From prabhuram at gmail.com Wed Mar 1 16:05:20 2006 From: prabhuram at gmail.com (prabhu ram) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:35:20 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] A Nation of Guinea Pigs Message-ID: <68752c9f0603010235h679b6faak92f30b61d4be17ad@mail.gmail.com> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.03/indiadrug_pr.html The article throws some interesting perspectives on how India became a global hotspot for drug trials. From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Thu Mar 2 19:00:19 2006 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 08:30:19 -0500 Subject: [Commons-Law] Important Statement to Review for Signing Message-ID: <4406F36B.A7C2B16D@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Hello folks, Please review the important joint statement below, related to the WIPO Broadcaster's Treaty, and consider adding your signature if you are an American citizen. Also make sure those you know who should sign are also given the opportunity. Andy Oram has written a good letter to the US Delegation to WIPO on the subject: > http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/etel/2006/01/13/the-problem-with-webcasting.html?page=2 CPTech Links on the Treaty: > http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/index.html#Coments Electronic Frontier Foundation Links: > http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/broadcasting_treaty/ IP Justice Links: > http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/broadcasters.shtml Union for the Public Domain Links: > http://www.public-domain.org/?q=node/47 The Latest Draft of the Treaty: > http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/sccr12.2rev2.doc A survey of relevant links: > http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/wipo_and_the_war_against_the_i.html If you choose to sign, please send your name along with an affiliation or appropriate short phrase to attach to your name for identification purposes, to mailto:seth.p.johnson at gmail.com. If your organization endorses the statement, please indicate that separately, so your organization will be listed under that header. Thank you for consideration. Seth Johnson Corresponding Secretary New Yorkers for Fair Use Joint Statement to Congress: Dear (Relevant Congressional Committees) (cc the WIPO Delegation): Negotiations are currently underway at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to develop a treaty giving broadcasters power to suppress currently lawful communications. The United States delegation is also advocating similar rights for "webcasters" through which the authors of new works communicate them to the public. Some provisions of the proposed "Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations" would merely update and standardize existing legal norms, but several proposals would require Congress to enact sweeping new laws that give private parties control over information, communication, and even copyrighted works of others, whenever they have broadcast or "webcast" the work. The novel policy areas addressed by this treaty go beyond ordinary treaty-making that seeks worldwide adherence to U.S. policy. Instead, this initiative invades Congress’ prerogative to develop and establish national policy. Indeed, even as Congress is debating how best to protect network neutrality, treaty negotiators are debating how to eliminate it. The threat to personal liberties presented by this treaty is too grave to allow these new policy initiatives be handed over to an unelected delegation to negotiate with foreign countries, leaving Congress with the sole option whether to acquiesce. When dealing with policies that are related to copyright and communications, Congress's assigned powers and responsibility under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution become particularly important. We urge two important steps. First, the new proposed regulations should be published in the Federal Register, with an invitation to the public to comment. Second, the appropriate House and Senate committees should hold hearings to more fully explore the impact of these novel legal restrictions on commerce, freedom of speech, copyright holders, network neutrality, and communications policy. Americans currently enjoy substantial freedoms with respect to broadcast and webcast communications. Under the proposed treaty, the existing options available to commercial enterprises and entrepreneurs as well as the general public to communicate news, information and entertainment would be limited by a new private gatekeeper who adds nothing of value to the content. Communications policies currently under discussion at the FCC would be impacted. Individuals and small businesses would be limited in their freedom of speech. Copyright owners would find their freedom to license their works limited by whether the work had been broadcast or webcast. The principle of network neutrality, already the subject of congressional hearings, would be all but destroyed. As able as the staff of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Library of Congress may be, it was never intended that they alone should stake out the United States national policy to be promoted before an unelected international body in entirely new areas abridging civil liberties. Congress should be the first to establish America’s national policies in this new area so that our WIPO delegation will have sufficient guidance to achieve legitimate objectives without impairing Constitutional principles such as freedom of speech and assembly, without impairing the value of copyrights, and without granting to private parties arbitrary power to suppress existing freedoms or burden new technologies. We cannot afford for Congress to wait for the Senate to be presented with a fully formed treaty calling for the enacting of domestic law at odds with fundamental American liberties foreign to American and international legal norms, and that would bring to a close many of the benefits of widespread personal computing and the end-to-end connectivity brought by the Internet. We ask Congress to use its authority now to shape these important communications policies impacting constitutionally based copyright laws and First Amendment liberties. Signed, (Affiliations for individual signers are for identification only. Endorsing organizations are listed separately.) William Abernathy, Independent Technical Editor Scottie D. Arnett, President, Info-Ed, Inc. Jonathan Askin, Pulver.com John Bachir, Ibiblio.org Tom Barger, DMusic.com Fred Benenson, FreeCulture.org Daniel Berninger, VON Coalition Eric Blossom, GNU Radio Joshua Breitbart, Media Tank Dave Burstein, Editor, DSL Prime Michael Calabrese, Vice President, New America Foundation Dave A. Chakrabarti, Community Technologist, CTCNet Chicago Steven Cherry, Senior Associate Editor, IEEE Spectrum Steven Clift, Publicus.Net Roland J. Cole, J.D., Ph.D., Executive Director, Software Patent Institute Gordon Cook, Editor, Publisher and Owner since 1992 of the COOK Report on Internet Protocol Walt Crawford, Editor/Publisher, Cites & Insights Cynthia H. de Lorenzi, Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy Cory Doctorow, Author, journalist, Fulbright Chair, EFF Fellow Marshall Eubanks, CEO, AmericaFree.tv Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Media Access Project Miles R. Fidelman, President, The Center for Civic Networking Richard Forno (bio: http://www.infowarrior.org/rick.html) Laura N. Gasaway, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina Paul Gherman, University Librarian, Vanderbilt University Shubha Ghosh, Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Paul Ginsparg, Cornell University Fred R. Goldstein, Ionary Consulting Robin Gross, IP Justice Michael Gurstein, New Jersey Institute for Technology Jon Hall, President, Linux International Chuck Hamaker, Atkins Library, University of North Carolina - Charlotte Charles M. Hannum, consultant, founder of The NetBSD Project Dewayne Hendricks, CEO, Dandin Group David R Hughes, CEO, Old Colorado City Communications, 1993 EFF Pioneer Award Paul Hyland, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility David S. Isenberg, Ph.D., Founder & CEO, isen.com, LLC Seth Johnson, New Yorkers for Fair Use Paul Jones, School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill Peter D. Junger, Professor of Law Emeritus, Case Western Reserve University Brewster Kahle, Internet Archive Jerry Kang, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law Dennis S. Karjala, Jack E. Brown Professor of Law, Arizona State University Dan Krimm, Independent Musician Michael J. Kurtz, Astronomer and Computer Scientist, Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Michael Maranda, President, Association For Community Networking Kevin Marks, mediAgora Anthony McCann, www.beyondthecommons.com Sascha Meinrath, Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, Free Press Edmund Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director, U.S. Public Interest Research Group Lee N. Miller, Ph.D., Editor Emeritus, Ecological Society of America John Mitchell, InteractionLaw Tom Moritz, Chief, Knowledge Managment, Getty Research Institute Andrew Odlyzko, University of Minnesota Ken Olthoff, Advisory Board, EFF Austin Andy Oram, Editor, O'Reilly Media Bruce Perens (bio at http://perens.com/Bio.html) Ian Peter, Senior Partner, Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd Malla Pollack, Law Professor, American Justice School of Law Jeff Pulver, Pulver.com Tom Raftery, PodLeaders.com David P. Reed, contributor to original Internet Protocol design Jerome H. Reichman, Bunyan S. Womble Professor of Law Lawrence Rosen, Rosenlaw & Einschlag; Stanford University Lecturer in Law Bruce Schneier, security technologist and CTO, Counterpane David J. Smith, Specialist of Distributed Content Distribution and Protocols, Michigan State University Michael E. Smith, LXNY Richard Stallman, President, Free Software Foundation Fred Stutzman, Ph.D. Student, UNC Chapel Hill Peter Suber, Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge Jay Sulzberger, New Yorkers for Fair Use Aaron Swartz, infogami Stephen H. Unger, Professor, Computer Science Department, Columbia University Eric F. Van de Velde, Ph.D., Director, Library Information Technology, California Institute of Technology Tom Vogt, independent computer security researcher David Weinberger, Harvard Berkman Center Frannie Wellings, Free Press Adam Werbach, President, Ironweed Films Stephen Wolff, igewolff.net Brett Wynkoop, Wynn Data Ltd. John Young, Cryptome.org Endorsing Organizations: Association For Community Networking (AFCN) The Center for Civic Networking Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Contact Communications The COOK Report on Internet Protocol Cryptome.org Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network Dandin Group FreeCulture.org Free Press Free Software Foundation Illinois Community Technology Coalition Internet Archive Ionary Consulting IP Justice isen.com, LLC mediAgora New Yorkers for Fair Use Old Colorado City Communications Podleaders.com Pulver.com Rosenlaw & Einschlag U.S. Public Interest Research Group Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy Wyoming.com -- [separate one-page attachment] WHY PUBLIC SCRUTINY OF THE PROPOSED BROADCASTER TREATY IS NEEDED If Congress were to hold public hearings, or if the US delegation to WIPO were to publish the current proposal for public review and comment, myriad voices from various segments of society could come forward to show that the proposed Broadcaster's Treaty: * Is written to look like existing copyright treaties, but it is not based on the constitutional requirements for copyright protection, such as originality, and in fact is antagonistic to copyrights * Is promoted as a way of standardizing existing signal protection, but in fact extends well beyond signal protection by giving broadcasters and webcasters a monopoly, for 50 years, over the content created by others the moment it is broadcast or transmitted over the Internet * Gives broadcasters greater rights than producers of original works * Accords exclusive rights to non-authors in direct violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution * Attacks the principle of network neutrality which serves as the basis by which the Internet has fostered a profound expansion in human capacities and innovation * Grants privileges that extend beyond broadcast signals to actually give broadcasters control over works conveyed within a broadcast -- including copyrighted and public domain works * Blocks fair use and other copyright provisions that enable the public to make use of and benefit from published information * Chills freedom of expression by extending unwarranted controls over broadcast publication * Benefits broadcasters at the expense of the web, the public and future innovation * Creates a de facto tax on copyrights, freedom of speech, communications and technological progress, all for the benefit of broadcasters and webcasters who have added nothing to deserve such a windfall. From pparanagua at gmail.com Thu Mar 2 19:57:17 2006 From: pparanagua at gmail.com (Pedro Moniz) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 11:27:17 -0300 Subject: [Commons-Law] sign on by the Brazilian Network for the Integration of Peoples (REBRIP) Message-ID: The Brazilian Network for the Integration of Peoples (REBRIP) asked me to forward this sign on letter to mailing lists that might have some interest on it. According to them, signatures should be sent to claudio at abiaids.org.br THE LEME CHARTER This document is the outcome of the National Seminar "Intellectual Property: Interfaces and Challenges", organized by the Brazilian Network for the Integration of Peoples (REBRIP). At this seminar, the participants debated the drawbacks imposed by Intellectual Property rules in different areas of knowledge - intellectual property rules that serve to undermine the sustainability of, and the right to, full human, economic, social and cultural development of peoples. To all governments, international institutions and peoples of the world. We, representatives of civil society organisations, professionals, students and researchers, committed to the democratization of access to knowledge, to full health and to food security, particularly for poor people, firmly believe that if the current Intellectual Property regime is maintained, technologically-dependent countries and their peoples will suffer from having their human rights greatly undermined. Our understanding of Intellectual Property rights and their impact on the developing world is diametrically opposed to the logic of free trade and economic liberalization that forms the basis of prevailing negotiations between countries under the aegis of the World Trade Organisation and in the ambit of other multilateral fora. We form part of a global organized civil society movement which has consistently demonstrated the negative impact of the above negotiations on poor peoples, on the environment and on biodiversity. Exercising our citizenship: We *repudiate* the idea of using knowledge as just one more manufactured good. Overbearing and aggressive capitalism is encroaching on developing and technologically dependent countries, encouraging the perverse appropriation and privatization of intangible goods such as scientific knowledge, information, the arts, pharmaceutical formulae and biodiversity, as well as undermining the traditional knowledge possessed by communities. We *consider* that it is regrettable and inconceivable that knowledge capable of bringing about economic and social development, improvements in the quality of life and the survival of peoples should be treated as if it were simply a product and, as such, to be monopolized and marketed by developed countries. We *defend* the broader participation of organized civil society in all decision-making spheres, whether national or international, concerning aspects related to Intellectual Property, as the only way of exercising adequate social control. We call for total transparency in the decision-making processes involved in bilateral and multilateral commercial agreements and in the adjustments effected to the domestic legislations of individual countries. We call for the cessation of, and no further action on, new agreements under the aegis of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). We are now living the reality of a wretched situation resulting from the substantial inequality that exists between producer nations and those that are merely consumers of technology: in other words, between those countries that are holders of patents and other intellectual protection mechanisms and those who are dependent on them. The WTO has demonstrated that the organization does not represent the interests of developing countries and excluded populations. On the contrary, it has contributed to the deepening poverty and the asymmetries between rich and poor. Every effort must be made to guarantee the right to access by all people to essential goods, to the maintenance of and respect for current safeguards and to insist on trade aimed at producing more sustainable and fraternal integration among peoples. We *reject* the inclusion or continuation of discussion of topics related to Intellectual Property in free trade agreements of a regional nature and above all in north-south bilateral agreements, given that the inclusion of such topics is fundamentally a kind of currency employed to take over markets, increase the dependence of poor countries and exacerbate existing inequalities. *We are radically opposed *to the rules that signify the spread of the already restrictive WTO TRIPS agreements, which are abusive and inhuman. We declare that: 1. The patents monopoly on essential medical drugs and the barriers imposed against implementation of the legal flexibilities are the greatest obstacles impeding access of millions of people throughout the world to treatment and to full exercise of their right to health. The WTO flexibilities designed to improve access to essential drugs, such as enshrined in the Doha Declaration and the Resolution of 30 August, represent achievements by organized civil society that has continuously clamored for priority to be given to respect for the interests and the health of the less privileged populations. We observe with regret that the norms that have as their principal aim respect for human rights and that have become part of national legislations, such as the safeguards inherent in Intellectual Property matters, become automatically "illegal" on the global level when efforts are instituted to put them into practice. In other words, rights get transformed into crimes and countries are considered a threat and suffer retaliation from the holders of knowledge that could indeed be rendered flexible. 2. The media is not only economically powerful. It possesses an substantial capacity to interfere in social and cultural processes. The media is a classic oligopoly, consisting largely of major transnational corporations, which distributes throughout the planet the same films, music, books, games and news. The concept of Intellectual Property in this sector serves only to accentuate the power of these monopolies. At the same time, it undermines cultural diversity (the basic key for the construction of democratic societies) and fails to benefit those who actually produce culture. Quite the contrary, it serves to inhibit free expression and the dissemination of information. 3. The validity of patenting "inventions implemented by computer" or in other words the so-called 'software patents', is now a strategic concern, given the economic, social and geopolitical power inherent in the use of such patents. This is principally because the application of patents and Intellectual Property rules in the information technology area involves: (a) protecting major business empires that dominate almost the entire world market in those goods and services that increasingly constitute an important key to development; (b) putting obstacles in the way of solutions being created as the result of the use of free software and open codes for the democratization of knowledge, the creation of skills at local level and the overall economic development of communities. The constant threats from the north, above all from the United States, that software piracy is an economic problem of the south is a fallacious argument and conceals the real interest of the above which is to keep other countries technologically dependent. 4. The spread of Intellectual Property rights to different areas of life renders seeds, plants and even animals targets of patents protection. This has caused serious harm to entire populations and particularly to farmers and local communities. The latter have found it difficult to access natural goods, thereby contributing to the erosion of biodiversity and occasioning aggression to the food sovereignty of peoples while, at the same time, providing incentives to bio-piracy and the expropriation of the knowledge held by local populations. Within the framework of the struggle for the democratization of knowledge and in order to ensure human rights as the main guiding light for agreements among nations, we propose establishing a space where joint action and solidarity can be constructed in the defense of fair trade, of the well-being and improved quality of life for all peoples and for the building of a more equal world. All peoples, organisations and social movements committed to these principles are invited to join us in this struggle. REBRIP Executive Secretariat Rua das Palmeiras 90 – Botafogo - Rio de Janeiro – CEP 22270-070 Tel: 21 536-735 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20060302/f2f6bf73/attachment.html From tahir.amin at btopenworld.com Sat Mar 4 16:33:13 2006 From: tahir.amin at btopenworld.com (TAHIR AMIN) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 11:03:13 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Commons-Law] Google's literary land-grab Message-ID: <20060304110313.36600.qmail@web86106.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> "So I call upon internet users worldwide to boycott the Google search engine until it ceases to scan books in America without prior permission, and desists from its mission to place ambient advertising on the great literary works. Switch your search engine from Google to MSN or Yahoo today, until you hear Google has withdrawn from the type of activities that have been described in another context as acts of "kleptomania". Nigel Newton Google's literary land-grab Publisher Nigel Newton calls for a boycott of the Google search engine in protest at its plans to scan books Saturday March 4, 2006 The Guardian If you click on Great Expectations by Charles Dickens in Google Book Search, you may find yourself taking an unexpected journey. Google's ambient advertising programme hotlinks to a dating agency called Great Expectations Dating ("Find Your True Love Today"). How crass is that? We can be sure that Dickens would have thought it so. Indeed, he would probably have reserved a special vituperation for Google's literary land-grab. There are two aspects to this land-grab. The first involves scanning out-of-copyright work, provided by the great libraries, and surrounding it with such advertising. That's not illegal, though it is of cultural concern. The second part of Google's literary predations, in the case of American libraries, involves scanning in-copyright works - for the purpose of publication - without direct prior permission of the copyright holder. That is to say, the author or his or her estate. Google's decision to scan first and ask permission later with copyrighted works is playing fast and loose. In America, it has already landed Google with a huge lawsuit from publishers. It is authors who will suffer most. Dickens isn't around to defend the integrity of his work. Were he alive, he would certainly have tried. He campaigned with vigour on the issue of copyright. A number of his works were copied in America and he was an early advocate of international copyright protection. In England, he went to court to stop someone writing a continuation of A Christmas Carol. He dedicated Pickwick Papers to Sir Thomas Noon Talfourd, who introduced the Copyright Bill in 1837. In Dickens's spirit, I believe we need to take action against Google. Its quest to monetise for its own benefit the literature of the world must be stopped. So I call upon internet users worldwide to boycott the Google search engine until it ceases to scan books in America without prior permission, and desists from its mission to place ambient advertising on the great literary works. Switch your search engine from Google to MSN or Yahoo today, until you hear Google has withdrawn from the type of activities that have been described in another context as acts of "kleptomania". Of course, Google doesn't describe its activities like that. The message is it's all for the global cultural heritage, not for profit. I understand a PR campaign has been commissioned to this effect, further to persuade authors and publishers to provide copies of their books to be scanned into Google Book Search without any upfront payment whatsoever. I don't buy it, anymore than I would buy anything from the ambient advertising programme. You may be the sort of person who loves advertising to be directed at you at every opportunity. You may not feel that it is inappropriate for Google to run advertisements around the text of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde for a walk-in medical clinic. Or to plumb an ad for "modern, economic waste disposal systems" into TS Eliot's Waste Land . Or to annex Virginia Woolf's To The Lighthouse with offers to holiday in a self-catering eight-storey tower. But I do. At one level all this is quite funny. At another, it is shocking. The worst thing is that the actual money paid to authors and publishers for these silly ads is negligible. So is the number of book purchases arising directly from these links (certainly they were when Google's representative came to see me last autumn). Authors are being ripped off however you look at it. They need to say something about it, loudly. Publishers also have serious responsibilities in this matter. It is possible in Google's contract for publishers to withdraw any book at any time. I call upon all publishers to do so immediately until these critical matters are resolved. No one will write much in future if they don't receive money for it because books are suddenly free on the net. At the moment, Google only offers a proportion of a copyright book for free. But it insists on scanning 100 per cent of each book it loads and, moreover, on owning the rights to the resulting digital files of authors' works. This is a Pandora's box. It must be regarded as likely that a subsequent management regime at Google will pressure publishers to allow it to offer 100 per cent of the text as battles for market share are joined against the other mighty search engines. Publishers also have the responsibility to make sure that when it comes to hosting electronic content in future, it is their own websites that host the downloads and the scans of text and audio. There is no reason to hand this content to third-party websites. That would only make publishers and authors subject to the commercial imperatives of other organisations - companies such as Google, with no long-term stake in authorship or publishing and no natural parallel interests. Search engines can find the same content on publishers' websites in a nanosecond. That's what search engines are for: searching. And publishers should then, as iTunes does with music tracks, charge a fair rate for their authors' content - not give it away like Google. University and copyright libraries also have serious responsibilities in their dealings with Google. I believe that libraries such as the Bodleian and Harvard may have misinterpreted the missions with which their universities have entrusted them in handing over part of their collections for scanning. They may also have thrown away the biggest commercial opportunity in the history of their academic institutions by regarding content as somehow free (though they do get their own copy of the digital file). It isn't free of course. Governments funded students who paid the universities for, among other things, the running of their university libraries. And because they are copyright libraries, publishers are obliged by the Legal Deposit Libraries Act to give one copy of each book to those six copyright libraries for free. No one ever said it could be passed on in electronic form to a third party. If there is to be money made out of scanning, the libraries themselves, not Google, should make it. Art collections provide a good example, as they often support themselves by licensing the images they have spent years (and millions) collecting. Yes, scanning a huge collection overnight is a huge expense but it does not have to happen overnight. The collections were written over two millennia; the online solution might decently take a long time. What Google is doing to books is, by contrast, positively indecent. It is a good search engine, frequently used by all of us. I for one would like to see it keep to that core business. Until it lays off literature, or else pays for it, I hope the readers of the Guardian and many others will join this boycott. · Nigel Newton is chief executive of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. This is an edited version of a speech given on Thursday to the Guardian Review's World Book Day forum. Go to guardian.co.uk/books for a podcast of the full speech. Tahir Amin ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From eddank at aya.yale.edu Fri Mar 10 23:03:42 2006 From: eddank at aya.yale.edu (Yale Information Society Project) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:33:42 -0500 Subject: [Commons-Law] Access to Knowledge conference, April 21-23 Message-ID: Access to Knowledge Conference Yale Information Society Project April 21-23, 2006 Yale Law School http://islandia.law.yale.edu/isp/a2kconfmain.html The information revolution holds great promise for development, freedom, and justice, but this potential is fragile. Without a coherent framework for why access to knowledge matters and an agenda how to achieve it, this potential could be undermined by the growing propertization and regulation of knowledge. The Information Society Project (ISP) at Yale Law School invites you to help determine the future of A2K. From April 21st to April 23rd, 2006, join policy makers, activists, industry leaders, and academics at Yale Law School for a conference addressing this topic in areas such as intellectual property policy, telecommunications, education, culture, science, and health care. Leading thinkers and advocates from North, South, East and West will focus on generating cutting edge research agendas, concrete policy solutions, and strategic partnerships for the next decade. Please register from the conference website at http://islandia.law.yale.edu/isp/a2kconfmain.html. Plenary Panel defining Access to Knowledge include: -- Framing A2K in human rights and development -- Political economy of trade treaties and intellectual property -- The economics of information -- Privacy, national security, and free expression -- Innovative public and private solutions to knowledge access and knowledge production in developing countries Policy Panel topics include: -- Measuring Access to Knowledge -- Wireless Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and A2K -- Traditional Knowledge -- Access to Scientific Knowledge -- Network Neutrality in the Developing World -- Exceptions and Limitations to Copyright -- Access to Medicines: India and TRIPS -- Peer Production and Education -- Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Globalization -- Agriculture, and Genetically Modified Crops -- Licensing Frameworks for Access to Knowledge -- Open Archives (OA), OA Publishing and Libraries For a full conference description and list of speakers, please visit the conference website at http://islandia.law.yale.edu/isp/a2kconfmain.html. Space is limited, so please register soon. ---------------- Eddan Katz Lecturer in Law, Yale Law School Executive Director, Information Society Project http://islandia.law.yale.edu/isp/ From hbs.law at gmail.com Sat Mar 11 00:39:18 2006 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:39:18 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Take A Break! Message-ID: <8b60429e0603101109ma3ca72n59ecc688423123c3@mail.gmail.com> Hi, For those wanting to take a break from patent bashing, here is a site: www.indyvation.com. Regards, Hasit From hbs.law at gmail.com Sat Mar 11 16:57:49 2006 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 16:57:49 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Mozilla revenue speculation erupts Message-ID: <8b60429e0603110327y12925125r31cb43f51de72daf@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Look at Firefox revenues. Business by any name is a business. Whether you give away products for free, give away source code for free, it still remains a business. Those of us old enough to have tracked the software industry might remember the shareware era (still lives at www.download.com) where software was given away for free with voluntary choice to pay if you liked the software - donationware. Open source is shareware with free source code. Yet, it is just another business model without revenue-per-piece or source code being the chief stock-in-trade.The below report shows how firefox earns its revenues. Oh and it has all the puritanism of the business arm being separate from the foundation and so on. We cannot mess with the purity of the open source after all. Regards, Hasit ================= Mozilla revenue speculation erupts By Ingrid Marson http://news.com.com/Mozilla+revenue+speculation+erupts/2100-1032_3-6048377.html Story last modified Fri Mar 10 10:09:30 PST 2006 advertisement The Mozilla Corp., the commercial arm of the Mozilla Foundation, has said that despite the success of its online applications, it is focused on strong products, not big profits. Responding to online speculation around the company's actual earnings, Christopher Blizzard, a Mozilla Corp. board member, said in a blog this week that money is just a "tool" that allows the organization to direct its own development and "make a great product." "Money is one of the last things we worry about, and people shouldn't get hung up on the numbers, except to realize that it gives us options," he said. Blizzard added that an earnings figure of $72 million quoted on some blogs was incorrect. "I won't comment on the dollar amount, except to say that ($72 million) is not correct, though not off by an order of magnitude. I also won't comment on sources of that money, except to say that some of the assertions that I've seen in the comments are pretty far off, both in terms of numbers and sources," he said. The Mozilla Foundation exists as a Californian not-for-profit organization and receives donations in a similar way to a nonprofit charity. This makes the issue of profit controversial. There has been intense speculation recently on exactly how much the Mozilla Corp., and the wider Mozilla Foundation, makes out of the open-source Firefox browser and how the money is spent. On Monday, Jason Calacanis, chief executive of blogging network Weblogs, wrote in his blog that an unnamed source at BarCampLA told him that the Mozilla Corp. made $72 million last year and is on target to have 120 employees this year, although he admitted that he had been unable to confirm these figures. Calacanis claimed that when a Firefox user does a Google search using the browser's search box, Mozilla receives about 80 percent of the ad revenue from any associated ad clicks. The gossip was soon picked up by a number of blogs and news sites, including Digg, and attracted thousands of comments. The majority of people commenting on Digg were positive about the news, claiming that Mozilla deserved the money. Some people, however, questioned how the organization managed to spend that amount of money. The Mozilla Foundation was unable to provide ZDNet UK more information on its revenue and how it spends its money on Thursday, but various Mozilla employees have commented on the figures in their respective blogs. Mitchell Baker, chief executive of the Mozilla Corp., said in a blog Wednesday that the search feature in Firefox "generates revenue in the tens of millions of dollars." She said the money generated from the search providers has been used to "build the capabilities of the Mozilla project." "We've hired people. We've built a much more robust infrastructure. (This may not sound like a big deal, but the server load of what we're doing with update and extensions is significant)," she said. The Mozilla Corp. has the equivalent of 40 full-time staff working for it, according to Baker, although she did not comment on the organization's expected growth. More information, at least on its past revenue and spending habits, can be gleaned from the 990 Form, which U.S. not-for-profits above a certain size are obliged to file with Internal Revenue Service. The latest 990 Form that is available for the Mozilla Foundation is for the 2004 calendar year, the year Firefox hit 1.0. Mozilla's 990 form for 2004, which was filed in November 2005, states that it made $5.8 million in 2004. Of that total, $4.9 million came from services it charged for, which included revenue from Google ads. Its expenses that year totaled $2.3 million, of which $1.5 million went to employee compensation. This works out as approximately $100,000 for each of the 14 employees it declared on the form. The foundation ended the year with net assets of $5.7 million, an increase of $3.5 million over the course of the year, according to its filing. Baker wrote in her blog that saving some of the foundation's revenue is essential to ensure it is able to remain independent. "We've got a 'reserve fund' now, which I view as extremely important. Having savings means that people are much more likely to believe us when we say we will turn down revenue if it doesn't benefit the user. We've always said this, and we've meant it," she said. She added that in the near future Mozilla will be looking at how it can disperse funds within the open-source community. "I've been told by some people that this is risky and that the thought of money distorts the community," she said. "But we do have money in the project now, and some of it should get spent on a projectwide basis unrelated to employment. I'm hoping we can do this in a way that reflects our community organization and distributed authority. I'm not sure what the mechanism is yet, but I know it needs to happen." Mozilla's 990 Form is available free of charge--with registration--on sites such as GuideStar.org. Ingrid Marson of ZDNet UK reported from London. Copyright (c)1995-2006 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved. From jeebesh at sarai.net Sat Mar 11 19:25:38 2006 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (jeebesh at sarai.net) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 14:55:38 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] Mozilla revenue speculation erupts In-Reply-To: <8b60429e0603110327y12925125r31cb43f51de72daf@mail.gmail.com> References: <8b60429e0603110327y12925125r31cb43f51de72daf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <88cb6d1d7a47d2017085bdcad3f9b240@sarai.net> Hi Hasit, Failed to get your point and may i say anger at Mozilla et al. As far as i know having a Corp and Foundation is a very ordinary practice in US. What is puritanical about it. On the contrary this is the standard organizational convention - profits and philanthropy - in US. And frankly Mozilla's revenue is very negligible in contemporary corporate standard to even merit serious financial analysis. best jeebesh On 12:27:49 pm 03/11/06 "Hasit seth" wrote: > Hi, > > Look at Firefox revenues. Business by any name is a business. > Whether you give away products for free, give away source code for > free, it still remains a business. Those of us old enough to have > tracked the software industry might remember the shareware era (still > lives at www.download.com) where software was given away for free with > voluntary choice to pay if you liked the software - donationware. Open > source is shareware with free source code. Yet, it is just another > business model without revenue-per-piece or source code being the > chief stock-in-trade.The below report shows how firefox earns its > revenues. Oh and it has all the puritanism of the business arm being > separate from the foundation and so on. We cannot mess with the purity > of the open source after all. > > Regards, > Hasit > ================= > Mozilla revenue speculation erupts > > By Ingrid Marson > http://news.com.com/Mozilla+revenue+speculation+erupts/2100-1032_3-604 > 8377.html > > Story last modified Fri Mar 10 10:09:30 PST 2006 > > advertisement > > The Mozilla Corp., the commercial arm of the Mozilla Foundation, has > said that despite the success of its online applications, it is > focused on strong products, not big profits. > > Responding to online speculation around the company's actual earnings, > Christopher Blizzard, a Mozilla Corp. board member, said in a blog > this week that money is just a "tool" that allows the organization to > direct its own development and "make a great product." > > "Money is one of the last things we worry about, and people shouldn't > get hung up on the numbers, except to realize that it gives us > options," he said. > > Blizzard added that an earnings figure of $72 million quoted on some > blogs was incorrect. > > "I won't comment on the dollar amount, except to say that ($72 > million) is not correct, though not off by an order of magnitude. I > also won't comment on sources of that money, except to say that some > of the assertions that I've seen in the comments are pretty far off, > both in terms of numbers and sources," he said. > > The Mozilla Foundation exists as a Californian not-for-profit > organization and receives donations in a similar way to a nonprofit > charity. This makes the issue of profit controversial. There has been > intense speculation recently on exactly how much the Mozilla Corp., > and the wider Mozilla Foundation, makes out of the open-source Firefox > browser and how the money is spent. > > On Monday, Jason Calacanis, chief executive of blogging network > Weblogs, wrote in his blog that an unnamed source at BarCampLA told > him that the Mozilla Corp. made $72 million last year and is on target > to have 120 employees this year, although he admitted that he had been > unable to confirm these figures. > > Calacanis claimed that when a Firefox user does a Google search using > the browser's search box, Mozilla receives about 80 percent of the ad > revenue from any associated ad clicks. > > The gossip was soon picked up by a number of blogs and news sites, > including Digg, and attracted thousands of comments. The majority of > people commenting on Digg were positive about the news, claiming that > Mozilla deserved the money. Some people, however, questioned how the > organization managed to spend that amount of money. > > The Mozilla Foundation was unable to provide ZDNet UK more information > on its revenue and how it spends its money on Thursday, but various > Mozilla employees have commented on the figures in their respective > blogs. > > Mitchell Baker, chief executive of the Mozilla Corp., said in a blog > Wednesday that the search feature in Firefox "generates revenue in the > tens of millions of dollars." > > She said the money generated from the search providers has been used > to "build the capabilities of the Mozilla project." > > "We've hired people. We've built a much more robust infrastructure. > (This may not sound like a big deal, but the server load of what we're > doing with update and extensions is significant)," she said. > > The Mozilla Corp. has the equivalent of 40 full-time staff working for > it, according to Baker, although she did not comment on the > organization's expected growth. > > More information, at least on its past revenue and spending habits, > can be gleaned from the 990 Form, which U.S. not-for-profits above a > certain size are obliged to file with Internal Revenue Service. The > latest 990 Form that is available for the Mozilla Foundation is for > the 2004 calendar year, the year Firefox hit 1.0. > > Mozilla's 990 form for 2004, which was filed in November 2005, states > that it made $5.8 million in 2004. Of that total, $4.9 million came > from services it charged for, which included revenue from Google ads. > Its expenses that year totaled $2.3 million, of which $1.5 million > went to employee compensation. This works out as approximately > $100,000 for each of the 14 employees it declared on the form. The > foundation ended the year with net assets of $5.7 million, an increase > of $3.5 million over the course of the year, according to its filing. > > Baker wrote in her blog that saving some of the foundation's revenue > is essential to ensure it is able to remain independent. > > "We've got a 'reserve fund' now, which I view as extremely important. > Having savings means that people are much more likely to believe us > when we say we will turn down revenue if it doesn't benefit the user. > We've always said this, and we've meant it," she said. > > She added that in the near future Mozilla will be looking at how it > can disperse funds within the open-source community. > > "I've been told by some people that this is risky and that the thought > of money distorts the community," she said. "But we do have money in > the project now, and some of it should get spent on a projectwide > basis unrelated to employment. I'm hoping we can do this in a way that > reflects our community organization and distributed authority. I'm not > sure what the mechanism is yet, but I know it needs to happen." > > Mozilla's 990 Form is available free of charge--with registration--on > sites such as GuideStar.org. > > Ingrid Marson of ZDNet UK reported from London. > > > Copyright (c)1995-2006 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved. > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law From karim at sarai.net Mon Mar 13 08:37:27 2006 From: karim at sarai.net (Aniruddha Shankar) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:37:27 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Google's literary land-grab In-Reply-To: <20060304110313.36600.qmail@web86106.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20060304110313.36600.qmail@web86106.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4414E1EF.3020607@sarai.net> Point for point rebuttal: "Google Library Project And Why Nigel Newton Is A Fuckwad" http://www.blog.hissycat.com/archives/2006/03/post_1.html Comment? Aniruddha Shankar From rakesh at sarai.net Mon Mar 13 16:20:49 2006 From: rakesh at sarai.net (rakesh at sarai.net) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:20:49 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Rs. 50 FM Station at Muzaffarpur in trouble Message-ID: <44154E89.6040703@sarai.net> Dear All Bhojpuria.com is regularly following the Rs. 50 Fm Station story. Below is the story of new developments. http://www.bhojpuria.com/samachar/news.php?a=351 *Rs. 50 FM Station at Muzaffarpur in trouble* Posted on Feb 26, 2006 by Sudhir Everyone praised the FM radio station managed by Raghav, Sambhu and their friends in Muzaffarpur. Now, this popularity seems to be taking them in great amount of trouble. Their Radio Station is illigal as per the Indian Laws and BAG FILMS have got the license to run a legal FM Station in Muzaffarpur. Till last month, there was no LICENSED FM Radio station in Muzaffarpur. But, now BAG FILMS have got the license to run a FM Radio Station in Muzaffarpur. Since, BAG Films have paid a license fee and would not like any competitor (Raghav Radio Mansoorpur 1), they might complain it to the authorities. As per Sajal (A visitor at Bhojpuria.com) - Raghav is running an unlicensed (or 'pirate') radio station. Under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933, he could be punished with "imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both." At present, private FM radio licenses are given only cities and towns (like Patna and Muzaffarpur), but small, rural and community-based broadcasters like Raghav are not permitted to apply for a radio license. When this question was raised with raghav, his answer was very innocent "I never knew this was illigal, I am running it since past 3 years, everyone loves it. Do you think, I have any right to stop it ??? " We discussed the issue with several legal experts and two possible solutions are possible at this moment: 1. If BAG FILMS allows Raghav Radio Mansoorpur 1 to operate by not complaining against Raghav. 2. If BAG FILMS can employ Raghav and Sambhu in their new radio Station, where they can continue the same work on much better infrastructure and salary. But, since they are not so educated, do you think it is possible??? Bhopuria calls on everyone to put in their ideas to help Raghav and his FM Radio Station. -- Rakesh Kumar Singh Sarai-CSDS 29, Rajpur Road Delhi-110054 Ph: 91 11 23960040 Fax: 91 11 2394 3450 web site: www.sarai.net web blog: http://blog.sarai.net/users/rakesh/ From supreet.sethi at gmail.com Mon Mar 13 20:17:43 2006 From: supreet.sethi at gmail.com (s|s) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:17:43 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Re: [Reader-list] Rs. 50 FM Station at Muzaffarpur in trouble In-Reply-To: <44154E89.6040703@sarai.net> References: <44154E89.6040703@sarai.net> Message-ID: The laws have been open and shut about broadcasting, pricisely due to the fact that threshold for starting off is very low. While it would be very buzzword complaint, to start running internet radio or "podcast", but that is not a solution in this case. On the other hand there are still options for continuing, depending on how commited people are to such an effort. As long back Arun Mehta suggested, one can transmit using cable networks like one being run by http://www.voicesforall.org/communityradio/commradio_home.htm. So television set becomes the radio Also one can use mesh network of small transmitters with lower power than legal limit. I would be eager to help regards s From hbs.law at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 07:29:38 2006 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 07:29:38 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Mozilla revenue speculation erupts Message-ID: <8b60429e0603131759q3ec96664i9abed603305e2804@mail.gmail.com> Hi Jeebesh, I have no problems with the body corporate structure of an oragnization. I mean you can run a charity as a Sec.25-A(?) company in India (haven't read company law in a long time). Same in the US too. Nope, I have no "anger" against Mozilla! There is no choice in hating since bloated codebase for both IE and Mozilla sucks! My point is different. The news item shows a contradiction between the whole idea of open source being a different kind of model of software development than the regular business of software. Open source is a model that shuns business nature of software creation but works on a community model powered by a rhetoric of freedom, etc. Mozilla activities show that: (1) good software needs support - they have 40 paid people to do that (2) you cannot hire people without paying them, so where does the money come from? In case of Mozilla the money is coming from Google's pay-per-click. And it is not peanut money, but significant money. Note that this is just a cloning effort, not a risk taking venture where a new kind of idea is being tried out. Imagine where the money will come from when an untested concept is being rolled out. So much of risk captial flowed into dot-com era, of which we are seeing fruits now (google's advertising based free service validates all that failed dot-com boom stood for). All this just shows that this whole community stuff is a mild utopia, since it shuns the fact that this is regular economic activity - creating, updating and marketing software. Then why have a hobby horse of doing something spectacular about freedom and software being something like air and water that is fundamental to human exisitence, etc, etc. I am not blind to the fact that several open source projects are running on pure community participation. That is great, I love the idea of enthusiasts pooling together to clone an existing idea. But the idea has its limits and social movement people seem to get carried away as usual whenever they see something "revolutionary". Why is money and manpower needed to maintain Mozilla/Firefox when community is all you need? We are not talking about nominal charge to distribute a CD, but a pay-per-click revenue generated quitely through directing users to google. This is just a case in point. Dual distributions under an "open source license" and a neat regular license is another example where the reality of business nature of software sets in. Regards, Hasit > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 14:55:38 +0100 > From: > Subject: Re: [Commons-Law] Mozilla revenue speculation erupts > To: > Message-ID: <88cb6d1d7a47d2017085bdcad3f9b240 at sarai.net> > > Hi Hasit, > > Failed to get your point and may i say anger at Mozilla et al. As far as i > know having a Corp and Foundation is a very ordinary practice in US. What > is puritanical about it. On the contrary this is the standard > organizational convention - profits and philanthropy - in US. And frankly > Mozilla's revenue is very negligible in contemporary corporate standard to > even merit serious financial analysis. > > best > jeebesh > From sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 08:47:47 2006 From: sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com (Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:47:47 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Mozilla revenue speculation erupts In-Reply-To: <8b60429e0603131759q3ec96664i9abed603305e2804@mail.gmail.com> References: <8b60429e0603131759q3ec96664i9abed603305e2804@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <441635DB.8070701@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hasit seth wrote: [snipped] > I am not blind to the fact that several open source projects are > running on pure community participation. That is great, I love the > idea of enthusiasts pooling together to clone an existing idea. But > the idea has its limits and social movement people seem to get carried > away as usual whenever they see something "revolutionary". Why is > money and manpower needed to maintain Mozilla/Firefox when community > is all you need? We are not talking about nominal charge to distribute > a CD, but a pay-per-click revenue generated quitely through directing > users to google. This is just a case in point. Dual distributions > under an "open source license" and a neat regular license is another > example where the reality of business nature of software sets in. [snipped] Interesting concept. So in its barest form your logic is that once there is a community going - a project should be able to sustain itself thus leading to a redundancy in having/considering business models ? Ergo,that would sort of render evil a lot of projects like GNOME, KDE, OpenOffice.org etc. One of the benefits of having people being paid to work on community driven projects is that you end up having predictability in releases - additionally, feature enhancement becomes a bit easier. For example, take GNOME. The GNOME Foundation does not directly employ folks to work on it. Yet, companies across a large spectrum of businesses have developers working on GNOME and improving it. So does GNOME need a business model (it surely does need one), but then again the companies who need GNOME understand the effort needed to do infrastructural heavy lifting. Money and manpower is need for all Open Source projects since sooner or later the community interaction peters out. Explore the reasons why AMD is putting in resources for optimising GCC and perhaps your query would be answered. - -Sankarshan - -- You see things; and you say 'Why?'; But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?' - George Bernard Shaw -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEFjXbXQZpNTcrCzMRAomqAKChGpozXBnsJM5W2QxSybDWMRFzLwCfR1Rn 2t5n/3j1HmzrhxXbuv20KIQ= =tSdA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From amathew at adobe.com Mon Mar 13 10:06:18 2006 From: amathew at adobe.com (Ashwin Mathew) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:06:18 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Mozilla revenue speculation erupts In-Reply-To: <88cb6d1d7a47d2017085bdcad3f9b240@sarai.net> Message-ID: <1041DDE1774EDD4EADE5B2A5566598B968B5AD@INDIAMAIL.corp.adobe.com> Personally, I would consider it great if Mozilla were to publish details of it's finances online. If you're open source about your code, why not go all the way? It only seems right that an open source organization should disclose all details of its operation to the community which supports it. -----Original Message----- From: commons-law-bounces at sarai.net [mailto:commons-law-bounces at sarai.net] On Behalf Of jeebesh at sarai.net Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 7:26 PM To: commons-law at sarai.net Subject: Re: [Commons-Law] Mozilla revenue speculation erupts Hi Hasit, Failed to get your point and may i say anger at Mozilla et al. As far as i know having a Corp and Foundation is a very ordinary practice in US. What is puritanical about it. On the contrary this is the standard organizational convention - profits and philanthropy - in US. And frankly Mozilla's revenue is very negligible in contemporary corporate standard to even merit serious financial analysis. best jeebesh On 12:27:49 pm 03/11/06 "Hasit seth" wrote: > Hi, > > Look at Firefox revenues. Business by any name is a business. > Whether you give away products for free, give away source code for > free, it still remains a business. Those of us old enough to have > tracked the software industry might remember the shareware era (still > lives at www.download.com) where software was given away for free with > voluntary choice to pay if you liked the software - donationware. Open > source is shareware with free source code. Yet, it is just another > business model without revenue-per-piece or source code being the > chief stock-in-trade.The below report shows how firefox earns its > revenues. Oh and it has all the puritanism of the business arm being > separate from the foundation and so on. We cannot mess with the purity > of the open source after all. > > Regards, > Hasit > ================= > Mozilla revenue speculation erupts > > By Ingrid Marson > http://news.com.com/Mozilla+revenue+speculation+erupts/2100-1032_3-604 > 8377.html > > Story last modified Fri Mar 10 10:09:30 PST 2006 > > advertisement > > The Mozilla Corp., the commercial arm of the Mozilla Foundation, has > said that despite the success of its online applications, it is > focused on strong products, not big profits. > > Responding to online speculation around the company's actual earnings, > Christopher Blizzard, a Mozilla Corp. board member, said in a blog > this week that money is just a "tool" that allows the organization to > direct its own development and "make a great product." > > "Money is one of the last things we worry about, and people shouldn't > get hung up on the numbers, except to realize that it gives us > options," he said. > > Blizzard added that an earnings figure of $72 million quoted on some > blogs was incorrect. > > "I won't comment on the dollar amount, except to say that ($72 > million) is not correct, though not off by an order of magnitude. I > also won't comment on sources of that money, except to say that some > of the assertions that I've seen in the comments are pretty far off, > both in terms of numbers and sources," he said. > > The Mozilla Foundation exists as a Californian not-for-profit > organization and receives donations in a similar way to a nonprofit > charity. This makes the issue of profit controversial. There has been > intense speculation recently on exactly how much the Mozilla Corp., > and the wider Mozilla Foundation, makes out of the open-source Firefox > browser and how the money is spent. > > On Monday, Jason Calacanis, chief executive of blogging network > Weblogs, wrote in his blog that an unnamed source at BarCampLA told > him that the Mozilla Corp. made $72 million last year and is on target > to have 120 employees this year, although he admitted that he had been > unable to confirm these figures. > > Calacanis claimed that when a Firefox user does a Google search using > the browser's search box, Mozilla receives about 80 percent of the ad > revenue from any associated ad clicks. > > The gossip was soon picked up by a number of blogs and news sites, > including Digg, and attracted thousands of comments. The majority of > people commenting on Digg were positive about the news, claiming that > Mozilla deserved the money. Some people, however, questioned how the > organization managed to spend that amount of money. > > The Mozilla Foundation was unable to provide ZDNet UK more information > on its revenue and how it spends its money on Thursday, but various > Mozilla employees have commented on the figures in their respective > blogs. > > Mitchell Baker, chief executive of the Mozilla Corp., said in a blog > Wednesday that the search feature in Firefox "generates revenue in the > tens of millions of dollars." > > She said the money generated from the search providers has been used > to "build the capabilities of the Mozilla project." > > "We've hired people. We've built a much more robust infrastructure. > (This may not sound like a big deal, but the server load of what we're > doing with update and extensions is significant)," she said. > > The Mozilla Corp. has the equivalent of 40 full-time staff working for > it, according to Baker, although she did not comment on the > organization's expected growth. > > More information, at least on its past revenue and spending habits, > can be gleaned from the 990 Form, which U.S. not-for-profits above a > certain size are obliged to file with Internal Revenue Service. The > latest 990 Form that is available for the Mozilla Foundation is for > the 2004 calendar year, the year Firefox hit 1.0. > > Mozilla's 990 form for 2004, which was filed in November 2005, states > that it made $5.8 million in 2004. Of that total, $4.9 million came > from services it charged for, which included revenue from Google ads. > Its expenses that year totaled $2.3 million, of which $1.5 million > went to employee compensation. This works out as approximately > $100,000 for each of the 14 employees it declared on the form. The > foundation ended the year with net assets of $5.7 million, an increase > of $3.5 million over the course of the year, according to its filing. > > Baker wrote in her blog that saving some of the foundation's revenue > is essential to ensure it is able to remain independent. > > "We've got a 'reserve fund' now, which I view as extremely important. > Having savings means that people are much more likely to believe us > when we say we will turn down revenue if it doesn't benefit the user. > We've always said this, and we've meant it," she said. > > She added that in the near future Mozilla will be looking at how it > can disperse funds within the open-source community. > > "I've been told by some people that this is risky and that the thought > of money distorts the community," she said. "But we do have money in > the project now, and some of it should get spent on a projectwide > basis unrelated to employment. I'm hoping we can do this in a way that > reflects our community organization and distributed authority. I'm not > sure what the mechanism is yet, but I know it needs to happen." > > Mozilla's 990 Form is available free of charge--with registration--on > sites such as GuideStar.org. > > Ingrid Marson of ZDNet UK reported from London. > > > Copyright (c)1995-2006 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved. > _______________________________________________ > commons-law mailing list > commons-law at sarai.net > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law _______________________________________________ commons-law mailing list commons-law at sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law From amathew at adobe.com Tue Mar 14 11:08:15 2006 From: amathew at adobe.com (Ashwin Mathew) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:08:15 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Mozilla revenue speculation erupts In-Reply-To: <441635DB.8070701@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1041DDE1774EDD4EADE5B2A5566598B968B7F6@INDIAMAIL.corp.adobe.com> There has for the last few years a clear trend to more companies making money off services rather than software. How many pure-play software companies are there out there, really, that make money off selling packaged software? Microsoft, Oracle, and Adobe (disclaimer: my employer), perhaps, plus a handful of others such as Symantec. I would view the Mozilla case as being particularly interesting since it's not Mozilla charging for services; rather it's Mozilla making useful software which serves as a channel for services of which Mozilla gets a cut. As Sankarshan says, money is most definitely required to sustain open source projects; to point out a most visible example, if it weren't for IBM, Alcatel, Nokia, Intel et al supporting the OSDL, do you think Linus Torvalds would be able to work full time on the Linux kernel? As I said in my last mail, what is really required of open source business models is that they be as open about their finances as they are about everything else - it's really the only way that they can continue to maintain the trust of the community that fosters them. -----Original Message----- From: commons-law-bounces at sarai.net [mailto:commons-law-bounces at sarai.net] On Behalf Of Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 8:48 AM To: Hasit seth Cc: commons-law at sarai.net Subject: Re: [Commons-Law] Mozilla revenue speculation erupts WARNING: Unsanitized content follows. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hasit seth wrote: [snipped] > I am not blind to the fact that several open source projects are > running on pure community participation. That is great, I love the > idea of enthusiasts pooling together to clone an existing idea. But > the idea has its limits and social movement people seem to get carried > away as usual whenever they see something "revolutionary". Why is > money and manpower needed to maintain Mozilla/Firefox when community > is all you need? We are not talking about nominal charge to distribute > a CD, but a pay-per-click revenue generated quitely through directing > users to google. This is just a case in point. Dual distributions > under an "open source license" and a neat regular license is another > example where the reality of business nature of software sets in. [snipped] Interesting concept. So in its barest form your logic is that once there is a community going - a project should be able to sustain itself thus leading to a redundancy in having/considering business models ? Ergo,that would sort of render evil a lot of projects like GNOME, KDE, OpenOffice.org etc. One of the benefits of having people being paid to work on community driven projects is that you end up having predictability in releases - additionally, feature enhancement becomes a bit easier. For example, take GNOME. The GNOME Foundation does not directly employ folks to work on it. Yet, companies across a large spectrum of businesses have developers working on GNOME and improving it. So does GNOME need a business model (it surely does need one), but then again the companies who need GNOME understand the effort needed to do infrastructural heavy lifting. Money and manpower is need for all Open Source projects since sooner or later the community interaction peters out. Explore the reasons why AMD is putting in resources for optimising GCC and perhaps your query would be answered. - -Sankarshan - -- You see things; and you say 'Why?'; But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?' - George Bernard Shaw -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEFjXbXQZpNTcrCzMRAomqAKChGpozXBnsJM5W2QxSybDWMRFzLwCfR1Rn 2t5n/3j1HmzrhxXbuv20KIQ= =tSdA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ commons-law mailing list commons-law at sarai.net https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law From karim at sarai.net Tue Mar 14 15:27:30 2006 From: karim at sarai.net (Aniruddha Shankar) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:27:30 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Mozilla revenue speculation erupts In-Reply-To: <8b60429e0603110327y12925125r31cb43f51de72daf@mail.gmail.com> References: <8b60429e0603110327y12925125r31cb43f51de72daf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4416938A.2060105@sarai.net> If you open firefox up, the search bar by default searches on Google. When you do a Google search, you probably see Google AdSense links on the right hand side. If you click on such links, then Google gets some cash from the advertiser. Google gives some of that money to the Mozilla Foundation. *Google does the same for other browsers, such as the Opera browser, which is closed source.* If you typed in www.google.com into the address bar and then clicked on an AdSense advertisement, Google would make a few cents as well, but not give any portion to any entity. The kind of technological infrastructure that Mozilla needs costs substantial amounts of money. The interesting thing nowadays is that even if you give a valuable product away for no cost (Firefox, Thunderbird, the Mozilla suite) you can still make enough money (provided it's valuable enough to enough number of people) from Google AdSense in this case, to sustain yourself. cheers, Aniruddha Shankar From karim at sarai.net Tue Mar 14 15:51:07 2006 From: karim at sarai.net (Aniruddha Shankar) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:51:07 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Mozilla revenue speculation erupts In-Reply-To: <4416938A.2060105@sarai.net> References: <8b60429e0603110327y12925125r31cb43f51de72daf@mail.gmail.com> <4416938A.2060105@sarai.net> Message-ID: <44169913.1020104@sarai.net> Aniruddha Shankar wrote: > Google gives some of that money to the Mozilla > Foundation. That's technically incorrect. Google gives some of that money to the Mozilla *Corporation*, which does not have to disclose the amount of money it receives or what it does with that money. The Mozilla Foundation is the sole shareholder of the Mozilla Corporation. cheers, Aniruddha Shankar From prabhuram at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 20:21:48 2006 From: prabhuram at gmail.com (prabhu ram) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:51:48 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] =?iso-8859-1?q?IBM=B4s_patent_on_email_confirmatio?= =?iso-8859-1?q?n_of_e-transaction?= Message-ID: <68752c9f0603140651i73c22394i79e8253c85acdac5@mail.gmail.com> A US patent for an email confirmation of e-transaction. System and method for confirming electronic transactions Abstract Systems and methods for providing user-confirmation of an electronic transaction and in particular, protocols for enabling electronic signatures and confirmation of electronic documents and transactions such as electronic financial transactions and credit card payment. In one aspect, a method for confirming an electronic transaction, comprises the steps of: performing an electronic transaction between a first party and a second party; sending, by the second party, a request for confirmation of the electronic transaction to a predetermined, private mailbox associated with the first party; accessing the private mailbox by the first party; and sending, by the first party, a reply message to the request for confirmation to thereby confirm authorization of the electronic transaction. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=302&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&s1=ISYMD-20060221&p=7&OS=ISD/02/21/2006&RS=ISD/02/21/2006 From sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 09:53:15 2006 From: sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com (Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:53:15 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Mozilla revenue speculation erupts In-Reply-To: <8b60429e0603132119g789b1659v670f1e3e73e76df0@mail.gmail.com> References: <8b60429e0603131759q3ec96664i9abed603305e2804@mail.gmail.com> <441635DB.8070701@gmail.com> <8b60429e0603132119g789b1659v670f1e3e73e76df0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <441796B3.3060008@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hasit seth wrote: > You validated all that I had said. Money and manpower is needed to > build good software and not just freedom rhetoric. Right? That is what > I was trying to say. The fact that GPL forces companies making > enhancement to share there work back is not what makes software > happen, it is human effort. If we recognize this then there doesn't > remain much difference between closed and open source except for > source code availability. Just makes two different kind of business > models. Just like printer business where printer is sold below cost to > sell more inks, or game consoles and games etc. Umm...I would prefer to see things a bit differently. The obvious thing that happens is that folks mistake GPL to be a sort of battering ram which the FSF uses to make software companies see reason. That is a false assumption. The GPL is a framework that works more as an enabler allowing the source code to be transparent and available so as to ensure that innovation is fostered. There are of course licenses which would allow a company *not* to share work - but then again it is a choice that the players make when they enter a game. For example, the first time Shared Source License was introduced, there was a slew of articles about how the content licensed under it could render a person jobless for the future. But let's not get into license gymnastics. Software development is a human effort - fostering innovation is a community space driven initiative. Regards Sankarshan ps: FLOSS is generally described in terms of 'share the recipe and open a restaurant' while the model you describe is more aptly known as the Gillete Razor Model :) In service driven companies, the product services and product components would be tied in. - -- You see things; and you say 'Why?'; But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?' - George Bernard Shaw -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEF5azXQZpNTcrCzMRAliqAJ49RVqUQLBZDATTtFHHD5Luo0yYpQCbBpme xQBv0NJMYPRHinH/4f8JPAM= =bexT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com Thu Mar 16 11:32:29 2006 From: sankarshan.mukhopadhyay at gmail.com (Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:32:29 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Mozilla revenue speculation erupts In-Reply-To: <1041DDE1774EDD4EADE5B2A5566598B968B5AD@INDIAMAIL.corp.adobe.com> References: <1041DDE1774EDD4EADE5B2A5566598B968B5AD@INDIAMAIL.corp.adobe.com> Message-ID: <4418FF75.7060707@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ashwin Mathew wrote: > Personally, I would consider it great if Mozilla were to publish details > of it's finances online. If you're open source about your code, why not > go all the way? It only seems right that an open source organization > should disclose all details of its operation to the community which > supports it. The Mozilla Corporation would in due time I guess - the legal angles should be mandating a public filing of the finances - -SM - -- You see things; and you say 'Why?'; But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?' - George Bernard Shaw -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEGP91XQZpNTcrCzMRApBjAJ9d4Y33pvmhANvhnk8CranqU71D/gCfTAI1 BLMFlH8oskAA2WTLDDWaYJA= =hD68 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From laurence.allard at politechnicart.net Tue Mar 14 22:14:50 2006 From: laurence.allard at politechnicart.net (Laurence Allard) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:44:50 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] A Call for Civil Disobedient for Pedagogical Exception in France Message-ID: <4416F302.7030807@politechnicart.net> 14-03-2006 A Call for Civil Disobedient for Pedagogical Exception in France The Petition : http://www.politechnicart.net/exception/ The scientific and educational committee has been informed in the last few days of the nature of the agreements reached, with no consultation with any other interested parties, between the Ministry of Education and rights-holders in the fields of music, video/television, the press, the visual arts and the written word. These agreements sector by sector are meant to replace existing legislation and are in contradiction with the exceptions provided for in the relevant European directive (EUCD). They are designed to control our use of texts, music, images and films in our classrooms, our lecture halls, our libraries our conferences and our publications. For months now, the Conference of French University Presidents have been demanding that the principle of pedagogical exception be introduced into the law now under discussion in parliament concerning Royalties and Similar Rights in the Information Society (DADVSI). Considering the shamefully regressive and repressive nature of these new agreements in matters of teaching and research, thousands of scholars and teachers, including elected members of the Conseil National des Universités (CNU), undergraduate and graduate students, and many others committed to maintaining educational policies of high standard and international renown, hereby declare a campaign of civil disobedience! Even as this communiqué is drawn up, these educators, teachers and scholars are preparing to announce to their students that they are no longer in a position to fulfil their educational mission in any serious way. We all realise that a campaign of civil disobedience is a very serious matter. It is rare option in our country and may well have no precedent : educators have committed themselves publicly to disobey their minister and the law, and they will continue, no matter what the cost and in spite of any threats or sanctions, to show films, play records, distribute texts... in any way they deem useful and relevant. There are today colleagues who have been sued by rights-holders. We demand the immediate suspension of all such actions. We ask our MPs, sole legitimate representatives of the national interest within the framework of the harmonisation European policies on education and research, to exert to the full their authority so that France may endow itself with a reasonable Pedagogical Exception. We call all our colleagues around the world to send a message at french deputies for support a Pedagogical Exception in France : cpaul at assemblee-nationale.fr fdutoit at assemblee-nationale.fr f.bayrou at udf.org dmathus at assemblee-nationale.fr mbillard at assemblee-nationale.fr cboutin at assemblee-nationale.fr bcarayon at assemblee-nationale.fr pbloche at assemblee-nationale.fr jpbrard at assemblee-nationale.fr hemmanuelli at assemblee-nationale.fr lwauquiez at assemblee-nationale.fr cvanneste at assemblee-nationale.fr baccoyer at assemblee-nationale.fr jdionis at assemblee-nationale.fr asuguenot at assemblee-nationale.fr Moreover, the Collective for a Pedagogical Exception supports all statements issued by the movement EUCD.INFO From announcer at lists.crit.org.in Tue Mar 14 12:38:28 2006 From: announcer at lists.crit.org.in (announcer at lists.crit.org.in) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 02:08:28 -0500 Subject: [Commons-Law] Citizens Protest Mill Lands Ruling Message-ID: <44166BEC.8020805@crit.org.in> MARCH FOR MUMBAI! People of Mumbai! Lets fight for open spaces, clean air, infrastructure and public housing! Maharashtra government must legislate for citizens not only mill owners and builders! The people of Mumbai, are shocked by the Supreme Court judgment on mill lands. The Supreme Court judgment has not only given commercial interests more importance than the collective needs of a dying city, it has actually supported the blatantly illegitimate demands of the builders and mill owners. Its implications are far reaching. VIOLATION OF THE BASIC PROPERTY LAW: YOU CANNOT SELL WHAT YOU DO NOT OWN! 600 acres of land in the heart of Mumbai is occupied by textile mills, most of which have been closed. Much of this land was leased to the mill owners or sold at very low rates for the purpose of starting mills over a century ago. The land could not be sold, until 1991 when the law was amended, then too mainly for reviving sick mills. Today when the mills have shut down, there is a rush to exploit it as real estate, without providing livelihood and homes to the mill workers and much needed infrastructure for the city. The judiciary and the State Government have been callous enough to support sale of this land by Mill owners with hardly any conditions. CHEATED OF OUR RIGHT TO HOUSING, INFRASTRUCTURE, OPEN SPACE, FRESH AIR! By Rule 58 of the DCR of 1991, mill lands could be sold, provided a third was reserved for public use [like parks and play grounds], a third for affordable housing and a third for owners to develop as they pleased. Mill owners got equal FSI for the land that they were 'giving up'. But they were greedy for more. A modification in 2001 by the Maharashtra Government reduced the land available for public spaces -- parks, playgrounds pedestrian areas, etc -- from 200 acres to just 32 acres. Where there would have been in 45000 low cost houses, there would now be just 5000 houses. This was struck down by the Mumbai High Court and now reinstated by the Supreme Court. The extensive unplanned commercial development that would take place as a result of this sale, would cause terrible congestion, traffic problems and put an enormous strain the on existing services which are woefully inadequate. Only Mumbaiites can truly understand what this means. A CAUSE FOR ALARM! The opening up of the mill lands as per the Supreme court judgment will set the wrong precedent for all other such large govt owned lands most of which are on lease such as the Bombay Port Trust land, the waterfront, land owned by the Railways, etc, which could be then opened up to private developers for commercial exploitation. People in Mumbai will then only be able to walk around malls instead of open spaces. DEVELOPMENT FOR WHOM? The Supreme Court in its ruling says that it "had to choose between environment and development and it chose development which it claims is "sustainable". This development is certainly not in the interest of citizens of Mumbai and cannot be described as sustainable. In this case it is not just the environment, but largely local people, citizens of Mumbai who are being marginalized for the benefit of a few. DO WE AS CITIZENS HAVE THE POWER TO RECLAIM WHAT RIGHTFULLY BELONGS TO US? This is valuable land in the heart of the city, can and should be used to provide affordable housing for the mill workers, rehabilitation for slums and dilapidated tenanted buildings, low income housing, green spaces and vegetation to act as pollution sinks, public amenities like markets, playgrounds, community centres, special schools and medical institutions, public Infrastructure facilities, sewerage lines and plants, that would reduce the load on the overworked infrastructure of Mumbai city and even the revival of the textile industry. No elected representatives or public servants have the right to gift it away. It is time to come together and demand our rights as citizens. We have the right to participate in the planning of the city. We demand that the Maharashtra Government immediately and urgently bring in legislation providing 1/3rd, 1/3rd and 1/3rd division of the Mill Land area in the interest of the people and the environment. We call on you to join us on the protest march to the Mantralaya on March 14th at 3 pm from Azad Maidan, to demand justice for Mumbai, to demand that the Maharashtra govt. which should represent the citizens of Mumbai, immediately legislate to protect the mill workers and the city! AGNI, AKSHARA, ALL INDIA BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ALL INDIA BANK OFFICERS CONFERERATION, ALL INDIA LIC EMPLOYEES FEDERATION, ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS, CENTRE OF INDIAN TRADE UNIONS, CITISPACE, COMET MEDIA, COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA, COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (MARXIST), DOCUMENTATION RESEARCH AND TRAINING CENTRE, EKTA, FOCUS ON THE GLOBAL SOUTH, FORUM AGAINST OPRESSION OF WOMEN, GIRNI BHADEKARU SANGHARSH SAMITI, GIRNI KAMGAR SANGARSH SAMITI, INDIAN FEDERATION OF TRACE UNIONS, INDIA CENTRE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND LAW, LOK RAJ SANGHATAN, MAHARASHTRA ASSOCIATION OF RESIDENT DOCTORS, MAJLIS, MOVEMENT FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE, MUMBAI ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL NETWORK, INTERNATIONAL NETWORK FOR TRADTITIONAL BUILDING ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISATION, MUMBAI PORT TRUST AND DOCK WORKERS UNION, NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF PEOPLES MOVEMENTS, NATIONAL FISHWORKERS FORUM, NIRBHAY BANO ANDOLAN, NIVARA HAKK SAURAKSHAN SAMITI, PEOPLES MEDIA INITIATIVE, SHAHER VIKAS MANCH, STATE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES UNION, TRADE UNION SOLIDARITY COMMITTEE, YOUNG PROFESSIONALS COLLECTIVE, YOUTH FOR UNITY AND VOLUNTARY ACTION (YUVA) Mumbai Peoples Action Committee (MPAC) 7/61, Modern Mills compound, KK Marg, Saat Rasta (Jacob Circle) Mumbai 400011 Phone +91.22.2417.4048 _____ CRIT (Collective Research Initiatives Trust), Mumbai Announcements List http://www.crit.org.in http://lists.crit.org.in/mailman/listinfo/announcer From prabhuram at gmail.com Mon Mar 20 17:40:52 2006 From: prabhuram at gmail.com (prabhu ram) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:10:52 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] NYT: This essay breaks the law Message-ID: <68752c9f0603200410p66fe1d07i76837a23ede6bcdd@mail.gmail.com> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/19crichton.html?ex=1300424400&en=9addb806498d2739&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss This Essay Breaks the Law By MICHAEL CRICHTON • The Earth revolves around the Sun. • The speed of light is a constant. • Apples fall to earth because of gravity. • Elevated blood sugar is linked to diabetes. • Elevated uric acid is linked to gout. • Elevated homocysteine is linked to heart disease. • Elevated homocysteine is linked to B-12 deficiency, so doctors should test homocysteine levels to see whether the patient needs vitamins. ACTUALLY, I can't make that last statement. A corporation has patented that fact, and demands a royalty for its use. Anyone who makes the fact public and encourages doctors to test for the condition and treat it can be sued for royalty fees. Any doctor who reads a patient's test results and even thinks of vitamin deficiency infringes the patent. A federal circuit court held that mere thinking violates the patent. All this may sound absurd, but it is the heart of a case that will be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. In 1986 researchers filed a patent application for a method of testing the levels of homocysteine, an amino acid, in the blood. They went one step further and asked for a patent on the basic biological relationship between homocysteine and vitamin deficiency. A patent was granted that covered both the test and the scientific fact. Eventually, a company called Metabolite took over the license for the patent. Although Metabolite does not have a monopoly on test methods — other companies make homocysteine tests, too — they assert licensing rights on the correlation of elevated homocysteine with vitamin deficiency. A company called LabCorp used a different test but published an article mentioning the patented fact. Metabolite sued on a number of grounds, and has won in court so far. But what the Supreme Court will focus on is the nature of the claimed correlation. On the one hand, courts have repeatedly held that basic bodily processes and "products of nature" are not patentable. That's why no one owns gravity, or the speed of light. But at the same time, courts have granted so-called correlation patents for many years. Powerful forces are arrayed on both sides of the issue. In addition, there is the rather bizarre question of whether simply thinking about a patented fact infringes the patent. The idea smacks of thought control, to say nothing of unenforceability. It seems like something out of a novel by Philip K. Dick — or Kafka. But it highlights the uncomfortable truth that the Patent Office and the courts have in recent decades ruled themselves into a corner from which they must somehow extricate themselves. For example, the human genome exists in every one of us, and is therefore our shared heritage and an undoubted fact of nature. Nevertheless 20 percent of the genome is now privately owned. The gene for diabetes is owned, and its owner has something to say about any research you do, and what it will cost you. The entire genome of the hepatitis C virus is owned by a biotech company. Royalty costs now influence the direction of research in basic diseases, and often even the testing for diseases. Such barriers to medical testing and research are not in the public interest. Do you want to be told by your doctor, "Oh, nobody studies your disease any more because the owner of the gene/enzyme/correlation has made it too expensive to do research?" The question of whether basic truths of nature can be owned ought not to be confused with concerns about how we pay for biotech development, whether we will have drugs in the future, and so on. If you invent a new test, you may patent it and sell it for as much as you can, if that's your goal. Companies can certainly own a test they have invented. But they should not own the disease itself, or the gene that causes the disease, or essential underlying facts about the disease. The distinction is not difficult, even though patent lawyers attempt to blur it. And even if correlation patents have been granted, the overwhelming majority of medical correlations, including those listed above, are not owned. And shouldn't be. Unfortunately for the public, the Metabolite case is only one example of a much broader patent problem in this country. We grant patents at a level of abstraction that is unwise, and it's gotten us into trouble in the past. Some years back, doctors were allowed to patent surgical procedures and sue other doctors who used their methods without paying a fee. A blizzard of lawsuits followed. This unhealthy circumstance was halted in 1996 by the American Medical Association and Congress, which decided that doctors couldn't sue other doctors for using patented surgical procedures. But the beat goes on. Companies have patented their method of hiring, and real estate agents have patented the way they sell houses. Lawyers now advise athletes to patent their sports moves, and screenwriters to patent their movie plots. (My screenplay for "Jurassic Park" was cited as a good candidate.) Where does all this lead? It means that if a real estate agent lists a house for sale, he can be sued because an existing patent for selling houses includes item No. 7, "List the house." It means that Kobe Bryant may serve as an inspiration but not a model, because nobody can imitate him without fines. It means nobody can write a dinosaur story because my patent includes 257 items covering all aspects of behavior, like item No. 13, "Dinosaurs attack humans and other dinosaurs." Such a situation is idiotic, of course. Yet elements of it already exist. And unless we begin to turn this around, there will be worse to come. I wanted to end this essay by telling a story about how current rulings hurt us, but the patent for "ending an essay with an anecdote" is owned. So I thought to end with a quotation from a famous person, but that strategy is patented, too. I then decided to end abruptly, but "abrupt ending for dramatic effect" is also patented. Finally, I decided to pay the "end with summary" patent fee, since it was the least expensive. The Supreme Court should rule against Metabolite, and the Patent Office should begin to reverse its strategy of patenting strategies. Basic truths of nature can't be owned. Oh, and by the way: I own the patent for "essay or letter criticizing a previous publication." So anyone who criticizes what I have said here had better pay a royalty first, or I'll see you in court. Michael Crichton is the author, most recently, of "State of Fear." From tetranew at sarai.net Tue Mar 21 12:36:03 2006 From: tetranew at sarai.net (tetranew) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:36:03 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] test mail from admin pls ignore Message-ID: <441FA5DB.9050100@sarai.net> From shruti_vidyasagar at yahoo.co.in Tue Mar 21 18:03:38 2006 From: shruti_vidyasagar at yahoo.co.in (Shruti Vidyasagar) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:33:38 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Commons-Law] US Supreme court to rule on patent for thoughts Message-ID: <20060321123338.9250.qmail@web8507.mail.in.yahoo.com> Supreme court to rule on patent for your thoughts Oliver Burkeman in New York Tuesday March 21, 2006 The Guardian The US supreme court is due to hear arguments in a case today that could overturn thousands of controversial patents, after a lower court ruled that doctors could infringe a drug company's ownership rights "merely by thinking" about the relationship between two chemicals in the human body. The case concerns a patent granted in 1990 to scientists at the University of Colorado and Columbia in New York. They discovered that high levels of an amino acid, homocysteine, in the blood or urine tended to be associated with a deficiency of B vitamins. But their patent does not just relate to the test they invented. It asserts their ownership of the idea of correlating the two chemicals - leading to the charge that they have patented a law of nature, rather than a human invention. "Unfortunately for the public, the Metabolite case is only one example of a much broader patent problem in this country," the bestselling novelist Michael Crichton wrote in the New York Times at the weekend. "We grant patents at a level of abstraction that is unwise, and it's gotten us into trouble in the past." The idea that even thinking about a correlation could infringe a patent "smacks of thought control, to say nothing of unenforceability", he added. Allowing the trend to continue could be disastrous, he warned. "Do you want to be told by your doctor, 'Oh, nobody studies your disease any more because the owner of the gene/enzyme/correlation has made it too expensive to do research'?" The current dispute began in 1998 after LabCorp, a medical testing firm, stopped paying royalties to Metabolite Laboratories, which owns the patent. LabCorp said it had started using a different testing method for the same correlation, but Metabolite sued and won. LabCorp was ordered to pay $7.8m (£4.5m) in damages, and is now asking the supreme court to overturn that judgment. If the court finds in favour of LabCorp, thousands of patents could be at risk, including many of those granted in connection with the human genome. A number of medical, software and financial companies are supporting Metabolite as "friends of the court", suggesting that they too see implications for their businesses if the court rules against the firm. "The test itself is obvious when you have the correlation. It is the discovery of the correlation that is the real novelty here," Mark Lemley, a Stanford University law professor who is helping represent Metabolite, told the Washington Post. But a pressure group called Patients Not Patents cited a recent patent application for "a method of evaluating a risk of occurrence of a medical condition in a patient, the method comprising: receiving a patient dataset for the patient; and evaluating the dataset with a model predictive of the medical condition" - which would, if granted, have patented the most basic aspects of being a doctor. __________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner now. Go to http://yahoo.shaadi.com From vinay at nls.ac.in Tue Mar 21 18:39:49 2006 From: vinay at nls.ac.in (Vinay Aravind) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:39:49 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Re: NYT: This essay breaks the law In-Reply-To: <20060321110024.1C63A28DEA8@mail.sarai.net> References: <20060321110024.1C63A28DEA8@mail.sarai.net> Message-ID: <49690.59.94.109.43.1142946589.squirrel@59.94.109.43> It's heartening to see a pop-culture figure like Crichton taking on the US patent behemoth...I am sure most people would otherwise not haev heard about Metabolite...Everyone but the patent lawyers, the law courts in the US and the USPTO realises that the US patent system is a joke, maybe this is an opportunity for them to start stepping back from the brink of ridiculousness...then again, maybe they'll use it to gleefully leap off the brink and plunge right in! Regards, Vinay From hbs.law at gmail.com Thu Mar 23 11:48:05 2006 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:48:05 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Noam Chomsky - A Neat Capitalist Message-ID: <8b60429e0603222218w3dbfcbev6d3fa158dbb7a9b4@mail.gmail.com> Hi All, First, I like Noam Chomsky, so do not think this is posting is due to some hate stuff. I am not into any kind of hate stuff at all. Chomsky's work as a linguist in Context Free Grammars was a godsend for computer science in compiler research, so I have a lot of respect for him. Also, every person has a right to care for their family irrespective of what he or she stands on ideology since family doesn't survive on ideology alone. Second, he is comes from a pre-open/pre-web era and may be that is why he is charging for almost everything. This is just to present a view that lot of leftist rhetoric is just hot air. As an alternative viewpoint leftist stuff is great, but there is a lot of useless rhetorical stunts in it. Rightist stuff is not different, it tends to simplify everything and exaggerates the virtues of capitalism. Both these idelogies tend to be absolutist and ignore the dynamic nature of human existence. I wish there was Holmes like realist legal theory for other social fields too, may be there is one and you can educate me on it. Moral: Discount leftist rhetoric with a discounted cash flow (DCF) valuation to get its real value. For rightist stuff, use a backward analysis to see what value it has created for the society, otherwise use it to clean the sofa. Cheers (non-alcoholic version) Hasit http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=1385b76d-6c34-4c22-942a-18b71f2c4a44&k=53758 Noam Chomsky Peter Schweizer Sound Off National Post Tuesday, March 21, 2006 CREDIT: Deshakalyan Chowdhury, Afp, Getty Images Noam Chomsky in 2001. One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky's work has been class warfare. The iconic MIT linguist and left-wing activist frequently has lashed out against the "massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich," and criticized the concentration of wealth in "trusts" by the wealthiest 1%. He says the U.S. tax code is rigged with "complicated devices for ensuring that the poor -- like 80% of the population -- pay off the rich." But trusts can't be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of US$2-million, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in "income-tax planning," set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions. Chomsky favours massive income redistribution -- just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning. When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: "I don't apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren," he wrote in one e-mail. Chomsky offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam. (However, Chomsky did say that his tax shelter is OK because he and his family are "trying to help suffering people.") Indeed, Chomsky is rich precisely because he has been such an enormously successful capitalist. Despite his anti-profit rhetoric, like any other corporate capitalist Chomsky has turned himself into a brand name. As John Lloyd recently put it in the lefty New Statesman, Chomsky is among those "open to being "commodified" -- that is, to being simply one of the many wares of a capitalist media market place, in a way that the badly paid and overworked writers and journalists for the revolutionary parties could rarely be." Chomsky's business works something like this. He gives speeches on college campuses around the country at US$12,000 a pop, often dozens of times a year. Can't go and hear him in person? No problem: You can go online and download clips from earlier speeches -- for a fee. You can hear Chomsky talk for one minute about "Property Rights"; it will cost you US79 cents. You can also buy a CD with clips from previous speeches for US$12.99. But books are Chomsky's mainstay, and on the international market he has become a publishing phenomenon. The Chomsky brand means instant sales. As publicist Dana O'Hare of Pluto Press explains: "All we have to do is put Chomsky's name on a book and it sells out immediately!" Putting his name on a book should not be confused with writing a book because his most recent volumes are mainly transcriptions of speeches, or interviews that he has conducted over the years, put between covers and sold to the general public. You might call it multi-level marketing for radicals. Chomsky has admitted as much: "If you look at the things I write -- articles for Z Magazine, or books for South End Press, or whatever -- they are mostly based on talks and meetings and that kind of thing. But I'm kind of a parasite. I mean, I'm living off the activism of others. I'm happy to do it." Chomsky's marketing efforts shortly after Sept. 11 give new meaning to the term "war profiteer." In the days after the tragedy, he raised his speaking fee from US$9,000 to US$12,000 because he was suddenly in greater demand. He also cashed in by producing another instant book. Seven Stories Press, a small publisher, pulled together interviews conducted via e-mail that Chomsky gave in the three weeks following the attack on the Twin Towers and rushed the book to press. His controversial views were hot, particularly overseas. By early December 2001, the publisher had sold the foreign rights in 19 different languages. The book made the best-seller list in the United States, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan and New Zealand. It is safe to assume that he netted hundreds of thousands of dollars from this book alone. Over the years, Chomsky has been particularly critical of private property rights, which he considers simply a tool of the rich, of no benefit to ordinary people. "When property rights are granted to power and privilege, it can be expected to be harmful to most," Chomsky wrote on a discussion board for the Washington Post. Intellectual property rights are equally despicable, apparently. According to Chomsky, for example, drug companies who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing drugs shouldn't have ownership rights to patents. Intellectual property rights, he argues, "have to do with protectionism." Protectionism is a bad thing -- especially when it relates to other people. But when it comes to Chomsky's own published work, this advocate of open intellectual property suddenly becomes very selfish. It would not be advisable to download the audio from one of his speeches without paying the fee, warns his record company, Alternative Tentacles. (Did Andrei Sakharov have a licensing agreement with a record company?) And when it comes to his articles, you'd better keep your hands off. Go to the official Noam Chomsky Web site (www.chomsky.info) and the warning is clear: "Material on this site is copyrighted by Noam Chomsky and/or Noam Chomsky and his collaborators. No material on this site may be reprinted or posted on other web sites without written permission." (However, the Web site does give you the opportunity to "sublicense" the material if you are interested.) Radicals used to think of their ideas as weapons; Chomsky sees them as a licensing opportunity. Chomsky has even gone the extra mile to protect the copyright to some of his material by transferring ownership to his children. Profits from those works will thus be taxed at his children's lower rate. He also thereby extends the length of time that the family is able to hold onto the copyright and protect his intellectual assets. In October, 2002, radicals gathered in Philadelphia for a benefit entitled "Noam Chomsky: Media and Democracy." Sponsored by the Greater Philadelphia Democratic Left, for a fee of US$15 you could attend the speech and hear the great man ruminate on the evils of capitalism. For another US$35, you could attend a post-talk reception and he would speak directly with you. During the speech, Chomsky told the assembled crowd, "A democracy requires a free, independent, and inquiring media." After the speech, Deborah Bolling, a writer for the lefty Philadelphia City Paper, tried to get an interview with Chomsky. She was turned away. To talk to Chomsky, she was told, this "free, independent, and inquiring" reporter needed to pay US$35 to get into the private reception. Corporate America is one of Chomsky's demons. It's hard to find anything positive he might say about American business. He paints an ominous vision of America suffering under the "unaccountable and deadly rule of corporations." He has called corporations "private tyrannies" and declared that they are "just as totalitarian as Bolshevism and fascism." Capitalism, in his words, is a "grotesque catastrophe." But a funny thing happened on the way to the retirement portfolio. Chomsky, for all of his moral dudgeon against American corporations, finds that they make a pretty good investment. When he made investment decisions for his retirement plan at MIT, he chose not to go with a money market fund or even a government bond fund. Instead, he threw the money into blue chips and invested in the TIAA-CREF stock fund. A look at the stock fund portfolio quickly reveals that it invests in all sorts of businesses that Chomsky says he finds abhorrent: oil companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals, you name it. When I asked Chomsky about his investment portfolio, he reverted to a "what else can I do?" defence: "Should I live in a cabin in Montana?" he asked. It was a clever rhetorical dodge. Chomsky was declaring that there is simply no way to avoid getting involved in the stock market short of complete withdrawal from the capitalist system. He certainly knows better. There are many alternative funds these days that allow you to invest your money in "green" or "socially responsible" enterprises. They just don't yield the maximum available return. Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover (c) National Post 2006 From lawrence at altlawforum.org Fri Mar 24 14:51:39 2006 From: lawrence at altlawforum.org (lawrence at altlawforum.org) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:21:39 -0500 Subject: [Commons-Law] IGF theme proposal: asserting the public-ness of the Internet as a guiding principle for Internet Governance Message-ID: <380-22006352492139953@M2W114.mail2web.com> Hi All Please see below a request for endorsements from organizations on the role of public interest conseiderations in the Internet Governance Forum, as a part of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process. Do get in touch with Parminder (Parminder at ITforChange.net) for more details. The last date for the endorsements is the 31st of March Lawrence Original Message: ----------------- Dear friends, We wish to bring to your notice what we think is an important issue regarding the future of the Internet. The most important institutional gain from the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) is the setting up of an Internet Governance Forum (IGF) which is mandated to take up important public policy issues relating to the Internet. Even though it is not a negotiating or decision making body, in the present context wherein the governance of the Internet is captured mostly by dominant interests, the IGF becomes an important global policy space for pushing progressive and pro-development agenda in relation to the Internet. A noteworthy thing about the IGF is that civil society has important, and almost equal, official status in the IGF as governments and the private sector. Therefore, if the IGF does indeed evolve into an effective global policy space, it can serve as an important global governance innovation as well. We write this with concern over that fact that progressive forces promoting the public domain, communication rights, media rights etc do not seem to be engaged with the possibilities of the IG Forum sufficiently. And as the Internet increasingly emerges as a main arena for these issues, this lack of engagement can be disastrous. The imperative NOW: IGF has called for submission of themes for its first meeting. The way the substantive business of the IGF takes off initially will in many ways determine and delimit the scope of the IGF. Civil society groups need to put forward progressive themes early enough to be able to define the substantive spaces within the IGF. (Experiences in forums like WIPO for pushing development agenda are instructive on how it is necessary to capture thematic spaces early in these global policy forums) We are especially concerned that with issues like network neutrality already threatening the Internet in very basic ways, (please see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4552138.stm for one such report on how a multiple tiered Internet with content, services and access differentiated by ability to pay, and other considerations, is already taking shape) there is a need for the public and egalitarian nature of the Internet to be asserted unequivocally as a fundamental principle for global public policies regarding the Internet. Why your participation in this process is URGENTLY REQUIRED Fostering the Internet's 'public' character- as a principle and in its concrete policy expressions is an urgent imperative. The implications for policy span the three layers of the Internet - logical, content and physical infrastructure - and the essential public and egalitarian nature of the Internet concerns all three layers. (Openness in Domain Name System space pertains to the logical layer, network neutrality and preserving the public domain issues implicates the content layer, while issues like open spectrum, community/municipality wireless, wireless commons etc concern the physical layer). The IG Caucus (a civil society caucus that has been involved in the WSIS process) had invited themes for submission to the IGF and from IT for Change we have made a proposal on 'defining and fostering the public nature of the Internet' to be submitted for being taken up at the first meeting of the IGF. We are of the view that this issue should get wider support. If you feel that this is an important issue which must be taken up by the IGF, please send your endorsement to this proposal. As you will appreciate, the number of organizations backing this issue will decide whether it will be taken up by the IGF or not. The last date for submissions is 31st March, and therefore your endorsement should reach Parminder at ITforChange.net by the 30th. In case you have further clarifications, please write to us. Thank you. Parminder Suggested theme for the first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum: Defining and fostering the 'public-ness' of the Internet - issues of public interest, public domain, public infrastructure and public good in the context of the Internet. a. A concise formulation for the proposed theme In determining global public policy issues and directions for IG, it is important to first define and characterize the Internet. Its essential public and egalitarian nature must be asserted as basic principles through open discussions at the IGF. And these principles can then be interpreted in terms of specific issues that face us today - content issues (protecting and promoting the public domain, network neutrality) infrastructure issues (universal access, public infrastructure, open spectrum, Internet as public good), as well as many other issues. b. A brief description of why it is important The Internet, as understood by most of us, is what it is basically because of its egalitarian and public nature. It is important to articulate these fundamentals of the Internet strongly, and use them as the guiding principles to debate and develop global public policies on IG. WSIS was an arena that required quick resolutions for consensus positions. This imperative did not allow sufficient informed debates on developing public policy principles for IG, including characterizing the essential public and egalitarian nature of Internet as the technology that promises a 'better world for everyone'. IGF is the right forum for initiating this process, and taking it forward in a sustained manner. Formulating these 'essentials' of the Internet, and due exposition of their implications in various contexts, will enable better global policy responses to pressing issues including network neutrality and universal access. If these essential principles that define the Internet are not discussed and settled urgently, the Internet is likely to disintegrate, along both political and economic lines. Even if it is going to be a difficult and protracted process, discussing and resolving this is essential and the IGF is the right forum to initiate it. c. How it is in conformity with the Tunis Agenda of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) The WSIS Declaration of Principles assert ". . our common desire and commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life.. ". The earlier mentioned issues of characterizing the global resource of the Internet fall within these overall ideals agreed at the WSIS. Para 31 of the Tunis Agenda declares "We recognise that Internet governance, carried out according to the Geneva principles, is an essential element for a people-centred, inclusive, development oriented and non-discriminatory Information Society." d. How it fits within the mandate of the IGF as detailed in para 72; Discussion on the stated issue is important in order to develop guiding principles for laying down a public policy framework on IG. (72 a of Tunis Agenda: Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet Governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of the Internet;) Such discussions will lay the guiding principles for, and help clarify, possible policy responses to important emerging issues of network neutrality, public internet infrastructure, spectrum de-licensing etc. (72 g: Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;) And most importantly, it puts IG discussions in the context of the broad guiding principles adopted at Geneva, and later in Tunis. (72 i: Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet Governance processes;) e. Who the main actors in the field are, who could be encouraged to participate in the thematic session All stakeholders - from governments, civil society, business and multi-lateral organizations to those organizations currently involved with IG, like the ICANN, have an important role in discussing these issues. However, more stress needs to be placed on the inclusion of representation from developing countries and (2) the development community without core ICT backgrounds. f. Last but not least, why should this issue should be addressed in the first annual meeting of the Forum rather than in subsequent ones. The first phase of Internet development was driven purely by enterprise and innovation, and in many ways by private sector leadership, which served us well. Internet grew mostly autonomous of public policy in this phase. But now with the power of Internet firmly established, and its economic and political threat to many entrenched interests increasingly obvious, we are into an important phase of development of the Internet where its egalitarian and public nature is increasingly under threat. To stem this trend and possibility, global public policy response in the form of clearly establishing the public and egalitarian nature of the Internet, and laying out its policy consequences, needs to come in urgently. In the absence of this, it may soon be too late to reclaim the promise of the Internet for developing a "people-centred and development oriented information society" as envisioned by the WSIS. As a commentator recently said in the context of the issue of 'network neutrality', if urgent policy action is not taken, the situation may soon become intractable, and it will then be like trying to push the 'genie back into the bottle'. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From patrice at xs4all.nl Sun Mar 26 14:41:11 2006 From: patrice at xs4all.nl (Patrice Riemens) Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 11:11:11 +0200 Subject: [Commons-Law] Noam Chomsky - A Neat Capitalist In-Reply-To: <8b60429e0603222218w3dbfcbev6d3fa158dbb7a9b4@mail.gmail.com> References: <8b60429e0603222218w3dbfcbev6d3fa158dbb7a9b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060326091111.GA16849@xs4all.nl> On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 11:48:05AM +0530, Hasit seth wrote: > Hi All, > > First, I like Noam Chomsky, so do not think this is posting is due > to some hate stuff. I am not into any kind of hate stuff at all. (...) A quite interesting story to read. Depending on your degree of cynicism/ blaseness/ radical militantism it may make you sad, irrate, or simply laughing. There is no point arguing - or being surprised about - the fact that Noam Chomsky is a super-star. How that came about is stuff for (the very few alas, and yet it is an important social phenomenon) specialists of the subject to enquire and debate. But two things, immo, stand out: Noam wanted it this way, knowingly or uncontiously (probably a mix of both); and his options to do otherwise are pretty limited (of course he could give all his speaking fees straight away to charities/good causes - but ask yourself: would you? I would not!). So I won't discuss the all argument at length. There is one thing however that tickled me: his investments: > But a funny thing happened on the way to the retirement portfolio. > > Chomsky, for all of his moral dudgeon against American corporations, > finds that they make a pretty good investment. When he made investment > decisions for his retirement plan at MIT, he chose not to go with a > money market fund or even a government bond fund. Instead, he threw > the money into blue chips and invested in the TIAA-CREF stock fund. A > look at the stock fund portfolio quickly reveals that it invests in > all sorts of businesses that Chomsky says he finds abhorrent: oil > companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals, you name it. > > When I asked Chomsky about his investment portfolio, he reverted to a > "what else can I do?" defence: "Should I live in a cabin in Montana?" > he asked. It was a clever rhetorical dodge. Chomsky was declaring that > there is simply no way to avoid getting involved in the stock market > short of complete withdrawal from the capitalist system. He certainly > knows better. There are many alternative funds these days that allow > you to invest your money in "green" or "socially responsible" > enterprises. > > They just don't yield the maximum available return. Now the funny thing is: this is absolute BS! There are a good number of US "green/ socially responsive", bladibla investment funds who have consistently outperformed 'mainstream' funds on the middle-long run, some even on a year-to-year basis. And this is the case not only in the US, but in the UK, Germany, Switzerland, and my country, the Netherlands. Strange isn't it? Maybe Professor Chomsky is not so a smart capitalist after all... cheers (the Indian IMFL standard version ;-) patrizio & Diiiinooos! From rakesh at sarai.net Mon Mar 27 10:39:44 2006 From: rakesh at sarai.net (rakesh at sarai.net) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:39:44 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Rs. 50 FM shut down Message-ID: <44277398.8030701@sarai.net> Dear all I am following the story of small fm station set up by a local audio cassette seller in Bihar. Now he is no more in a position to run songs on demand by his villagers. A team of central govt. offcials have 'raided' his fm station and shut it down. Full news is as follows: *Govt shuts down FM Radio Station* http://www.bhojpuria.com/samachar/news.php?a=454 A Central Government team raided Mansoorpur village in Bihar and shut down an FM radio station that was being run illegally. It was cheap and had become a part of the local community but ironically was also illegal. The residents of Vaishali may soon have to do without their favourite radio station - FM Radio Raghav Mansoorpur 1. The state government is also not interested to have this FM Station run, as it has been running without a license. But the owner of Mansoorpur 1 and its fans are protesting the move. "Everybody here will protest. We all get a lot of information from this channel," a fan of Mansoorpur 1, Mohan says. "People won't get any information. We advertise the Pulse Polio program, give news. Nobody listens to tape. Everybody enjoys listening to my station," the owner of Mansoorpur 1, Raghav says. Run from a hut, it is the only source of entertainment for the villagers in and around Mansoorpur. But the administration is firm on its stand. "Transmitting and receiving signals at particular frequency is prohibited. Unless you get clearance from the government. This news came in paper and the local officer incharge was asked to probe into it," the District Magistrate of Vaishali, Sanjeev Hans, says. FM Radio Mansoorpur 1 was definitely an innovative idea, and one that gained tremendous fanfare. But it's obvious that without necessary clearences, the station is running into trouble. -- Rakesh Kumar Singh Sarai-CSDS 29, Rajpur Road Delhi-110054 Ph: 91 11 23960040 Fax: 91 11 2394 3450 web site: www.sarai.net web blog: http://blog.sarai.net/users/rakesh/ From k.ravisrinivas at gmail.com Mon Mar 27 11:49:31 2006 From: k.ravisrinivas at gmail.com (ravi srinivas) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:49:31 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Article on Cultural Diversity Convention in EPW Message-ID: http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.php?root=2006&leaf=03&filename=9820&filetype=html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/attachments/20060327/a1aeeb99/attachment.html From jeebesh at sarai.net Mon Mar 27 10:31:13 2006 From: jeebesh at sarai.net (Jeebesh Bagchi) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:31:13 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] "Packing up and leaving from Nangla has begun." Message-ID: Dear friends, Over last 35 years we have seen many an internal dislocation of habitations and life world within the city, Delhi. This is something that started with high intensity in Delhi from early 70s. Now the process of this internal dislocation has become intense and harder. Nangla Maachi is a 30 year old habitation. It was made by its inhabitants over this period. It is along the river bank and next toPragati Maidan (Progress Ground). It is now become an valuable real estate.. Built on prime land for the new urban development, the process of its dislocation has begun. Also, in Nangla Maachi Sarai/Ankur had set up a cybermohalla lab two years ago. Many a practitioner have been through the lab. Over these two years, diaries have been written by the lab practitioners They have many an entry about life in Nangla. These diary entries are also a way to stubbornly remind us all that Nangla was made into an lively, heterogeneous habitation by countless peoples effort and needs to be remembered for this creative act of making and finding ways of living together. Recently, an entry read - "Packing up and leaving from Nangla has begun." The diary is now a record of a contested terrain of the violence of dislocation. We have set up a blog in both English and Hindi, to share with a wider public the various diary entries of the practitioners. Do visit it, read it, circulate it, share it and link it further. Your comments and stories will be very valuable. English language blog: http://nangla.freeflux.net/ Hindi language blog: http://nangla-maachi.freeflux.net/ More posting from the practitioners will be made. Countdown to another disappearance of self organised urban space has begun. best Jeebesh From skjha at iitb.ac.in Wed Mar 29 15:31:06 2006 From: skjha at iitb.ac.in (Shishir K Jha) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:31:06 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Profiting From A More Creative Copyright In-Reply-To: <20060322110013.569FD28DBD3@mail.sarai.net> References: <20060322110013.569FD28DBD3@mail.sarai.net> Message-ID: <1766.10.127.133.110.1143626466.squirrel@gpo.iitb.ac.in> Please come to the forum and spread the word! Shishir K. Jha ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Creative Commons India (http://creativecommons.org & http://cc-india.org) is organizing a forum, titled: “Profiting from a more Creative Copyright.” It is being organized for filmmakers, musicians, artists, writers and others with a creative persuasion. Venue: Come Media Foundation, Topiwala Lane School, Lamington Road City: Mumbai Date: 1st April, 2006 [Saturday] [5:00 pm to 8:00 pm] It is being organized with multiple-objectives: 1. The broad pool of creative professionals are continuously grappling with the fundamental issues of Copyright law. How does copyright influence the borrowing, the sharing and the gaining from the creative process? What are the rights and limitations that copyright places on a creative individual’s functioning, growth and professional fulfillment? 2. The forum will aim to hear, document and share stories of the denial, abuse and the exploitation of our rights on our creations. Do individual artists face considerable challenges in legitimately gaining from and sharing their creative work? 3. What are some new developments with respect to copyright law happening across thw world? Why are creative individuals engaging in more of sharing and the promotion of “free [access] culture.” How does the “economy of sharing” function? What are the pre-requisites for it to grow and develop? Discussion of all of this within a single meeting is an ambitious undertaking. However we intend to seriously build on such a momentum. This forum would like to create opportunities for us to bond together with instituions, organizations and individuals who share our concern for the creative individual and the public role of her creations. Such forums will be held every few months. The discussions will often be continued on our blog and elsewhere. These discussions will prepare the ground for the scope of the activity of Creative Commons India and the licenses it plans to launch later this year. Please visit the above web-sites for more information. -------------------------------------------------------------- From rakesh at sarai.net Wed Mar 29 17:21:47 2006 From: rakesh at sarai.net (rakesh at sarai.net) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:21:47 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Hundreds want popular radio station revived Message-ID: <442A74D3.5020805@sarai.net> Dear All Following is the story raid after of the Rs. 50 FM station. * Hundreds want popular radio station revived* Posted on Mar 29, 2006 by Sudhir http://www.bhojpuria.com/samachar/news.php?a=456 Hundreds of people in rural Bihar have rallied in support of a poor and illiterate man whose hugely popular radio station was shut down for not possessing an operating licence. The people, ranging from affluent farmers and contractors to middle class families and the poor in and around Vaishali district, are offering financial support to Raghav Mahto to restart his station that was closed down by the authorities on Sunday. Mahto's station, Radio Raghav FM Mansoorpur 1 channel, was beaming popular programmes from Mansoorpur village in Vaishali for the past three years. In a rare show of unity, locals decided to collect money to revive Radio Raghav, as it is popularly known. "We will collect money from neighbouring villages also," said Manohar Prasad Singh, a resident of Mansoorpur. "A large number of people have approached me and offered financial help to restart the radio station," Mahto told IANS over telephone. The spontaneous sympathy was evident Monday when hundreds who loved to tune in to Radio Raghav gathered in Mansoorpur village for a protest meeting. Affluent people like Damodar Singh announced a contribution of Rs.5,000. Others vowed to raise more funds for the station's revival. According to officials, the radio license could annually cost over Rs.400,000. The 20-something Mahto was forced by officials to sign a bond that he would not go back on air again. "My hope lies with the peoples' support who have urged the district administration to help me to restart the station before the Vaishali festival on April 12," Mahto said. Angry residents of Vaishali district have also planned a signature campaign and want President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chief Minister Nitish Kumar to intervene. Vaishali district magistrate Sanjeev Hans had said Monday that the station was closed down for violating the Indian Telegraphs Act. A formal police complaint was lodged against Mahto and the radio equipment seized by a three-member team of the communications and IT ministry at the village on Sunday. The trouble for Raghav Radio started early this month when the district administration directed officials to submit a report on the radio station. The government sought a report on it after the story of Mahto's successful radio station was splashed in the national and international media. The communications ministry sought information on the station and directed that action be taken if it was found to be running without a licence. Mahto had admitted to IANS that he was not aware that a licence was required to start till he was informed last month that it was illegal to run a private radio station. Mahto, who repairs electronic goods at Gudri Bazar near Mansoorpur, had said then that he did not have money for a licence fee. "I don't even have the money for medical treatment of my father who is suffering from cancer." For people residing in and around Mansoorpur village, Mahto is a hero. He is more popular than the local legislator and MP and people prefer Radio Raghav to the national channels. The station was running like a community radio service providing local news and opinion in the local dialect as well as entertainment for villages spread in Muzaffarpur, Vaishali and Saran districts. It also used to air Hindi songs and news, programmes on AIDS awareness, polio eradication, on literacy initiatives and news about missing people as well as local functions and festivals -- all free of cost. Mahto, who loves tinkering with old equipment, began the service in 2003. -- Rakesh Kumar Singh Sarai-CSDS 29, Rajpur Road Delhi-110054 Ph: 91 11 23960040 Fax: 91 11 2394 3450 web site: www.sarai.net web blog: http://blog.sarai.net/users/rakesh/ From seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org Fri Mar 31 03:48:55 2006 From: seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org (Seth Johnson) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:18:55 -0500 Subject: [Commons-Law] Advisory: NYFU to Oppose Imposition of Rootkits in Hardware Under the DMCA Message-ID: <442C594F.8C19DEC4@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> MEDIA ADVISORY Contact: Seth Johnson FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (212) 543-4266 seth at nyfairuse.org New Yorkers for Fair Use to Oppose Global Imposition of Rootkits in Hardware Under the DMCA What: This Friday, March 31, 2006, Jay Sulzberger, working member of New Yorkers for Fair Use, will testify in opposition to the use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to protect rootkits, spyware, and other malicious methods for taking control away from owners of personal computers. He will speak in support of computer owners' right to operate without such invasions of their private property as the Sony/BMG rootkit and worse measures that would abuse the DMCA and exploit cloaking and encryption functions provided by specialized hardware components such as the "Trusted Computing" Group's TCPA/TPM. Mr. Sulzberger will occupy a seat on the same panel with Professor Ed Felten and will support his call for computer owners to be enabled to defend their machines from malware by exempting from the DMCA activities undertaken to identify, analyze, and remove malware. When: Friday, March 31, 2006 9:30 - 11:30 am Where: Library of Congress James Madison Building Mumford Room, LM-649 101 Independence Avenue, SE Washington, DC Links: Copyright Office Anticircumvention Rulemaking Hearings: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2006/ On Treacherous Computing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing On the Sony BMG Rootkit: http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/Sony-BMG NYFU Testimony at the 2003 Anticircumvention Hearings: http://www.nyfairuse.org/audio/cro.dmca/track4.ogg (Audio Player: http://www.nyfairuse.org/oggplayer/) Who: New Yorkers for Fair Use is a non-profit advocacy organization that defends traditional copyright, the right of private ownership of computers and the rights of free speech and free association, in the context of an age of ubiquitous computing and connectivity. We defend the interests of all citizens who benefit from flexible and innovative use of digital technology, the communications infrastructure, and published information. # # # From hbs.law at gmail.com Fri Mar 31 10:38:14 2006 From: hbs.law at gmail.com (Hasit seth) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:38:14 +0530 Subject: [Commons-Law] Media Revolution...YouTube Message-ID: <8b60429e0603302108v7051d704s89092f2957104853@mail.gmail.com> Hi All, Seldom are fortunate to be at the birth of a media revolution. I see one in http://www.youtube.com. This site is getting 30 million hits a day! It is a site for sharing home-made, funny, hilarious and whacky videos. Podcasting was just superb, but it was so close to the radio and RSS experience that we did not even notice that it was a big change. But with YouTube we will notice how sharing of user created content will bring about a blog like revolution. Be tuned! You don't want to miss this one. Regards Hasit From vinay at nls.ac.in Fri Mar 31 12:29:28 2006 From: vinay at nls.ac.in (Vinay Aravind) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 12:29:28 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Commons-Law] Did you know that the word 'superhero' is a Trademark in the land of the free? Message-ID: <53939.59.94.109.43.1143788368.squirrel@59.94.109.43> quite a shocker, this..... THE SUPERHERO TRADEMARK FAQ by Brian Cronin, Contributing Writer Posted: March 28, 2006 Long time CBR visitors may be familiar with Brian Cronin's name for the many creator chats he's done on CBR. While by night he may be our chat moderator extraordinaire, by day he's a lawyer in New York City. Recently, there have been a couple of articles about the registered trademark on the word superhero, co-owned by both DC Comics and Marvel Comics. With that in mind, we approached Brian about republishing a FAQ on the subject that he originally published here. Brian was happy to share the FAQ with CBR and updated it with the latest information for our readers. Q: What does it mean that Marvel and DC have a trademark on the word "Superhero"? A: It means that companies cannot enter certain areas of commerce with the word/phrase "superhero" as part of their product name. Q: What products does this apply to? A: Publications, but basically comic books and magazines. Also, cardboard stand-up figures, playing cards, paper iron-on transfers, erasers, pencil sharpeners, pencils, notebooks, stamp albums, and costumes Q: Does this affect our ability to use the word superhero? A: Only if you want to make a product that fits into those categories and sell it. So, if you want to sell (you can make it for your own personal pleasure) a comic book called "Star Spangled Superhero Stories," you would not be able to. But if you want to refer to your characters as superheroes within the comic, you can do so. This is what allows DC to refer to their character Captain Marvel as Captain Marvel within the comic, but they cannot use the name Captain Marvel in advertising or as the name of the comic, because Marvel holds a registered trademark of that name. Q: When did Marvel and DC do this? A: 1979. They recently re-filed the trademark. Q: How can Marvel and DC jointly own a trademark? A: Essentially, what it came down to was that Marvel and DC both realized the amount of money that the mark "superhero" was worth. Therefore, they decided to trademark the word. However, both companies understood that they wouldn't have a chance by themselves, as both companies were using the term. A battle between the two would likely result in neither of them being granted a trademark. So, they decided to instead work together against any other company out there trying to use the term, and file for a trademark together. Q: How do you get a trademark on the word superhero? A: Besides filing for a trademark, what Marvel and DC had to demonstrate was that, when consumers thought of the word "superhero," that they thought of DC or Marvel. Surveys would have proven this. Therefore, it was considered to be reasonable that if some other product called itself "Superhero," that a consumer would think the product came from DC or Marvel, which, in my opinion, is a reasonable claim. The original basis for trademarks were to protect consumers from bogus products that they were confused into thinking came from a more famous company. Over the years, it seems like it is instead protecting companies from their competitors, but the basic premise is "Would a consumer think this product came from Company A if it uses this name?" and if the answer is "You betcha," then it is likely that Company A will get a trademark on that word. Q: Can't Marvel and DC just let some minor companies get away with the use? Does it really matter? A: One of the problems with trademarks is that companies have to defend the use of the term, or else risk the term being considered generic, and thereby losing the trademark protection. So, if Marvel and DC began letting companies call their comics "Superhero ____," they would risk a court ruling that the term was no longer associated with only Marvel and DC, and then the term would be declared "generic," and would no longer be protectable, which was the case for such famous words as cellophane and kerosene, both once product names, but ultimately became known as generic words that any company could use (The most famous example of a company who vigorously defends their trademark is Xerox, who love to insist that you "use a Xerox copy machine to make a copy, not make a xerox!"). Other companies who constantly have to make this distinction include Roller Blade brand in-line skates and Band-Aid brand bandages. Q: Isn't superhero just a descriptive word? I thought you couldn't trademark a descriptive word? A: Under normal trademark law, a descriptive mark would not be granted a trademark, but I believe that Marvel and DC can demonstrate (and, I believe, have demonstrated it to the Trademark office, leading to the granting of the registered mark) that the term has acquired distinctiveness, which would allow it to still become a registered trademark. I believe (and I think that it is an accurate belief) that the term "superhero" has achieved the required "Secondary meaning" in the United States to be eligible for a trademark. When someone thinks of a superhero, they undoubtedly (which, as I said, would be proven via the use of surveys) think of a product from either DC or Marvel. The term "superhero" has become distinctly known as coming from DC or Marvel, just like how Band-Aid describes a bandage, but it has acquired secondary meaning as a brand of bandages, even though Band-Aid certainly is a descriptive term. Q: Could someone get around the trademark by calling their product "super-hero"? A: Not likely. The insertion of a hyphen would not be enough to separate the product from the word superhero. Just like you would not be allowed to use a mark like Ree-bok Sneakers. Q: Are Marvel and DC evil corporations, trying to keep the little man down? A: Perhaps, but their use of the trademark laws are really quite standard operating business for corporations. Now, that doesn't mean corporations aren't evil, but that's a whole different FAQ. From sunil at apdip.net Thu Mar 23 04:13:36 2006 From: sunil at apdip.net (Sunil Abraham) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:43:36 +0100 Subject: [Commons-Law] ...and patent protection. Message-ID: <1143067416.8596.100.camel@localhost.localdomain> The rich bail out rest of the economy, says Citigroup Kapur http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=121126 MARCH 20: Ajay Kapur has a message for investors who fret that low U.S. savings, the record current-account deficit and indebted U.S. households will kill consumer spending, boost interest rates, sink the dollar, slow the global economy and torpedo stock markets. ‘‘Relax,’’ says Kapur, Citigroup Inc.’s head of global equity strategy in New York. He says many of the world’s economic ills — what economists call global imbalances — can be explained by the habits of the rich, who account for an overwhelming share of income, wealth and spending in the U.S., U.K., Canada and Australia. In his view, the rich are bailing out the rest of the economy. They spend, and they buy imported goods, and no one gets hurt. ‘‘Global imbalances that worry many investors aren’t as threatening as one might suspect,’’ says Kapur. The world’s wealthy ‘‘aren’t headed for the poorhouse anytime soon. They are in great shape financially.’’ Kapur’s analysis reassures investors such as Madhav Dhar, of hedge fund Traxis Partners in New York, about the stability of the global economy. It also gives investors a way to make money that Kapur says has worked for years: buying shares of companies that cater to the folks with the cash. He suggests luxury-goods companies such as Switzerland’s Cie. Financiere Richemont AG, the maker of Cartier jewelry, and clothing maker Burberry Group Plc of the U.K., known for its plaid pattern; Swiss bank Julius Baer Holding AG; and U.S. luxury-home builder Toll Brothers Inc. Plutonomies Citigroup strategists divide the developed world into two blocs: economies driven by the very rich — mostly the U.S., the U.K. and Canada — and more egalitarian cultures, such as Japan and most of continental Europe. Kapur calls the first group plutonomies, a cross between ‘‘ploutos,’’ the Greek word for wealth and ‘‘economy.’’ They are characterized by capitalist-friendly governments and tax regimes, constant technological innovation, an embracing of globalization and immigration, financial innovation, the rule of law and patent protection. Take the U.S. The richest 10% of families account for 43% of the country’s income and 57% of the national wealth, while the bottom 40% account for 10% of total income and 9% of the wealth, according to the Federal Reserve’s latest triennial Survey of Consumer Finances, which covers 2004 and was released in February. Meanwhile, the net wealth of the richest Americans was 8.4 times their annual income, up from 7.4 times in 2001 and six times in 1995. ‘Rising Wealth’ ‘‘This rising wealth is the real reason why the rich are happy to keep consuming,’’ Kapur wrote in a March 5 report to clients. ‘‘They simply do not need to save as much to maintain a healthy wealth balance as they did in prior decades.’’ The plutonomy thesis goes a long way in explaining why consumer spending has held up, even amid soaring oil prices and surveys that show weakening sentiment; why the U.S. has a negative savings rate; and why the U.S. trade deficit with the 12-nation euro zone nearly doubled from November 2000 to November 2004, while the dollar fell more than 50% against the euro. Simply put, the wealthy account for such a large part of the economy that expensive oil and a sinking greenback have minimal, if any, impact on their spending habits, contends Kapur. And as long as their wealth climbs at a faster rate than their income, they can afford to spend more than they save. Kapur’s view is not shared by his own company’s Robert Rubin, chairman of Citigroup’s executive committee and former U.S. Treasury Secretary. Rubin has been outspoken about what he sees as the economic dangers facing the world. In a speech in New Delhi on March 9, Rubin decried such ‘‘enormous imbalances’’ as projected budget deficits, current account deficits, savings rates at ‘‘virtually zero’’ and high levels of personal debt. Together, they have ‘‘the potential for leading to real trouble in the American economy,’’ he said. Kapur has found agreement among some investors, though. The plutonomy theory has ‘‘a ring of truth,’’ says Dhar, of Traxis Partners. ‘‘It has made us more comfortable with the macro-economic outlook.’’ Gerard Lane, an investment strategist at Morley Fund Management in London, says the thesis ‘‘is credible as an explanation of what’s going on in the U.S. economy and why so many of us have been wrong about the U.S. consumer over the last five years.’’ The firm, which manages 156.1 billion pounds ($274 billion), owns shares of Richemont; France’s LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA; Swiss bank UBS AG, because of its private-client business; Miami-based Carnival Corp., which offers $25,000 round-the-world-cruises; and Japan’s Sharp Corp., whose 65-inch flat-screen TV sells for $20,000 in New York. ‘‘It’s the super wealthy who are going to access these quality or well-branded goods and services,’’ says Lane. Drawbridge Global Macro Advisors, a New York-based hedge fund with more than $4 billion under management, is going a step further. It is investing in a basket of high-end European luxury-goods makers — including Richemont, LVMH, France’s Hermes International and Italy’s Bulgari SpA — while periodically selling short mass-market U.S. retailers, such as Liz Claiborne Inc., TJX Cos. and Quiksilver Inc. -- Sunil Abraham Manager sunil at apdip.net www.iosn.net International Open Source Network - Software Freedom for All Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme www.apdip.net Thailand:UNDP Regional Centre, United Nations Service Building 3rd Floor, Rajdamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok 10200, Thailand Tel: (66-2) 288-1234 Fax: (66-2) 288-3032 India :3rd Floor, 314/1, 7th Cross, Domlur Bangalore - 560 071 Karnataka, India. Mob: (91) 9342201521 Tel: (91-80) 51150580 Fax: (91-80) 51150583.