the American spelling of the word “programs” at the end only appears in the latest version, having replaced the British “programmes” (which is still used earlier in the paragraph), further suggesting the modification was a US proposal. Also in the political chapeau, paragraph 11 states: [We affirm that the sharing and strengthening of global knowledge for development can be enhanced by removing obstacles to equitable access to information for economic, social, political, health, cultural, educational and scientific activities and by facilitating access to public domain information, including by universal design and use of assistive technologies, in this context we underline that media play an important role.] The paragraph has gone through several changes and remains in brackets. Open Source As A Measure For Development The open-source issue also appears alongside other hotly debated “measures to promote development” like interconnection costs (the cost to complete a call within a country) in paragraph 70 of the latest version of chapter 3, which itself is the highly debated Internet governance section. (Officials agreed at the preparatory committee meeting to leave Internet governance for experts meeting just prior to the Tunis summit. All other issues will continue to be negotiated by the less-technical Geneva-based missions up to the Tunis summit). Chapter 3, paragraph 70 states: “We reaffirm our commitment to turning the digital divide into digital opportunity, and we commit to ensuring harmonious and equitable development for all. We commit to foster and provide guidance on development areas in the broader Internet governance arrangements, and to include, amongst other issues, international interconnection costs, capacity-building and technology / know-how transfer. We encourage the realization of multilingualism in the Internet development environment, and we support the development of software that renders itself easily to localisation, and enables the user to choose appropriate solutions from different software models including open-source, free and proprietary software. (Agreed)” The final reference to software, found in Chapter 1, paragraph 7.e, does not explicitly mention open versus proprietary. It calls for achieving internationally-agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals, through a series of steps including “promoting public policies aimed at providing affordable access to hardware as well as software, connectivity, increasingly converging technological environment, capacity-building and local content.” The provision is not in brackets, signalling that it is agreed. Nothing Agreed Till All Agreed? David Gross, the US lead delegate, told reporters during the preparatory committee meeting that “none of the language is formally agreed to until all of the language is agreed.” Further creating an environment in each country for continued global growth of the Internet and of information technology is paramount for the United States. But the US must be convinced that the UN is not creating “backdoor” ways to regulate sectors, Gross said. In particular, he referenced the proposed creation of a forum for Internet governance issues, perhaps the most debated issue of the summit. A dramatic proposal by the European Union to move many of the core functions of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) under a “new international co-operation model” attracted most of the outside attention of third preparatory committee meeting as it created a division with the US, which has a contract with ICANN to oversee much of the technical operation of the Internet. It is less clear whether the EU’s departure from the US position extends to the free and open source versus proprietary software issue. But Europe’s renewed effort to pursue a legal challenge of Microsoft might give some indication. ________________________________________________________________________ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. All of the news articles and features on Intellectual Property Watch are also subject to a Creative Commons License which makes them available for widescale, free, non-commercial reproduction and translation. William New, the author of this post, may be reached at wnew at ip-watch.org. You can subscribe for automatic notifications of these stories, via the RSS feed or via the e-mail alerts. Subscribers can choose the frequency of notifications as well as particular topics of greatest interest to them. . -- Sunil Abraham, sunil at mahiti.org http://www.mahiti.org 314/1, 7th Cross, Domlur Bangalore - 560 071 Karnataka, INDIA Ph/Fax: +91 80 51150580. Mob: (91) 9342201521 UK: (44) 02000000259 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20051010/a6401761/attachment.bin From hbs.law at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 11:32:05 2005 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 11:32:05 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Patent Publication Action Group? Message-ID: <8b60429e0510102302s25a49ef1p9dd6182368f58d41@mail.gmail.com> Hi All, Considering the dismal state of online publication of Indian Patents (forget the application publication), it would be worthwhile to start a campaign to get this done ASAP. Here is the broad outline of stages: 1. Petioning (6 months): a. Write to Patent Office, Minister of Sci & tech, and concerned departments. b. File a Right to Information request as to when the Patent Office intends to publish all patent information online. c. Media articles, mailing lists, etc. d. Online petition. 2. Litigation (1 Year): a. Assuming no satisfactory response is received from above activites, a PIL can be filed in the Supreme Court directly. Please email me at hbs.law at gmail.com if you would like to discuss this further. I guess, this is an issue which both anti-patents and pro-patents types can work together. Regards, Hasit From gnthej at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 21:05:14 2005 From: gnthej at gmail.com (Thejesh GN) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:05:14 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fwd: Indian blogger v/s IIPM whats up? In-Reply-To: <4b0dd710510110829u46a44a5eged8880fb79439d11@mail.gmail.com> References: <4b0dd710510110829u46a44a5eged8880fb79439d11@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4b0dd710510110835x7186219n68f8d2532af5b285@mail.gmail.com> Here is my dissection and opinion about the issue. Comments welcome :) http://www.techmag.biz/Indian_blogger_vs_IIPM_whats_up -- Thanks, Thej http://www.techmag.biz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20051011/787fc298/attachment.html From rohit_de at hotmail.com Wed Oct 12 22:47:02 2005 From: rohit_de at hotmail.com (Rohit De) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:17:02 +0000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Blogwars In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20051012/9cde5f95/attachment.html From lawrence at altlawforum.org Thu Oct 13 13:51:32 2005 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:51:32 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Fatwa against IP may be misleading Message-ID: >From http://www.thejakartapost.com Mohamad Mova Al 'Afghani, Jakarta One important matter contained within fatwas (edicts) recently issued Indonesian Ulemas Council (MUI) is the judgment that Intellectual Property (IP) violations are haram. This conclusion means that utilizing IP without a right is a violation of God's prescribed law and thus a sinful thing to do for a Muslim. MUI's argument is that Islamic law protects the rights and property of individuals and that Intellectual Property is also a form of property that is protected under Islamic law. This is exactly the point at which MUI's argument could be mistaken. Prior to issuing such an edict, the MUI should have investigated whether the concept of Intellectual Property is in fact a sui generis (unique, peculiar) Islamic concept. This is done by finding justifications in primary sources of Islamic law, which are the Koranic verses and hadith. It is certain that the MUI will find abundant verses and hadith stating that an individual's property must be protected. However, it is quite certain that they will hardly find any verses or hadith that states that knowledge or ideas are protected under Islamic law. What they will surely find in those sources is that all knowledge belongs to God and that knowledge seeking and knowledge sharing is an obligation for all Muslims. Under old Islamic customs there was a system of knowledge acknowledgement known as ijaza (certificate). If a person is to teach, quote or reproduce a certain knowledge, then he or she must obtain an ijaza from the author. This system of a chain of authority is designed to ensure authenticity in the passing of knowledge from one person to another, and also as a form of respect for authors. Certainly, this kind of system was not created for financial benefit but rather for the sanctity of science. It only protects the moral right of an author to a certain degree. The knowledge itself belongs to God, not to any individual. The ijaza system certainly is not a form of copyright. Copyright was a response to Gutenberg's printing revolution of the European Middle Ages. Conditions at that time required legal protection for authors, as book copying became easier due to the printing press. Prior to the invention of the printing machine, no economic right for authorship was ever granted specifically by any body of law. Authors were only granted the moral right for having created books. After copyright, the concept that intellectual products could be proprietarized expanded into patent, which occurred during the industrial revolution. Since then, the concept of property has extended into intellectual products that consequently entail legal protection as normally granted to tangible property. By looking at the history of copyright and patent, it is conclusive that Intellectual Property is a concept developed in the West. It is thus not a sui generis Islamic legal concept. Whether or not an idea expression can be proprietarized under Islamic law is still not certain. What the MUI has done through its fatwa is to make an analogy with the protection of tangible property available in Islam and further extending and applying it to intangible property. In relation to whether IP protection serves our society's best interests, the answer is quite clear. IP protection, whether copyright or patent, has sparked much abuse. The emerging trend today is aimed towards limiting IP protection, as removing it entirely would not be possible for the time being. International moves through the draft Access to Knowledge Treaty purport to reduce and limit the length of IP protection. "Copyleft" licenses are meant to get around ordinary copyright licenses in disseminating intellectual products. It would be in the interests of Islamic society to limit the concept of Intellectual Property, if not completely abolish it in the future. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is currently putting together a "development agenda" that will shift its emphasis from "protection" to "knowledge access". Extensive IP protection is only in the interests of big corporations and advanced nations. The language that the MUI used in its edict is also ambiguous as it determines the haram nature of a conduct if it "violates" a regulation. A violation of IP rights is determined by a verdict of a tribunal. The MUI is silent in relation to which law and which tribunal can judge violation to be haram. IP protection in each country is different. Does the MUI refer to international law, Arabic law or Indonesian law? If the MUI refers to Indonesian positive law, there are plenty of things under our law that are harmful to the transfer and promotion of knowledge. The copyright law for example, requires that relinquishment of rights needs to be conducted in a traditional written form. Moreover, the existing copyright law does not support transfer of knowledge. DVD/CD replication in libraries for archival purposes could be deemed as an infringement of copyright. The law also does not specifically allow teachers to copy their class materials for students. The MUI should not link the concept of haram with violations of positive law. Aligning religious law with positive law will have severe consequences. Positive law is very dynamic, it may change from time to time. If the concept of haram is attached to positive law, then the state of haram may also change from time to time. To summarize, the MUI's fatwa that supports IP could be misleading and is counter productive for the following reasons. First, "Intellectual Property" is a not a sui generis Islamic legal concept. Second, Islamic values favor the promotion, transfer and dissemination of knowledge, as compared to treating it as property. Third, it is not in the best interests of Islamic society to extensively support IP protection. And fourth, aligning religious law with positive law will reduce the transcendentality of religious values, making it vulnerable to political abuse. The MUI's fatwas are not binding, both in terms of religious or positive law. However, they have great psychological influence as the majority of Indonesian Sunni Muslims will tend to adhere to it. Muslim society is currently being left out in terms of knowledge and scientific development. What Islamic legal scholars must do in responding to this situation is to revolutionize Islamic law so as to enlighten and liberate Muslim society from its dark ages, by limiting and reducing protection granted under the concept of Intellectual Property. If the MUI does not wish to revolutionize Islamic law, then it should at least refrain from addressing the Intellectual Property issue. Importing a capitalistic legal concept and stamping God's word on it will not bring any benefits to society. Wallahu'alam. The writer (movanet at yahoo.com) is a lawyer and a lecturer. From paivakil at yahoo.co.in Thu Oct 13 14:30:30 2005 From: paivakil at yahoo.co.in (Mahesh T. Pai) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:30:30 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Nalsar signs MOU with Microsoft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20051013090030.GA8461@home.wki> Lawrence Liang said on Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 05:42:54PM +0530,: > Microsoft had also sponsored a workshop in the national alw school > a few years ago which was meant to train the lower judiciary in the > evils of software piracy Strange. M$ is one of the potential candidates for the `leading litigant' category, and it is unfortunate that the judiciay accepted this. -- Mahesh T. Pai free - (adj) able to act at will; not hampered; not under compulsion or restraint; free from obligations or duties; not bound to servitude; at liberty. From amit.agnihotri2005 at gmail.com Thu Oct 13 20:11:50 2005 From: amit.agnihotri2005 at gmail.com (Amit K Agnihotri) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:11:50 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Of lawyers and corporate scandals Message-ID: Highly respected lawyer Abhishek Singhvi wrote in The Hindustan Times, October 5, 2005, that he said at a seminar on business ethics that it has become an oxymoron. This article is a shining example of how it is accepted practice that one's actions need not have even a distant connection with one's words. He lectures at great length about the lack of ethics in business houses and about "the numerous corporate scams and scandals litter the moral landscape." Singhvi gives the examples of Enron and Tyco. But he forgot the biggest recent one: Escorts, who he represented in the Delhi High Court. Since the case is sub judice, not much can be said, but it can be said safely that the legality of the conversion of a charitable institution into a profit making company and then its sale has been brought into question. The strong interim order passed by the judge Anil Kumar, showed that not only did he quickly grasp the matter but actually wrote: "The acts committed by the defendants in creation of another society, merger of two societies and thereafter floating a company with limited liability and the new company giving loans to defendant no.1 and pledging its assets for the loans given to defendant no.1 and thereafter transfer of shareholding and assets to third parties, require adjudication and investigation." Instead of writing about the ethics of business, it would have been more appropriate for Singhvi to address the ethics of lawyers. Yes, every citizen has a right to defence. And many lawyers justify accepting any brief with that reference. But, there are multitude cases where lawyers refuse a brief on one pretext or another. Can we forget that when Kiran Bedi stood by the principled belief of standing by her constable who hand cuffed a lawyer in 1988, there was no lawyer willing to represent her? The same lawyer who gave legal opinions to a businessman and told him what he wanted to hear: that it is legal to convert a charitable institution into a profit making company, knowing full well that it is questionable, also ensures a steady income when he represents that client to defend that doubtful legal opinion. We now learn that wily, slimy businessmen often shop for a lawyer who will give them the twisted legal opinion that they need, to do what they want to do, rather than what is strictly the law. Get this. Singhvi writes: "We have also avoided addressing unpleasant issues like the role of professionals (especially accountants and legal advisors). Ancient jurisprudence described them as 'bloodhounds'. Slowly, case law started using the milder term 'watchdogs'. Recent corporate scams have led them to being described as 'lapdogs'. Enron and Tyco could not have occurred unless these professionals "cooked the books with a flair and a zest which would put the chefs at Taj Hotel to shame"." Right. Do we have to wait for the press to inform the distinguished lawyer where all these facts also apply? No doubt, this will make many a lawyer squirm at the unfairness of judging a lawyer for accepting a brief that contains illegal actions. Isn't that what lawyers are suppose to do? But is it? It is debatable, at least. The Bar Council of India, states in it Rules, Preamble, Chapter II, Standards of Professional Conduct, Section I - Duty to the Court: "An advocate shall refuse to represent the client who persists in such improper conduct. He shall not consider himself a mere mouth-piece of the client……………." A lawyer cannot absolve himself of endorsing illegal acts of the client. Okay, he can, but should he then virtually in the same breath write and lecture on "declining morality"? He should have added: "and increasing hypocrisy". Every lawyer's first and foremost loyalty is to uphold the law of the land. That is his stated dharma. There are lawyers and there are lawyers. There is a large section of senior lawyers who are honest and are known to refuse cases that hit against their conscience. Examples of many such cases have been reported, where briefs have been refused even when they come from the government in power. And there are those lawyers in a minority, whose doors are the first ones knocked at when you have run over and killed seven people, who can turn witnesses hostile and then morph a BMW into a truck. The actions of such lawyers attack and destroy the basis of Indian law. Singhvi wrote: "Unlike the US, we forget the mandate of the 'Doubter's dictionary', which defines ethics as 'a matter of daily practical concern, described glowingly in commercial terms by those who intend to ignore it.'" Exactly. Daily, practical concern. One presumes Singhvi is attempting to use a quotation from The Doubter's Companion (1994), known as the devil's dictionary, written by Canadian philosopher and writer, John Raulson Saul. So, let me continue to quote Saul: "So much credence has been given to essentially silly ideas, such as we are driven by self-interest, which would really make us hardly human at all, but mammals and nothing more. Obviously, what makes us most interesting is our ability to live with uncertainty and our ability not to slip into either/or views of the world. You cannot help but debunk a lot of the theories that have developed over the last 20 to 25 years. They are dependent upon us accepting the idea we are a frightened people driven by self-interest." Saul says citizens have more choice than they are led to believe and the aim of his book is to demonstrate this. "People feel they only have two choices," he says, "the head and the heart. One is the instrumental, hard-nosed thing, and the other is the marginal, romantic, idealist thing. Well, that is not a choice. The point is to show people they have these qualities they can use. For example, ethics is really very practical, but it isn't good enough to be right. It also has to work; otherwise, it is just good intentions, and then it is romantic. That doesn't mean it's easy and pretty." A lawyer can act as an officer of the court, that is, choose to stand up and protect the Law or he can be a taxi for hire. Singhvi ends his article reminding us of Mahatma Gandhi's demands for public character. While invoking Gandhi, it might serve him well to remember that it was Gandhi who defined his job as a lawyer in South Africa, when he refused to defend a client who turned out to be a liar and told the judge so. Gandhi was also brilliant enough to realise a mistake and was intelligently flexible enough to change track as he evolved. Singhvi ends his article with a plea to reconstruct our morality and reminds us of Gandhi's itemized seven deadly sins: "He listed them as politics without principles, wealth without work, business without morality, education without character, pleasure without conscience, science without humanity and worship without sacrifice. We have covered some parts of the journey but many miles remain." There are millions of lawyers who take that journey every day by working on cases that support their conscience. Gandhi always led by example and action. Now it is time for Abhishek Singhvi to walk his talk and cover the miles that remain. Thanks Amit Kumar Agnihotri From anivar.aravind at gmail.com Fri Oct 14 11:22:11 2005 From: anivar.aravind at gmail.com (Anivar Aravind) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:22:11 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay In-Reply-To: <35f96d470510132251vaca375ewa66eb7c18caa2693@mail.gmail.com> References: <35f96d470510132251vaca375ewa66eb7c18caa2693@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <35f96d470510132252t309d5b2idd8cf9c9a34b6759@mail.gmail.com> RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay "There are some who say that a collaborative development model, taking advantage of these freedoms, tends to make software that is technically better. They may be right, and it would be nice if freedom brings such a practical bonus. However, the freedom itself is more important than the bonus, so the Free Software Movement focuses on the freedom." Read the full interview between Federico Biancuzzi and Richard Stallman at ONLamp.com. http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6222 Anivar Aravind FSF India From hbs.law at gmail.com Fri Oct 14 17:46:36 2005 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 17:46:36 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] 1. Of lawyers and corporate scandals (Amit K Agnihotri) Message-ID: <8b60429e0510140516y27e04c46nb8a23abc48b795ed@mail.gmail.com> Amit, Isn't this rant out of place on this Commons/IP list, however right the sentiment may be? This issue has been dissected in the mainstream press (Indian Express) enough. Representing a client has nothing to do with endoring their actions, that is pretty basic (doesn't need an ancient jurisprudence source to justify !!). You write well, but you got to choose the right platform. What has hospital sale got to do with IP and/or Commons? Hasit > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:11:50 +0530 > From: Amit K Agnihotri > Subject: [Commons-Law] Of lawyers and corporate scandals > To: reader-list at sarai.net, commons-law at sarai.net > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="WINDOWS-1252" > > Highly respected lawyer Abhishek Singhvi wrote in The Hindustan > Times, October 5, 2005, that he said at a seminar on business ethics > that it has become an oxymoron. This article is a shining example of > how it is accepted practice that one's actions need not have even a .............. From lawrence at altlawforum.org Fri Oct 14 19:07:01 2005 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:07:01 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Bird flu drug maker won't share patent In-Reply-To: <20051013045319.58096.qmail@web70015.mail.krs.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Bird flu drug maker won't share patent Roche the sole manufacturer, a company spokesman says - Sabin Russell, Chronicle Medical Writer Thursday, October 13, 2005 Tamiflu, a pricey antiviral pill invented in a Bay Area lab and made in part from a spice used in Chinese cookery, has emerged as the world's first line of defense against bird flu should the deadly strain begin its feared spread among human beings. As nations begin to stockpile the drug in anticipation of a flu pandemic, calls are mounting for countries to sidestep patents on the drug -- as Brazil first did for AIDS medications -- and make their own generic versions. But Swiss pharmaceuticals giant Roche, which acquired rights to the drug from Gilead Sciences Inc. of Foster City in 1996, said Wednesday it had no intention of letting others make it. "Roche ... fully intends to remain the sole manufacturer of Tamiflu,'' said company spokesman Terry Hurley. The immediate problem is not the cost of Tamiflu, which runs about $60 for a 10-pill course of treatment, but a staggering gap between the sudden demand for it and the capacity of its sole manufacturer to produce it. Although Roche has increased production of Tamiflu eightfold in the past two years, it will take $16 billion and 10 years to make enough of the drug for 20 percent of the world's population, said Klaus Stohr, director of the World Health Organization's Global Influenza Program, in comments to reporters in San Francisco last week. "Something has to be done,'' said Ira Longini, an Emory University professor whose computer model of a potential avian flu pandemic shows that an outbreak could be snuffed out within a month by rushing antiviral drugs to the place where it started. "When you think of the potential damage a pandemic flu could do, and how little drug we have, the situation is quite absurd. "It makes sense to do something along the lines of what was done with AIDS drugs.'' James Love, director of the Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, D.C., said that during the anthrax bioterrorism scare in 2001, both the United States and Canada had threatened to bypass the patent of Bayer Corp.'s antibiotic Cipro to assure a sufficient supply of the drug. The Tamiflu problem is similar. "The WHO should buy stockpiles from generic suppliers,'' he said. "If patents are in the way, the WHO should ask the manufacturing country to issue the appropriate compulsory licenses. The patent owner will receive royalties, but we will have the stockpiles." U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has signaled a willingness to consider generic production of flu drugs and vaccines. During remarks at the World Health Organization headquarters in Geneva last week, he said drug companies should be "helpful" by not letting their patent claims interfere with access to medicines. "I wouldn't want to hear the kind of debate we got into when it came to the HIV anti-retrovirals,'' he said. Roche will not release its Tamiflu production figures, deeming it "commercially sensitive" information, said Hurley, the company spokesman. However, he said the company produced "many hundreds of millions" of the pills annually. In response to WHO concerns about bird flu this summer, the company agreed to donate enough Tamiflu to treat 3 million people. Although public awareness of the pandemic threat posed by the bird flu has blossomed in recent weeks, scientists have been warning since 1997 that the rogue influenza strain known as H5N1 could be the one that triggers a pandemic rivaling the devastating Spanish flu of 1918 -- which killed 50 million. Tests on laboratory mice strongly suggest that Tamiflu -- and a lesser-known inhaled antiviral, Relenza -- are the only medications that can treat infection with the H5N1 strain. Tamiflu has not been effective in the treatment of the small number of people who've contracted the H5N1 virus in Asia. Of 116 people infected since 2003, half have died. However, most of those patients were admitted to hospitals days or weeks after they became ill. Tamiflu is thought to work best within 36 hours of symptoms. "Late treatment is clearly ineffective,'' said Dr. Frederick Hayden, a University of Virginia expert on flu drugs. As a treatment for ordinary flu, Tamiflu has been effective, but in a Japanese study of children treated with the drug, about 1 in 6 patients developed strains of flu resistant to the drug, though the new flu strains were much weaker, causing less illness. At WHO's urging, 40 nations last year began building stockpiles of Tamiflu. The United Kingdom, for example, has ordered enough for 14.6 million people, a quarter of its population. The U.S. stockpile goal for this year is 4.3 million 10-pill treatments, enough to cover less than 2 percent of the population. Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt has said the U.S. government plans to buy 20 million courses of Tamiflu, although no timeframe for the purchase has been revealed. To accommodate U.S. demand for the drug, Roche is building Tamiflu production capacity in the United States, and spokesman Hurley said the plant -- actually a series of facilities owned by the company and subcontractors -- would be "up and running" by the end of the year. The U.S. appetite for Tamiflu, however, may quickly outstrip the capacity of any one company to make it. A draft proposal by the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, charged with developing a federal response plan to a pandemic, envisions distribution of nearly 90 million courses of antiviral drugs. The pills would be rationed according to need, with hospital patients and health care workers who treat them at the top of the list. WHO flu chief Stohr is not optimistic that generic producers would be able to make Tamiflu. He told reporters in San Francisco that the drug takes a full year to make and involves a potentially explosive process that would drive out all but the most sophisticated manufacturers. It would take a generic supplier at least "two years" to put a plant into action. In addition, Stohr said, the starter ingredient for Tamiflu is a Chinese spice called star anise, whose seeds are used in flavorings, medicines and cooking oils. Most of the world production of star anise is located in four provinces of China, and the supply of it has been back ordered, primarily for drug production. Meanwhile, the shortage of Tamiflu has begun to trickle down to American hospitals, which normally keep small quantities of the drug to treat garden variety influenza each winter. Dr. Roger Baxter, director of Kaiser Permanente's flu surveillance program in Northern California, said the health care giant had stopped prescribing the drug to patients who wanted it for their own personal stockpiles, or sought it for travel abroad. "Kaiser has a very small supply,'' he said. "We don't have a stockpile that would cope with a major outbreak.'' Only patients with so-called B-strains of influenza -- which like H5N1 do not respond to older line flu drugs -- and those who are hospitalized will be considered for Tamiflu, he said. "We can't get a large amount of oseltamivir for stockpiling, even if we wanted to,'' he said. Page A - 1 URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/13/TAMIFLU.TMP ________________________________________________________ 무료 1GB용량!, 더 이상 용량 고민없는 - 야후! 메일 (http://mail.yahoo.co.kr) 최신 휴대폰 정보, 벨소리, 캐릭터, 문자메세지 - 야후! 모바일 (http://kr.mobile.yahoo.com) 대한민국 블로그가 모인 곳! - 야후! 피플링(http://kr.ring.yahoo.com) _______________________________________________ Ip-health mailing list Ip-health at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health ------ End of Forwarded Message From annymcbeal at gmail.com Sat Oct 15 17:58:48 2005 From: annymcbeal at gmail.com (anu) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:58:48 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] One-Fifth of Human Genes Have Been Patented Message-ID: <8a1161ed0510150528u2bd706cbu7ff23863e619e91a@mail.gmail.com> One-Fifth of Human Genes Have Been Patented, Study Reveals Stefan Lovgren for National Geographic News October 13, 2005 A new study shows that 20 percent of human genes have been patented in the United States, primarily by private firms and universities. The study, which is reported this week in the journal *Science,* is the first time that a detailed map has been created to match patents to specific physical locations on the human genome. Researchers can patent genes because they are potentially valuable research tools, useful in diagnostic tests or to discover and produce new drugs. "It might come as a surprise to many people that in the U.S. patent system human DNA is treated like other natural chemical products," said Fiona Murray, a business and science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, and a co-author of the study. "An isolated DNA sequence can be patented in the same manner that a new medicine, purified from a plant, could be patented if an inventor identifies a [new] application." *Hot Spots* Gene patents were central to the biotech boom of the 1980s and 1990s. The earliest gene patents were obtained around 1978 on the gene for human growth hormone. The human genome project and the introduction of rapid sequencing techniques brought a deluge of new genetic information and many new patents. Yet there has been little comprehensive research about the extent of gene patenting. The new study reveals that more than 4,000 genes, or 20 percent of the almost 24,000 human genes, have been claimed in U.S. patents. Of the patented genes, about 63 percent are assigned to private firms and 28 percent are assigned to universities. The top patent assignee is Incyte, a Palo Alto, California-based drug company whose patents cover 2,000 human genes. "Gene patents give their owners property rights over gene sequences—for example in a diagnostic test, as a test for the efficacy of a new drug, or in the production of therapeutic proteins," Murray said. "While this does not quite boil down to [the patent holders] owning our genes … these rights exclude us from using our genes for those purposes that are covered in the patent," she said. Specific regions of the human genome are "hot spots" of patent activity. Some genes have up to 20 patents asserting rights to how those genes can be used. "Basically those genes that people think are relevant in disease, such as Alzheimer's or cancer, are more likely to be patented than genes which are something of a mystery," Murray said. *Patent Maze* The effect of gene patenting on research and investment has been the subject of great debate. Advocates argue that gene patents, like all patents, promote the disclosure and dissemination of ideas by making important uses of gene sequences publicly known. Patents also provide important incentives to investors who would otherwise be reluctant to invest in ideas that could be copied by competitors. But critics caution that patents that are very broad can obstruct future innovations by preventing researchers from looking for alternative uses for a patented gene. "You can find dozens of ways to heat a room besides the Franklin stove, but there's only one gene to make human growth hormone," said Robert Cook-Deegan, director of Duke University's Center for Genome Ethics, Law, and Policy. "If one institution owns all the rights, it may work well to introduce a new product, but it may also block other uses, including research," he said. In cases where there are a lot of patents surrounding one area of research, the scientific costs of gene patents—financial and otherwise—can be extremely high. "Our data raise a number of concerns about gene patents, particularly for heavily patented genes," Murray said. "We worry about the costs to society if scientists—academic and industry—have to walk through a complex maze of patents in order to make more progress in their research." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20051015/41bed9df/attachment.html From annymcbeal at gmail.com Sat Oct 15 18:11:08 2005 From: annymcbeal at gmail.com (anu) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:11:08 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] IBM donates IP to open source community Message-ID: <8a1161ed0510150541w6eaecbefx86beccdc40768a57@mail.gmail.com> IBM's Rational Division Proposes Major IP Donation to Open Source Community available at http://fr.sys-con.com/read/140025_1.htm Portions of RUP to be Considered by Eclipse Foundation By: Eclipse News Desk Oct. 12, 2005 05:30 AM BM has announced plans to donate key intellectual assets to the open source community, "in an effort to help companies and software practitioners adopt and share best practices for software development," according to the company. The proposal involves a subset of the IBM Rational Unified Process (RUP), and will be taken under consideration by the Eclipse Foundation. IBM Rational methods manager and spokesperson Per Kroll, in an exclusive interview with SYS-CON Media , said that developers, whether working in the open-source environment known as LAMP or in other environments, will receive multiple benefits from IBM's announcement. RUP is a software process platform that has guided some 500,000 developers around the world in projects ranging from small-scale product development to large industrial-strength systems, according to IBM. It comprises what IBM says is "a vast collection of methods and best practices for promoting quality and efficiency throughout software development projects." IBM's donation will also provide a foundation architecture and Web-based tools for the industry to engineer, collaborate on, share and reuse software development best practices, according to Kroll. "A lack of standards in core development activities such as requirements setting, analysis and design, testing and project management has increased time and overhead as organizations continually reproduce the myriad processes, plans and compliance documents that are fundamental to software development. Best practices often remain siloed within an individual team or company," according to an official announcement that was confirmed by remarks Kroll also made. "By contributing intellectual property to establish a common, open industry framework and ecosystem around software development, we hope to foster more innovation by encouraging developers everywhere to reuse assets," said Daniel Sabbah (pictured), General Manager, IBM Rational Software. "IBM is doing for the software development process what Eclipse has done for the integration of software tools, what Apache did for Web application servers and what Linux did for operating systems. "Software practitioners at large companies, independent software vendors, systems integrators, and in government and academia will be able to collaborate more easily and drive better-managed and higher quality software projects," Sabbah also said. "By rethinking software development practices to emphasize smarter processes and higher-quality outcomes, companies will reach new levels of innovation while obtaining productivity gains characteristic of an on-demand business." The donation announced today is designed to advance a collaborative, industry-wide effort to synthesize, share and automate development processes and best practices among independent software vendors, IT organizations building integrated software systems, academia, the research community and individual software professionals on small or large teams. IBM also announced that is joined in this open source project by a consortium of software industry leaders, including Capgemini, BearingPoint, Covansys, Jaczone, Number Six Software, Ivar Jacobson International, Armstrong Process Group and Ambysoft, as well as Unisys, NTT Comware, Sogeti and Wind River. IBM's proposal is expected to be received positively by the open-source community. Bill Dudney, Editor-in-Chief of SYS-CON's Eclipse Developer's Journal and Vice President/Practice Leader at open-source company Virtuas, said "This is great news for the Eclipse community, but it's especially welcome for the IT development community. With the initial grant of the essence of the Rational Unified Process (RUP) as well as the tools necessary to extend and elaborate on this foundation, IBM has given us great starting point to build great processes and best practices repositories." Dudney added, "In addition to providing a starting point in the RUP donation this contribution also includes tools to help communities form and collaborate to build their own processes and best practice repositories. With this foundation the 'process' communities (agile, XP, etc) will have a great tool set to collaborate and elaborate their processes together. The really great thing is the open approach this community, being part of Eclipse, will foster." Mark Hinkle, Editor-in-Chief of SYS-CON's LinuxWorld Magazine and VP/Business Development for open-source company Win4Lin, said "Open sourcing of commercial software is a fascinating trend where software vendors are giving away intellectual property that they once guarded with the utmost secrecy. They are trading the protection of confidentiality for the benefits of collaboration and wider mindshare for their products and ideas. The most successful examples of open sourcing of technologies are the ones were a community develops around the donated code like we have seen with the Mozilla Foundation's Firefox. I suspect IBM is savvy enough to help foster such a community around their RUP release." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20051015/75eee192/attachment.html From hbs.law at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 09:30:19 2005 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:30:19 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Adelphi Charter: Royal Society Issues an IP Charter... Message-ID: <8b60429e0510162100h130bba72j1cd7bc5b4e49c121@mail.gmail.com> Intellectual property Free ideas Oct 13th 2005 From The Economist print edition An initiative to reverse the proliferation of patents and copyrights PATENTS and copyright laws are meant to be the friends of innovation and are a foundation of the modern business world. But there is a growing risk that intellectual-property laws are now so stringent that they are actually inhibiting innovation, rather than protecting it. The call for a new approach was made forcefully this week in a statement called the Adelphi Charter, issued by a group of prominent legal scholars, artists, scientists and experts from around the world. The Adelphi group are a varied crew ranging from Gilberto Gil, the Brazilian culture minister (and pop star) to Sir John Sulston, a Nobel-winning scientist who helped decode the human genome, and James Boyle, a law professor at Duke University. They believe that the intellectual-property system is starting to lean so far in favour of private enrichment that it no longer serves the public interest. For example, two hundred years ago, copyright lasted 28 years. It then began to increase and, in the 20th century, lawmakers roughly doubled its length in America and many other countries with little public debate or economic rationale. Organised by Britain's Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce, the group hopes the 453-word charter will help restore balance. The charter lays out a "public-interest test" for policymakers to use before changing intellectual property laws: an automatic presumption against expanding rights, placing the burden of proof on those who seek this, as well as requiring rigorous analysis to justify changes, along with broad public consultation. This is a good approach, and yet the Adelphi principles leave important questions hanging in the air. The charter declares that software, business processes, and medical therapies should not be patented, nor copyright extended to things like databases that are simply compilations of open facts. But the Adelphites have not submitted these ideas to the same kind of rigorous economic analysis that they demand from their foes. What is clear is that, as technologies like computers and the internet make the exchange of information easier than ever—and inventions become more conceptual—huge stress is being placed on today's intellectual-property laws, which trace their foundations to the birth of the printing industry and mechanical industrialisation. Industries that rely on copyright and patent protection are increasingly turning to the law to protect their businesses. For example, music firms are suing thousands of people for swapping songs online and trying to stem the tide of counterfeit CDs. Google has also recently been sued by a trade association of authors to prevent it from placing book excerpts online. And Microsoft has recently reiterated its intention to patent a basic format for storing files—a move that could let the firm collect money from the IT industry for things that have been done cost-free for years. Meanwhile, the World Intellectual Property Organisation, a United Nations body, is pushing ahead with treaty negotiations that will create a new layer of rights for broadcasters, including on the web. At the same time, new approaches aim to work around overly-restrictive rights, such as the open-source software movement and an effort called the Creative Commons, which makes it easy for creators to give away some of their copyrights under licence while retaining others to control how their works are reused. The Adelphi Charter is clearly far from a complete answer to the dilemmas posed by intellectual-property rights in an era shaped by digital technology and the desire for as much innovation as possible. But it does aim at the right target by promoting the idea that—as Mr Boyle puts it—"good policy does not just consist of 'more rights', it consists of maintaining a balance between the realm of property and the realm of the public domain". From gnthej at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 14:54:16 2005 From: gnthej at gmail.com (Thejesh GN) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:54:16 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Do we need EFF in india Message-ID: <4b0dd710510180224r2df629c6ne5aac3a1a8dbeffd@mail.gmail.com> To fight for our online rights....do we need to form an organization similar to www.eff.org in India. I feel yes. What others think? http://www.techmag.biz/time_for_eff_india -- Thanks, Thej http://www.techmag.biz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20051018/c0c3b779/attachment.html From shekhar at crit.org.in Wed Oct 19 01:19:41 2005 From: shekhar at crit.org.in (Shekhar Krishnan) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:49:41 -0400 Subject: [Commons-Law] Happy Birthday Message-ID: <1129664981.17265.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> http://unhappybirthday.com/ -- Shekhar Krishnan 9, Supriya, 2nd Floor 709, Parsee Colony Road no.4 Dadar, Mumbai 400014 India http://www.crit.org.in/members/shekhar http://web.mit.edu/~shekhar From lawrence at altlawforum.org Wed Oct 19 09:28:59 2005 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:28:59 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Adelphi Charter Message-ID: Hi all A very interesting story on a meeting between Gilberto Gil (culture Minster of Brazil), and James Purnell (Minister for creative industries) on the Adelphi Charter ( http://www.ipcharter.org) It will be good to discuss the Adelphi charter This is what Stallman had to say about it " It sounds like a well-intentioned activity, and it may do some good. However, if they actually used the term "intellectual property", that will tend to promote the very kind of thinking that they wish to keep in check" Lawrence >From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4348970.stm Copyright for the digital age Arguments about intellectual property go far beyond the rights and wrongs of movie piracy, says technology analyst Bill Thompson. Piracy is widespread in countries like China Two very different politicians had lunch together last week. One was James Purnell, the MP for Stalybridge and Hyde who became Minister for the Creative Industries and Tourism after May's General Election. He shared what was by all accounts a remarkably pleasant meal at London's Royal Society of Arts with Gilberto Gil, the Brazilian guitarist and songwriter who happens to be his country's current Minister of Culture. Mr Gil and Mr Purnell were together at the Royal Society of Arts for the launch of the Adelphi Charter on Creativity, Innovation and Intellectual Property, an attempt to set out new principles for copyright and patents in the digital age. It proposes what its authors believe is a compelling new way to balance the economic rewards offered to creative individuals and companies, with the less obvious benefits that come from the widespread circulation of their works and inventions. It might even help governments when it comes to passing the new laws on copyright and patents which we seem to need these days. Sadly, I was not there for the lunch, or the launch, but there is a nice photo of the occasion on John Naughton's weblog. Intellectual ammunition I understand that our minister was rather less relaxed and chatty than his counterpart, but that may just be because they are very different politicians. The principles go far beyond our current obsession with music downloads and movie piracy Mr Purnell, like most ambitious New Labour MPs, presumably sees himself as passing through the Department for Culture Media and Sport on his way to high office in one of the major ministries of state. I would suspect that Mr Gil, who has worked with Yes, Pink Floyd and Jimmy Cliff in his musical career, cares rather more about the impact of new technologies and the internet on creators and consumers of music and other art forms. He has worked closely with Creative Commons, the world wide organisation seeking to encourage creative expression and sharing, and is an influential advocate of open software and open standards. Mr Gil can be relied on to understand why the law should "ensure both the sharing of knowledge and the rewarding of innovation". As for Mr Purnell, the RSA's charter is pretty short, at just under 450 words, and fits nicely on a single side of A4 paper so it will not fill his ministerial red box. If he reads it carefully, he will have some intellectual ammunition to use against the representatives of the music industry who are currently lobbying hard for an extension of the copyright term on recordings, which currently stands at only 50 years. Last week I argued that Google should go ahead with their project to scan and index millions of books, even those that are still in copyright, because it serves the public interest. The Adelphi charter is clear on this, stating that "the public interest requires a balance between the public domain and private rights. It also requires a balance between the free competition that is essential for economic vitality and the monopoly rights granted by intellectual property laws". The time is clearly right for this discussion. Piracy obsession The charter was launched the week after a government-sponsored conference on the creative industries, and follows a general election in which Labour said in its manifesto that "we will modernise copyright and other forms of protection of intellectual property rights so that they are appropriate for the digital age". Last week France made Gil a Grand Officier of the Legion d'Honneur In fact the RSA, or to give it its full name, the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce, has a long and distinguished history of saying what needs to be said to those in power. It was founded in 1754 to "encourage the development of a principled and prosperous society". Like other 18th Century foundations, it was driven by the industrial revolution and an awareness among the rising elite of the time that the new economy required a new dispensation. The old rules could no longer be relied upon to deliver wealth, happiness or even that small degree of social justice that was considered necessary for a stable society at that time. The charter continues that tradition, trying to make sense of a body of intellectual property law that is increasingly seen as unsupportable and damaging both to the development of the new economy and to the creative freedom that new technologies should make possible. It is, according to John Naughton, one of the authors, "an attempt to formulate a sane set of principles to guide law-making on intellectual property in a digital age". The principles go far beyond our current obsession with music downloads and movie piracy, and extend to tests for genetic predisposition to breast cancer, Aids drugs and other life-saving inventions that matter far more to humanity than being able to sample great music, even Gilberto Gil's. This should not surprise us, since the commission who wrote it included people like Sir John Sulston, the Nobel Prize-winning biologist who did much to decode the human genome. It is far too easy to act if the internet is the only challenge to today's intellectual properly regime. It is also easy to be sceptical about the ability of politicians at any level to engage in these issues, and this creates a danger that those campaigning for change will simply ignore the political structures and avenues for debate. But effective change will only happen through the political process, even if the pressure for that change is created by technological innovations. And even if national policies are constrained by international agreement, change is possible. It just takes time and concerted effort. The broad perspective and commitment to an international approach which the Adelphi Charter demonstrates makes it an excellent rallying point for all those who feel it is time to rethink intellectual property law. From lawrence at altlawforum.org Wed Oct 19 09:34:30 2005 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:34:30 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Possible Compulsory Licensing for Bird Flu Message-ID: From aidslaw2 at lawyerscollective.org Wed Oct 19 13:10:30 2005 From: aidslaw2 at lawyerscollective.org (aidslaw2 at lawyerscollective.org) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:10:30 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Supporting Access to Medicines References: Message-ID: <049c01c5d480$62f31f50$0500a8c0@LCHAUBLR.com> Dear Friends, After months of preparation, it is with great hope that we write to inform you that we have filed our first pre-grant opposition under the new Indian Patent (Amendment) Act (2005) on behalf of patients. The opposition was filed on 26 September 2005 at the Chennai Patent Office against the patent application for the drug Glivec, as applied for by Novartis. We expect to receive a date to attend a hearing in front of the Chennai Patent Controller on the filed opposition shortly, most likely to be within one to two months time. For your information, we were informed by the Patent Controller that three Indian drug companies (formerly known as 'generics') have also filed oppositions and were to be heard on the matter in Chennai on 14 October 2005. The process for filing the opposition has and continues to be difficult given the inadequate mechanisms put in place by the Patent Office. In particular, obtaining the necessary information from the Patent Office website and each individual Patent Office is proving to be very laborious, time consuming and costly, which naturally results in hindering our efforts to move quickly and to make our strongest case. Such procedural matters have been raised with the Patent Controller, but to no avail so far. However, efforts to have the Patent Office improve its online databases and search facilities to allow for a fair opposition process are continuing aside from the opposition work. Nevertheless, despite such constraints, in the coming months, the Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit and the Alternative Law Forum will continue to file oppositions, where legally viable, against questionable applications for anti-retroviral medications in the 'mailbox'. Furthermore, we intend to make public a complete list of drugs in the mailbox so that groups concerned with public health will be in a position to bring their own oppositions and carry forward advocacy, both in India and globally. We strongly recommend that those groups which have the capacity engage in processes to oppose the patenting of these drugs. In the meantime, should anyone be interested in receiving a copy of the draft opposition, please e-mail aidslaw2 at lawyerscollective.org. In solidarity Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit and Alternative Law Forum From tahir.amin at btopenworld.com Wed Oct 19 17:02:44 2005 From: tahir.amin at btopenworld.com (TAHIR AMIN) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:32:44 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Google drops Gmail address in UK Message-ID: <20051019113244.72083.qmail@web86107.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Google drops Gmail address in UK By Tim Weber Business Editor, BBC News website Google's Gmail account comes with 2.6 Gigabyte storage Gmail, the free e-mail service run by internet search giant Google, will change its name for new UK users. Following a trademark dispute the mail account will be renamed Googlemail. London-based Independent International Investment Research says it started using the Gmail name for a web-mail application two years before Google. Current UK users of Google's service will be unaffected, but a separate trademark dispute forced Google to drop the Gmail name in Germany in May. Talks between both companies broke down several months ago, after they failed to agree a financial settlement. Gmail v Googlemail Google's Gmail e-mail account is free, comes with just over 2.6 Gigabyte of storage space and allows users to view their e-mail with all messages on a single subject linked together. We want to avoid any distraction to Google and to our users Nigel Jones, Google In return, users have to live with the fact that Google's search engine analyses their e-mail and places small context-driven internet links next to their mail, some of which are paid-for adverts. The service, launched on 1 April 2004, is officially still in "beta", a technical term to describe the test phase of a product. In most countries Gmail accounts are available on an invitation-only basis, although existing Gmail users have been offered as many as 100 invitations to distribute to friends and family. >From Wednesday morning, new users in the UK signing up with the Google service will be given an e-mail address that ends with "@googlemail.com". German users with this address report that e-mail sent to their username but ending with "@gmail.com" instead of "@googlemail.com" will still arrive at its destination. Trademark dispute The dispute between Google and Independent International Investment Research (IIIR) centres on who owns the Gmail trademark. The London-based research firm, with a £3.24m ($5.6m) stockmarket value, says it has used the name "Gmail" since 2002 to describe the mail function of its online information tool Pronet, mainly used by investors in currency derivatives. Companies like Citigroup, Deutsche Bank and Bank of America are among the British firm's clients. After Google announced its Gmail plans in spring 2004, IIIR rushed to register the Gmail trademark with Ohim, the European Union's trademark office, and the US Patent and Trademark Office. For our clients, Gmail is the most prominent function... it's a big green button that says 'Gmail' Shane Smith, Independent International Investment Research Google, with a stockmarket valuation of $54.4bn (£31.1bn), disputes the trademark claim. IIIR "has failed to provide evidence of its common law rights to the name", said Nigel Jones, Google's senior European counsel. But to "avoid any distraction to Google and our users", the company would switch to the Googlemail brand in the UK while the dispute was being resolved at the various trademark offices. The case could still go to court, though. IIIR's chairman and chief executive Shane Smith told BBC News that Google broke off negotiations "unilaterally", and that his company was now investigating its legal options. "For our clients, Gmail is the most prominent function of the Pronet tool, it's a big green button that says 'Gmail'," said Mr Smith. Google's rival Gmail service had created confusion and uncertainty amid potential clients of his firm, said Mr Smith. In Germany, Google is already in the courts over the Gmail name. On 13 September the US search firm lost an appeal against a court injunction that stops Google from using the Gmail brand in Germany. There a Hamburg-based company had registered the term "G-Mail" to advertise what it describes as a "hybrid mail service", bridging the gap between electronic and hardcopy mail. 'Exorbitant sum' The breakdown of negotiations between Google and IIIR ultimately comes down to money and a disagreement about the value of the Gmail trademark. IIIR boss Shane Smith points to an independent valuation of the brand, compiled in December 2004 by Valuation Consulting Limited, which suggests a value of between $48m and $64m, although he says his company would have settled for much less. Google's Nigel Jones, however, says IIIR demanded an "exorbitant sum" in exchange for dropping its claim on the Gmail trademark. Both sides are cagey about how much was at stake, but BBC News understands that a settlement worth millions of dollars had been discussed. For now, though, Google will not be able to promote one of its most high-profile brands in two of Europe's largest economies. ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com From hbs.law at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 09:38:54 2005 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:38:54 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Do we need EFF in india (Thejesh GN) Message-ID: <8b60429e0510192108q9376a22kf5f210bba5de1e84@mail.gmail.com> Hi All, Thejesh, we STRONGLY need an EFF in India. The reasons are that the nanny government model we have assumes no need to understand citizens need for electronic privacy. In Maharashtra, the cyber cafe's are supposed to keep track of all users and what they do online. Apparently, this is done to "avoid corrupting the mind of the youth with porn", reminds me of indictment of Socrates (not porn, but political ideas). What is there to prevent airing of dissent against say any party in poewr someday. Regards, Hasit On 10/18/05, commons-law-request at sarai.net wrote: > Send commons-law mailing list submissions to > commons-law at sarai.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > commons-law-request at sarai.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > commons-law-owner at sarai.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of commons-law digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Do we need EFF in india (Thejesh GN) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:54:16 +0530 > From: Thejesh GN > Subject: [Commons-Law] Do we need EFF in india > To: bytesforall_readers at yahoogroups.com, commons-law at sarai.net, > blogbang at googlegroups.com > Message-ID: > <4b0dd710510180224r2df629c6ne5aac3a1a8dbeffd at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > To fight for our online rights....do we need to form an organization similar > to www.eff.org in India. I feel yes. What others think? > > http://www.techmag.biz/time_for_eff_india > > -- > Thanks, > Thej > http://www.techmag.biz > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20051018/c0c3b779/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > > > End of commons-law Digest, Vol 27, Issue 17 > ******************************************* > From paivakil at yahoo.co.in Thu Oct 20 10:27:28 2005 From: paivakil at yahoo.co.in (Mahesh T. Pai) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:27:28 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Do we need EFF in india In-Reply-To: <4b0dd710510180224r2df629c6ne5aac3a1a8dbeffd@mail.gmail.com> References: <4b0dd710510180224r2df629c6ne5aac3a1a8dbeffd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051020045728.GA11720@home.wki> Thejesh GN said on Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 02:54:16PM +0530,: > To fight for our online rights....do we need to form an > organization similar to www.eff.org in > India. I feel yes. What others think? > http://www.techmag.biz/time_for_eff_india I did suggest this a few months back, and as a start, and also stated that given the resources we will face, we should initially set up a mailing list. -- Mahesh T. Pai ``Open source'' stresses the technical side of the software, excellence through code sharing. ``Free software'' emphasizes the moral and ethical, technical excellence being a desirable byproduct.) From gnthej at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 13:06:19 2005 From: gnthej at gmail.com (Thejesh GN) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:06:19 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Do we need EFF in india In-Reply-To: <20051020045728.GA11720@home.wki> References: <4b0dd710510180224r2df629c6ne5aac3a1a8dbeffd@mail.gmail.com> <20051020045728.GA11720@home.wki> Message-ID: <4b0dd710510200036s36e91eccs80d987946dc5f266@mail.gmail.com> Mahesh T. Pai said > > I did suggest this a few months back, and as a start, and also stated > that given the resources we will face, we should initially set up a > mailing list. > Lets start working on it...we can setup an email list on google...i can go ahead and create... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20051020/069b7251/attachment.html From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Thu Oct 20 23:32:47 2005 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:02:47 -0700 Subject: [Commons-Law] Call for Worldwide Votes to Show Opposition to Software Patents Message-ID: <4357DBC7.D96F370@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FOSS luminaries call to worldwide vote against software patents Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 04:08:18 +0200 From: "Florian Mueller" French version: http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=678 German version: http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=677 FREE AND OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE LUMINARIES CALL ON WORLDWIDE COMMUNITY TO VOTE AGAINST SOFTWARE PATENTS IN THE "EUROPEAN OF THE YEAR 2005" INTERNET POLL Richard Stallman, Tim O'Reilly, Alan Cox, Rasmus Lerdorf and Monty Widenius endorse Florian Mueller's candidacy "because he runs on a NoSoftwarePatents ticket, and that is the message we want to reinforce" Brussels (20 October 2005) -- A group of Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS) celebrities has weighed in on the election of the "European of the Year 2005" by calling on "software developers and users around the globe" to vote for Florian Mueller, the founder of the NoSoftwarePatents.com campaign, in a public online poll. The illustrious consortium consists of--in alphabetical order of last name -- Alan Cox, Red Hat Fellow and Linux kernel maintainer; Rasmus Lerdorf, creator of the PHP programming language; Tim O'Reilly, book publisher and conference organizer; Richard Stallman, President of the Free Software Foundation (who in 1984 began the work that produced today's popular GNU/Linux operating system); and Monty Widenius, creator of the MySQL database. In a NoSoftwarePatents press release, the community leaders today expressed their support for the voting recommendations that NoSoftwarePatents.com has published in more than a dozen languages: http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/ev50/vote.html Participants in the poll are required to make a choice in each of ten categories, and the voting list provided by NoSoftwarePatents.com explains the role that various candidates played in the software patent debate so that voters can reward the opponents of software patents and penalize pro-patent politicians. On 22 September, Florian Mueller was nominated for the most prestigious award in EU politics, the "EV50 Europeans of the Year". The jury thereby recognized his political efforts against a legislative proposal that in his opinion would have legalized software patents in Europe. The European Parliament rejected the bill on 6 July by a landslide of 648-32 votes. Mueller, who stressed that he owes this nomination "to our entire community and especially to the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII)", is credited with founding a multilingual campaign website, speaking out in the media and at public events, and lobbying MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) as well as governments and parliaments in select EU member states. The European Voice, a major EU-focused weekly, is now conducting an Internet poll in which Mueller runs against such famous contenders as U2 frontman Bono, Bob Geldof, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, and political leaders including British prime minister Tony Blair, the outgoing German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, and Schroeder's successor designate Angela Merkel. The poll is open to the worldwide public until 11 November. Mueller's endorsers pointed out that the FOSS community has played a particularly active role in the fight against software patents, but that software patents "threaten us all because they don't discriminate based on programming language, operating system, or licensing model". The group is "disconcerted by early reports" that the EU is now looking at alternative ways of giving software patents a stronger legal basis in Europe, such as an EU community patent regulation. The press release underscored the fact that "this is a campaign for a cause, not for a person": People are asked to vote for Mueller "because he runs on a NoSoftwarePatents ticket, and that is the message we want to reinforce". The NoSoftwarePatents.com label is right next to Mueller's name on the ballot (http://www.ev50.com/poll). The endorsement furthermore stated: "Some other nominees also stand for valid concerns and noble causes. However, those issues and individuals have already received a lot of coverage in the mass media, while the implications of software patents to the whole world, including developing countries, still require much more public awareness. In the sense that software patents monopolize mental steps, they are also a human rights issue." Mueller is confident that he can win the title of the "European of the Year" against his famous competitors in the light of the "indisputable e-campaigning power of the anti-software patent movement". In addition to a campaign statement and voting recommendations, the website provides an email form that allows supporters to spread the information (http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/ev50/notify.html), and banners (http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/ev50/banners.html). The two main slogans of the electoral campaign are "Vote against software patents" and "Vote for your right to program". Should he win the popular vote, Mueller said that "everyone is a winner". He promised "to donate the Microsoft-sponsored prize money to the FFII", without which he says he "probably wouldn't have become involved, let alone succeeded, in this political battle". The EV50 winners will be announced on 29 November. A gala evening at the Palais d'Egmont in Brussels will be hosted by former European Parliament President Pat Cox, who was hired by US corporations to lobby for software patents in the build-up to the 6 July vote. The EV50 awards are supported by Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt. Sponsors include PR and lobbying firm Burson-Marsteller, software maker Microsoft Corporation (a major owner and backer of software patents), and pharmaceutical giant Novartis. The European Voice is a publication of the Economist group. NOTE: Florian Mueller founded the NoSoftwarePatents.com campaign in 2004 with the support of three corporate sponsors (1&1, Red Hat, MySQL AB), and managed it until March of 2005. He then gave his website to the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII), the leading European pressure group that opposes the patentability of computer programs. CONTACT INFORMATION Florian Mueller florian.mueller at nosoftwarepatents.com From saul at twenteenthcentury.com Thu Oct 20 23:17:24 2005 From: saul at twenteenthcentury.com (Saul Albert) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:47:24 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] Adelphi Charter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20051020174724.GU81379@chinabone.lth.bclub.org.uk> On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 09:28:59AM +0530, Lawrence Liang wrote: > It will be good to discuss the Adelphi charter > > > This is what Stallman had to say about it " It sounds like a > well-intentioned activity, and it may do some good. > However, if they actually used the term "intellectual property", > that will tend to promote the very kind of thinking that they wish > to keep in check" Hi everyone, I'm officially de-lurking now - having been reading this list avidly for about 9 months now. (apologies to those who may have already read part of my rant about this on wsfii-discuss.) I went to the launch event at the RSA last Thursday. It was pretty interesting, there were some very well-heeled people there. The most amazing bit was the flash animation they'd developed, in a kind of bizarre, British unintentional pastiche of the Creative Commons 'get creative' animation http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/getcreative/ we all know and erm.. love. I'd love to be able to link to it, but I strongly suspect they'll never release it. It's basically a female voice reading the charter, slowly, accompanied by a eye-watering animations of the words she reads, pointlessly spinning and fluttering across the screen. I heard quite a few people giggling during that bit. The talks were interesting - James 'Christmas is Communism!' Boyle was particularly great. And the other speakers were distinguished and kind of relevant I suppose. The overall message they were giving, which, as Boyle admitted, was far from radical, was that in each emergent domain of intellectual property there should be evidence that giving greater rights to owners is an effective market catalyst before those rights are granted. I should add that this was qualified by lots of talk about the rights of the individual balanced against the needs of society etc.. Rufus Pollock (ofkn.org) pointed out that the free market fundamentalists would be upset by the charter because he thought it states that the market is part of society, rather than vice versa. I'm not sure it really admitted that. Stallman is right: like the Creative Archive project that the BBC is so engaged in, this is a very British comprimise. All the right words in the right order, very good for appearances, but essentially about as effective as the flash animation. Actually, I like the Charter for that reason; for the fact that it's a bit dysfunctional and awkward where the Creative Commons is slick, simplified and presentable. Maybe this is how British politics works - no written constitution, lots of non-public public data, a complex and not-always-elected-or-accountable set of institutions gradually chipping away at a political process. The Adelphi charter is a very sensible and well thought through attempt at trend-setting in that context. Maybe someone with a bit of power or leverage will pick it up, think it sensible, and be just a little more conservative about creating new legislative areas of IP in the UK. Boyle admits as much - it's not radical in the least, it's quite the opposite. At least the conservatism of the Charter leans towards protection of the remnants of the pseudo public domain we have in the UK. What encourages me about that, is that it indicates that there is actually a political discourse here about Intellectual Property that isn't isolated, along with most class/labour struggles, in the hermetically sealed time-capsule of grass-roots activism (which only gets shown in public in safe-mode ie. when it's nostalgic/historicised, or portrayed as terrorism/criminality). If the charter positions influential institutions such as the RSA, however tentatively, however conservatively, on the side of public interest, it is probably having a useful effect on the discourse. At the end of the talks, I asked the question: 'why is there nothing about Internet governance or infrastructure in this charter, what's the point of having an equitable balance of rights between consumers and producers, if the media of transmission are completely captive and enclosed?' No answers, but over a glass of good (non-free!) wine afterwards, the chair said the charter was still up for discussion, so perhaps I would care to write up and justify some amendments for the RSA journal? I'd relay that offer to this list. If you could add a clause, what would it be, and why? X Saul From aidslaw2 at lawyerscollective.org Fri Oct 21 13:42:19 2005 From: aidslaw2 at lawyerscollective.org (aidslaw2 at lawyerscollective.org) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 13:42:19 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Mashelkar Committee Message-ID: <03c801c5d617$29cf71e0$0500a8c0@LCHAUBLR.com> Affordable Medicines and Treatment Campaign (AMTC) 18 October 2005 At the invitation of the Technical Expert Group on Patent Law Issues chaired by Dr. R. A. Mashelkar, AMTC today gave a presentation before the Expert Group on an important patent law issue that could have a significant impact on the affordability and availability of essential medicines in India. "Under the Patents Act as it currently stands, multinational drug companies will be able to take advantage of loopholes to improperly extend their monopolies and price important medicines out of reach for the majority of Indians," said Anand Grover, convenor of AMTC, who gave the presentation. "Our goal was to convey to the Expert Group that in order to protect public health and ensure continued access to affordable medications, these legal loopholes must be closed, and I think we did that." At stake is the continued access to affordable medicines in India and much of the developing world. "India, as a signatory to the Doha Declaration, not only has the right, but an affirmative responsibility to ensure that the protection of intellectual property is accomplished without compromising public health," said Gopa Kumar of CENTAD. Thank you, as the press, for your continued support on this crucial issue. Affordable Medicines and Treatment Campaign (AMTC) For more information, please contact: Priti Radhakrishnan Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit +91.98454.30858 C/o Secretariat, Lawyers Collective, 4 / A, I Floor, MAH Road, Off Park Rd., Tasker Town, Shivajinagar, Bangalore-51 Email: aidslaw2 at lawyerscollective.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20051021/0fa6f784/attachment.html From aidslaw2 at lawyerscollective.org Fri Oct 21 13:43:46 2005 From: aidslaw2 at lawyerscollective.org (aidslaw2 at lawyerscollective.org) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 13:43:46 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Letter to Prime Minister Message-ID: <03ee01c5d617$5fe45ac0$0500a8c0@LCHAUBLR.com> AFFORDABLE MEDICINES & TREATMENT CAMPAIGN (AMTC) Adv/amtc/p/180/05 Hon'ble Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Delhi Hon'ble Prime Minister, I write on behalf of the Affordable Medicines and Treatment Campaign (AMTC) and partners to express some concerns regarding the Technical Committee set up after the passage of the Indian Patent (Amendment) Act (2005) and headed by headed by Dr A.R.Mashelkar. The AMTC is a collective of patients, doctors, lawyers, NGOs and citizens concerned about the public interest and access to medicines. Firstly, we be believe that it is unacceptable for patents to be granted under the new Patents Act until the Committee decides upon the issues within its mandate, namely the nature and scope of TRIPS obligations with respect to new chemical entities and micro-organisms. Until these key issues are resolved by Parliament, we do not believe it is appropriate for the Patent Controller to make any determinations with respect to any pending patent applications. These open issues go to the very core of what is and is not patentable under the Act. Unless and until the Patent Controller receives adequate statutory guidance from Parliament, the Patent Controller will be making ultra vires determinations regarding these critical open issues. As such, we request that the Patent Controller be enjoined from making any patent determinations until these two issues have been resolved. Secondly, we would like more information to be made available to the public about the workings of the Committee, including the process and content of the Committee's activities. There is an obligation upon the government to ensure an open and transparent process so that the public is aware of developments and the process is truly participatory and democratic. Please ensure that public comment is invited through open hearings across the country, including patients groups, legal professionals and other members of civil society. We hope that the findings of such hearings will be published online. We request an appointment with the Prime Minister's Office to discuss current developments related to the Technical Committee, and access to affordable medicines. Thirdly, it is distressing to note that there is no health representative on the Technical Committee. The issues of patentability of NCEs and MOs have far-reaching consequences for our country. Specifically, access to medicines will be significantly impacted by the decision taken by the Committee. We urge you to include a representative on behalf of the public interest and health on the Committee. Lastly, we hope that the Office of the Prime Minister will take an active role in staying abreast of developments with the Committee, particularly the submissions made by the Affordable Medicines and Treatment Campaign, Alternative Law Forum and other public interest groups. Sincerely, Affordable Medicines and Treatment Campaign Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit Community Health Cell Freedom Foundation Alternative Law Forum Sunil George, People's Health Movement Torchbearers (Advocacy for disabling mental illness) Society for People's Action for Development (SPAD) K B Obalesha, Human Rights Forum for Dalit Liberation (KA) Network for AIDS Prevention - Karnataka (NAP-K) Sanghamitra Iyer, Samraksha Care and Support Manohar, Sangama, Bangalore Dr Gopal Dabade, President, Drug Action Forum Karnataka Network of HIV Positive Persons Cynthia, People's Health Movement Prafula Saligram, Caregiver Prasanna Saligram, AID Swasti - Project Pragati - Bangalore Jayashree (filmmaker on Patents and Access to Medicines) Milana Support Group for Families Living with HIV/AIDS Vijaya Mahila Sangha - Bangalore Abhaya and Action Aid India Ramesh Rao - person working for HIV-positive people in Shimoga District, Karnataka Gopakumar Nazia Masood Surekha Nair, Sasarika Shalini Gambhi, Bangalore, Medical Services Trust and Research Institute Bhuvaneshwari, Suraksha Josh Varghese Joy, ACCEPT Rajshekar, ACCEPT Action AID India ,Abhaya Daniel Nathaniel, Acts Ministries William Christopher, Acts Ministries Good Sheperd Health Centre Community Health Cell Namrita Nair, Independent Health Consultant Vijaya Mahila Sangha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20051021/675cdf5d/attachment.html From Jane.Anderson at aiatsis.gov.au Fri Oct 21 13:54:18 2005 From: Jane.Anderson at aiatsis.gov.au (Jane Anderson) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:24:18 +1000 Subject: [Commons-Law] Re: commons-law Digest, Vol 27, Issue 20 (Away from my mail) Message-ID: I will be away from my mail from the 23rd October till the 4 November. If there are any urgent matters please contact Dr Peter Veth peter.veth at aiatsis.gov.au or contact me on my mobile - 0418 112 381 From prabhuram at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 15:04:45 2005 From: prabhuram at gmail.com (prabhu ram) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:34:45 +0200 Subject: [Commons-Law] A Market for Ideas Message-ID: <68752c9f0510210234w57f0dafdi@mail.gmail.com> >Economist Intellectual-property protection can be good for the technology industry as well as for its customers, says Kenneth Cukier (interviewed here). But it requires careful handling "The granting [of] patents 'inflames cupidity', excites fraud, stimulates men to run after schemes that may enable them to levy a tax on the public, begets disputes and quarrels betwixt inventors, provokes endless lawsuits...The principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just." The Economist may have put it rather strongly in 1851, but its disapproval of patents represented conventional wisdom at the time. A century earlier, Adam Smith had described them as necessary evils, to be handed out sparingly, and many other economists have since echoed his reservations. Patents amount to temporary monopolies on useful new inventions. Advertisement In recent years intellectual property has received a lot more attention because ideas and innovations have become the most important resource, replacing land, energy and raw materials. As much as three-quarters of the value of publicly traded companies in America comes from intangible assets, up from around 40% in the early 1980s. "The economic product of the United States", says Alan Greenspan, the chairman of America's Federal Reserve, has become "predominantly conceptual". Intellectual property forms part of those conceptual assets. In information technology and telecoms in particular, the role of intellectual property has changed radically. What used to be the preserve of corporate lawyers and engineers in R&D labs has been speedily embraced by the boardroom. "Intellectual-asset management" now figures as a strategic business issue. In America alone, technology licensing revenue accounts for an estimated $45 billion annually; worldwide, the figure is around $100 billion and growing fast. Technology firms are seeking more patents, expanding their scope, licensing more, litigating more and overhauling their business models around intellectual property. Yet paradoxically, as some companies batten down the hatches, other firms have found ways of making money by opening up their treasure-chest of innovation and sharing it with others. The rise of open-source software is just one example. And a new breed of companies has appeared on the periphery of today's tech firms, acting as intellectual-property intermediaries and creating a market for ideas. Mind the keep-out signs At the same time, however, the legitimacy of many patents granted is in question as patent offices struggle with the huge increase in demand. Over the past decade the number of patent applications has nearly doubled and continues to climb. Much of that growth has been in the IT and telecoms field: in America alone, that sector's overall share of patents has increased from around 30% in 1990 to almost 40% today. Also climbing, alas, is the number of lawsuits over patent infringement, the cost of litigation, and the amount of money plaintiffs are winning. Meanwhile, emerging technology powerhouses such as China and India are competing to move up from lower-end work such as hardware manufacturing and software coding to more sophisticated projects requiring their own innovation. This could pose serious challenges to today's incumbents. The number of patents granted at China's patent office has trebled in the past four years alone. "Intellectual property has become more central to the industry," says Greg Papadopoulos, chief technology officer of Sun Microsystems. "I don't know if that is a function of a mature industry, or simply a confused one." Licensed to make money The facts and figures speak for themselves. IBM alone now earns over $1 billion annually from its intellectual-property portfolio. HP's revenue from licensing has quadrupled in less than three years, to over $200m this year. Microsoft is on course to file 3,000 patents this year, when in 1990 it received a mere five. Earlier this year it set up an entirely new corporate division to exchange its technology for cash or equity in start-up firms. Nokia has recently started licensing its technology to other firms and plans to do more. And some companies, such as ARM, a British firm that designs the blueprints for microchips used in wireless devices, do little other than create and sell intellectual property. According to a survey of business executives last year by McKinsey, a consultancy, 54% of companies saw growth in licensing of 10-50% between 2000 and 2002. Almost 75% of executives say they expect to buy as well as sell more licences over the next two to five years, and 43% expect a dramatic increase in their licensing revenue. And they think the market is still embryonic. "Many companies generate a lot of intellectual property and do not capture the value from it," says Jay Jubas of McKinsey. The new predominance of intellectual property in technology industries is fed by a number of broader industry trends. First, IT and telecoms have become so complex that there is a greater willingness to accept the innovations of others. Gone are the days when vertically integrated firms handled every step of a product, from initial design to final sale. Now, a small army of specialist firms focus on narrow portions of technology, using intellectual-property rights to protect their inventions when they are licensed out. Second, as many new technologies quickly turn into commodities, firms increasingly rely on innovation to remain competitive. Yet the return on investment in R&D is short-lived because more people innovate at a far faster pace than before. That means margins have shrivelled, explains Ragu Gurumurthy of Adventis, an IT and telecoms consultancy. "How to recoup the cost of innovation? By licensing the technology," he says. Third, customers are demanding "interoperability" and common standards rather than proprietary systems, which means different firms' technologies must work together smoothly. This often requires pooling patents or cross-licensing agreements. Fourth, generating intellectual property is less capital-intensive than other aspects of the IT businesses because it relies mainly on people rather than bricks, mortar and machinery. That makes it attractive to many start-up firms. Venture capitalists often demand that firms patent technology, both to block rivals and to have assets to sell in case the firm flounders. This was particularly apparent during the internet boom in 2000. "In addition to the dotcom bubble, we had a patent bubble," says Mark Webbink of Red Hat, a firm that sells Linux, an open-source operating system. Companies cannot simply turn their back on what is happening in intellectual property. Even if they refuse to play the game, they may be unwittingly infringing someone else's patents because there are so many more of them around. Unless firms have patents of their own to assert so they can reach a cross-licensing agreement (often with money changing hands too), they will be in trouble. Thus many companies are acquiring large numbers of patents for purely defensive reasons, for use only to keep others' patent threats at bay. Legally, the intellectual-property system covers four areas: copyrights (used to protect artistic, musical or literary works); trademarks (for things like brands); patents (for inventions); and an ill-defined category of "trade secrets", for practices that are kept confidential. The system provides legal protection against counterfeiters and copiers and is vital to many fields, such as biotechnology and nanotechnology. And it matters not only to companies: universities, too, have recently become big patent holders and licensers. In IT and telecoms, the area of intellectual property that is creating particular upheaval is patents (see article). This is because patents confer a "negative right" to exclude others from using the same technique; yet information technology and telecommunications rely on "network effects", meaning that as more people use a system, it becomes that much more useful. To make the most of such network effects, interoperability between different technologies is essential. This can be achieved either by a single standard set by a dominant firm (which tends to generate resistance from customers and competitors), or by using a mixture of different technologies, with the patent system providing legal protection for inventions. The more the merrier As the system of intellectual property evolves, the ethos seems to be that if a little is good, then more is better. That is to say, if some property rights on inventions are beneficial, then increasing those rights—in scope, strength or duration—will increase the benefits. But that is a large assumption. There is even a body of evidence to suggest it is flatly wrong. The technology industry faces the question of whether today's abundance of patents, rather than lubricating the gears of innovation, may be clogging them up. Already, businesses are having to negotiate with other firms in order to do basic things such as reading files from different proprietary formats; and the design of new technology products now involves lawyers as well as engineers. The proliferation of patents might prove a serious encumbrance to businesses, just as travellers along the Rhine in medieval Europe were slowed down by having to pay a toll at every castle. James Boyle, a legal scholar at Duke Law School in North Carolina, claims that the current increase in intellectual-property rights represents nothing less than a second "enclosure movement". In the first enclosures, in 18th- and 19th-century Britain, the commons—open fields used by many, belonging to all, owned by none—were fenced in, and nearly all land became private property. By analogy, the granting of property rights on ideas, to the extent it is happening today, is plundering the intellectual commons of our public domain. Others see the expansion of intellectual-property rights as hugely beneficial, leading not only to more innovation but to more openness. The standard justification for the patent system is that it provides an incentive for innovation, allowing the inventor to reap rewards by protecting the work from imitators who would otherwise hitch a free ride on the investment. But that is a simplification. The initial intention was in fact to make inventions available to the public as well. Before the 18th century, innovations were mainly kept secret through trade guilds. Sometimes monarchs capriciously granted indefinite exclusive rights to someone they favoured. Intellectual-property law was meant to remedy this by requiring the invention to be vetted by experts, limiting the right to a set period and making knowledge more widely accessible through public disclosure. Its development was part of the drive towards democracy and capitalism and the abolition of royal privileges and monopolies. In principle, patents open up innovations in two ways. First, they confer only temporary rights; once patents expire or are abandoned, the intellectual property they are designed to protect passes into the public domain. Second, they require the details of the invention to be disclosed so they can be replicated. This permits follow-on innovation, which is essential for industrial progress. More recently, as the patent system has evolved, it has been seen to provide other benefits. It leads to a degree of economic specialisation that makes business more efficient. Patents are transferable assets, and by the early 20th century they had made it possible to separate the person who makes an invention from the one who commercialises it. This recognised the fact that someone who is good at coming up with ideas is not necessarily the best person to bring those ideas to market. Such specialisation is now so common that it is taken for granted. Semiconductors, the silicon chips that power digital devices, are typically designed by specialist firms that are good at engineering, but physically produced by other firms whose expertise lies in manufacturing. As the patent system has matured and licensing has become much more widespread, these transfers are turning business relationships on their head. Some economists argue that the growth of patent transactions is establishing a proper "market for technology". The creation of any market takes time and trouble. When such an institution develops, those outside the system feel threatened by it and condemn it. Yet just as the banking system created a market for capital and the insurance industry created a market for risk, the growth of the patent system may be creating a market for innovation. This provides a sort of "liquidity" to knowledge that did not previously exist, argue Ashish Arora, Andrea Fosfuri and Alfonso Gambardella in their 2001 book, "Markets for Technology, the Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy". Seen that way, the evolution of the patent system in IT and telecoms is simply part of a broader movement to create an institutional mechanism for the transfer of ideas to fuel economic progress. Mutually assured destruction That is the context in which commercial battles are taking place in the technology industry today. The convergence of IT and telecoms is forcing companies to work together in new ways in order both to protect and exchange their technology. "How do you create a marketplace for ideas in that converged marketplace?" asks David Kaefer, director of intellectual-property licensing at Microsoft. "That is really the big question. In the past, two parties would haggle over a pound of wheat. Today, they haggle over the patent of the week." These markets for technology are expanding. For instance, 60% of technology and telecoms firms report an increase in licensing compared with the previous decade, and 70% report fewer obstacles to reaching such agreements, according to a survey by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2004. "Intellectual property is the next asset class. Companies are creating a market," says Eric Gillespie, the co-founder of ipIQ, one of the new crop of firms that are fuelling patent transactions. But when talking to executives in the technology firms themselves, the language you hear most often is that of "the arms race" and "mutually assured destruction". Companies amass patents as much to defend themselves against attacks by their competitors as to protect their inventions. Many technology companies have recently championed reform of the patent system to deal with spuriously awarded patents, licensing extortion and massive lawsuits. "There is a broad recognition in the US that the patent system, if not reformed, will...begin to impede American competitiveness around the world," says Bruce Sewell, general counsel of Intel, the world's biggest chipmaker. This survey will argue that, despite such adjustment problems, the huge changes in intellectual property currently taking place in the IT sector will in time produce more efficient markets. But what do the IT firms themselves make of it all? From atreyee at nls.ac.in Thu Oct 20 20:49:38 2005 From: atreyee at nls.ac.in (atreyee at nls.ac.in) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:49:38 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Commons-Law] quirk:invitation for submissions Message-ID: <2216.59.92.139.119.1129821578.squirrel@59.92.139.119> ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Fairly Important From: "Abhayraj Naik" Date: Wed, October 19, 2005 1:13 pm To: john.aju at gmail.com "atreyee at nls.ac.in" "Aprajita Dhundia" ekadish at softhome.net "Neeti Jain" madhumita at nls.ac.in quirk at nls.ac.in quirkdocumentation at gmail.com "Ruchika Mohanty" raghu_s10 at mailcity.com "Srijoni Sen" "Saurabh Rustagi" suhasbaliga at nls.ac.in "Thomas John" uttara at nls.ac.in x3enophon at gmail.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- hi all please forward the text below, with the subject line 'Quirk Literary Mag: Submission Call" to any interested e-groups/blogs/websites you have access to. find attached a Word document with the call for submissions as well - would be fantastic if you could get a printout and display the same on a notice board in any college/university/library/hangout you have access to. Finally, do consider writing yourself and/or encouraging others to contribute. ta abhay (91-9886316432) " THE FINAL *NON-FLEXIBLE *DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSIONS FOR THE SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2005 EDITION OF QUIRK IS MIDNIGHT (INDIAN STANDARD TIME) OF *25TH OCTOBER, 2005*. THEME: *New Moralities* *Looking For*: Articles, Short Stories, Essays, Plays, Music/Movie/Game/Other Reviews, Poetry, Sketches, Paintings, Comics, Cartoons, Photographs, and Other Generally Quirky 'literary' Submissions. Email your submission to quirk at nls.ac.in or if you prefer, give a hard copy to any quirk editorial collective member (and send an email indicating the same to quirk at nls.ac.in) Quirk is available in select locations across india and also online at www.quirk.in (currently under development) " -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: untitled-1_2.DEFANGED-22474 Type: application/defanged-22474 Size: 4667 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20051020/f9e26a17/attachment.bin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SubmissionCall.doc Type: application/msword Size: 23552 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20051020/f9e26a17/attachment.doc From aidslaw2 at lawyerscollective.org Fri Oct 21 13:41:32 2005 From: aidslaw2 at lawyerscollective.org (aidslaw2 at lawyerscollective.org) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 13:41:32 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Letter to Prime Minister Message-ID: <03b901c5d617$0e2b2e70$0500a8c0@LCHAUBLR.com> AFFORDABLE MEDICINES & TREATMENT CAMPAIGN (AMTC) Adv/amtc/p/180/05 Hon'ble Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Delhi Hon'ble Prime Minister, I write on behalf of the Affordable Medicines and Treatment Campaign (AMTC) and partners to express some concerns regarding the Technical Committee set up after the passage of the Indian Patent (Amendment) Act (2005) and headed by headed by Dr A.R.Mashelkar. The AMTC is a collective of patients, doctors, lawyers, NGOs and citizens concerned about the public interest and access to medicines. Firstly, we be believe that it is unacceptable for patents to be granted under the new Patents Act until the Committee decides upon the issues within its mandate, namely the nature and scope of TRIPS obligations with respect to new chemical entities and micro-organisms. Until these key issues are resolved by Parliament, we do not believe it is appropriate for the Patent Controller to make any determinations with respect to any pending patent applications. These open issues go to the very core of what is and is not patentable under the Act. Unless and until the Patent Controller receives adequate statutory guidance from Parliament, the Patent Controller will be making ultra vires determinations regarding these critical open issues. As such, we request that the Patent Controller be enjoined from making any patent determinations until these two issues have been resolved. Secondly, we would like more information to be made available to the public about the workings of the Committee, including the process and content of the Committee's activities. There is an obligation upon the government to ensure an open and transparent process so that the public is aware of developments and the process is truly participatory and democratic. Please ensure that public comment is invited through open hearings across the country, including patients groups, legal professionals and other members of civil society. We hope that the findings of such hearings will be published online. We request an appointment with the Prime Minister's Office to discuss current developments related to the Technical Committee, and access to affordable medicines. Thirdly, it is distressing to note that there is no health representative on the Technical Committee. The issues of patentability of NCEs and MOs have far-reaching consequences for our country. Specifically, access to medicines will be significantly impacted by the decision taken by the Committee. We urge you to include a representative on behalf of the public interest and health on the Committee. Lastly, we hope that the Office of the Prime Minister will take an active role in staying abreast of developments with the Committee, particularly the submissions made by the Affordable Medicines and Treatment Campaign, Alternative Law Forum and other public interest groups. Sincerely, Affordable Medicines and Treatment Campaign Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit Community Health Cell Freedom Foundation Alternative Law Forum Sunil George, People's Health Movement Torchbearers (Advocacy for disabling mental illness) Society for People's Action for Development (SPAD) K B Obalesha, Human Rights Forum for Dalit Liberation (KA) Network for AIDS Prevention - Karnataka (NAP-K) Sanghamitra Iyer, Samraksha Care and Support Manohar, Sangama, Bangalore Dr Gopal Dabade, President, Drug Action Forum Karnataka Network of HIV Positive Persons Cynthia, People's Health Movement Prafula Saligram, Caregiver Prasanna Saligram, AID Swasti - Project Pragati - Bangalore Jayashree (filmmaker on Patents and Access to Medicines) Milana Support Group for Families Living with HIV/AIDS Vijaya Mahila Sangha - Bangalore Abhaya and Action Aid India Ramesh Rao - person working for HIV-positive people in Shimoga District, Karnataka Gopakumar Nazia Masood Surekha Nair, Sasarika Shalini Gambhi, Bangalore, Medical Services Trust and Research Institute Bhuvaneshwari, Suraksha Josh Varghese Joy, ACCEPT Rajshekar, ACCEPT Action AID India ,Abhaya Daniel Nathaniel, Acts Ministries William Christopher, Acts Ministries Good Sheperd Health Centre Community Health Cell Namrita Nair, Independent Health Consultant Vijaya Mahila Sangha Cc: 01 Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss Minister of Health & Family Welfare Government of India 144 A Nirman Bhawan New Delhi 110 011 Fax: 011-23010661 02 Mr. Ram Vilas Paswan Minister of Chemicals & Fertilizers Government of India 315 A, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi 110 011 Fax: 011-23384020 03 Mr. Kamal Nath Minister of Commerce & Industry Government of India 45 Udyog Bhawan New Delhi 110 011 Fax: 011-23384241 04 Mr. Kapil Sibal Minister of State of the Ministry of Science & Technology Government of India Technology Bhawan New Delhi 110 003 Fax: 011-26567793 05. Dr. Pronab Sen Pr.Adviser (PP) Yojana Bhavan, Sansad,Marg, NewDelhi-110001 06 R.A. Mashelkar, F.R.S. Director General, CSIR & Secretary, Government of India Council of Scientific & Industrial Research Anusandhan Bhawan 2 Rafi Marg, New Delhi 07 Shri S.Chandrasekran, Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks Old C.G.O. complex, 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. 08 Shri P.K. Patni Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs The Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office Building, Plot No. 32, Sector 14, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075. 09 Shri H.C. Bakshi Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office Building, G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai-600032 10. The Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office Building, CP-2 Sector V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20051021/0f75881e/attachment.html From lawrence at altlawforum.org Mon Oct 24 09:23:05 2005 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:23:05 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] FW: [Urbanstudy] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Call for Contributions World Information City Public Campaign Material World Information City - Bangalore,(WIC-B) is a week long event (14th-19th November 2005) jointly organized by Netbase (Vienna), Alternative Law Forum (Bangalore), The Waag Society (Amsterdam) and Sarai-CSDS (Delhi) in partnership with Mahiti.org (Bangalore) WIC - B is one of a series of events and processes titled World Information.Org - initiated by the Netbase (Vienna) in partnership with organizations and initiatives in different parts of the world to focus attention on cultural, social and political aspects of information in the contemporary world. Previous 'editions' of World Information.Org have taken place in Vienna, Brussels, Amsterdam, Belgrade and Novi Sad For more details, see http://world-information.org/wio In November from 14th to 19th, an event called World Information City will be taking place in Bangalore organized by Alternative Law Forum, Mahiti, Public Netbase, Sarai and Waag. The event raises questions about the impact of new technologies on our societies: on daily life, work, culture, and politics. We encounter the myth of moving into the information era on an everyday basis. How do we understand the politics of information in terms of ownership, control and access and link it to the transformation of the urban experience in India? WIC consists of a dense program of events including conference, exhibition, information displays, workshops and public campaign. Wanted: Concepts for the design of posters, stickers, billboards supposed to carry the issues of ³World-Information City¹ into the public sphere of the urban space of Bangalore in November 2005. Theme: The Other Information City WIC is a look at the global information city that exists not only in the shopping malls, technology parks and gated communities, but also in the everyday electronic cultures that have changed equations of access through piracy (software, culture) and tinkering (hardware, infrastructure). People continue to hack into networks of power for electricity, entertainment, information etc. and these tactile practices and imagination of the other information city exists in the everyday practices of people Submission Submissions in Kannada, Hindi, English and to be sent to worldinfoex at yahoo.com or namita at altlawforum.org. Please post or drop off your concept and/or image(s) to the following address, or send by email to worldinfoex at yahoo.com / namita at altlawforum.org Alternative Law Forum No. 4, 3rd Cross Vasanthnagar Bangalore - 560052 Call open to all. Deadline: 5th November, 2005 Jury: * Allan Stanley, Mahiti, Bangalore * Ayisha Abraham, artist, Bangalore * Kiran Subbaiah, artist, Bangalore * Lawrence Liang, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore * Namita Malhotra, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore The selected design will be presented between November 10-20, 2005, in the public sphere of Bangalore, as billboards or posters. Costs for the realisation of the draft, and a cash prize of 10,000 will be covered. Travel expenses and stay for out-station applicants will not be covered. A maximum of 2 designs will be selected. Queries Mailto: worldinfoex at yahoo.com, namita at altlawforum.org Links World Information City, Bangalore http://world-information.org/wio/program/bangalore2005 Sarai CSDS http://www.sarai.net Waag Society http://www.waag.org The Alternative Law Forum http://www.altlawforum.org Mahiti www.mahiti.org ======= World Information City Information - by which we mean the gamut of practices and processes of knowing and making known the world can also be seen as that constellation of embodied intellectual labour, accumulated cultural capital and evolving knowledge systems that plays a key part in the maintenance of the fabric of contemporary existence. Information seems to be implicated in everything - from piracy to privacy, from commoning to control, from identification to identity, from repression to resistance, from learning to labour, from border patrols to border crossings, from urban planning to urban . Yet, information, which acts as a 'glue' that adheres reality to representation is a grossly under-theorized, hyped and mis-understood category. Our work at at Netbase, Sarai-CSDS, Waag Society and Mahiti has a great deal to do with information, though we all come at it from different angles. WIC-B, and the 'conference' that is placed at its culmination is an effort on our part to inaugurate a set of discussions that we hope will animate our future work, as well as contribute to debate within the public domain. While currently prevailing notions of 'information-society' belabour under the delusion that more efficient information management systems (such as 'e-governance') are the panacea for all societal problems, the term 'information' also seems to conjure for many, anxieties of loss of agency in the face of excessive information control. A more nuanced view suggests that the everyday life of information in contemporary societies occupies a far more slippery terrain than can be listed by the narratives of either 'progress', or 'paranoia', it consists of surveillance regimes and counter-surveillance processes that work only inconsistently, of a chain of intellectual property claims and violations that bring a new level of constant attrition and strain to bear on capitalism, of complex histories and conflicts about knowing -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20051024/c611c7e2/attachment.html From lawrence at altlawforum.org Mon Oct 24 09:24:24 2005 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:24:24 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Call for Contributions- World Info City Public Campaign In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Call for Contributions World Information City Public Campaign Material World Information City - Bangalore,(WIC-B) is a week long event (14th-19th November 2005) jointly organized by Netbase (Vienna), Alternative Law Forum (Bangalore), The Waag Society (Amsterdam) and Sarai-CSDS (Delhi) in partnership with Mahiti.org (Bangalore) WIC - B is one of a series of events and processes titled World Information.Org - initiated by the Netbase (Vienna) in partnership with organizations and initiatives in different parts of the world to focus attention on cultural, social and political aspects of information in the contemporary world. Previous 'editions' of World Information.Org have taken place in Vienna, Brussels, Amsterdam, Belgrade and Novi Sad For more details, see http://world-information.org/wio In November from 14th to 19th, an event called World Information City will be taking place in Bangalore organized by Alternative Law Forum, Mahiti, Public Netbase, Sarai and Waag. The event raises questions about the impact of new technologies on our societies: on daily life, work, culture, and politics. We encounter the myth of moving into the information era on an everyday basis. How do we understand the politics of information in terms of ownership, control and access and link it to the transformation of the urban experience in India? WIC consists of a dense program of events including conference, exhibition, information displays, workshops and public campaign. Wanted: Concepts for the design of posters, stickers, billboards supposed to carry the issues of ³World-Information City¹ into the public sphere of the urban space of Bangalore in November 2005. Theme: The Other Information City WIC is a look at the global information city that exists not only in the shopping malls, technology parks and gated communities, but also in the everyday electronic cultures that have changed equations of access through piracy (software, culture) and tinkering (hardware, infrastructure). People continue to hack into networks of power for electricity, entertainment, information etc. and these tactile practices and imagination of the other information city exists in the everyday practices of people Submission Submissions in Kannada, Hindi, English and to be sent to worldinfoex at yahoo.com or namita at altlawforum.org. Please post or drop off your concept and/or image(s) to the following address, or send by email to worldinfoex at yahoo.com / namita at altlawforum.org Alternative Law Forum No. 4, 3rd Cross Vasanthnagar Bangalore - 560052 Call open to all. Deadline: 5th November, 2005 Jury: * Allan Stanley, Mahiti, Bangalore * Ayisha Abraham, artist, Bangalore * Kiran Subbaiah, artist, Bangalore * Lawrence Liang, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore * Namita Malhotra, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore The selected design will be presented between November 10-20, 2005, in the public sphere of Bangalore, as billboards or posters. Costs for the realisation of the draft, and a cash prize of 10,000 will be covered. Travel expenses and stay for out-station applicants will not be covered. A maximum of 2 designs will be selected. Queries Mailto: worldinfoex at yahoo.com, namita at altlawforum.org Links World Information City, Bangalore http://world-information.org/wio/program/bangalore2005 Sarai CSDS http://www.sarai.net Waag Society http://www.waag.org The Alternative Law Forum http://www.altlawforum.org Mahiti www.mahiti.org ======= World Information City Information - by which we mean the gamut of practices and processes of knowing and making known the world can also be seen as that constellation of embodied intellectual labour, accumulated cultural capital and evolving knowledge systems that plays a key part in the maintenance of the fabric of contemporary existence. Information seems to be implicated in everything - from piracy to privacy, from commoning to control, from identification to identity, from repression to resistance, from learning to labour, from border patrols to border crossings, from urban planning to urban . Yet, information, which acts as a 'glue' that adheres reality to representation is a grossly under-theorized, hyped and mis-understood category. Our work at at Netbase, Sarai-CSDS, Waag Society and Mahiti has a great deal to do with information, though we all come at it from different angles. WIC-B, and the 'conference' that is placed at its culmination is an effort on our part to inaugurate a set of discussions that we hope will animate our future work, as well as contribute to debate within the public domain. While currently prevailing notions of 'information-society' belabour under the delusion that more efficient information management systems (such as 'e-governance') are the panacea for all societal problems, the term 'information' also seems to conjure for many, anxieties of loss of agency in the face of excessive information control. A more nuanced view suggests that the everyday life of information in contemporary societies occupies a far more slippery terrain than can be listed by the narratives of either 'progress', or 'paranoia', it consists of surveillance regimes and counter-surveillance processes that work only inconsistently, of a chain of intellectual property claims and violations that bring a new level of constant attrition and strain to bear on capitalism, of complex histories and conflicts about knowing -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20051024/fb400462/attachment.html From supreet.sethi at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 17:49:00 2005 From: supreet.sethi at gmail.com (s|s) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:49:00 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Patent hai Patent Message-ID: Hasit's mail on commons-law, got the wheels rolling. After discussion with Tahir from ALF. I worked out, a short term and long term plan, concerning making patents journals available. Pathetic does'nt even start to cover the magnamity of blunder Indian Patent Office is committing. hmm, Whatever. So, to help out short of term goal of making atleast the patents journal available with text search facility, I am hosting Official Journal of the Patent Office - 21-01-2005, in OCRed form. Lot more functionality should there. Still I needed to start somewhere. To convert other patent journals in similar fashion, just point your browser to any2djvu and follow the instructions. For viewing For suggestions and queries me The document available http://supreetsethi.net/drupal/patent_hai_patent From lawrence at altlawforum.org Wed Oct 26 09:00:55 2005 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:00:55 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Update on Roche Licensing Message-ID: >From http://www.indianexpress.com/print.php?content_id=80782 The Indian Express When it comes to India, Swiss pharma giant Roche does not have a product patent for Tamiflu, its highly prized anti-influenza drug, the only one known to be effective against bird flu. Roche has a patent in most countries valid until 2016 but has been a bit slow tapping the Indian market. This means Indian companies can now manufacture generic versions of the drug for Indian markets but cannot export these products. Confirming this to The Indian Express, Dr Ashwani Kumar, Drug Controller General of India, said: ''Roche does not have a product patent in India and international patent is not enough according to Indian patent laws. The companies can manufacture generic versions of the drug medicine by filing a licensing application with the government.'. But the government hasn't received any applications from Indian companies yet. Speaking to The Indian Express from Basel, Switzerland, spokesperson for Roche Martina Rupp said the firm had a patent pending in India. This is not about patents but it is about manufacturing capacity. Our doors are open for companies to come and have a fact-based discussion with us, she said. ''The manufacturing of Tamiflu is lengthy and expensive and we have a lot of experience in it.'. Ranbaxy, which is talking to Roche, says it's not just looking at the Indian market. We have approached Roche for a non-exclusive license for all countries. The issue cannot be looked at country wise, said Ramesh L. Adige, ED for Corporate Affairs. According to him, however, drugs for India should not be a problem. We are willing to manufacture the drugs with cooperation with the government of India, he added. Speaking to The Indian Express, Amar Lulla, Joint Managing Director of Cipla-which said it would be ready with a generic version by early next year-agreed that manufacturing in India should not be a problem under the new scenario. Last week Ranbaxy and Cipla both wrote to Roche expressing their desire to manufacture Tamiflu's generic version. Roche had earlier said it wants to remain the drug's lone manufacturer but has shown flexibility following international pressure. In a statement last week, it said it's ready to license the drug to generic companies across the world. From sollybenj at yahoo.co.in Wed Oct 26 11:45:04 2005 From: sollybenj at yahoo.co.in (solomon benjamin) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:15:04 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Commons-Law] an article from FE (25/10/2005) In-Reply-To: <2d42d32e0510251450i45333739y2c017b0f27a694e8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051026061504.49274.qmail@web8406.mail.in.yahoo.com> Hi Some very quick and intial questions to think about: a) Who are the 'citizens'? b) Who 'acts' on 'whos' behalf and who pays the cost? c) Who can 'participates' and who cannot? d) Translated from an old French conjugation -- if you remember some its gets the flavor: "I participate -- you participate -- he participates -- she participates -- THEY DECIDE.." e) Does politics have to be 'explict engagement' or are there other forms? f) Finally, as a swiss friend told me some time ago, they are so caught up in the series of elections and discussions as 'citizens' that the really really big issues of how their private banks and FIs fit into grey areas of Int. Finance, their role with Nazi Germany and other more contemporary issies soon get forgotten. Also, in commenting to our local elected representatives who: "..juggle competing claims in whatever manner they do.." the interesting point was that somehow, migrants from different states or quite often across borders did seem to find political and economic spaces in our messy cities more easily than what migrants do in the Swiss case. If so, there really was a question of "whose democracy" Cheers Solly --- Aditi thorat wrote: > CITIZEN > > *'Water gatekeeping': seeds of change germinate in > the seams of conflict* > > Recent instances of water-related social unrest can > be used to find larger > solutions > > Ramesh Ramanathan > > * * The simmering rifts between rural and urban > demands are exploding with > increasing frequency. The latest incident: a riot in > Tonk on the outskirts > of Jaipur. Thousands of farmers blocked the highway, > the situation got > violent, and five farmers were shot dead. The issue: > water. The problem: a > project bringing water from Bilaspur dam to meet > Jaipur's growing demands. > The incident in Tonk is being repeated across the > country: the Uttar Pradesh > government recently shut off Yamuna's taps to South > Delhi; Bangalore has > seen protests about Cauvery water being carted > hundreds of miles, depriving > rural folk of their natural rights. > > There are no simple answers, no cute quick-fixes > that can resolve the > situation. These situations demonstrate the need for > the robust practice of > democracy, in arriving at imperfect answers in > near-impossible situations. > The riots in Tonk may disperse, the families could > get compensation, but the > central issue remains: creating equitable outcomes > for such intractable > situations. The instinct to essay a knee-jerk > solution needs to be curbed: > every option has trade-offs. Two examples illustrate > the point: > > One solution is to retain the status quo: leave the > dam water to the > farmers, and tell the city dwellers that poor > planning has caused the city > to grow beyond its means. While this seems > reasonable, it comes with > collateral damage: Jaipur and cities like it, > generate most of the > Rajasthan's revenues of Rs 8,000 crore, coming from > excise duties, > commercial taxes etc. If these cities are not > supported, they will collapse. > Industry will leave, economic activity will migrate > away from Rajasthan, and > the state will have no funds to undertake critical > rural development work: > in healthcare, education, infrastructure. > > The other extreme choice suggests that urban > economics should be the driving > consideration. This also seems skewed: for one, it > seems blatantly unfair > and inequitable. Secondly, it does not distribute > growth in a manner that is > sustainable, spreading wealth-creation out of the > city. > > Of critical importance are two questions: one, what > is the right policy > framework for complex public good issues like water; > and two, even if such a > policy framework did exist, how should decisions be > made for issues that > have conflicting interests—in this situation, rural > and urban. > > As the layers of complexity are peeled back, they > unleash a deep pessimism, > and a defeating belief that these are best left > alone, to the democratic > process that we currently have: elected > representatives, who juggle > competing claims in whatever manner they do. This > throw-up-the-hands > reaction is not surprising. But maybe, there is > cause to pause, maybe there > are better answers, lessons that can be taken from > elsewhere. > > Switzerland offers one case study in dealing with > water. The Swiss practice > direct democracy, where citizens engage in most > issues by voting in > referendums. Most decisions are in the domain of the > regional governments > called Cantons; the Confederation or central > government plays more of a > coordinating role. Despite this fragmented > governance structure, complex > issues like water have found resolution through > democratic processes. Water > policies give a significant regulatory role to the > confederation, but retain > large operational responsibility to local > governments through what can be > called 'implementational federalism'. > > Swiss water policy has evolved over several decades, > and covers ten uses of > water, including drinking water, energy, waste > waters, economic production ( > e.g. fishing), recreation and strategic reserve. The > instruments used were a > mixture of property rights (defining who owned water > sources; for example, > does a property owner also own the right to > groundwater beneath her land), > and public policies (defining how water could be > used, irrespective of > ownership; for example, despite ownership of the > land, public policy > restricts anyone from using the groundwater, so > borewell digging could be > illegal). > > While regulations came from the central government, > it was up to the Cantons > to implement these policies, and arrive at the > necessary negotiated > settlements, especially where complex jurisdictional > issues saw one water > body being owned by multiple regional governments. > > In keeping with Swiss political processes, citizens > played a large role in > crafting these policies. Economic interests also > played a big role, with > hydro-electric companies needing a conducive > regulatory climate. Almost all > significant changes in Swiss water policy emerged > out of specific pressures > and crisis situations: either water-based natural > catastrophes, or > environmental degradation, or rival use-interests > like farmers versus > hydroelectric producers. > > The Swiss record is enviable: over the past four > decades, there has been > substantial improvement in all categories of water > bodies in the country: > surface water, groundwater, springs and wetlands. > > A classic Indian response to this example is, "Our > conditions are different. > We are a country of a billion people, with a feudal > past and massive poverty > problems." While there is truth in these arguments, > they are wearing thin. > In the absence of an energetic, positive > alternative, such casual remarks > are just tired excuses of a jaded government and a > disengaged citizenry. > > This leaves the second issue: even if we did have a > good water policy, how > will competing rural-urban interests debate these in > hundreds of local > situations across the country. It is time we did > away with the increasingly > artificial distinction between rural and urban. We > are at the inflexion > point for local government in our country, as also > of urbanisation. If we > are to truly meet the livelihood test for millions > of Indians, urban centres > will have to co-exist with rural hinterlands; the > efficiencies of the urban > area in terms of markets, access to credit etc. will > have to be leveraged to > improve rural livelihoods. > > We already have regional planning structures like > the District Planning > Committees(DPC) and Metropolitan Planning Committees > (MPC) that are > constitutionally mandated. These can be immediately > operationalised, and act > as bridging mechanisms across rural and urban India, > unleash joint > rural-urban growth and address complex negotiations > on issues like water. > Gandhi said after Independence, "The hardest is yet > to come. (The country) > has won political freedom, but it has yet to win > economic freedom, social > and moral freedom. These freedoms are harder than > the === message truncated ===> _______________________________________________ > Urbanstudygroup mailing list > Urban Study Group: Reading the South Asian City > > To subscribe or browse the Urban Study Group > archives, please visit > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/urbanstudygroup > __________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner now. Go to http://yahoo.shaadi.com From tahir.amin at btopenworld.com Wed Oct 26 18:24:47 2005 From: tahir.amin at btopenworld.com (TAHIR AMIN) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:54:47 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Commons-Law] no such thing as 'Yorkshire Feta' Message-ID: <20051026125447.90447.qmail@web86109.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> European Court decides there's no such thing as 'Yorkshire Feta' By Ian Herbert, North of England Correspondent Published: 26 October 2005 There are no prizes for guessing the provenance of the cheese from which Judy Bell has made a healthy business since developing the recipe on her kitchen table 20 years ago. "Yorkshire Feta", states the packaging, which is adorned by a picture of a large, woolly sheep from those parts. But Mrs Bell was coming to terms with a European Union decree yesterday that she must stop using the name "feta", which should be reserved exclusively for Greek producers. The decree, made at the end of court proceedings in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, was not well received in Yorkshire, where the purveyors of another local cheese, Wensleydale, were told nine years ago that were not entitled to the same "protected designation of origin" (PDO) status that Greek producers are now earning. "We always felt that because the Greeks are new members [of the EU] that they would need a little bit of encouragement like this," said Mrs Bell, a farmer's wife whose business, Shepherds Purse Cheese, produces a ton of feta each week at Thirsk, North Yorkshire. Mrs Bell, who prides herself on using only ewe's milk to produce feta's particular, piquant flavour (Greeks producers are less fussy, she says) has been fighting the decision for five years. Her last hope lay in the court case, in which Denmark and Germany challenged a 2002 European Commission ruling which gave PDO status to feta made in certain parts of Greece, along with Parma ham, French champagne, and, in the UK, at least 25 products, including Shetland lamb, Whitstable oysters and Newcastle brown ale. (Yorkshire pudding is another product deemed too generic to qualify.) The court battle hinged on whether feta - a word of Italian origin which translates as "fresh slice" - was so familiar it should be deemed a generic name available to all cheese producers making feta-style cheese, or whether it needed tougher legal protection to discourage imitators. Since feta is believed to have been made in Greece for 6,000 years, Mrs Bell had her work cut out. But the Danes and Germans, who had significant domestic productions to protect, insisted their feta firms had been producing and exporting the cheese for years and that the name had become a generic term. The judges decreed that feta was too closely associated with its acknowledged Greek roots. The special way of producing feta in Greece, including the extensive grazing and movement patterns of the small native breeds of hardy ewes and goats used in its manufacture, gave the finished product its own specific aroma and flavour and its "remarkable" international reputation, they said. They rejected the argument that feta had by now become a generic term, adding: "The court finds that whilst white cheeses soaked in brine have been produced for a long time, not only in Greece but in various countries in the Balkans and the south-east of the Mediterranean basin, those cheeses are known in those countries under names other than 'feta'." Mrs Bell has until 2007 to remove the word from her distinctive yellow and green wax packaging - at a cost she estimates will be at least £10,000. "We'll slowly reduce its presence until the word is illegible and keep the word 'Yorkshire' high up," she said. "But customers will say 'Yorkshire cheese' - what's that?" Protected food and drink PARMA HAM In 2003 Asda lost a battle to sell Parma ham that was packed and sliced in Britain. European judges in Luxembourg ruled the meat must be packed and sliced in Parma itself to be marketed with its original name. PARMESAN CHEESE Nuova Castelli, an Italian company, were told in 2002 that they could not label their dried grated cheese "Parmesan", despite the cheese originating from an Italian town near Parma. Nuova Castelli is not part of the Consorzio del Parmigiano-Reggiano, which owns the trademark. WEST COUNTRY FARMHOUSE CHEDDAR Since 1998, West Country Farmhouse Cheddar has been protected. It is made with local milk, on the farm in Dorset, Somerset, Devon, or Cornwall, and turned by hand. CORNISH CLOTTED CREAM In 1998, Cornish clotted cream-makers won a battle with the European Commission to protect their product, meaning they have the exclusive right to call their cream "Cornish". CHAMPAGNE Only sparkling wine produced in its namesake region and adhering to strict standards may call itself champagne. Even the term 'méthode champenoise' is, as of this year, forbidden in favour of 'méthode traditionelle'. NEWCASTLE BROWN ALE Since 2000, Newcastle Brown Ale has been protected from imitations and cannot be brewed anywhere other than in the north-east of England. ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From tahir.amin at btopenworld.com Wed Oct 26 19:08:21 2005 From: tahir.amin at btopenworld.com (TAHIR AMIN) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:38:21 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Microsoft joins book search plan Message-ID: <20051026133821.82694.qmail@web86101.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Microsoft joins book search plan Microsoft is the latest to join global digital library plans Microsoft has joined a Yahoo-backed effort to digitise the world's books and other works to make them searchable and accessible to anyone online. The software giant said it would work with the Open Content Alliance (OCA), set up by the Internet Archive, to initially put 150,000 works online. The move comes as Google faces growing legal pressure from publishers over its own global digital library plans. Microsoft said it would initially focus on works already in the public domain. This way, it hopes to avoid similar legal issues over copyright. Google said in a statement that it welcomed the move to make more information accessible to anyone online. Legal trouble Earlier this month, the Association of American Publishers filed a lawsuit in New York claiming Google's Print Library Project plans would infringe their copyrights. If we go and bring universal access to all human knowledge it will be remembered as one of the great things humankind has ever done Brewster Kahle, Internet Archive Google's project would involve digitising millions of works from Harvard, Stanford, and Michigan universities to make them searchable. Once the texts were digitised, users would not be able to download or print the whole book, but would be able to view a few sentences from each. Copyright holders have been given a deadline of 1 November if they do not want their books to be scanned. Search plans US libraries which have joined the separate OCA's library project include Columbia University, Johns Hopkins University, University of Virginia, and the University of Pittsburgh. The OCA was set up by a group of digital archivists and is backed by technology firms Adobe and HP, as well as libraries and academia. It aims to find ways of balancing publisher and author rights with global accessibility. "It's interesting to see everyone jumping on the digital library bandwagon," said Doron Weber from the Sloan Foundation, part-funders of the Internet Archive which set up the OCA. "Google's push has galvanized everyone else." Brewster Kahle, founder of the Internet Archive, said the OCA's digital library plans were ambitious. "If we go and bring universal access to all human knowledge it will be remembered as one of the great things humankind has ever done," Mr Kahle said. Microsoft said it was already liaising with publishers and libraries on ways to make more copyrighted works available for online searches. A spokeswoman said the firm was still investigating different ways to do this, which could include charging to access content. Microsoft said it would have a prototype of its library search service ready next year. ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Thu Oct 27 06:16:06 2005 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:46:06 -0700 Subject: [Commons-Law] EU Parliament Moves Against EPO "Designer Baby Patent" Message-ID: <4360234E.8E6CF8F0@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (This is significant not only in the subject matter of the motion, but as a confrontation of the problematic relationship between the EU Parliament and the EPO, wherein the EPO is not actually subject to EU Parliament oversight -- being "not a person" before the EPC is not really the key, so much as having patent policy developed, judged and executed independently of the representative legislative organ. -- Seth) > http://wiki.ffii.org/EpBio0510En 2005-10: European Parliament to vote resolution against EPO-granted "designer baby patent" -> [ Priorities | News ] The EPP (conservative) group in the European Parliament has introduced a motion calling the Parliament to file an opposition against a patent granted by the European Patent Office. The Legal Service of the EP is against this, contending that the EP is not a person in the sence of the European Patent Convention. Greens are in favor. * EP resolution to be voted 2005-10-26 (http://www.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade3?TYPE-DOC=MOTION&REF=P6-RC-2005-0551&MODE=SIP&L=EN) The motion was introduced by Klaus-Heiner Lehne MEP (http://wiki.ffii.org/KlausHeinerLehneEn) and somewhat amended through compromises with other party groups. In an unusual alliance on patents, both Lehne and the Green group are in favor of filing an opposition at the European Patent Office, whereas other MEPs such as Rainer Wieland (from Lehne's CDU group) would rather pass a resolution that calls on the Commission to file an opposition. The Parliament's Legal Service also believes that the Parliament is, unlike the Commission, not a legal person in the sense of the European Patent Convention. The vote is scheduled for tomorrow wednesday 2005-10-26 at noon. The question of whether to file opposition in the name of the EP may be subject to oral amendments in the last minute. Apart fom this, the resolution text seems to be settled. Timeline 2005-10-27 Preliminary report: Most of the Motion was carried. Additionally, and oral amedment saying "The EP decides to ask the European Commission to file an objection to patent EP1257168 without delay" was also carried. 2005-10-26 2005-10-25 Debate in JURI -- RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P! http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders! New Yorkers for Fair Use http://www.nyfairuse.org [CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights. From hbs.law at gmail.com Thu Oct 27 08:46:41 2005 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:46:41 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Re:Patent hai Patent (s|s) Message-ID: <8b60429e0510262016j2ab34408t4508c4de6265e4bf@mail.gmail.com> Hi Supreet, Thanks for taking the intiative to voluntarily put up patents online. The task is mammoth to say the least. Good Luck to everyone who is uploading. That said, we cannot move focus away from the fact that putting patents online is patent office's job. They should be allowed to get away with shoddy practices of just scanning the PDFs as images that cannot be searched. Patent is a deal with a government, in return for disclosing information the inventor gets exclusivity. But the technical information disclosed in a patent is not for government's consumption, it is more sacred, it belongs to the public domain. We also have to look to this in context that Indian government is highly uncomfotable with public access to information. Patents is just one kind of government information. The right to information will bring some change to this, hopefully. Interestingly, the "left revolutionaries" in India have never agitated for government being more open, that inspite of being the self-appropriated dons of the cause of the oppressed. The "righteous right" is another species that is again comfortable using government as tool to propagate cultural revolution of its own variety. Information, governance, innovation, education - all the necessaries of creating IP in first place - suffer. Regards, Hasit On 10/26/05, commons-law-request at sarai.net wrote: > Send commons-law mailing list submissions to > commons-law at sarai.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > commons-law-request at sarai.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > commons-law-owner at sarai.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of commons-law digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Patent hai Patent (s|s) > 2. Update on Roche Licensing (Lawrence Liang) > 3. an article from FE (25/10/2005) (solomon benjamin) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:49:00 +0530 > From: s|s > Subject: [Commons-Law] Patent hai Patent > To: commons-law at sarai.net > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" > > Hasit's mail on commons-law, got the wheels rolling. After discussion > with Tahir from ALF. I worked out, a short term and long term plan, > concerning making patents journals available. > > Pathetic does'nt even start to cover the magnamity of blunder Indian > Patent Office is committing. > > hmm, Whatever. > > So, to help out short of term goal of making atleast the patents > journal available with text search facility, I am hosting Official > Journal of the Patent Office - 21-01-2005, in OCRed form. > > Lot more functionality should there. Still I needed to start somewhere. > > To convert other patent journals in similar fashion, just point your > browser to any2djvu and follow the instructions. > > For viewing > > For suggestions and queries me > > The document available http://supreetsethi.net/drupal/patent_hai_patent > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:00:55 +0530 > From: Lawrence Liang > Subject: [Commons-Law] Update on Roche Licensing > To: Commons law > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > >From http://www.indianexpress.com/print.php?content_id=80782 > > > The Indian Express > > When it comes to India, Swiss pharma giant Roche does not have a product > patent for Tamiflu, its highly prized anti-influenza drug, the only one > known to be effective against bird flu. Roche has a patent in most countries > valid until 2016 but has been a bit slow tapping the Indian market. > > This means Indian companies can now manufacture generic versions of the > drug for Indian markets but cannot export these products. > > Confirming this to The Indian Express, Dr Ashwani Kumar, Drug Controller > General of India, said: ''Roche does not have a product patent in India and > international patent is not enough according to Indian patent laws. The > companies can manufacture generic versions of the drug medicine by filing a > licensing application with the government.'. > > But the government hasn't received any applications from Indian companies > yet. > > Speaking to The Indian Express from Basel, Switzerland, spokesperson for > Roche Martina Rupp said the firm had a patent pending in India. This is not > about patents but it is about manufacturing capacity. Our doors are open for > companies to come and have a fact-based discussion with us, she said. ''The > manufacturing of Tamiflu is lengthy and expensive and we have a lot of > experience in it.'. > > Ranbaxy, which is talking to Roche, says it's not just looking at the > Indian market. > > We have approached Roche for a non-exclusive license for all countries. The > issue cannot be looked at country wise, said Ramesh L. Adige, ED for > Corporate Affairs. > > According to him, however, drugs for India should not be a problem. > > We are willing to manufacture the drugs with cooperation with the government > of India, he added. > > Speaking to The Indian Express, Amar Lulla, Joint Managing Director of > Cipla-which said it would be ready with a generic version by early next > year-agreed that manufacturing in India should not be a problem under the > new scenario. > > Last week Ranbaxy and Cipla both wrote to Roche expressing their desire to > manufacture Tamiflu's generic version. Roche had earlier said it wants to > remain the drug's lone manufacturer but has shown flexibility following > international pressure. > > In a statement last week, it said it's ready to license the drug to generic > companies across the world. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:15:04 +0100 (BST) > From: solomon benjamin > Subject: [Commons-Law] an article from FE (25/10/2005) > To: urbanstudygroup at sarai.net, commonslaw , > bhuvana > Message-ID: <20051026061504.49274.qmail at web8406.mail.in.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hi > Some very quick and intial questions to think about: > > a) Who are the 'citizens'? > > b) Who 'acts' on 'whos' behalf and who pays the cost? > > c) Who can 'participates' and who cannot? > > d) Translated from an old French conjugation -- if you > remember some its gets the flavor: "I participate -- > you participate -- he participates -- she participates > -- THEY DECIDE.." > > e) Does politics have to be 'explict engagement' or > are there other forms? > > f) Finally, as a swiss friend told me some time ago, > they are so caught up in the series of elections and > discussions as 'citizens' that the really really big > issues of how their private banks and FIs fit into > grey areas of Int. Finance, their role with Nazi > Germany and other more contemporary issies soon get > forgotten. Also, in commenting to our local elected > representatives who: "..juggle competing claims in > whatever manner they do.." the interesting point was > that somehow, migrants from different states or quite > often across borders did seem to find political and > economic spaces in our messy cities more easily than > what migrants do in the Swiss case. If so, there > really was a question of "whose democracy" > Cheers > Solly > > > > --- Aditi thorat wrote: > > > CITIZEN > > > > *'Water gatekeeping': seeds of change germinate in > > the seams of conflict* > > > > Recent instances of water-related social unrest can > > be used to find larger > > solutions > > > > Ramesh Ramanathan > > > > * * The simmering rifts between rural and urban > > demands are exploding with > > increasing frequency. The latest incident: a riot in > > Tonk on the outskirts > > of Jaipur. Thousands of farmers blocked the highway, > > the situation got > > violent, and five farmers were shot dead. The issue: > > water. The problem: a > > project bringing water from Bilaspur dam to meet > > Jaipur's growing demands. > > The incident in Tonk is being repeated across the > > country: the Uttar Pradesh > > government recently shut off Yamuna's taps to South > > Delhi; Bangalore has > > seen protests about Cauvery water being carted > > hundreds of miles, depriving > > rural folk of their natural rights. > > > > There are no simple answers, no cute quick-fixes > > that can resolve the > > situation. These situations demonstrate the need for > > the robust practice of > > democracy, in arriving at imperfect answers in > > near-impossible situations. > > The riots in Tonk may disperse, the families could > > get compensation, but the > > central issue remains: creating equitable outcomes > > for such intractable > > situations. The instinct to essay a knee-jerk > > solution needs to be curbed: > > every option has trade-offs. Two examples illustrate > > the point: > > > > One solution is to retain the status quo: leave the > > dam water to the > > farmers, and tell the city dwellers that poor > > planning has caused the city > > to grow beyond its means. While this seems > > reasonable, it comes with > > collateral damage: Jaipur and cities like it, > > generate most of the > > Rajasthan's revenues of Rs 8,000 crore, coming from > > excise duties, > > commercial taxes etc. If these cities are not > > supported, they will collapse. > > Industry will leave, economic activity will migrate > > away from Rajasthan, and > > the state will have no funds to undertake critical > > rural development work: > > in healthcare, education, infrastructure. > > > > The other extreme choice suggests that urban > > economics should be the driving > > consideration. This also seems skewed: for one, it > > seems blatantly unfair > > and inequitable. Secondly, it does not distribute > > growth in a manner that is > > sustainable, spreading wealth-creation out of the > > city. > > > > Of critical importance are two questions: one, what > > is the right policy > > framework for complex public good issues like water; > > and two, even if such a > > policy framework did exist, how should decisions be > > made for issues that > > have conflicting interests—in this situation, rural > > and urban. > > > > As the layers of complexity are peeled back, they > > unleash a deep pessimism, > > and a defeating belief that these are best left > > alone, to the democratic > > process that we currently have: elected > > representatives, who juggle > > competing claims in whatever manner they do. This > > throw-up-the-hands > > reaction is not surprising. But maybe, there is > > cause to pause, maybe there > > are better answers, lessons that can be taken from > > elsewhere. > > > > Switzerland offers one case study in dealing with > > water. The Swiss practice > > direct democracy, where citizens engage in most > > issues by voting in > > referendums. Most decisions are in the domain of the > > regional governments > > called Cantons; the Confederation or central > > government plays more of a > > coordinating role. Despite this fragmented > > governance structure, complex > > issues like water have found resolution through > > democratic processes. Water > > policies give a significant regulatory role to the > > confederation, but retain > > large operational responsibility to local > > governments through what can be > > called 'implementational federalism'. > > > > Swiss water policy has evolved over several decades, > > and covers ten uses of > > water, including drinking water, energy, waste > > waters, economic production ( > > e.g. fishing), recreation and strategic reserve. The > > instruments used were a > > mixture of property rights (defining who owned water > > sources; for example, > > does a property owner also own the right to > > groundwater beneath her land), > > and public policies (defining how water could be > > used, irrespective of > > ownership; for example, despite ownership of the > > land, public policy > > restricts anyone from using the groundwater, so > > borewell digging could be > > illegal). > > > > While regulations came from the central government, > > it was up to the Cantons > > to implement these policies, and arrive at the > > necessary negotiated > > settlements, especially where complex jurisdictional > > issues saw one water > > body being owned by multiple regional governments. > > > > In keeping with Swiss political processes, citizens > > played a large role in > > crafting these policies. Economic interests also > > played a big role, with > > hydro-electric companies needing a conducive > > regulatory climate. Almost all > > significant changes in Swiss water policy emerged > > out of specific pressures > > and crisis situations: either water-based natural > > catastrophes, or > > environmental degradation, or rival use-interests > > like farmers versus > > hydroelectric producers. > > > > The Swiss record is enviable: over the past four > > decades, there has been > > substantial improvement in all categories of water > > bodies in the country: > > surface water, groundwater, springs and wetlands. > > > > A classic Indian response to this example is, "Our > > conditions are different. > > We are a country of a billion people, with a feudal > > past and massive poverty > > problems." While there is truth in these arguments, > > they are wearing thin. > > In the absence of an energetic, positive > > alternative, such casual remarks > > are just tired excuses of a jaded government and a > > disengaged citizenry. > > > > This leaves the second issue: even if we did have a > > good water policy, how > > will competing rural-urban interests debate these in > > hundreds of local > > situations across the country. It is time we did > > away with the increasingly > > artificial distinction between rural and urban. We > > are at the inflexion > > point for local government in our country, as also > > of urbanisation. If we > > are to truly meet the livelihood test for millions > > of Indians, urban centres > > will have to co-exist with rural hinterlands; the > > efficiencies of the urban > > area in terms of markets, access to credit etc. will > > have to be leveraged to > > improve rural livelihoods. > > > > We already have regional planning structures like > > the District Planning > > Committees(DPC) and Metropolitan Planning Committees > > (MPC) that are > > constitutionally mandated. These can be immediately > > operationalised, and act > > as bridging mechanisms across rural and urban India, > > unleash joint > > rural-urban growth and address complex negotiations > > on issues like water. > > Gandhi said after Independence, "The hardest is yet > > to come. (The country) > > has won political freedom, but it has yet to win > > economic freedom, social > > and moral freedom. These freedoms are harder than > > the > === message truncated ===> > _______________________________________________ > > Urbanstudygroup mailing list > > Urban Study Group: Reading the South Asian City > > > > To subscribe or browse the Urban Study Group > > archives, please visit > > > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/urbanstudygroup > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner now. Go to http://yahoo.shaadi.com > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law > > > End of commons-law Digest, Vol 27, Issue 25 > ******************************************* > From lawrence at altlawforum.org Thu Oct 27 10:27:34 2005 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:27:34 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] ONE =?iso-8859-1?q?=B3?= FLU =?iso-8859-1?q?=B2_?= OVER THE CUCKOO =?iso-8859-1?q?=B9?= S NEST Message-ID: Hi all Shamnad has made an excellent post in his highly recommended blog on Spicy IP in India on the current Tamiflu (which was incidentally reported as Tamil Flu in a newspaper that I read) Given the amount of star anise my mother uses in her cooking, I for one am hoping for lifelong immunity Lawrence ===================== >From http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/ Monday, October 17, 2005 ONE ³FLU² OVER THE CUCKOO¹S NEST: OF AN UNRELENTING ROCHE AND AN INDIAN ROBIN-HOOD Once again, the relationship between patent rights and public health has made mainstream media ­and this time, in the context of the notorious AVIAN FLU, which is spreading rapidly. A recent news item states that Roche, which holds the patent over Tamiflu is unwilling to license it, despite the fact that it cannot produce enough quantities to cater to an outbreak, should one occur. It notes: ³Tamiflu, a pricey antiviral pill invented in a Bay Area lab and made in part from a spice used in Chinese cookery, has emerged as the world's first line of defense against bird flu should the deadly strain begin its feared spread among human beings As nations begin to stockpile the drug in anticipation of a flu pandemic, calls are mounting for countries to sidestep patents on the drug -- as Brazil first did for AIDS medications -- and make their own generic versions But Swiss pharmaceuticals giant Roche, which acquired rights to the drug from Gilead Sciences Inc. of Foster City in 1996, said Wednesday it had no intention of letting others make it Roche ... fully intends to remain the sole manufacturer of Tamiflu,'' said company spokesman Terry Hurley The immediate problem is not the cost of Tamiflu, which runs about $60 for a 10-pill course of treatment, but a staggering gap between the sudden demand for it and the capacity of its sole manufacturer to produce it.² This is a rare case, where the price of a patented drug is not as much of an issue, as the fear of under-production and the ability to satisfy demand in a timely fashion. It therefore presents an easier case for the issuing of a compulsory licensing, a point that I will come to in a moment. Enter, CIPLA, an Indian pharmaceutical company, which once again attempts to play Robinhood by threatening to go ahead and producing generic versions (Oseltamivir), despite Roche¹s patents. A NY Times report states: ³A major Indian drug company announced yesterday that it would start making a generic version of Tamiflu, the anti-influenza drug that is in critically short supply in the face of a possible epidemic of avian flu."Right or wrong, we're going to commercialize and make oseltamivir," said Dr. Yusuf K. Hamied, chairman of Cipla of Bombay, using the drug's generic name and acknowledging that he might face a fight in the Indian courts with Roche, the Swiss pharmaceutical giant that holds the patent.² Can CIPLA do so? On the one hand, there¹s the technical issue of whether it can reverse-engineer TAMIFLU and manufacture quantities quick enough to cater to rising demands. Leaving this aside for a moment, lets focus on the issue of issue of legality3Ž4an issue of far more relevance to this blog. Can CIPLA do this without violating patent laws? This is where we come to issues such as compulsory licensing. First, lets take the position in India. I¹m not sure that there¹s any serious threat of legal action in India. The new regime patent regime that grants patents for pharmaceutical products came into force only on 1 January 2005 (with retrospective effect) and it will be a while before Roche¹s application goes through the rigmarole of examination, opposition etc in order to be granted a patent. Till the patent is granted, (likely to take a year, at the very least), CIPLA is free to produce this drug. Of course, once the patent is granted, CIPLA can be injuncted. But will it be liable for damages for the Œinterim¹¹ infringement? Not so, under the new 2005 regime3Ž4since the section that provides for retrospective damages does not apply to pharmaceutical Œmailbox¹ applications. Lets assume for a moment that Indian law does prohibit from CIPLA from manufacturing this in India. What are its options? 1. The Indian Patent Act has one of the most comprehensive compulsory licensing regimes and the recent 2005 amendments have only expanded the scope of this regime. Assuming that Roche cannot adequately cater to the demands of the Indian market (if an when an outburst occurs), then CIPLA could invoke the following grounds: a. Section 84 (1) (a) of the Patents Act, arguing that ³the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the invention have not been satisfied². b. If 60 dollars is not an affordable price for the common Indian, CIPLA could invoke section 84 (1) (b) arguing that ³that the patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price.² c. I¹m guessing that Tamiflu is not being manufactured in India (either directly by Roche or by any of its partners in India). If that is indeed the case, then CIPLA could also invoke the ground under 84 (1) (c) that ³the patented invention is not worked in the territory of India.² However, it is not clear whether such a provision is TRIPS compliant. d. The 2005 amendments to the Indian Patent Act provide an automatic compulsory license to generic companies, in so far as pharmaceutical mailbox applications are concerned. Thus for example, if Roche filed a mailbox application covering Tamiflu and if CIPLA produced a generic version of this prior to 2005, then it could ask for a compulsory license on a Œreasonable royalty² basis. However, since CIPLA did not produce any generic version of TAMIFLU prior to 2005, it cannot invoke this ground. 2. A more creative option is for CIPLA to relocate its Tamiflu operations to Bangladesh (or tie up with companies there) and manufacture the generic version from there. It wouldn¹t even have to pay any royalties in this case. Being a Least Developed Country, Bangladesh has time till 2015 (under TRIPS) to implement product patents for pharmaceuticals. Contrary to popular notions of Bangladesh being so poor that it cannot support a domestic pharmaceutical industry, one would be surprised to learn that Bangladesh does have a robust industry. CIPLA could even export the product from Bangladesh to India. You might ask: isn¹t parallel importation a patent violation? (assuming that there is a patent in India). Not in this case, and certainly, not after the recent changes to India¹s patent regime. The earlier section 107A (b) provided that it was not an infringement to import a patented product, provided such import was from an exporter, who was Œduly authorised by the patentee to sell or distribute the product¹. The 2005 Act now makes such import easier by dispensing with the authorisation required from the patentee3Ž4it mandates that the exporter of such patented product only be Œduly authorised under the law to produce and sell or distribute the product¹. Under this amended provision, CIPLA could set up base in Bangladesh to manufacture and export medicines to India. Absent a patent in Bangladesh, and/or any other law barring manufacture/exports, such company would presumably be Œduly authorised¹ under the laws of Bangladesh to Œsell or distribute the product¹. Therefore, currently, CIPLA faces negligible risk while manufacturing, selling or importing into India. But what of its exports to the US or EU markets? This is a little tricky, since a patent right in these jurisdictions means that Roche can prevent CIPLA from importing TAMIFLU versions. Here again, the only way out is through the grant of a compulsory license. This is precisely what a US senator and a CPTech letter propose. Interestingly enough, the US does not have any compulsory licensing clauses within its patent regime that can be invoked by private parties directly3Ž4rather this has to be worked into the Œtakings clause¹ in 28 USC §1498 and perhaps the Œeminent domain¹ principle enshrined in the fifth amendment to the US constitution. Under these principles, the government could use the patent either directly or indirectly (through third parties) without the permission of the patentee, subject only to payment of some reasonable compensation. The US threatened to do something similar with Bayer¹s patent during the Anthrax crisis and I don¹t see why it wouldn¹t step in now, particularly since Roche is yet to don its humanitarian robes and commit to some serious licensing. Unlike the US, most European member states, and the UK in particular, have compulsory licensing provisions within their patent regime. Section 48A of the UK Patent Act provides that a compulsory licence can be granted if ³a demand in the UK for the patented product is not being met on reasonable terms² As I mentioned earlier, apart from the legal issues, there is also the technical issue of whether CIPLA can do this in good time. While a WHO official and Roche sound sceptical about the ability to reverse engineer Tamiflu in a short time and come up with a generic substitute, CIPLA¹s President, Hamid birms with confidence. I extract from the news item: WHO flu chief Stohr is not optimistic that generic producers would be able to make Tamiflu. He told reporters in San Francisco that the drug takes a full year to make and involves a potentially explosive process that would drive out all but the most sophisticated manufacturers. It would take a generic supplier at least "two years" to put a plant into action. Roche claims that ³Making the drug involves 10 complex stepsŠ. and the company believes that it will take another company two to three years, starting from scratch to produce it.²Dr. Hamied, Chairman of CIPLA however dismissed that claim, saying that he initially thought it would be too hard but that his scientists had finished reverse-engineering the drug in his laboratories two weeks ago. He said he could have small commercial quantities available as early as January.Asked if he thought Dr. Hamied was making an idle boast, Mr. Hurley declined to comment.² I would wager that Dr Hamid is right here‹and being an excellent chemist himself and not just an MBA laden proprietor, I¹m sure he knows what he is talking about. I¹d advise Roche to hire a new PR division and rethink their strategy, as this is a very sensitive issue. With the flak that the pharmaceutical industry seems to receiving on an almost daily basis for placing profits over human lives, they should immediately commit to a widespread licensing scheme with low royalty rates. A good licensing strategy would at least ensure that they make some money (through licensing fees). If the government decides to take over their patent or worse still ³revoke² it (as happened with Agracetus¹ patent covering transgenic cotton in India), they would get nothing. This is not to say to say that Roche is not doing anything to help. Indeed, today¹s news item states that it is donating three million packs of Tamiflu to the WHO and a small quantity to Romania. However, what is perturbing is it¹s intention to remove the sole producer. "Roche and its partners fully intend to remain the only manufacturer of Tamiflu and are best qualified to scale up production," spokesman Daniel Piller said on Friday. If it does indeed have the wherewithal to supply, this is not an issue. However, at this stage, one cannot state this for sure, particularly since Roche refuses to release production figures. A guaranteed and timely supply of this drug is critical, particularly, since Tamiflu is thought to work best within 36 hours of symptoms. What is interesting is that Roche has stated that if need be, it would outsource production3Ž4so perhaps Indian generics would gain either way. I would wager that with CIPLA¹s heroic statements about breaking its patent, CIPLA would be way down in the list, when it comes to Roche chosing outsourcing partners!! All the above is only to show that even in major healthcare crises of this sort, we still have to grapple with property rights. A recent article in nature states that ³We have the means to make a vaccine against pandemic flu. But quarrels over money, science and politics mean it could come too late². You can bet that patents make up for a large chunk of the ³money² equation. Also, I¹m wondering that if we have so many issues with Roche¹s existing patent, what are we going to do when the virus mutates or develops resistance? "There are now resistant H5N1 strains appearing, and we can't totally rely on one drug (Tamiflu)," said William Chui, honorary associate professor with the department of pharmacology at the Queen Mary Hospital in Hong Kong. We need to quickly think of innovative ways to decrease the incidence of patent blockages and of incentivising rapid research in this area. Tamiflu is only the first line of defence and is not a vaccine‹and yet, its patents threaten to pose problems. The actions of an Indian research institute are exemplary in this regard, where, IGIB, headed by Dr SK Brahmachari used an in-house ³gene decipher² software to determine the functions of 3 genes of the SARS virus3Ž4rather than applying for patents, they made these results available via their website, so as to speed up research on a potential SARS vaccine. This generosity was spurred in some part by the fact that the genome of the SARS virus itself was available in a public database. Do we see an open source model being built here? Whatever the case, we need more such commitments in times like this and not a strict insistence on property rights. Ps: On a related note, I was amused to find that Tamiflu was actually made in part from a spice used in Chinese cookery. A very apt discussion therefore for ³SPICY IP². From anivar.aravind at gmail.com Thu Oct 27 10:38:12 2005 From: anivar.aravind at gmail.com (Anivar Aravind) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:38:12 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Call to vote against software patents in "European of the Year" poll In-Reply-To: <878xwge32c.fsf@spider.localnet> References: <878xwge32c.fsf@spider.localnet> Message-ID: <35f96d470510262208l28d1bf63vc48eed8d2d68e113@mail.gmail.com> FREE AND OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE LUMINARIES CALL ON WORLDWIDE COMMUNITY TO VOTE AGAINST SOFTWARE PATENTS IN THE "EUROPEAN OF THE YEAR 2005" INTERNET POLL Richard Stallman, Tim O'Reilly, Alan Cox, Rasmus Lerdorf and Monty Widenius endorse Florian Mueller's candidacy "because he runs on a NoSoftwarePatents ticket, and that is the message we want to reinforce" Brussels (20 October 2005) -- A group of Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS) celebrities has weighed in on the election of the "European of the Year 2005" by calling on "software developers and users around the globe" to vote for Florian Mueller, the founder of the NoSoftwarePatents.com campaign, in a public online poll. The illustrious consortium consists of--in alphabetical order of last name--Alan Cox, Red Hat Fellow and Linux kernel maintainer; Rasmus Lerdorf, creator of the PHP programming language; Tim O'Reilly, book publisher and conference organizer; Richard Stallman, President of the Free Software Foundation (who in 1984 began the work that produced today's popular GNU/Linux operating system); and Monty Widenius, creator of the MySQL database. In a NoSoftwarePatents press release, the community leaders today expressed their support for the voting recommendations that NoSoftwarePatents.com has published in more than a dozen languages: http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/ev50/vote.html Participants in the poll are required to make a choice in each of ten categories, and the voting list provided by NoSoftwarePatents.com explains the role that various candidates played in the software patent debate so that voters can reward the opponents of software patents and penalize pro-patent politicians. On 22 September, Florian Mueller was nominated for the most prestigious award in EU politics, the "EV50 Europeans of the Year". The jury thereby recognized his political efforts against a legislative proposal that in his opinion would have legalized software patents in Europe. The European Parliament rejected the bill on 6 July by a landslide of 648-32 votes. Mueller, who stressed that he owes this nomination "to our entire community and especially to the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII)", is credited with founding a multilingual campaign website, speaking out in the media and at public events, and lobbying MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) as well as governments and parliaments in select EU member states. The European Voice, a major EU-focused weekly, is now conducting an Internet poll in which Mueller runs against such famous contenders as U2 frontman Bono, Bob Geldof, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, and political leaders including British prime minister Tony Blair, the outgoing German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, and Schroeder's successor designate Angela Merkel. The poll is open to the worldwide public until 11 November. Mueller's endorsers pointed out that the FOSS community has played a particularly active role in the fight against software patents, but that software patents "threaten us all because they don't discriminate based on programming language, operating system, or licensing model". The group is "disconcerted by early reports" that the EU is now looking at alternative ways of giving software patents a stronger legal basis in Europe, such as an EU community patent regulation. The press release underscored the fact that "this is a campaign for a cause, not for a person": People are asked to vote for Mueller "because he runs on a NoSoftwarePatents ticket, and that is the message we want to reinforce". The NoSoftwarePatents.com label is right next to Mueller's name on the ballot (http://www.ev50.com/poll). The endorsement furthermore stated: "Some other nominees also stand for valid concerns and noble causes. However, those issues and individuals have already received a lot of coverage in the mass media, while the implications of software patents to the whole world, including developing countries, still require much more public awareness. In the sense that software patents monopolize mental steps, they are also a human rights issue." Mueller is confident that he can win the title of the "European of the Year" against his famous competitors in the light of the "indisputable e-campaigning power of the anti-software patent movement". In addition to a campaign statement and voting recommendations, the website provides an email form that allows supporters to spread the information (http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/ev50/notify.html), and banners (http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/ev50/banners.html). The two main slogans of the electoral campaign are "Vote against software patents" and "Vote for your right to program". Should he win the popular vote, Mueller said that "everyone is a winner". He promised "to donate the Microsoft-sponsored prize money to the FFII", without which he says he "probably wouldn't have become involved, let alone succeeded, in this political battle". The EV50 winners will be announced on 29 November. A gala evening at the Palais d'Egmont in Brussels will be hosted by former European Parliament President Pat Cox, who was hired by US corporations to lobby for software patents in the build-up to the 6 July vote. The EV50 awards are supported by Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt. Sponsors include PR and lobbying firm Burson-Marsteller, software maker Microsoft Corporation (a major owner and backer of software patents), and pharmaceutical giant Novartis. The European Voice is a publication of the Economist group. NOTE: Florian Mueller founded the NoSoftwarePatents.com campaign in 2004 with the support of three corporate sponsors (1&1, Red Hat, MySQL AB), and managed it until March of 2005. He then gave his website to the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII), the leading European pressure group that opposes the patentability of computer programs. CONTACT INFORMATION Florian Mueller florian.mueller at nosoftwarepatents.com Anivar Aravind FSF India -- Knowledge is power... share it equitably! http://www.gnu.org From lawrence at altlawforum.org Thu Oct 27 15:14:23 2005 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:14:23 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Seminar on Privatisation of water in Bangalore, Saturday, Senate Hall In-Reply-To: <43606C7B.9060009@altlawforum.org> Message-ID: *KARNATAKA KOLAGERI NIVASIGALA HITRAKSHANA JANTI KRIYA SAMITHI* *Seminar On* "Water Supply Privatisation and its impact on Bangalore's People" We are all shocked to learn the full details of the GBWASP project launched by the World Bank agencies, USAID with the Govt. of Karnataka and BWSSB. This project is launched with the objective of providing drinking water and sanitation to the 8 CMCs around Bangalore city with 658 cores Budget. The privatization of water process was initiated by the Govt of Karnataka way back in 1999, in connivance with the World Bank. Now the IFC, USAID, Thames Water, KUIDFC, Govt. of Karnataka, ULBs and various Govt agencies involved in Urban development have come together for this project. They have decided that the project will be a public-private participation venture. Though these private companies do not invest in their project, they are proposed to run the project. This water privation process is designed to deprive drinking water to the urban exploited communities living in slums. This has been the experience all over the world wherever water privatiastion has taken place. Hence, various mass organization Women¹s organisations, Dalit movements, HR organizations, Trade Unions Student Youth organizations, left mass organizations movements and others have come together to organise this seminar to understand the full implications of GBWASP. *SEMINAR* On 29.10.2005, Saturday At Senate Hall Near Mysore Bank, Bangalore At 11.00 am *Programme:* Welcome : *Smt . Gowramma* Chair person : *Prof. Hassan Mansur* *Issues* Water Privatisation in Bangalore :*Mr. R. Prabhakar* Struggle against water privatisation at Global level - Experiences :*Mr. Clifton D' Rozario, ALF* *Speakers:* * /Mr. L C Jain,/ /Mr. M. Venkat swamy, /SSD /Mr. D Saraswathi, /Manasa monthly /Mr. Shiva sunder, /Journalist /Mr. Indoodhar Honnapra /- Editor, Samvada /Mr. Mavali shankar, /DSS (Ambedkar vada) /Mr. Banjagere Jayaprakash, /Writer /Dr. Kshitij urs, /APSA /Dr. Vasu, /KVR, Bangalore /Sister Celia /NAPM And such other prominent personalities, leaders and speakers are participating in this seminar. We invite one and all to come and participate, share view points and contribute towards initiating successful campaign against the conspiracy of ŒPolitics of Privatization of Water. In solidarity, L.I.A. Selva for *KARNATAKA KOLAGERI NIVASIGALA HITRAKSHANA JANTI KRIYA SAMITHI* _______________________________________________ Urbanstudygroup mailing list Urban Study Group: Reading the South Asian City To subscribe or browse the Urban Study Group archives, please visit https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/urbanstudygroup ------ End of Forwarded Message From lawrence at altlawforum.org Fri Oct 28 12:11:32 2005 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (Lawrence Liang) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:11:32 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi as copyright beneficiaries Message-ID: http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=21877 Rahul, Priyanka reap returns of best-selling author Nehru By Liz Mathew, New Delhi: Jawaharlal Nehru's literary works, turned over to private publishers last year, have emerged bestsellers. And the books, re-born with a more stylish and contemporary look, are bringing rich returns for their two main royalty owners - his great grandchildren Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi. Books written by India's first prime minister, divided equally between Congress president Sonia Gandhi's children, would continue to bring them royalty for 20 more years - thanks to amendments in the copyright laws by Indira Gandhi. The copyrights of Nehru's writings, published for decades by Oxford University Press and the National Book Trust and funded by Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund and Children's Book Trust, were handed over last year to Penguin India Ltd. At a time when the Congress party was not doing so well in predictions ahead of last year's general election and the Nehru-Gandhi-family bashing was at its peak, Penguin secured the rights to publish three of his most celebrated works. According to Penguin, the books have remained in the bestsellers' list for more than a year. Informed sources said Sonia Gandhi was not "happy at all" with the way the books were doing in the market at the time. "People close to Nehru felt that the books did not get the treatment they deserved. They were printed on inexpensive paper and the presentation was very bad. They looked so boring," said a source close to the Gandhi family. Besides, the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund had to spend a lot of money on publishing them without few returns but huge losses. Penguin officials say they revamped the look. "We gave the books a more contemporary look and made them more attractive," V.K. Kartika, executive editor of Penguin India, told IANS. "In 'Letters from a Father to His Daughter', we added illustrations and it became attractive to a new class of people. We actually re-invented the product," said Kartika. "Now they are seen as classics." The publishers are happy at the response to the new editions from across the country and abroad. "They are doing wonderfully. In fact, we found it difficult to meet the demand initially," Kartika said, adding that it has helped the Nehruvian works to return to popularity with a bang. But the Penguin editions of "The Discovery of India", "An Autobiogaphy" and "Glimpses of World History" are much more expensive than their previous avatars. For example, Nehru's autobiography was available at Rs.100 till last year. The listed price of the Penguin edition is Rs.350. Penguin sells the hardback edition of "Glimpses of World History" at Rs. 1,250 while the book used to cost less than Rs.500. But Kartika said that the price of the books was commensurate with the quality and packaging and perhaps less than the standard pricing of Penguin publications. "But the huge demand has offset our costs," she said. After the success of the books, Penguin published "Two alone, Two together: Letters between Indira Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru (1922-1964)"(edited by Sonia Gandhi); "Letters from a Father to His Daughter" (with a foreword by Priyanka Gandhi Vadra) and "Before Freedom: Nehru's Letters to His Sister (1909-1947)" (edited by Nayantara Sahgal). The copyrights of these literary works have been divided among Rahul and Priyanka. While the copyright of "Two Alone, Two Together" belongs to both, the text copyright of "Letters from a Father to his Daughter" rests solely with Priyanka. The copyright of "Bunch of Old Letters - Being Mostly Written to Jawaharlal Nehru, Some Written by Him (Selected and edited by Jawaharlal Nehru)" belongs to Priyanka. The copyright law deems that literary works of authors would come to the public domain 60 years after their death. Although international copyright laws restrict the time for the author's family to hold the rights to 50 years, rules in India give 10 more years, thanks to the amendments made in them by late prime minister Indira Gandhi. She had amended the Indian Copyrights Act to enable Santiniketan, her alma mater, to hold on to the rights of the literary works of Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore longer. Tagore's literature thus came to the public domain in 2004, instead of 1994, which would have happened had the act not been amended. "So the Gandhi siblings will continue to get 10-15 percent royalty on the sales of these books till 2024," an official in one of the previous publishing groups commented. "Although the Gandhis were well within their rights to change the publisher, it was not proper for them to make the works of a nation builder so expensive," he said. From tahir.amin at btopenworld.com Fri Oct 28 12:39:35 2005 From: tahir.amin at btopenworld.com (TAHIR AMIN) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 08:09:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Mobile phones open new front in war on music piracy Message-ID: <20051028070935.94513.qmail@web86101.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Mobile phones open new front in war on music piracy Robert Booth Friday October 28, 2005 The Guardian Children with the latest mobile phones are posing a new threat to sales of recorded music by illegally sharing songs, according to music industry leaders. The spread of mobile phones capable of carrying hundreds of easily transferable songs has opened a new front in a war against piracy. Illegal downloading has already cost the British music industry £650m in the past two years. The chief executive of a company planning to sell mobile phone downloads said the piracy problem caused by mobiles could be worse than that caused by the internet. Martin Higginson, the chief executive of Monstermob, told Music Week: "If piracy on the internet was a tidal wave, this is going to be a tsunami." The fears have been triggered partly by Nokia's plans to release a phone early next year capable of storing 3,000 songs - enough for about 250 albums. The Sony Walkman phone, launched this month, has the capacity for about 500 songs and, although only 10cm (4in) long, sports built-in stereo speakers. With 900m tracks already available on websites for illegal downloading, the growth of mobiles that play music raises the prospect of millions more in people's pockets which can be shared illegally without even connecting to a computer. Technology known as Bluetooth allows songs to be transferred between handsets at the touch of a button - but only one at a time. A greater threat stems from the falling price and expanding capacity of removable memory cards which allow hundreds of songs to be transferred simply by sharing the card. Both techniques are being used by schoolchildren. Major labels, including EMI which represents Robbie Williams, Moby and Kylie Minogue, are taking the threat seriously. "It is a form of piracy and the record company and the artist are not getting paid," said Mark Way, the digital media manager for the EMI catalogue. "As phones develop its impact will increase. It is hard to second guess where the technology is going." He said the threat would only approach that posed by web-based illegal downloads when the technology improved. Steve Mayall of industry analyst MusicAlly, said: "The difference with phones is that you can swap songs without a computer. That's the kind of file sharing the music industry should be worried about." The fears come as the digital music booms. This year UK single track legal downloads increased tenfold to 10m. "More and more people are turning to the new legal ways of downloading music on the internet or via mobile phones," said John Kennedy, the chairman of the International Federation of Phonographic Industries. "There is a long way to go - digital and physical piracy remain a big threat to our business in many markets. Our industry's priorities are to further grow this emerging digital music business while stepping up our efforts to protect it from copyright theft." ___________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com From tahir.amin at btopenworld.com Fri Oct 28 18:22:59 2005 From: tahir.amin at btopenworld.com (TAHIR AMIN) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:52:59 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Commons-Law] EU Turns up its nose at attempt to trademark smell of strawberries Message-ID: <20051028125259.3752.qmail@web86105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Here's a link to the judgement http://curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&Submit=Submit&alldocs=alldocs&docj=docj&docop=docop&docor=docor&docjo=docjo&numaff=&datefs=&datefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=INTE&mots=&resmax=100 ------------------------------------------------------------ EU turns up its nose at attempt to trademark smell of strawberries By Elizabeth Davies Published: 28 October 2005 Independent A French perfume company specialising in luxurious cosmetics and toiletries has narrowly failed in an attempt to trademark the scent of ripe strawberries. The Paris-based Eden Sarl is the latest business to have the EU turn its nose up at an attempt to lock down a particular smell and turn it into a unique selling point. The rush of trademark claims followed a successful bid by a Dutch perfume company that registered the aroma of freshly cut grass in 2000. It used the patent to make tennis balls smell as good as the courts upon which they bounce. But Eden Sarl's claim to trademark the smell of strawberries for use in soaps and lotions was quashed yesterday by EU experts, who ruled that, as the fruit "does not have just one smell", its scent cannot be used as one company's unique selling point. "There is no generally accepted international classification of smells which would make it possible ... to identify an olfactory sign," the EU's second-highest court decided. Sensory tests showed the plump red fruits can have up to five distinct scents. "This means ... that the different varieties of strawberries produce significantly different smells," said judges, much to the consternation of Eden Sarl, which had hoped to add strawberry-scented pens and stationery to its armoury of nasally enticing products. The firm had argued that, while different varieties of fruit may taste differently, their smell, associated by so many in Europe with lazy summer picnics and the odd glass of champagne, remained the same. "The smell of ripe strawberries is stable and durable," Eden representatives said. "That smell is well-known to consumers who will have memories of it from childhood." The company had asked the court to overrule the EU's trademark agency, which rejected a request made by another French firm to register the scent in May 2004. The EU also rejected an attempt to register the image of a strawberry as a trademark. But it did acknowledge that, in certain circumstances, the use of a smell as a "non-conventional" trademark would be permitted. "The olfactory memory is probably the most reliable memory that humans possess," the judge said. "Consequently, economic operators have a clear interest in using olfactory signs to identify their goods." European laws on trademarking are notoriously more stringent than those in the rest of the world. Attempts to use raspberry as a trademark scent for perfumed candles, as well as the smells of lemon and vanilla, have also failed. In 2000, the British company John Lewis tried to use the smell of cinnamon as a desirable addition to furniture polish but failed after the EU ruled that the smell of the spice was not "distinguishable" enough for trademark purposes. ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com From prabhuram at gmail.com Sat Oct 29 00:25:14 2005 From: prabhuram at gmail.com (prabhu ram) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:55:14 +0200 Subject: [Commons-Law] INDIA MODERNISES ITS PATENTS INFRASTRUCTURE Message-ID: <68752c9f0510281155n58069f8fx@mail.gmail.com> http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=12985 Kamal Nath: "We cannot afford to miss the bus – in fact, we must ensure that we are not just passengers, but right up there, sharing the driver's seat! Therefore, our endeavour is to provide all IP related services at ease to the stakeholders and interested parties sitting at home via Internet on real time basis. Our IP offices are working to ensure delivery of IP services in a transparent, efficient and user friendly manner", he stressed. KAMAL NATH INAUGURATES SECOND STATE-OF-THE-ART IPR BUILDING -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14:35 IST As part of India's drive to fully modernise its Patent/Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) infrastructure, Shri Kamal Nath, Union Minister of Commerce and Industry, inaugurated the state-of-the-art Intellectual Property Office building at Salt Lake in Kolkata today. He said that this was the second inauguration in a series of four virtually-interlinked buildings in India's metro cities and recalled that he had inaugurated the first integrated IPR building two months ago in New Delhi. Thanking the Chief Minister of West Bengal Shri Budhadeb Bhattacharjee and the West Bengal government for providing an excellent plot at a prime location for construction of the integrated building at a nominal cost, Shri Kamal Nath said that the facilities provided were state-of-the-art and comparable with the best in the world. Shri Ajai Dua, Secretary (IPP), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, mentioned that an outlay of Rs.124 crore had been earmarked for modernisation projects for IP Offices. The increasing importance of intellectual property is being evidenced from increased filings in the Indian IP Offices. Patent applications filing has gone up four-fold in the last 5 years. In the last 2 years alone, about 200,000 trademarks certificates have been issued, and another 100,000 certificates are going to be issued in the current year. "The increasing filing trend coupled with realisation of importance of IP is a good omen for the country's economic health", the Minister said. Shri Kamal Nath noted that instead of seeking protection from global challenges, Indian industry was now fast getting integrated into the global framework. "We cannot afford to miss the bus – in fact, we must ensure that we are not just passengers, but right up there, sharing the driver's seat! Therefore, our endeavour is to provide all IP related services at ease to the stakeholders and interested parties sitting at home via Internet on real time basis. Our IP offices are working to ensure delivery of IP services in a transparent, efficient and user friendly manner", he stressed. SB/MRS -- Prabhu Ram, Max-Planck-Institut for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, MarstallPlatz 1, 80539 Munich GERMANY Tel: + 49 89 24246226 Mob: + 49 17629830521 From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Sat Oct 29 03:08:11 2005 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:38:11 -0700 Subject: [Commons-Law] EPO Response to EU Parliament Motion on Biotechnology Patents Message-ID: <43629A43.1DD7451A@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> (Well, the EPO responded. Would they respond similarly to an EU Parliament motion on software patents? -- Seth) > http://www.european-patent-office.org/news/pressrel/2005_10_27_e.htm "The EPO follows the EU’s Directive on biotechnology patents" Munich, 27 October 2005 – The European Patent Office (EPO) has noted the concern that several groups in the European Parliament have expressed about the grant of European patent EP 1257168 B1. However, the Office emphasises that it follows an extremely cautious approach in patenting biotechnological inventions. In motions communicated to the EPO, members of the European Parliament have stated that, in their view, the grant of this patent, which is entitled "Method of cryopreserving selected sperm cells", constitutes a violation of the Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (98/44/EC). The MEPs maintain that the patent also covers non-patentable human germ cells. They have therefore announced their intention to contest the grant of this patent by initiating an opposition procedure before the EPO. Other worries expressed in the motions concern the future development of the EPO’s practice in patenting human embryonic stem cells. The President of the EPO, Alain Pompidou, has confirmed that such a patent was granted to the US Company XY Inc. of Fort Collins, Colorado, in February 2005, pointing out that the nine-month period during which oppositions to the patent can be filed by third parties will terminate on 2 November 2005: "The European patent grant procedure allows anyone to formally oppose a patent if they are of the opinion that it should not have been granted. This is an inbuilt legal remedy for establishing legal certainty on the patentability of an invention." Opposition procedure In view of the pending case, Mr Pompidou declined to comment on the individual objections expressed in the motions: "We take the concerns voiced by the MEPs very seriously. However, it will be the task of a dedicated EPO body, the opposition division, to consider the case in the light of the formal grounds brought forward by opponents. To date, such a procedure could not be opened as no oppositions have yet been filed." He added that every year around 5% of the patents granted by the EPO are contested in opposition proceedings. In two thirds of these cases, the patent is changed or even revoked in its entirety. The EPO grants patents by applying the European Patent Convention (EPC [http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/epc/index.html]). The EPC forms the legal basis for the Office's institutional structure and its activities and operations. It has been ratified by the 31 member states of the European Patent Organisation (http://www.european-patent-office.org/epo/members.htm), 24 of which are also member states of the European Union. The EPC has enabled the transnational protection of innovations by patents in the European market and is seen by many countries as a model for regional cooperation in the field of intellectual property. Since September 1999, the EPO has applied the EU Directive in its patenting practice. According to Mr Pompidou: "Following a decision of our supervisory body, the Administrative Council, this Directive has been incorporated into the EPC Implementing Regulations. We thus strictly adhere to the provisions of the EPC and the Biotechnology Directive." Strict quality standards and transparency Biotechnology is one of the technical fields in which large numbers of patent applications are filed every year. In 2004, the EPO received 6 581 patent applications in biotechnology and granted some 4 000 patents. "We apply very strict standards in examining these applications", the EPO President said. "The provisions of the EPC and the Directive, together with the case law of the Boards of Appeal, which are the EPO's judiciary, demand a restrictive approach to patenting biotechnological inventions. We are fully aware that this is a sensitive field of technology and also has important ethical implications. However, one should also bear in mind that obtaining a patent does not imply permission to actually use an invention. This is the responsibility of regulatory bodies, not of the EPO." Inbuilt legal remedies Mr Pompidou acknowledged that, despite all the quality controls in place at the EPO, it is impossible to rule out the possibility that some patents do not meet its high quality standards in all aspects. For the current year the EPO expects to receive 190 000 patent applications. In 2004 the Office granted 60 000 patents, each one of them after a rigorous three-step procedure involving a comprehensive novelty search through more than 55 million documents and a thorough examination for compliance of the claimed invention with patent law. "The task of our 3 400 patent examiners is extremely challenging. They work at the forefront of technology and have to take difficult decisions within a complex legal and ethical framework, knowing that there is always a risk of inaccuracy. However, the European patent system takes that risk fully into account and has inbuilt legal remedies to oppose granted patents", the EPO President explained. With the help of the EPO’s free patent information services such as epoline® and esp at cenet®, it is possible for anyone to inspect files pending before the EPO at all times: "The patent system provides complete transparency on any case pending or granted. Anyone who wishes to do so can monitor progress on any file at all stages of the procedure and even send us observations without getting legally involved in the case, and we will have to take them to account." Restrictive approach to human embryonic stem cells On the question of human embryonic stem cells, President Pompidou pointed out that the EPO has so far taken a very restrictive approach to the patenting of human embryonic stem cells and cell lines obtained from them. Following the "Edinburgh patent" case, the EPO has not granted patents for such inventions. Moreover, it has raised objections to the patentability of inventions pertaining to human embryonic stem cells in a number of applications that have been examined so far. The EPO's Technical Board of Appeal is called upon to give a first decision on the subject on 18 November. It has the option of referring the issue to the EPO's highest instance, the Enlarged Board of Appeal, for a definitive legal ruling. Information for journalists: 1. European patent EP 1 257 168 B1 was granted on 2 February 2005 to XY Inc., Fort Collins, CO (USA), based on a corresponding patent application filed with the EPO on 22 November 2002. The title is "Method of cryopreserving selected sperm cells". 2. Implementation of Directive 98/44/EC Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions was adopted on 6 July 1998. In its decision of 16 June 1999, the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation, which supervises the activities of the EPO and is composed of representatives of all the contracting states to the European Patent Convention (EPC), incorporated the relevant provisions of this Directive into European patent law. Though not legally subject to this formal requirement, the European Patent Organisation decided that European patent law needed to be brought into line with the Directive, primarily in order to comply with the requirement for uniformity in harmonised European patent law. 3. Exclusion from patentability of inventions whose exploitation would be contrary to ordre public or morality The EPC expressly stipulates that the human body, at the various stages of its formation and development, and the simple discovery of one of its elements, including the sequence or partial sequence of a gene, cannot constitute patentable inventions. However, an element isolated from the human body or otherwise produced by means of a technical process may constitute a patentable invention, even if the structure of that element is identical to a natural element. Recital 16 of the Directive and the Guidelines for examination in the EPO state that such stages in the formation or development of the human body include germ cells. Moreover, Rule 23b(1) EPC states that the Directive must be used as a supplementary means of interpretation. This is intended in particular to ensure that the recitals preceding the provisions of the Directive are also taken into account and to promote a uniform Europe-wide interpretation of the relevant provisions. 4. Article 53a EPC, in line with Article 6(1) of the Directive, establishes a general principle of exclusion for inventions whose exploitation would be contrary to ordre public or morality. Article 6(2) of the Directive lays down an illustrative list of exclusions from patentability which the EPO has implemented by the introduction of Rule 23d EPC. Recital 38 of the Directive confirms that this list is not exhaustive and that any process whose application offends against human dignity is also excluded from patentability. It thus follows from both the provisions of the Directive and of the EPC that, as regards the human body and its elements, the applicable legal framework rigorously ensures that the human body effectively remains unavailable and inalienable and that human dignity is thus safeguarded. 5. Patentability of human embryonic stem cells and cell lines obtained from them Rule 23d(c) EPC implements Article 6(2)c) of the Directive. It stipulates that European patents may not be granted in respect of biotechnological inventions which, in particular, concern uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes. The European Group on Ethics considered in its opinion No. 16 that there was no ethical reason for a complete ban on the patenting of inventions relating to stem cells or stem cell lines, although the normal requirements of patentability would have to be met. The EPO's departments of first instance have a much more restrictive practice on the patenting of human embryonic stem cells and cell lines obtained therefrom. According to the practice of the EPO examining and opposition divisions, Rule 23d(c) EPC excludes from patentability all claims to the industrial or commercial use of human embryos and also all claims to associated products which necessitate the direct and unavoidable use of a human embryo, for example, embryonic cells. Appeals have been filed against several first-instance decisions. The EPO Boards of Appeal will now have to construe the wording of Rule 23d(c) EPC themselves and form their own conclusions on what falls within its scope. In their decisions, the members of the Boards are not bound by any instructions and must comply only with the provisions of the EPC. 6. Abuses and risks of a given technology A patent is an industrial property right for an intangible asset, the invention, which must represent a technological improvement. The right which it accords is to prevent all others - not just imitators but even independent devisers of the same idea - from using the invention for the duration of the patent. A patent does not authorise its holder to implement that invention, but merely entitles him to prohibit third parties from exploiting it for industrial and commercial purposes. In other words, the grant of a patent does not confer a positive right to use the invention without complying with all the applicable rules of the legal system. Regardless of whether or not a patent is granted, the inventor has to respect all legal provisions that might possibly prohibit the working or marketing of the subject-matter of his invention. Patent law is thus not a suitable tool for preventing any abuses or risks associated with a given technology. It cannot serve to replace or render superfluous national, European or international law which may impose restrictions or prohibitions or which concerns the monitoring of research and of the use or commercialisation of its results, notably from the point of view of the requirements of public health, safety, environmental protection, animal welfare, the preservation of genetic diversity and compliance with certain ethical standards. 7. Transparency The practice of the European Patent Office adheres strictly to the legal principles and high standards laid down by the European Patent Convention. The EPO provides for a maximum of transparency and information on its activities. Patent applications are published 18 months after filing or after the priority date. Once a European patent application has been published, the file relating to it is open to inspection. This means that any member of the public can view the communications between the Office, its first and second-instance departments and the parties involved in the procedure. Such file inspections can be made online and are free of charge. Furthermore, all European patent applications and patents can be accessed on the Internet at www.espacenet.com, while any legal and procedural status information can be obtained from the EPO’s epoline® server at www.epoline.org free of charge. Procedural information on any patent can be retrieved from the Online European Patent Register. European patent law also provides for a highly developed system of legal remedies. Any person may present observations concerning the patentability of the invention in respect of which the application has been filed. In addition, any third party can file an opposition to a granted patent, without having to prove a direct interest in the case. The possibility of appeal exists both against the decisions of the examining and opposition divisions. Furthermore, proceedings to revoke the patent, even if its validity has been upheld in opposition proceedings and/or subsequent appeal proceedings, can be instituted in any designated contracting state.